What's new

West Ham - Will they get away with it? YES THEY WILL SAY PANEL!

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,100
47,055
Just read this over on FTL from BigJono


Apparently.....

....The big buzz in journo land is - Sheffield United's bid to be reinstated to the Prem is looking more than just a possibility.

If the panel decide next week that West Ham should have been docked points for the illegal moves of Tevez & Mascherano - the FA will enforce any recommendation for the instant removal of West Ham from the Prem to be replaced by United.

Plans have already been drawn up.

The legal ramifications of this are so big - its hard to express with words.

The FA are fretting big style and they hope that this doesnt happen - but with MP's at Westminster getting involved on the legalities & now issuing advice to the Blades and there legal team, the balance has completely switched.

I know as I was speaking with someone from within the FA on Monday.

Im told that Darren Bent advisors have told him as much and that has held a massive sway with his decison.

-from sports journo i know.

I would find it TREMENDOUSLY funny if they sent West Ham down. I really hope it happens...come on the panel...do the right thing!
 

joey55

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2005
9,675
3,089
I don't care how rich the Russian backers of Spam are, ther is no way they would be prepared to splash out on new players like Parker, unless they were certain there was no chance they'd be relegated. I wouldn't be suprised if they slipped the FA board a few million to keep them sweet.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,100
47,055
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #3
I don't care how rich the Russian backers of Spam are, ther is no way they would be prepared to splash out on new players like Parker, unless they were certain there was no chance they'd be relegated. I wouldn't be suprised if they slipped the FA board a few million to keep them sweet.

Sadly you are probably right. But it does sound like the situation has shifted a bit in the last few days so they could have just been complacent.

Also Parker's contract probably doesn't start until 1st July and I'm sure his agent will have made sure that it's conditional on West Ham being in the premiership next season.
 

joey55

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2005
9,675
3,089
Sadly you are probably right. But it does sound like the situation has shifted a bit in the last few days so they could have just been complacent.

Also Parker's contract probably doesn't start until 1st July and I'm sure his agent will have made sure that it's conditional on West Ham being in the premiership next season.

That's a good point I hadn't thought of.
 

ChubbSpur

Imod
Staff
Sep 21, 2005
4,533
2
Oh how i'd laugh, it would probably be the biggest laugh of my life! :rofl:

However i cant see it in any way, shape or form. So im just going to ignore it and shuld it happen it will just be a very big suprise :)
 

Cicada

Lisan Al Gaib
Jan 17, 2005
1,791
186
i'd laugh my arse off if they got relegated, but it just isn't going to happen
 

Chuba

SC founder member gone bad, i love u all
Sep 21, 2003
5,916
2
This would be excellent, so will the FA get their heads out of their butts and actually punish a EPL team, we will see on Monday.
 

Real_madyidd

The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
Oct 25, 2004
18,792
12,448
What day next week is the case being heard? How quickly can they decide and will there be a right to appeal?

Sadly, with the English legal system most things are drawn out (that way our budding lawyers will make up their hourly rates!).
 

roguepsi

SC's Sexiest Male™ (retired)
Jun 21, 2005
4,388
0
Parker probably has a caveat in his agreement that states the deal is void should West Ham get relegated. He is still technically a Newcastle player.
 

TheChosenOne

A dislike or neg rep = fat fingers
Dec 13, 2005
47,870
49,699
Parker probably has a caveat in his agreement that states the deal is void should West Ham get relegated. He is still technically a Newcastle player.

Just as long as he realises we don't want any sloppy seconds, he had his chance - twice
 

Tickers

Marquee Signing
Feb 16, 2005
3,646
21
There is absolutely no way West Ham will be relegated. Logistically impossible. There's no way the Hammers would just accept it, and time would run out. As someone else said, pretend this whole thing isn't happening, then if by some astonishing one-in-a-million miracle justice is served, it will be lovely.

And unbelievably funny, too.
 

themanwhofellasleep

z-list internet celebrity
Dec 14, 2006
690
0
Much as I dislike West Ham, Sheffield United have whinged and whined like no other team before them and deserve to be relegated. They were crap. They deserved to go down. If they were hard done by and were genuinely good enough to stay in the premiership then they wouldn't have gotten rid of Warnock afterwards, they would have rewarded him with a fat new contract. At least West Ham play some decent football from time to time.
 

Joycer

Was Dorset Now Michigan Yid
May 12, 2005
2,241
128
Much as I dislike West Ham, Sheffield United have whinged and whined like no other team before them and deserve to be relegated. They were crap. They deserved to go down. If they were hard done by and were genuinely good enough to stay in the premiership then they wouldn't have gotten rid of Warnock afterwards, they would have rewarded him with a fat new contract. At least West Ham play some decent football from time to time.


