Spurs request replay of West Ham game

tred

Mossy Monk wrote:

hardly Arsenals problem either

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

i recall Arsenal starting a champions league game this seasson with a right back a centre back and a left back missing...i dont recall them all ringing in sick...its crap...the squads should be there to handle this, and if it were united or chelease or liverpool they would have had a decent second string, but Spurs dont and thats whats cost them. Why are spurs so sure they would beat West Ham the second time??? and when can they do it? westham have a game this sunday...I thought they looked for 4 hours but only got 2, as the cops thought it was dangerous having fans dirnking for a long time and would cause crowd trouble..

therecklessone

According to the BBC:

BBC Sport understands that because Spurs opted to play the game instead of postponing it and then arguing their case at a hearing, they will not be granted a replay.

The Premier League has said it will discuss the contents of Levy's letter at a meeting on Wednesday.

But a spokesman said: "Tottenham fulfilled their fixture and as far as the Premier League is concerned the result stands."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/4755491.stm

If that is the road the PL are set to take then it is a disgrace. They effectively threatened Spurs with sanction if they didn't play, then say "well you played it, so there's nothing we can do".

GuanYin

Playboy wrote:

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

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.

Yes, I can read and I'm allowed agree or disagree with points made. Its called the medium of debate, you should look it up.

Regarding the letter. Well boo hoo. Who is to blame for the reserve team being untested? And so what if they are. Must I say it again? It is a squad game. If you don't blood your players, then why bother having a reserve. And as for the players being scattered across london. They knew the 1st team players were sick the day before, they should have been recalled then.

Spurs rivals Arsenal are a prime example of bringing in untried reserves to meet injury demands. Clichy and Senderos were brought in last season, Eboue and Djourou and Larsson this season - at one stage they didn't have enough defenders and Flamini was moved to left back!!!!

Spurs are just whinging.

Keedowah

can we have this as a poll?

Bacchus

Pending an investigation into whether or not the food poisoning was malicious or not I don't think Spurs have a case to get a rematch. The FA officials are to blame for fuping around and making Spurs play with over half the first team sick at short notice. Unfortunately for Spurs this isn't enough to merit a rematch. We can only hope that this kind of situation will never arise again as a result.

To those of you comparing 10 first team players being stuck down ill the night before the final game of the season (or any game for that matter) to teams losing a few players to injury. Take a step back and come to your senses. Injuries are to be expected in football and are staggered throughout the year. Teams can cope with them even if they do lose one or two key players. When a team loses over half it's first team the night before a game with reserves out of reach it should be postponed. Otherwise the game you get is not a fair reflection of the team which is what we got. Had this game been at any other point in the season it would have be postponed.

Spurs shouldn't get the rematch because they would then have an unfair advantage over Arsenal. Not to mention the effect it could have on West Ham if they lost the rematch(prise money etc). Spurs got hard done by the PL officials but there is nothing they can do except ensure it doesn't happen again.

fade2black

The rest of the Premier League had to vote in favour of Glen Roeder being allowed to manage Newcastle...Maybe a similar vote here would be an idea.

sikes

tred wrote:

i recall Arsenal starting a champions league game this seasson with a right back a centre back and a left back missing...i dont recall them all ringing in sick...its crap...the squads should be there to handle this, and if it were united or chelease or liverpool they would have had a decent second string, but Spurs dont and thats whats cost them. Why are spurs so sure they would beat West Ham the second time??? and when can they do it? westham have a game this sunday...I thought they looked for 4 hours but only got 2, as the cops thought it was dangerous having fans dirnking for a long time and would cause crowd trouble..

This is not the same situation, arsenal knew about these injuries and took players to replace them. Those players werent included in the squad. Please tell me you honestly dont think these situations are the same.

Spurs do have a decent second string, and i suppos to only way to show it would be their positioning in the reserve league. They came first.

They looked for a 24 hour delay, were offered 4 by the FAPL, but the cops said they could only have 2.

the medics said 4 hours would help but two wouldnt.

