Spurs request replay of West Ham game

SuprSi

Official letter sent to the FA about Sunday's proceedings;

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/clublettertofapl.html

Don't see it happening, and although as a Spurs fan I'd love to see it happen, I think something like this can only be prevented or improved for subsequent events. It'll be interesting to hear what the FA have to say about it though, especially considering (at least according to the letter) other EPL clubs are backing Spurs.

Vokes

What puzzles us is why the FAPL were prepared to sanction a 4 hour delay but not a 24 hour delay. If the integrity of all matches kicking off at the same time was your primary concern, why sanction a delay of any kind?

He kind of has a point there.

Lemlin

Silly request in all fairness. Spurs went ahead and played the game. If they'd beaten West Ham you wouldn't see them complaining.

Middlesborough didn't play a game against Blackburn a few seasons ago because they couldn't field a team and they were docked three points and made play the game at a later date.

Don't see why anything should be changed for Spurs.

Mossy Monk

good point about boro, why should spurs have special treatment

Necronomicon

Was it the FA or Premier League who denied the postponment on the day? I'm sure they'd feel aggrieved if it was the FA, with David Dein on the board, conflict of interest and all that.
Can't really see it happening....

sikes

very good letter.

spurs have never made a big deal about decisions going against them in games, the mendes goal last year was brushed aside and that denied spurs uefa cup last year.

but this is different, and if what is written in the letter is correct, i would expect that if levys request is not granted, this will be dragged through the courts.

btw is was the Premier League, they are the governing body

mchurl

I can see where Spurs are coming from but i cant really see the FA granting them a replay. It would cause numerous problems and complications for all the parties involved and could lead to a number of cases were things like this were happening and requests were made for replys.

Also if the replay was granted,when would the game take place? West Ham are in the FA cup final next week and then a lot of the players wll be on their summer holidays or heading off to the World Cup so surely both sides would have severly weakened teams if the replay was granted.

therecklessone

Lemlin wrote:

Silly request in all fairness. Spurs went ahead and played the game. If they'd beaten West Ham you wouldn't see them complaining.

Know of many cases of people taking legal action to achieve something they all ready have?

Daniel Levy wrote:

Whilst waiting for the opinion of the England Team Doctor, who was yet to arrive at our Team Hotel, I was contacted from a distance by the FAPL and told that we had to play the game that day or suffer the consequences.

And thats pretty much why they played the game.

Levy makes a lot of good points in the letter, chief among them being that the PL were prepared to accept a delay on Sunday (curtailed by Police advice that the game go ahead no later than 5pm) but wouldn't allow a 24 hour delay. Why not?

Daniel Levy wrote:

If the integrity of all matches kicking off at the same time was your primary concern, why sanction a delay of any kind?

mchurl wrote:

Also if the replay was granted,when would the game take place?

West Ham were willing to postpone the game as long as it didn't interfere with their FA Cup preperations. A 24 hour postponment is out of the question now, so that leaves after the FA Cup final. Sepp Blatter was reported as saying as long as the rearranged game took place before May 15th (final date for internationals to be released for the WC) he had no problem. Thats 2 days after the Cup final. They could choose to go down the Spanish route, with the few remaining ties to be played on May 20th without internationals called up for the WC.

Of course, the Boro case looms large in the background. I've no legal training, but couldn't a legal review of the rules find in Spurs' favour and that the PL were wrong to dock Boro the points?

I'm worried about the implications of any ruling in our favour though. Where do we draw the line? If the loss of half your first XI was enough to allow the postponment of a game Newcastle would still owe us a season and a half of postponed fixtures from Sourness' time at the helm. What if clubs chose to manipulate any new rule that allowed a game's postponment due to sudden injuries/illness?

TBH, the only grounds I'd see for a replay would be if the food poisoning could be proved deliberate, as an attempt to influence the outcome of the league.

But Tottenham said the effected players ate different dishes from a wide-ranging menu prepared by the Marriott Hotel at Canary Wharf, their team base for the match at Upton Park. If food poisoning is found to have caused the players to fall ill - and Tottenham say they will know more in the next 48 hours - then the possibility of sabotage will begin to assume greater credibility.

