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

[Real_madyidd]

West Ham Fixtures: Again look at the dates and locations!

Sat, 11th
H
Man City (PREM.)
15:00
-
Wed, 15th
A
Liverpool (PREM.)
P-P
-

Postponed - due to Champions League Qualifier​

Sat, 18th
A
Birmingham (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 25th
H
Wigan (PREM.)
15:00
-
September
Sat, 1st
A
Reading (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 15th
H
Middlesbro (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 22nd
A
Newcastle (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 29th
H
Arsenal (PREM.)
15:00
-
October
Sat, 6th
A
Aston Villa (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 20th
H
Sunderland (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 27th
A
Portsmouth (PREM.)
15:00
-
November
Sat, 3rd
H
Bolton (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 10th
A
Derby (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 24th
H
Tottenham (PREM.)
15:00
-
December
Sat, 1st
A
Chelsea (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 8th
A
Blackburn (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 15th
H
Everton (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 22nd
A
Middlesbro (PREM.)
15:00
-
Wed, 26th
H
Reading (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 29th
H
Man Utd (PREM.)
15:00
-
January
Tue, 1st
A
Arsenal (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 12th
H
Fulham (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 19th
A
Man City (PREM.)
15:00
-
Tue, 29th
H
Liverpool (PREM.)
19:45
-
February
Sat, 2nd
A
Wigan (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 9th
H
Birmingham (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 23rd
A
Fulham (PREM.)
15:00
-
March
Sat, 1st
H
Chelsea (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 8th
A
Tottenham (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 15th
H
Blackburn (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 22nd
A
Everton (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 29th
A
Sunderland (PREM.)
15:00
-
April
Sat, 5th
H
Portsmouth (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 12th
A
Bolton (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 19th
H
Derby (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sat, 26th
H
Newcastle (PREM.)
15:00
-
May
Sat, 3rd
A
Man Utd (PREM.)
15:00
-
Sun, 11th
H
Aston Villa (PREM.)
15:00
-


Now that has been done intentionally. So there can be little doubt that there is a case!

 

[themanwhofellasleep]

Both Charlton and Watford also got relegated. If the argument is that Tevez and Mascherano were illegally registered and ineligable, then it affected them too, because West Ham took points off them and generally affected all the games around the Premiership, even when they weren't directly playing any of the relegated teams. But Charlton and Watford both accepted that they were relegated because they weren't good enough, not because of West Ham.

The arbitration panel gave West Ham a whopping great fine, unprecedented in the Premier League. At many points in the season, the Hammers looked dead and buried, but they kept of fighting and never gave up. From the moment that the Hammers received the fine, Sheffield United had their destiny in their own hands but played like crap and went down. Since then, they have appealed to the Premier League, had MPs speaking in Parliament about it, and are threatening to go to the EU if they are relegated. They should just accept it with dignity. The fans must know how crap their team was, and the fact that they had their chance to stay in the league and threw it away.

At the end of the day, both Tevez and Mascherano were eligible to play for West Ham. I can understand why the Premier League were annoyed that the Hammers failed to disclose the fine print of the contracts, but both players were West Ham players, and Sheffield United went down because they didn't get enough points, not because West Ham's previous owners were sneaky about the fact that a third party would be able to sell Tevez without his consent.

 

[roguepsi]

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:
We also got away with an offense because it happened under a previous manager, or are you all so short sighted?

We got given a 6pt penalty after appeal tho. We took it on the chin and kept by the rules. Even if they got only a 3pt penalty, that would've made a significant difference to the outcome of the relegation battle. Yes, Sheff Utd deserve to go down but not at the expense of a cheating team.

 

[liamc23]

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.

Have you forgotten last year when we were the ones whinging and whining.

 

[LSUY]

ray: Please god let this happen.

If this does happen then my sides will probably split from laughing so hard. Imagine the exodus from West Ham if they did go down again.

 

[Zapsta]

We got given a 6pt penalty after appeal tho. We took it on the chin

Umm... no we didn't. We appealed again and it was rescinded.

 

[davros]

Relegating West Ham would be a huge decision, but the fact is that if Tevez hadn't scored all those goals at the end of the season then West Ham wouldn't have earned enough points to stay up.

Having said that, he played the games, scored the goals, adn WH were given the points. One possible solution might be to reduce the number of prem games for a season (there are always complaints that there are too many games anyway) and relegate WH without promoting Sheffield United. Have a short break in the season, maybe over the winter, for players to get over knocks and stuff, and have a fitter squad to hopefully take to the Euros next Summer.

 

[Tickers]

Awful lot of ignorance in this thread. Masch and Tevez were never 'ineligible' to play for West Ham, and the problem was not the fact a third party owned the contracts.

The problem was West Ham stupidly agreed to a clause that allowed that third party (Joorabchian or whatever his name is) to sell the players without the club's consent.

That clause was deemed to break the rules about third-party influence on team selection. For this West Ham were fined £2.5m.

West Ham then deliberately misled the Premier League by insisting the contracts were fine. For this they were fined £3m.

Should they have been docked points? I think so, and so obviously do most other people.

But were the commission obligated to dock them points? No.

Do Sheffield United have a case? Not really.

But they have got Sharpe, so stranger things have happened.

 

[themanwhofellasleep]

My point is that I cannot see what although West Ham screwed up, I don't think that they screwed up in a way that gave them any footballing advantage over Sheffield United or any other team.

I do not see how any team other than West Ham suffered from a clause in the Tevez/Mascherano contract that allowed Kia Joorabchian to sell the players without the club's consent. If Tevez and Mascherano had been ineligible to play, then I would understand Sheffield's protests. But they were eligible to play. They were correctly registered as West Ham players. West Ham did not gain any playing advantage through the clause in the contract.