I have to agree , sheff Utd only have them selfs to blame , they could have easily picked up the extra points needed over the course of a 38 game season ,

Also if it was some1 else scoreing all the goals to keep west ham up and not Tevez would they have even had this case ...............i think not !!! also there was 10 other players on that pitch that beat Man utd on the final game off the season Tevez was jst a small part of it ( although he was the part scorein the goal LOL )
 

Chuba

SC founder member gone bad, i love u all
Sep 21, 2003
5,916
2
^^ the pricipals of what west ham done in the transfer period are tarnished, that is what the thread is about, not who scored goals for them etc.

The point is that WHU did illegal dealings by witholding the paperwork on 2 players that they did not own but called their own, using these players in the opening part and the end of the season was illegal not how many goals or the performance of the team.
 

Joycer

Was Dorset Now Michigan Yid
May 12, 2005
2,241
128
Chuba;483368[B said:
]^^ the pricipals of what west ham done in the transfer period are tarnished, that is what the thread is about, not who scored goals for them etc[/B].

The point is that WHU did illegal dealings by witholding the paperwork on 2 players that they did not own but called their own, using these players in the opening part and the end of the season was illegal not how many goals or the performance of the team.

yeh the threads about the court case ,

wot my point is , is the fact that if tevez played the whole season , how he started i.e. shit , then there would be no court case IMO

anyway i heard the other day there is at least 5 other players owned by people & not by a club in the Prem so should everyclub get looked into ???? :shrug:
 

BigZane

New Member
Sep 4, 2004
156
0
Much as I dislike West Ham, Sheffield United have whinged and whined like no other team before them and deserve to be relegated. They were crap. They deserved to go down. If they were hard done by and were genuinely good enough to stay in the premiership then they wouldn't have gotten rid of Warnock afterwards, they would have rewarded him with a fat new contract. At least West Ham play some decent football from time to time.


Come on man, for a start whinged and whined? if it had been us would you have rolled over and let it go?? No, thats silly point number 1

Silly point number 2, they didnt get rid of Warnock, they had offered him a new deal, he walked

They weren't the best side i'ver ever seen, but they had just been promoted and were doing well until a late season slump, i even remember them winning against a team we are alll quite fond of.......

Any other team that has played players when they shouldn't have get points deducted, WH didn't. I agree with SU, they should be allowed back up.

But it wont happen......
 

footballs-future

New Member
Jul 14, 2005
5
0
I'm not sure whether it's a slip of the tongue or not, but the FA aren't deciding anything in this case. Its the Premier league. perhaps someone has got it wrong?
 

WildCard

Member
May 26, 2007
212
0
I find it slightly ironic that so many people are talking about how West Ham should be punished for dodgy dealings considering our recent history, and certain events in our recent history.

Here's the idea lads, paying illegal bonuses to players, for instance, breaks the rules, but it doesn't make the player ineligible to play matches, does it? Breaking the rules and being ineligible are not one and the same thing.

Hate to do this, but some of this should enlighten you:
West Ham were charged with breaching two FAPL rules, B13 and U18. Rule B13 states “in all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith”. Rule U18 says “No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches or in any (other) competitions.” West Ham pleaded guilty to both charges.

The Commission found that the contracts of both players had clauses in them with the result that neither West Ham nor the individual players could terminate their contracts - only the third party companies could do that. Indeed, these companies, MSI Group Limited (MSI) and Just Sports Inc in the case of Tevez, Global Soccer Agencies Limited (GSA) and Mystere Services Limited (MSL) in the case of Mascherano, could effect the transfer of either player during any valid transfer window without the needing the permission of either player or club.

West Ham say they asked for advice from the Premier League regarding whether these contracts would be allowed under the FAPL rules before signing the players. They say the advice they got was that there might be a problem, whereas the FAPL secretary says the club were informed in no uncertain terms that they would definitely be in breach. West Ham further contended that neither contract would be enforceable in law so should be discounted.

Statements submitted to the Commission by Mr Magnusson, the current chairman, and Mr Curbishley, the current manager, said there has been no influence, nor would they have tolerated any of these third parties seeking to impose such influence.

The legal and commercial director of the club at the time of the signings was Mr Scott Duxbury with its chief executive officer being Mr Paul Aldridge. Both seemed to be ignorant of the FAPL rules. Indeed Aldridge lied to FAPL chief exec Richard Scudamore when asked if there was any documentation regarding the transfer of the two players that the FAPL hadn’t seen. Despite being concerned regarding how West Ham managed to sign two international players for next to no fee, the FAPL accepted the club’s assurances everything was above board. Both players were registered to play for West Ham. That remained the position until 24th January 2007. On that date, Mr Igoe, the finance director of West Ham, was informed by the FAPL of a proposed report into third party ownership of footballers. He decided to forward the contracts to the FAPL. Before doing so, he asked both Mr Magnusson and Mr Duxbury whether there was any reason why he should not. This led, eventually, to the Commission and the guilty verdict.