<snip>

But if it is eventually proved that the players were poisoned then the level of sophistication required to carry off such a crime would lead many to point the finger at a betting scam. The sums of money riding on Sunday's game will have been enormous, particularly in the Far East, and the Premier League's previous experience with floodlight tampering in 1999 shows anything is possible.

Source

Said it before, this one will run.

Chucky the tree

Gutted if the match is replayed and spurs win. I had them in an accumlator and when they lost i threw my slip out.

I cant see them being allowed to play to replay the game. West ham wont allow it before the fa cup. And why should they allow to be played on monday 2 days after the FA cup? thats puts them at a huge disadvantage and is unfair on them and arsenal. Also, did west ham gain any league placing from their win? if they did that would be another reason as too not allow the game be replayed.

Pepe LeFrits

therecklessone wrote:

Of course, the Boro case looms large in the background. I've no legal training, but couldn't a legal review of the rules find in Spurs' favour and that the PL were wrong to dock Boro the points?

I imagine that would throw the league into chaos as if I recall correctly, Middlesbrough were relegated that season by a margin of one match.

I'm worried about the implications of any ruling in our favour though. Where do we draw the line? If the loss of half your first XI was enough to allow the postponment of a game Newcastle would still owe us a season and a half of postponed fixtures from Sourness' time at the helm. What if clubs chose to manipulate any new rule that allowed a game's postponment due to sudden injuries/illness?

TBH, the only grounds I'd see for a replay would be if the food poisoning could be proved deliberate, as an attempt to influence the outcome of the league.

Agreed. Teams lose multiple players to injury and illness all the time, you can't replay a game every time a team says they have players who are sick. That's why teams have reserves, and if Tottenham are unable to call on theirs then it's their fault.

Hopefully Arsenal can win on May 17 and make this issue irrelevant.

Kingp35

You gotta feel for Spurs and can understand why they are making this request but I dont think it can be granted. Its just like have ten injuries in the team, many clubs get injured players and certainly have no right to try and get a game called off. I dont think it should be replayed. Then again if it is proved that foul play was involved with the tampering of food then thats a different story.

el rabitos

pigs will be flying before that match is replayed. its just not going to happen, its not west hams problem if spurs got screwed.

the only viable, fair option, but still ridiculous all the same, is to have a playoff match between spurs and arsenal. but arsenal are already in the champions league, so good luck trying to get them to put that on the line.

what happened to spurs sucks, but they had their chance to solidify 4th spot and they didnt take it.

therecklessone

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

I imagine that would throw the league into chaos as if I recall correctly, Middlesbrough were relegated that season by a margin of one match.

It would open the way for Boro to sue the PL all right, hardly chaos though. What did relegation cost them? £35 million? Drop in the ocean considering the latest round of TV deals.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Agreed. Teams lose multiple players to injury and illness all the time, you can't replay a game every time a team says they have players who are sick. That's why teams have reserves, and if Tottenham are unable to call on theirs then it's their fault.

Spoken like a true Arsenal fan...;)

A sudden loss of multiple players isn't the same as a a number of injuries over a period of time. We're talking about 12 hours notice for Spurs to get a squad of 16 fit and prepared for the club's biggest game in 20 years. Are clubs supposed to have their entire playing staff tucked up in bed ready for a last minute call (and if so, what if we had them at the same hotel and they suffered the same fate?) Would we have been asking "who is Terry Dixon" a day early?

Anyway, a replay wouldn't be necessary if Scudamore could have torn himself away from the Library for a few minutes to sanction a 24 hour delay...:p

I'm speaking completely objectively here (believe that if you want), but if that was a last day title decider or the afternoon of the CL final, you can be sure something would be done. Would UEFA allow their premier club competition descend into farce as the Arsenal Ladies took on Barcelona after a does of the s*its did the rounds at the Arsenal team hotel in Paris next Wednesday?

Mossy Monk

el rabitos wrote:

its just not going to happen, its not west hams problem if spurs got screwed.

the only viable, fair option, but still ridiculous all the same, is to have a playoff match between spurs and arsenal

hardly Arsenals problem either

another reason for Arsenal to win the CL, so this bull**** with Spurs can die

el rabitos

Originally Posted by el rabitos
its just not going to happen, its not west hams problem if spurs got screwed.

the only viable, fair option, but still ridiculous all the same, is to have a playoff match between spurs and arsenal

welcome to the uefa cup basically

therecklessone

el rabitos wrote:

pigs will be flying before that match is replayed. its just not going to happen

Got much legal training, have you?