And I don't believe that the rogue clause itself was a make-or-break factor in T + M signing for the Hammers. Mascherano has since moved on to Liverpool and there was no such clause in the contract, and it didn't hamper the transfer at all.

If I were involved with Sheffield United, I would want to be in the premiership on merit, rather than because I campaigned hard enough to get points docked from another team.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Awful lot of ignorance in this thread. Masch and Tevez were never 'ineligible' to play for West Ham, and the problem was not the fact a third party owned the contracts.

The problem was West Ham stupidly agreed to a clause that allowed that third party (Joorabchian or whatever his name is) to sell the players without the club's consent.

That clause was deemed to break the rules about third-party influence on team selection. For this West Ham were fined £2.5m.

West Ham then deliberately misled the Premier League by insisting the contracts were fine. For this they were fined £3m.

Should they have been docked points? I think so, and so obviously do most other people.

But were the commission obligated to dock them points? No.

Do Sheffield United have a case? Not really.

But they have got Sharpe, so stranger things have happened.

The issue for me is that they were obligated to act in the same way towards West Ham as they would against anyone else and they have clearly given them preferential treatment.

The fact that they might have got relegated should not have been an issue when deciding the punishment and that's the reason the FA have given for not deducting the points. It's utterly ridiculous really.

 

[BoringOldFan]

Awful lot of ignorance in this thread. Masch and Tevez were never 'ineligible' to play for West Ham, and the problem was not the fact a third party owned the contracts.

The number of times I've seen that! If West Ham had gone to the PL and said "Can we sign two players and allow an outside organisation influence whether they stay or are sold?" the PL would have given them a flat "No".

So they concealed the nature of the deal to allow it to go through. I just don't see how that makes the players 'eligible'.

 

[Tickers]

The fact that they might have got relegated should not have been an issue when deciding the punishment and that's the reason the FA have given for not deducting the points. It's utterly ridiculous really.

It was one of seven mitigating factors given to explain the decision not to dock points, and an absolutely ludicrous one.

They should never have put that in there, because as you say it's ridiculous.

But there were six other factors.

The fact is that nowhere in the Premier League rules does it state that breaching the rules as West Ham did means a certain points deduction. So the commission were not obligated to deduct points, and for a variety of reasons decided to go with just the fine

I and most other people would disagree with their decision, but it's not 'wrong' in the sense that the punishment was in accordance with PL rules.

 

[Tickers]

The number of times I've seen that! If West Ham had gone to the PL and said "Can we sign two players and allow an outside organisation influence whether they stay or are sold?" the PL would have given them a flat "No".

So they concealed the nature of the deal to allow it to go through. I just don't see how that makes the players 'eligible'.

I don't either. It's ludicrous. But those are the facts. The players were registered and therefore eligible. The Premier League could have terminated Tevez's contract at any stage from January 24th when the irregularities came to light, and it was stressed again in the report that the Premier League could terminate the contract. They didn't, so he was eligible.

 

[BoringOldFan]

Worth a bump for this thread as some decision should be reached next week.

Also, I found this on football-rumours.com:

I have just come off the phone to my mate who works at the FA, crisis talk are under way due to the arbitration and the verdict that West Ham have been relagated for breaching club rules.

This news is going to shock all football fans, especially all those (irons). The crisis talks are set to force some big heads to resign, the earlier indepenant panel which decided a fine was suitable for West Ham has been investigated and they feel that the panel acted inproperly and had too much London bias towards the affair.

They suggest that deducting points was not economically viable for the east end of London and have brushed the rule breaking under the carpert. Heavey stuff, I'm an Everton fan too, looks like the jag deal could be hitting the rocks.

Now we all know how unreliable that site is, but I found it interesting that it is posted by an (alleged) Everton fan, so no real axe to grind.

Against it is that the arbitration panel were only asked to review the process, not come up with a new punishment. So it may be a bit previous in claiming that the Spammers will be relegated.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

West Ham have already gotten away with it. We all know if it was the dog & duck FC they would have clamped down on them with the iron fist. Shameful.

 

[roguepsi]

I would assume that the suggested relegation from that 'ITK' was more likely to be opinion rather then fact. The arbitartion may indeed come donw heavily on the FA for the way they've handled this affair but sadly it doesn't mean that anything will change.

I do think it's a bit much to ask for Spurs to really sign all these great players in much needed positions and then hope the Spammers get sent down after all as well. I think I might be pushing fate a bit there.

 

[TheChosenOne]

*** BUMP***

Aren't we supposed to hear about this before month end ?

 

[TheChosenOne]

Beeb now saying the decision might be "early July"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6252310.stm

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

Today is decision day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/default.stm

 

[TrueYid]

Blades set for relegation verdict

Sheffield United will learn their relegation fate from a Premier League arbitration panel on Tuesday afternoon. The Blades claim West Ham should have been docked points for breaking transfer rules over the signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.

West Ham stayed up at the Blades' expense on the final day of the season, leading to Sheffield United's appeal.
West Ham had earlier been fined £5.5m for their handling of the deals for the two Argentina internationals.

The panel cannot order the League to deduct points from the Hammers - but they do have the power to order a fresh independent disciplinary commission to look at the case.
Such a ruling would throw the league into disarray - because it would be impossible for a new disciplinary hearing and any subsequent appeals to take place before the start of the new season.

A third option would be for the tribunal to declare that there are no grounds to order a new disciplinary commission for West Ham but that Sheffield United could have a case for compensation - but that verdict too would open a can of worms by effectively saying that the original commission acted inappropriately.

The Premier League maintains it handled the affair by the rule book.

It has consistently argued that the independent commission's original decision to fine West Ham rather than dock points should not be overturned simply because another club does not agree with it.