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

[talkshowhost86]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6931865.stm

I love this. Scudamore basically saying "yeah we screwed up guv...sorry."

Bet Sheffield United are pleased by that.

 

[BoringOldFan]

West Ham have never denied that MSI owned Tevez's economical rights.

Er -yes they did. That is the core of the case.

This is not as complicated as the press have made it out to sound. If they had pulished more facts rather than their sensionalised opinions then there wouldnt be so many people with confused views on this subject.

:rofl: :rofl: and :rofl:

Being told by a West Ham fan that more facts should have been published!

 

[Moore6]

Er -yes they did. That is the core of the case.



:rofl: :rofl: and :rofl:

Being told by a West Ham fan that more facts should have been published!

If you can show me where then fair play.

And it wasnt the "core" of the case at all. The "core" of the case was that Tevez's playing registration was contracted to West Ham for 3 more seasons. West Ham couldnt simply release Tevez's registration free of charge because the PL would have deemed that MSI were enforcing the old illegal clause that was in the terminated contract.

West Ham only agreed to release Tevez's registration after MSI agreed to pay them £2m compensation.

West Ham never claimed that MSI didnt own Tevez's economic rights, they simply insisted that West Ham owned his playing registration and that they would not be bound by the illegal agreement that the previous owners put in place.

Eggy basically said to MSI, ive torn up the agreement that you made with Brown (because it breached PL rules) so if you want me to release Tevez's registration then you are going to have to pay me to do so.

 

[llamafarmer]

I still don't understand how the situation is different from when Spammers were originally fined. Did MSI own both his registration AND economic rights when he first went to WH? And if so how is that even possible?!

 

[Moore6]

I still don't understand how the situation is different from when Spammers were originally fined. Did MSI own both his registration AND economic rights when he first went to WH? And if so how is that even possible?!

Corinthians owned their registrations. The playing registrations were transferred to West Ham from Corinthians.

Corinthians either allowed them to leave or the clause which the PL deemed to be illegal is not illegal in South America. Therefore MSI would have been able to simply move the players on from Corinthians whenever they wanted to.

The reason why the Liverpool and Man Utd deals are kosher is because they have a specified 2 year time period in their agreements with MSI in which time MSI cannot have any influence over them at all. At the end of the 2 years the players registrations are simply released and they effectivley become free agents. Unless of course the clubs buy them in the meantime and re-arrange the deals.

Thats the only difference between our deal and theirs, with us we agreed to a clause which allowed MSI to move the players on without our agreement. Man Utd and Liverpool dont have that agreement with them. Man Utd, Liverpool and MSI have learnt from our mistake.

What made it worse for us is that Brown and Co then lied about the agreement aswell. The PL fined us £2.5m for the illegal clause and £3m for the lie.

 

[SpurSince57]

Fair enough, but why did Eggy leave it so late in the day to go to the league? Why not do so immediately he took control? It's not as if the fact that the agreement Brown made was seriously iffy suddenly came to light after a couple of months. Doubts over its validity were being expressed within hours of its being announced.

Did West Ham receive anything for Mascherano? Or did the fee Liverpool pay go to Mega-Spivs International?

 

[chrissivad]

Did West Ham receive anything for Mascherano? Or did the fee Liverpool pay go to Mega-Spivs International?

Didn't he leave on a free after his contract was torn up (same with Tevez's) and didn't want to sign a new one.

 

[Moore6]

Fair enough, but why did Eggy leave it so late in the day to go to the league? Why not do so immediately he took control? It's not as if the fact that the agreement Brown made was seriously iffy suddenly came to light after a couple of months. Doubts over its validity were being expressed within hours of its being announced.

Did West Ham receive anything for Mascherano? Or did the fee Liverpool pay go to Mega-Spivs International?

IMO Eggy didnt even know that it was illegal himself. I dont think anyone did. I dont even think the PL actually knew that it was illegal themselves until they had concluded their very long investigation.

Eggy only presented the agreement to the PL after the Mascherano deal had been done. Maybe Liverpool told Eggy that it might be dodgy? I really dont know.

When they originally signed for West Ham the only reason people were saying that it must be dodgy is because they thought that 3rd party ownership itself was illegal, which its not. Nobody really understood the whole "influence" rule back then.