Royale with Cheese

Mossy Monk wrote:

hardly Arsenals problem either

another reason for Arsenal to win the CL, so this bull**** with Spurs can die

It will never die. Be there a replay and Spurs lose. Be there a replay, spurs win and Arsenal win the champions league. Be there no replay and things stay as they are, or be there a play off and Arsenal win. As said before, I think this is going to drag on for a very very long time. Having said that I'd be f*cking pissed if I were a spurs fan, but they just got really unlucky (or the were the victims of some sort of betting ring). But sometimes that's just the way it goes. I really don't see this being replayed anyway.

el rabitos

Got much legal training, have you?

no, but i have a degree in common sence

therecklessone

el rabitos wrote:

no, but i have a degree in common sence

Since when has common sense had anything to do with the legal system?

el rabitos

Since when has common sense had anything to do with the legal system?

probably about the same time as wishfull thinking got a team qualification to the champions league

therecklessone

So we're agreed...common sense and the law, never the twain shall meet.

Case closed.

el rabitos

indeed we are agreed, the case is closed. spurs in the uefa cup next year.

Guy:Incognito

I think they should be allowed to replay the game, win and play in the cl. They should also be allowed to have the 3 points from the Utd game last season and play in the UEFA cup aswell.

Guy:Incognito

I think they should be allowed to replay the game, win and play in the cl. They should also be allowed to have the 3 points from the Utd game last season and play in the UEFA cup aswell.

Playboy

el rabitos wrote:

what happened to spurs sucks, but they had their chance to solidify 4th spot and they didnt take it.

Well if we find that the team were the victims of a deliberate attack then you are wrong. Our chance to solidfy 4th was taken away from us when we were made play that game under those circumstances.

el rabitos

Well if we find that the team were the victims of a deliberate attack then you are wrong. Our chance to solidfy 4th was taken away from us when we were made play that game under those circumstances.

i wasnt refering to last weekends game. they had they're faith in their own hands. they didnt beat arsenal when they had the chance. they lost to united. theres always a risk when it comes down to the last game of the season. arsenal were never going to just fold and let up on them.

if it was a deliberate attack, then yeah, it sucks, but whats anyone going to do about it?

i mean, unless its proven to be foul play on behalf of arsenal or west ham, theres nothing that can be done. its harsh, but its just the way it is.

theres just no way spurs will be playing in the champions league next year. its unpossible as ralph wiggum might say

Pepe LeFrits

therecklessone wrote:

It would open the way for Boro to sue the PL all right, hardly chaos though. What did relegation cost them? £35 million? Drop in the ocean considering the latest round of TV deals.

Yeah, I'm sure £35 million is a drop in the ocean to the FA. (I'm being sarcastic)

Spoken like a true Arsenal fan...;)

A sudden loss of multiple players isn't the same as a a number of injuries over a period of time. We're talking about 12 hours notice for Spurs to get a squad of 16 fit and prepared for the club's biggest game in 20 years. Are clubs supposed to have their entire playing staff tucked up in bed ready for a last minute call (and if so, what if we had them at the same hotel and they suffered the same fate?) Would we have been asking "who is Terry Dixon" a day early?

I could say spoken like a true Spurs fan but that would be a tadge unnecessary. A club should be expected to have a squad of 'reserves' available should they have a problem with a number of first team players. They aren't called reserves for nothing. It's not the FA's fault that Spurs are effectively a small team who have their 'biggest game in 20 years' on the final day of a season where a couple of players fall ill, and have not got the foresight to ensure that they have a few players on standby in the event of a problem.

Anyway, a replay wouldn't be necessary if Scudamore could have torn himself away from the Library for a few minutes to sanction a 24 hour delay...:p

I'm speaking completely objectively here (believe that if you want), but if that was a last day title decider or the afternoon of the CL final, you can be sure something would be done. Would UEFA allow their premier club competition descend into farce as the Arsenal Ladies took on Barcelona after a does of the s*its did the rounds at the Arsenal team hotel in Paris next Wednesday?