So, West Ham were bang to rights and had little choice but to plead guilty to both charges. So what punishment should be meted out? The Commission noted:

The Rules of the FAPL allow us to penalise a club by deducting points. That is a course that we consider would normally follow from such a breach of these Rules. Many clubs may be of the view that all competitions should be decided on the pitch and not by tribunals. Whilst that is a natural and understandable view, the fact remains that some breaches will be of such a serious nature that only a deduction of points would be appropriate.
Having said that, they felt that the deduction of points would be be “proportionate”. Their reasons?:

We have taken the following factors into account:

One, the club’s pleas of guilty.
Two, the fact that the club is under new ownership and management. True it is that Mr Duxbury remains, but we are impressed by Mr Sturman’s (West Ham’s defence counsel) point that Mr Magnusson could have cynically dispensed with his services so as to reflect more favourably upon the club.
Three, had the club in time made disclosure of the third party contracts to the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into which would not have offended the Rules. Mr Mascherano is now playing football for Liverpool. He is doing so pursuant to a contract entirely different in form to these contracts, and which has been approved by the FAPL. We have no reason to suspect that the same could not have been achieved with West Ham in August 2006.
Four, there has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party’s fault, the consequence is that a points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome, would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which would have consigned the club to certain relegation.
Five, Tevez has continued to play for the club after the discovery of these breaches. The FAPL had the power to have then terminated his registration. For understandable reasons, they did not. Had it not been for these proceedings, the club and the FAPL might have reached a similar situation to that pertaining to Liverpool and Mascherano. Tevez, we note, has played in more games post-24th January than before it.
Six, we have considered the position of the players and the fans. They are in no way to blame for this situation. Of course, if the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points. However, in this case, the fans and the players have been fighting against relegation. They have been doing so from between January and April. They have been so doing against the ever-present threat of a deduction of points. Those efforts and that loyalty would be to no avail were we to now, on what might be termed the eve of the end of the season, to deduct points.
Seven, it was Mr Igoe, thus the club, then under new ownership, who brought attention to these breaches.
We also got away with an offense because it happened under a previous manager, or are you all so short sighted?
 

Real_madyidd

The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
Oct 25, 2004
18,792
12,448
Sheffield United fixtures: Look at the dates and locations.


Sat, 11th
H
Colchester (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 18th
A
Watford (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 25th
H
West Brom (CCC)
15:00
-
September
Sat, 1st
A
S****horpe (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 15th
H
Wolves (CCC)
15:00
-
Tue, 18th
A
Blackpool (CCC)
19:45
-
Sat, 22nd
A
Crystal Palace (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 29th
H
S'oton (CCC)
15:00
-
October
Tue, 2nd
H
Cardiff (CCC)
19:45
-
Sat, 6th
A
Bristol City (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 20th
H
Preston (CCC)
15:00
-
Tue, 23rd
A
Leicester (CCC)
19:45
-
Sat, 27th
A
Hull (CCC)
15:00
-
November
Sat, 3rd
H
Burnley (CCC)
15:00
-
Tue, 6th
H
Ipswich (CCC)
19:45
-
Sat, 10th
A
Stoke (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 24th
H
Plymouth (CCC)
15:00
-
Tue, 27th
A
Charlton (CCC)
19:45
-
December
Sat, 1st
A
Coventry (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 8th
A
Norwich (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 15th
H
Barnsley (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 22nd
A
Cardiff (CCC)
15:00
-
Wed, 26th
H
Blackpool (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 29th
H
Crystal Palace (CCC)
15:00
-
January
Tue, 1st
A
Wolves (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 12th
H
QPR (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 19th
A
Sheff Wed (CCC)
15:00
-
Tue, 29th
H
Watford (CCC)
19:45
-
February
Sat, 2nd
A
Colchester (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 9th
H
S****horpe (CCC)
15:00
-
Tue, 12th
A
West Brom (CCC)
19:45
-
Sat, 16th
H
Sheff Wed (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 23rd
A
QPR (CCC)
15:00
-
March
Sat, 1st
H
Charlton (CCC)
15:00
-
Tue, 4th
A
Ipswich (CCC)
19:45
-
Sat, 8th
A
Plymouth (CCC)
15:00
-
Tue, 11th
H
Coventry (CCC)
19:45
-
Sat, 15th
H
Norwich (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 22nd
A
Barnsley (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 29th
A
Preston (CCC)
15:00
-
April
Sat, 5th
H
Leicester (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 12th
A
Burnley (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 19th
H
Hull (CCC)
15:00
-
Sat, 26th
H
Bristol City (CCC)
15:00
-
May
Sun, 4th
A
S'oton (CCC)
15:00
-
 
Top