IMO Brown and co witheld the agreement from the PL because they thought that 3rd party ownership was illegal, not because they understood the "influence" rule. Thats only my opinion though.

West Ham simply released Mascheranos registration in January without any compensation. That was before the agreement was deemed to be illegal and before it had been terminated.

 

[talkshowhost86]

IMO Eggy didnt even know that it was illegal himself. I dont think anyone did. I dont even think the PL actually knew that it was illegal themselves until they had concluded their very long investigation.

Eggy only presented the agreement to the PL after the Mascherano deal had been done. Maybe Liverpool told Eggy that it might be dodgy? I really dont know.

When they originally signed for West Ham the only reason people were saying that it must be dodgy is because they thought that 3rd party ownership itself was illegal, which its not. Nobody really understood the whole "influence" rule back then.

IMO Brown and co witheld the agreement from the PL because they thought that 3rd party ownership was illegal, not because they understood the "influence" rule. Thats only my opinion though.

West Ham simply released Mascheranos registration in January without any compensation. That was before the agreement was deemed to be illegal and before it had been terminated.

Technically the reason people thought it was dodgy was because we all knew that players of the quality of Tevez and Mascherano would never have agreed to go to a club like West Ham unless there was some serious influence on them from elsewhere.

Turned out everyone was right...just happens that West Ham have got away with it.

 

[Moore6]

Technically the reason people thought it was dodgy was because we all knew that players of the quality of Tevez and Mascherano would never have agreed to go to a club like West Ham unless there was some serious influence on them from elsewhere.

Turned out everyone was right...just happens that West Ham have got away with it.

West Ham were fined £2.5m for entering an agreement which broke PL rules and were then fined a further £3m for lying about it.

Should they have been kicked out the league, deducted points, fined less, not punished at all???? Open to serious debate and has been done to death.

 

[talkshowhost86]

West Ham were fined £2.5m for entering an agreement which broke PL rules and were then fined a further £3m for lying about it.

Should they have been kicked out the league, deducted points, fined less, not punished at all???? Open to serious debate and has been done to death.

Yes but none of that stops the fact that West Ham have got away with it due to a Premier League that can't even sort it's own rules out.

There's no real debate on the punishment issue. The Premier League said it should have been a points deduction and then gave ludicrous reasons as to why it was only a fine. They are the facts on that one and pretty much everyone apart from West Ham fans knows that they Premier League bottled it.

The issue now however needs to be more than about West Ham. They've gotten away with it and everyone knows it. What needs to happen now is that everyone involved from Scudamore down should be thrown out. That article I posted above on it's own shows why Scudamore should go.

If we have a Premier League that allows teams to get away with cheating then what's the point in them at all? We need people in charge who will actually enforce the rules otherwise the rich boys club (of which Spurs are a part I admit) will just keep getting away with it at the expense of clubs like Sheffield United.

 

[Moore6]

Yes but none of that stops the fact that West Ham have got away with it due to a Premier League that can't even sort it's own rules out.

There's no real debate on the punishment issue. The Premier League said it should have been a points deduction and then gave ludicrous reasons as to why it was only a fine. They are the facts on that one and pretty much everyone apart from West Ham fans knows that they Premier League bottled it.

The issue now however needs to be more than about West Ham. They've gotten away with it and everyone knows it. What needs to happen now is that everyone involved from Scudamore down should be thrown out. That article I posted above on it's own shows why Scudamore should go.

If we have a Premier League that allows teams to get away with cheating then what's the point in them at all? We need people in charge who will actually enforce the rules otherwise the rich boys club (of which Spurs are a part I admit) will just keep getting away with it at the expense of clubs like Sheffield United.

I agree with your sentiment but they have been doing it for years. Will anything ever change? I very much doubt it.

Chelski only got a small fine for tapping up Ashley Cole and Tottenham only got a small fine for making illegal payments to players (originally a 10 point deduction).

 

[GeneralBurk]

For all the reasons the Premier League gave for not deducting points they excluded the genuine one, namely WHU would have sought an injunction against the Premier League and that would have potentially delayed the start of league.

The Premier League's policy is to avoid being dragged into lengthy and ruinously expensive litigation.