Yeah, i'm sure you're speaking entirely objectively. I'm sure if Arsenal had 10 first team players out injured (as opposed to having an upset stomach), the league would be put on hold.

Spurs could have had 4th place done and dusted while they had the players available. Problem is they couldn't, and when it came down the final day, they had a bit of bad-luck with their team selection. Maybe Arsenal should ask to replay the first 6-8 games of the season? Henry wasn't there, and everyone knows he's a more important player than anyone Spurs have right now.

sikes

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure £35 million is a drop in the ocean to the FA. (I'm being sarcastic)

I could say spoken like a true Spurs fan but that would be a tadge unnecessary. A club should be expected to have a squad of 'reserves' available should they have a problem with a number of first team players. They aren't called reserves for nothing. It's not the FA's fault that Spurs are effectively a small team who have their 'biggest game in 20 years' on the final day of a season where a couple of players fall ill, and have not got the foresight to ensure that they have a few players on standby in the event of a problem.

Reserves are players who are called upon when the squad is announced a couple of days before hand. Why is there a reserve league if they are meant to be prepared at the last minute. Secondly, you cannot make changes to the squad once announced so why should the team fork out money to bring the players on the away trips. Do you think arsenal take a their reserve players with them on away trips just in case the players are up all night ****ting themselves? What you have written is simply not logical thinking.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Yeah, i'm sure you're speaking entirely objectively. I'm sure if Arsenal had 10 first team players out injured (as opposed to having an upset stomach), the league would be put on hold.

I think you would find it very difficult for ten players to wake up in the morning with torn hamstrings etc. Injuries are part of the game and spurs are better equipped than most to deal with them. However, having half the team up all night and not eating before the game is not part of it. Its completely different situation and if you cant see that then fine.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Spurs could have had 4th place done and dusted while they had the players available. Problem is they couldn't, and when it came down the final day, they had a bit of bad-luck with their team selection.

The season is 38 games. Technically, the title could be won in the first 18 league games. It isnt. The game is meant to be played on a level playing field, on sunday it clearly wasnt, west ham saw that and so did the PL. The only people who seem to have a problem are the arsenal fans, now i wonder why that is!

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Maybe Arsenal should ask to replay the first 6-8 games of the season? Henry wasn't there, and everyone knows he's a more important player than anyone Spurs have right now.

Do you really think that this is a reasonable argument? And yes, Henry is more important to the Arsenal team than any player to their team, but yet if you sell him this summer you will probably get a max of 20mil!

blu_sonic

i hope spurs get justice from this, they should have gotten the match PP stupid system in the EPL, if it was mid-season they would have just the FA (svens influence) trying to end the EPL sooner rather than later

cournioni

Justice would be done if there was a replay. I don't see it happening though.

Necronomicon

Well it has to be sorted soon anyway because FIFA have set a deadline of monday for all domestic leagues to end.

WhiteWashMan

im going to have to say that while i would love a reply, and i think spurs did the right thing playing the game anyway, and i also think the FA was wrong to make it go ahead, i see no point in replaying the game.

its true, every team had the chance over 38 games to win the league. 19 teams didnt do it. we had plenty of chances to solidify 4th position, but then again, arsenal also had the same amount of games, and winning it on the last day of the season, while great for them and a kick in the teeth for spurs doesnt show for me that arsenal are a much greater club tbh.

they are a team that is 2 points better than spurs this year. and i can accept that.

at the start of the season, i would have happily taken uefa cup football and a close run 5th place. as liverpool and utd supporters keep saying 'we are a team in the middle of rebuilding'. i think spurs can actually say that.

i dont think there was a game where we were completely outclassed, there were a few games where we were inconsistant, and thats what let us down. if we can build on that, i will be happy.

as for the reply, if it happens it happens. if it doesnt, i wont let the last game of the season take away from arsenal finishing above us. they deserve to. west ham deserve to beat us in the last game.

i am still just damn proud of my team this season. we have played fantastic football most of the time. we have grinded out results time after time, even when we havent been playing free flowing football.
personally i hope arsenal win the CL. not only because it will make the final game of the season a moot point, but becuase i think they deserve to win it.

i think daniel levy is a smart cookie. i think he does something that a lot of other chairmen dont do. he is not afriad to promote and fight for his club. he is proactive, and he is running spurs exceedingly well. i tihink if there was a chairman of the year award, it would go to him. it has been his vision that has given spurs to shine again at last.

like i said, i dont think there should be a reply. im happy with fifth. id rather have been fourth and played CL football alst year, but it takes nothing from our season. and i think we have got a good chance of getting some great experience in the uefa cup next season.

