June 19, 200719 yr What do you think will be the outcome? Really!!! Nothing Points deduction Compensation to Sheff Utd 21 Team Prem Probably end in a 2 point deduction - keeping them in the Prem
June 19, 200719 yr 5. Sheff Utd have identical fixtures to WHU next season, i.e. when WHU are at home in the Prem, Sheff Utd are at home too. Total coincidence or for something else... edit: as it happens nowt will come of this enquiry. They are only looking to see if The Premier League followed their own precedures and rules in fining WHU ?5.5M. The best outcome for Sheff Utd will be for the panel to recommend a new tribunal hearing. Edited June 19, 200719 yr by YATESY
June 19, 200719 yr Panel to conclude that west ham should have been docked points. Premier league to drag it out further so they don't have to re-instate them (season started) and will ultimatly end up paying them compenstation.
June 19, 200719 yr Nowt will happen, as if the FA would ever dream of punishing everyone's favourite cock-er-nee's
June 19, 200719 yr no additional punishment and the fine will be reduced to allow WHU to pay all players speeding fines and bail money. Bury admitted fielding an illegible player and got kicked out of the FA Cup WHU cover up and lie and deceive at almost every opportunity and get away with it Cheats never prosper?
June 19, 200719 yr no additional punishment and the fine will be reduced to allow WHU to pay all players speeding fines and bail money. Bury admitted fielding an illegible player and got kicked out of the FA Cup WHU cover up and lie and deceive at almost every opportunity and get away with it Cheats never prosper? Was it not west ham who alerted the authorities about tevez etc?
June 19, 200719 yr They should grow some bollox and get involved. The FA is the governing body, not the PL.
June 19, 200719 yr Was it not west ham who alerted the authorities about tevez etc? I thought it was Liverpool when they were looking to buy the other one?
June 19, 200719 yr They should grow some bollox and get involved. The FA is the governing body, not the PL. The FA have no say in the rules and regulations of the PL. That is up to the PL board and the 20 members of the PL. Shout if you must, but it helps if you direct your vitriol at the right people.
June 19, 200719 yr Why do FIFA not become the next step up in the appeals process if Sheffield are not happy with the outcome from the Premier League?
June 19, 200719 yr Was it not west ham who alerted the authorities about tevez etc? Apparently it was Rick Parry of Liverpool who first alerted the PL over Mascerano/Tevez. He was going through their paperwork when Mascherano was signing for Liverpool. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...9/sfnshe119.xml Although it was Parry who brought the third-party ownership issue to the League's attention whe he first made an attempt to sign Tevez's team-mate Javier Mascherano in January, it is understood United's lawyers called on him because he was instrumental in drawing up the Premiership's regulations.
June 19, 200719 yr Apparently it was Rick Parry of Liverpool who first alerted the PL over Mascerano/Tevez. He was going through their paperwork when Mascherano was signing for Liverpool. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...9/sfnshe119.xml Ah my bad! Surely the simple answer for sheffield was not to be shit? then it wouldn'd matter how well tevez played
June 19, 200719 yr I thought it was Liverpool when they were looking to buy the other one? Apparently it was Rick Parry of Liverpool who first alerted the PL over Mascerano/Tevez. He was going through their paperwork when Mascherano was signing for Liverpool. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...9/sfnshe119.xml I thought so. That means they did not come clean then. Surely that should go against them during the tribunal as one of a few things must have happening during the take over by Egghead. i) The auditors saw this disrepancy and thought "best ignore it" ii) The auditors are inept and Egghead is best not using that firm again. ii) Egghead knew all about it and thought "best ignore it, no one'll notice"
June 19, 200719 yr The second part of Sheff Utd's claim is with regard to the overnight clearance that Tevez got in April to carry on playing for WHU. It took Liverpool nearly 3 weeks to get the same clearance for Mascherano. So why did the identical process for WHU take 24 hours thus, making him available to play in their next game (against us) and the final matches of the season after that?
June 19, 200719 yr The second part of Sheff Utd's claim is with regard to the overnight clearance that Tevez got in April to carry on playing for WHU. It took Liverpool nearly 3 weeks to get the same clearance for Mascherano. So why did the identical process for WHU take 24 hours thus, making him available to play in their next game (against us) and the final matches of the season after that? We ripped up the offending clause in the contract (the one allowing MSI to sell Tevez at any time - which is where the 'influence' problem in Rule U18 came in). Therefore he was allowed to play against Wigan, then yourselves, then Man Utd.
June 19, 200719 yr We ripped up the offending clause in the contract (the one allowing MSI to sell Tevez at any time - which is where the 'influence' problem in Rule U18 came in). Therefore he was allowed to play against Wigan, then yourselves, then Man Utd. That being the part of the Sheff Utd claim too. A contract is only fully null-and-void when both parties say so. I think it is quite clear that MSI do not think this is the case! The test will come when Tevez moves on. Will WHU receive the transfer fee?