 

[SpurSince57]

I agree with your sentiment but they have been doing it for years. Will anything ever change? I very much doubt it.

Chelski only got a small fine for tapping up Ashley Cole and Tottenham only got a small fine for making illegal payments to players (originally a 10 point deduction).

But to belabour the point, apparently necessarily, those payments were made years before Sugar took over (and even before Venables came in). Not only that, but they had been hidden away by some creative accounting and would probably have escaped detection had not the accounts been gone through with a fine-tooth comb in the course of the Sugar-Venables legal battle. Sugar then reported them to the FA. There is no comparison with the Tevez and Mascherano business; it was clear to the world and his wife (although not, apparently, to the PL blazers) that something was not quite right about the deal from the off.

But really, the main fault here lies with the PL. They waved the deal through initially, and have fudged everything since. I am not at all convinced Eggy acted entirely honestly, but the main point is, surely, that Scudamore and co's incompetence in enforcing their own rules allowed him to pull a fast one somewhere along the line.

 

[talkshowhost86]

But to belabour the point, apparently necessarily, those payments were made years before Sugar took over (and even before Venables came in). Not only that, but they had been hidden away by some creative accounting and would probably have escaped detection had not the accounts been gone through with a fine-tooth comb in the course of the Sugar-Venables legal battle. Sugar then reported them to the FA. There is no comparison with the Tevez and Mascherano business; it was clear to the world and his wife (although not, apparently, to the PL blazers) that something was not quite right about the deal from the off.

But really, the main fault here lies with the PL. They waved the deal through initially, and have fudged everything since. I am not at all convinced Eggy acted entirely honestly, but the main point is, surely, that Scudamore and co's incompetence in enforcing their own rules allowed him to pull a fast one somewhere along the line.

Exactly. West Ham broke the rules, whether knowingly or not (and I add the 'or not' slightly dubiously) and that's a fact.

But since finding this out (being told) the Premier League have completely botched the whole thing. Even on a PR scale they messed it up. If they'd actually just given West Ham a fine then we may have accepted it, but to say "they should have got points deducted but...." was not only dodgy in terms of the rules, but frankly stupid in terms of their own image.

What they've basically done with this, and yes with the Chelsea tapping up thing, is say that clubs can get away with what they want as long as they threaten legal action.

And that worries me alot.

 

[Phantom]

couldnt be bothered to read all the new posts in here since i been on holiday but this is funny :

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jg5HsG7AN1Y

appologies if already posted.

 

[ziggy]

No views regarding the recent update that
SUFC are suing the spammers for the cost of relegation ?

Personally I still hope that the Spammers will get their come uppance

 

[fieryjack]

No views regarding the recent update that
SUFC are suing the spammers for the cost of relegation ?

Personally I still hope that the Spammers will get their come uppance

So do i. I also hope that chels, arse, manu, pool, blackburn, portsmouth, toon and villa are somehow draaged into it and all relegated. :grin:

 

[Moore6]

No views regarding the recent update that
SUFC are suing the spammers for the cost of relegation ?

Personally I still hope that the Spammers will get their come uppance

It seems that Sheff Utd may have got their facts wrong.

West Ham Official Statement:

16/08/2007 19:48


West Ham United is extremely disappointed that Sheffield United has seen fit to embark on this latest desperate action. Not only does Sheffield United's claim lack legal merit, but it is also based on Sheffield United's incorrect belief that West Ham United withheld an agreement from the Premier League and the April Disciplinary Commission.

In fact, long before the disciplinary hearing, West Ham United made the Premier League fully aware of the existence and status of the agreement in question. This agreement was then included in the documentation produced for the Disciplinary Commission who were therefore also aware of its existence throughout the proceedings.

Sheffield United's latest assertions clearly demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and any proceedings brought by them will be vigorously defended by West Ham United.

In the meantime, West Ham United and its new owners will not permit these repeated slurs to go unchallenged and are in discussions with their legal advisers in relation to the action they might take

There are some strong accusations in the below statement and I am delighted that West Ham are considering action against Sheff Utd.

http://www.sufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10418~1093172,00.html

 

[TheChosenOne]

Will this ever go away ?

I think it still stinks..


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/west_ham/article3486210.ece