Kimbot

Well if I remember rightly 10 members of the Spurs squad were effected by the food poisioning!! Then how many injured aswell as that??? Thats your prefered starting 11 gone already!! I think that it should be replayed, its not as if they done it to themselves!! And I'm sure if it happend Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal there would be an even bigger uproar about it!! Told to delay the match for 4 hours is a joke IMO!! Thats 4 hours for the players to what.... Cr@p it all out of their systems, catch up on lost sleep, train and have some food in their stomachs!! Not a chance!!

p.pete

jonny24ie wrote:

Well if I remember rightly 10 members of the Spurs squad were effected by the food poisioning!! Then how many injured aswell as that??? Thats your prefered starting 11 gone already!! I think that it should be replayed, its not as if they done it to themselves!! And I'm sure if it happend Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal there would be an even bigger uproar about it!! Told to delay the match for 4 hours is a joke IMO!! Thats 4 hours for the players to what.... Cr@p it all out of their systems, catch up on lost sleep, train and have some food in their stomachs!! Not a chance!!

They weren't offered 4 hours, they asked for 4 but got offered 2.

Kimbot

p.pete wrote:

They weren't offered 4 hours, they asked for 4 but got offered 2.

Even worse then for Spurs!! (Sorry I should have notice that 3-5 was 2 hours and not 4!!! )

p.pete

WhiteWashMan wrote:

they are a team that is 2 points better than spurs this year. and i can accept that.

2 points away from a Champions League final - that's harsh

WhiteWashMan

final?

im sure chelsea, liverpool, everton and man utd were well within 2 points and yet didnt see a final.

bit dramatic today are we?

Emmo

I think if there was foul play a replay should be ordered.

Emmo

BaZmO*

el rabitos wrote:

i mean, unless its proven to be foul play on behalf of arsenal or west ham, theres nothing that can be done. its harsh, but its just the way it is.

It doesn't have to be foul play on behalf of West Ham or Arsenal as it would be more likely foul play on behalf of a betting sindicate. All hypotethical of course.

GuanYin

Any empathy I had for spurs was slowly diminished this week.

They seemed determined to blame someone for their misfortune, be it the hotel or the FAPL. They were lining up a court case had they finished 4th and arsenal had won the CL.

The fact of the matter is that football is a squad game. I symapthise that 10 players were ill, but their excuse that the reserve players weren't up to it is a a nonsense. What are the reserve players for then? They had enough fit, healthy professional footballers at the club to field 11 who weren't sick and they chose not to. I don't see why a team with excess professional palyers on their books should have any excuse to postpone a game.

Middlesboro and City both had teams thumped this year because they only had youth players fit. Did they ask for a replay? These things happen, its why you have extra players.

Secondly, 4th place isn't achieved in one game. Its 38 games and almost every premiership team has had at least 1 where they couldn't field the team they would like. Or they fielded and risked an unfit player. It works or it doesn't but if you put your whole season down to one game your asking for trouble and if you cry foul because you lose that one game I don't have much sympathy.

Where does it end though? What fi your best player gets sick? Or your 2 best players. I mean, you have players to replace them, as spurs did, so at what point do you say, "yes you can postpone/replay this game" or "no you can't"?

I like spurs football, I enjoy watching them play and think they will do well. But this reeks of sour grapes to me and like i said, I have very little sympathy for them.

BaZmO*

psi wrote:

Where does it end though? What fi your best player gets sick? Or your 2 best players. I mean, you have players to replace them, as spurs did, so at what point do you say, "yes you can postpone/replay this game" or "no you can't"?