June 19, 200719 yr That being the part of the Sheff Utd claim too. A contract is only fully null-and-void when both parties say so. I think it is quite clear that MSI do not think this is the case! The test will come when Tevez moves on. Will WHU receive the transfer fee? Which is crazy. Does a manager agree with his club when they sack him? Of course he doesn't but he accepts their decision and he gets paid compensation agreed between the two parties. Kia Joorabchian is a businessmen and him and Eggert will come to an arrangement between themselves as to how they resolve the loss of the clause in question. What the f?ck that has to do with SUFC, Lord only knows. What has Tevez's next move got to do with it?? Players being owned by third parties is not unusual or more importantly illegal.
June 19, 200719 yr Kia Joorabchian is a businessmen and him and Eggert will come to an arrangement between themselves as to how they resolve the loss of the clause in question. What the f?ck that has to do with SUFC, Lord only knows. What has Tevez's next move got to do with it?? Players being owned by third parties is not unusual or more importantly illegal. You've hit the nail right on the head there - they will come to an agreement, but at the time the "clause in the contract was ripped up" they hadn't already, hence the question as to how on earth the player can be cleared within a few hours compared to the weeks it took for the same arrangement to be made for the other player. Similarly, with managers it usually takes weeks or months to reach a settlement, so how on earth could WHU claim that everything was now "okay" just because they had gone back on their part of the deal?! No matter how you look at it the whole thing stinks - I've read your posts before Yossi and I know you're pretty level headed and just arguing the case for WHU, just as anyone on here would had the shoe been on the other foot, but even you must've expected a points deduction?? I think the point about Tevez's next move relates to the fact that we will then truly see whether or not the offending clause was really removed and how much WHU will see of the transfer fee...
June 19, 200719 yr You've hit the nail right on the head there - they will come to an agreement, but at the time the "clause in the contract was ripped up" they hadn't already, hence the question as to how on earth the player can be cleared within a few hours compared to the weeks it took for the same arrangement to be made for the other player. Similarly, with managers it usually takes weeks or months to reach a settlement, so how on earth could WHU claim that everything was now "okay" just because they had gone back on their part of the deal?! No matter how you look at it the whole thing stinks - I've read your posts before Yossi and I know you're pretty level headed and just arguing the case for WHU, just as anyone on here would had the shoe been on the other foot, but even you must've expected a points deduction?? I think the point about Tevez's next move relates to the fact that we will then truly see whether or not the offending clause was really removed and how much WHU will see of the transfer fee... I just can't see how any games he played in while the dodgy clause existed could be counted as valid It HAD to be a points deduction in my opinion, financial penalties leave the rich clubs free to do as they please
June 19, 200719 yr No matter how you look at it the whole thing stinks - I've read your posts before Yossi and I know you're pretty level headed and just arguing the case for WHU, just as anyone on here would had the shoe been on the other foot, but even you must've expected a points deduction?? Crazytrain - i've never really argued for or against West Ham to be honest. We broke the rules. Fact. We were punished. Fact. The only subject that I've banged on about (sorry if i've bored you) is this arbitration procedure and Sheff Utd. The PL could have been more harsh. They could have been more lenient. The point is though, that the process by which the PL investigated and punished us, was carried out strictly in accordance with the PL's rules. The rules by which all 20 members of the PL have previously agreed to. Whether you or I, or Magnusson or McCabe, believe that out punishment was harsh or lenient is irrelevent. If the PL have punished us in accordance with the rules, then no one has a case. Which is why I believe that nothing will come of the tribunal and nor should it. What should happen is that the rules - which frankly are very vague, indeed rule U18 was put in place with a totally different scenario in mind - need to be firmed up and made clear. In addition, clear penalties need to be drawn up for when/if West Ham or any other club break that rule or any other again. When that happens, there won't be farcial arbitartory hearings or court cases in the future. I think the point about Tevez's next move relates to the fact that we will then truly see whether or not the offending clause was really removed and how much WHU will see of the transfer fee... The offending clause which has been revoked is the one that said Tevez could be sold at any time without the need for West Ham's permission. That is why rule U18 was broken because MSI had 'influence' over the team. The fact that Tevez is owned by MSI is not illegal. When he is sold whether West Ham receive money or not for his sale is of no matter (in terms of this case).
June 19, 200719 yr It HAD to be a points deduction in my opinion, financial penalties leave the rich clubs free to do as they please Financial penalties such as ours set a dangerous precedent I agree with that. If it had been say Watford for example instead of us, would they have been given a ?5.5m fine? If they had, they would probably have gone bankcrupt. Certainly been in serious financial problems. So have we been punished for being well off? Something else to have a chew on
June 19, 200719 yr The FA have no say in the rules and regulations of the PL. That is up to the PL board and the 20 members of the PL. Shout if you must, but it helps if you direct your vitriol at the right people. The FA are the governing body of football in this country. If the PL decided they wanted to bring in naked penalty shoot outs to decide games, the FA could tell em to fook off.
June 19, 200719 yr If the PL decided they wanted to bring in naked penalty shoot outs to decide games, Now if this involved the players wives, you could be on to a winner!!
What do you think will be the outcome? Really!!!
Probably end in a 2 point deduction - keeping them in the Prem