Ah would you stop. You're going a tad overboard there. 10 members of their squad were struck down with food poisoning over night. When has that ever happened before? Or when is it ever likely to happen again. Slightly different than having 1 maybe 2 palyers getting a bug. They didn't replace all the players, a lot of them played through their illness which showed in their performances.

psi wrote:

Middlesboro and City both had teams thumped this year because they only had youth players fit. Did they ask for a replay? These things happen, its why you have extra players.

There's a big difference between having accumalative injuries and having 10 first teamers being struck down with food poisoning.

psi wrote:

They were lining up a court case had they finished 4th and arsenal had won the CL.

Was that actually proved? I thought it was just rumours circulated on a slow news day?

GuanYin

BaZmO* wrote:

Ah would you stop. You're going a tad overboard there. 10 members of their squad were struck down with food poisoning over night. When has that ever happened before? Or when is it ever likely to happen again. Slightly different than having 1 maybe 2 palyers getting a bug. They didn't replace all the players, a lot of them played through their illness which showed in their performances.

I don't think it matters what was wrong with them. If one of your first teamers is out, you have to replace them. Now a team either has or hasn't the resources to cope. Most don't and when the get culminative injuries they suffer. Portsmouth this season for example.

Had it been a case where spurs didn't have enough signed professional footballers at their club, I'd support their request. The fact is, they did. It could be argued that many of the reserve players they chose not to use, would find a first team place in other premiership clubs.

It is unfortunate if you lose alot of players at the same time, but it doesn't matter the time frame for losing players on the day you have to play. If you lose 10 first teamers overnight or over a month you still are 10 players away from your first choice team. That is why football has become a squad game and you have to cope.

Arsenal without Henry or United without Rooney are less likely to win a match. If they are suddenly injured why not call off the game? 1 player or 10 players, it doesn't matter - its unfortunate but its up to tottenham to provide the players to play the match, not anyone else. If they put unfit players out instead of fit players based on team selection preference, its their own call and they shouldn't have any complaints.

p.pete

WhiteWashMan wrote:

final?

im sure chelsea, liverpool, everton and man utd were well within 2 points and yet didnt see a final.

bit dramatic today are we?

Dramatic? Not at all...
You were suggesting that Arsenal were a team "2 points better than spurs this year", I'm suggesting they're a squad who've endured more matches, gotten further in better competitions AND finished 2 points ahead.

BaZmO*

psi wrote:

I don't think it matters what was wrong with them.

Of course it does. Are you trying to say that no matter what the circumstances of players "getting injured/being unable to play" that a game should go ahead?

psi wrote:

I Most don't and when the get culminative injuries they suffer. Portsmouth this season for example.

As I've said already, it's not about accumalative injuries. It was about injuries due to extenuating circumstances.

psi wrote:

It could be argued that many of the reserve players they chose not to use, would find a first team place in other premiership clubs.

It could also be argued against.

psi wrote:

It is unfortunate if you lose alot of players at the same time, but it doesn't matter the time frame for losing players on the day you have to play. If you lose 10 first teamers overnight or over a month you still are 10 players away from your first choice team. That is why football has become a squad game and you have to cope.

The time frame obviously does matter. If it didn't, then why did the FA offer to delay the game?

psi wrote:

Arsenal without Henry or United without Rooney are less likely to win a match. If they are suddenly injured why not call off the game? 1 player or 10 players, it doesn't matter

Again, it does matter and to suggest that any team would try to call off a game due to their best player being ill/injured is just ridiculous.

psi wrote:

If they put unfit players out instead of fit players based on team selection preference, its their own call and they shouldn't have any complaints.

The reason why the went ahead with the game is because they were told that they might have to face sanctions. Something they weren't willing to risk.

GuanYin

BaZmO* wrote:

Of course it does. Are you trying to say that no matter what the circumstances of players "getting injured/being unable to play" that a game should go ahead?

Perhaps in the case of a tragedy such as players dying and being unable to play but otherwise I think we just have to disagree.

As I've said already, it's not about accumalative injuries. It was about injuries due to extenuating circumstances.

And I disagree, I don't think the circumstances matter in fact I don't think the illness matters.

They had 11 fully fit professional footballers who didn't have food poisoning, that they could have played.

It could also be argued against.

Go ahead if you like, the spurs reserve team is pretty decent though - look at how some of the players they offloaded did at portsmouth.

The time frame obviously does matter. If it didn't, then why did the FA offer to delay the game?

The FA didn't offer to delay the game.

If you mean the Premier League Association, then thats something I'm unsure of. The premier league (not the FA) seemed pretty indecisive in this matter and their handling of the matter was bad. I don't think they should have offered spurs anything myself.

Again, it does matter

In your opinion.

and to suggest that any team would try to call off a game due to their best player being ill/injured is just ridiculous.

I think asking to have a game rescheduled because they players they want to use are unwell and they have enough fit players is ridiculous.

The reason why the went ahead with the game is because they were told that they might have to face sanctions. Something they weren't willing to risk.

And if they hadn't gone ahead, they should have faced sanctions. I think you will find that is the response ANY team would get if they wanted to postpone a game.

redspider

I didnt read the full thread on this.

I think whats of critical importance to this situation is whether there was any malicious attempt to food poison the Spurs team and affect the result, whether for a betting scam or otherwise. If a malicious attempt is indeed proven by the Police then Spurs definitely have strong grounds.

The problem for the FA is the timing of it, coming as it does at the end of the season. If West Ham were not in the FA Cup final perhaps Spurs attempt to delay could have been accomodated. It also takes time to prove if there was a malicious attempt. Spurs clearly are of the opinion that this was not an unfortunate incident.

What the English FA have to do is have clear rules about these situations, unlikely as they may be, or at least have clear ways of how they should be handled. They dont have an emergency process it seems.

Overall, we have seen multitudes of cases down through the years where football results have been affected by betting influences. Maybe FIFA should bite the bullet and attempt to make it illegal to bet on football in all countries. Those countries that continue to allow betting would be forced not to have football to be shown on TV and also be prevented from participating in any football competition. Betting, which is booming at the moment, is a scourge when it comes to sports.

We've even seen it this year even in the little NI league where Armagh were throwing games and lost 4-0 on purpose due to betting. Results such as Crystal Palace 4-3 Liverpool from many years ago irk me to this day due to Grobelaar/Fashanu and far east betting scams.

redspider

blu_sonic

redspider wrote:

I didnt read the full thread on this.

I think whats of critical importance to this situation is whether there was any malicious attempt to food poison the Spurs team and affect the result, whether for a betting scam or otherwise. If a malicious attempt is indeed proven by the Police then Spurs definitely have strong grounds.

The problem for the FA is the timing of it, coming as it does at the end of the season. If West Ham were not in the FA Cup final perhaps Spurs attempt to delay could have been accomodated. It also takes time to prove if there was a malicious attempt. Spurs clearly are of the opinion that this was not an unfortunate incident.

What the English FA have to do is have clear rules about these situations, unlikely as they may be, or at least have clear ways of how they should be handled. They dont have an emergency process it seems.

Overall, we have seen multitudes of cases down through the years where football results have been affected by betting influences. Maybe FIFA should bite the bullet and attempt to make it illegal to bet on football in all countries. Those countries that continue to allow betting would be forced not to have football to be shown on TV and also be prevented from participating in any football competition. Betting, which is booming at the moment, is a scourge when it comes to sports.

We've even seen it this year even in the little NI league where Armagh were throwing games and lost 4-0 on purpose due to betting. Results such as Crystal Palace 4-3 Liverpool from many years ago irk me to this day due to Grobelaar/Fashanu and far east betting scams.

redspider

TBH more chance of a rocking horse pooping then betting being banned

Playboy

psi wrote:

Any empathy I had for spurs was slowly diminished this week.

They seemed determined to blame someone for their misfortune, be it the hotel or the FAPL. They were lining up a court case had they finished 4th and arsenal had won the CL.

The fact of the matter is that football is a squad game. I symapthise that 10 players were ill, but their excuse that the reserve players weren't up to it is a a nonsense. What are the reserve players for then? They had enough fit, healthy professional footballers at the club to field 11 who weren't sick and they chose not to. I don't see why a team with excess professional palyers on their books should have any excuse to postpone a game.

Middlesboro and City both had teams thumped this year because they only had youth players fit. Did they ask for a replay? These things happen, its why you have extra players.

Secondly, 4th place isn't achieved in one game. Its 38 games and almost every premiership team has had at least 1 where they couldn't field the team they would like. Or they fielded and risked an unfit player. It works or it doesn't but if you put your whole season down to one game your asking for trouble and if you cry foul because you lose that one game I don't have much sympathy.

Where does it end though? What fi your best player gets sick? Or your 2 best players. I mean, you have players to replace them, as spurs did, so at what point do you say, "yes you can postpone/replay this game" or "no you can't"?

I like spurs football, I enjoy watching them play and think they will do well. But this reeks of sour grapes to me and like i said, I have very little sympathy for them.

I really don't know if you are unable to read or what but this point has already been dealt with twice in this thread.

From the letter Levy sent to FA

Our next issue was team selection. Martin Jol and his staff, having originally selected their squad of 17 players for the match, were then left in the invidious position of choosing between starting the match with their original 17 players, 10 of whom were feeling very unwell, or drafting in Reserve Team players, the majority of whom have not played for the First Team this season or are untried and untested at First Team level. In any case, having ended their season, our Reserve Team players were scattered across various parts of London and the South East, would not have been prepared to play in a Premier League (or any other) match at such short notice and would rarely, if ever, have played together.

This was an impossible position for our coaching staff to find themselves in on the morning of what was our most important match for many years. Playing a make-shift, inexperienced and ill-prepared team in such a high profile game could have turned the match into a farce, resulting in an embarrassment for the players, the coaches, the Club, our fans and the Premier League competition as a whole.

blu_sonic

^ makes perfect sence to me, ever play for a team? say junior football and a few lads are no shows so you play a few "bangers" and get trashed cuz you just don't know how they play? same here but think bigger scale

Shaque attack

blu_sonic wrote:

^ makes perfect sence to me, ever play for a team? say junior football and a few lads are no shows so you play a few "bangers" and get trashed cuz you just don't know how they play? same here but think bigger scale

nail on the head there, especially since their season was already finished

therecklessone

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure £35 million is a drop in the ocean to the FA. (I'm being sarcastic)

The Premier League have jurisdiction in this matter, not the Football Association. It would be the PL who would be sued by Middlesbrough.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

A club should be expected to have a squad of 'reserves' available should they have a problem with a number of first team players. They aren't called reserves for nothing. It's not the FA's fault that Spurs are effectively a small team who have their 'biggest game in 20 years' on the final day of a season where a couple of players fall ill, and have not got the foresight to ensure that they have a few players on standby in the event of a problem.

Spurs took 17 players to the hotel they stayed in the night before the game, 10 fell ill. Not "a couple". Furthermore, they got 12 hours notice of the problem, not the weeks and weeks most clubs get through the build up of cummulative injuries. If this was Newcastle away to Portsmouth on the final day of the season in similar circumstances, what chance would Newcastle have of getting 10 reserve team players from the north-east at 3am and down to the south coast fit and prepared for a football match at 3pm?

The fact is, this was an exceptional occurance, and the football authorities make allowances for them all the time (e.g they allow teams sign goalkeepers on loan to cover injuries when all their own GKs are injured after the transfer window has closed, surely every team should have enough professionals on their books to cover that eventuality?)

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Yeah, i'm sure you're speaking entirely objectively.

I dis say you could choose to believe me or not, but it was the truth.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

I'm sure if Arsenal had 10 first team players out injured (as opposed to having an upset stomach), the league would be put on hold.

I never suggested that, if similar circumstances struck the Arsenal squad before the CL final next week I believe UEFA would allow the final to be postponed.

redspider wrote:

I think whats of critical importance to this situation is whether there was any malicious attempt to food poison the Spurs team and affect the result, whether for a betting scam or otherwise. If a malicious attempt is indeed proven by the Police then Spurs definitely have strong grounds.

Now thats common sense. For me, the PL have bungled the handling of this entire situation, and it was their offer of a delay on Sunday that sould lead to a possible legal challenge. The correct course of action would be to conclude an investigation into the cause of the poisoning, and if malicious intent was proven, order a replay.