Necronomicon

psi wrote:

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

Did they? How many of the squad travelled to Upton Park so? Because the figure being thrown around is 10 players affected by the food poisoning, some of them had to go out and play.

therecklessone wrote:

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.

I agree, but the investigation would have to come to a conclusion in the next few days because as I pointed out in an earlier post, FIFA granted the PL jurisdiction over the matter as long as the replay is played before monday, when all leagues must end because of the World Cup.

el rabitos

The rest of the Premier League had to vote in favour of Glen Roeder being allowed to manage Newcastle...Maybe a similar vote here would be an idea.

vote for what though?

a replay could cost west ham premier league positions, therefore; money.

or

arsenal could miss out on being in the champions league.

neither team are directly responsible (unless its proved otherwise) for spurs problems.

SuprSi

Not true - West Ham, even if they lost 3 points, cannot go down another position as they finished 4 points ahead of Wigan.

I was gutted, but got over the whole thing and I'd rather it was just put to bed now. Nothing will change the final league positions but I would like to see something in place for this sort of occurance again. It stinks of sabotage, and I'd love for someone or something to be found out.

Altheus

I think the grounds under which Tottenham are looking for a replay are that the FAPL (The FA Premier League) noted the exceptional circumstances, and the police then denied the 4 hour kick off delay.

This meant that the medical advice, and the FAPL's ruling was rendered practically useless. This also meant Spurs couldn't follow the FAPL's decision of a 4 hour kick off, and the FAPL needed to reconsider the issue, rather than force Spurs into a Do or Dare.

Audere et Facere, indeed. Spurs dare not tempt the iron fist of Scudamore and co, and played the game at 3PM, following the medical advice that 2 hours delay would possibly further cause problems for the players.

Under the circumstances, i.e. 12 hours before kick off, it does not seem that this is the same as the Middlesborough situation, nor the Arsenal left back situation. They would not have had time to fulfill the fixture with a full strength squad. 48 hours is enough time to prepare. 24 is all they asked for.

The closest analogy I can draw is a team bus crashing on the way to the venue. The players CAN play, but under great duress.

A poll should be attached to this thread btw, to gauge the opinions of people.

- The FAPL were correct in not postponing the game. The game should NOT be replayed.

- The FAPL were wrong to not postpone the game. The game should be replayed.

- The FAPL we wrong to not postpone the game. All the same, the result should stand.

therecklessone

psi wrote:

They knew the 1st team players were sick the day before, they should have been recalled then.

12 hours notice, not the day before:

The development came as more details emerged of the effects of the illness which struck down 10 of Martin Jol's squad in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Source

therecklessone

fade2black wrote:

The rest of the Premier League had to vote in favour of Glen Roeder being allowed to manage Newcastle...Maybe a similar vote here would be an idea.

According to Daniel Levy, they've already cast their vote:

With this in mind we contacted those Premier League Chairmen and Chief Executives we were able to locate to establish what fellow members feel is an appropriate way forward given the unorthodox decision made by the FAPL prior to receiving objective information on the situation. We now have confirmation from a majority of Premier League clubs that they would support a replay and in similar circumstances would expect the game to have been postponed.

el rabitos wrote:

vote for what though?

a replay could cost west ham premier league positions, therefore; money.

or

arsenal could miss out on being in the champions league.

neither team are directly responsible (unless its proved otherwise) for spurs problems.

The case for/against a replay should be judged on its own merits, not on the impact on other clubs. If I may be so bold as to borrow a phrase of your own:

el rabitos wrote:

but they had their chance to solidify 4th spot and they didnt take it.

The same would apply to any loss of points for West Ham.

GuanYin

As pointed out to me by someone else, Spurs have 27 players listed as first team players. Taking away any ten of those and you still have alot of good players and recognisable names.

At worst they may have had to draft 2-3 reserves for the bench.

redspider

blu_sonic wrote:

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

yeah, you're right, seeking the outlawing of football betting is not a solution in the short-term (this century?), or for this Spurs problem.

But my main point was about the maliciousness aspect, if proven. I agree with therecklessone in his post above.

I wonder what FIFA and UEFA think about this? There may be world 'precedents' before.

redspider

Altheus

psi wrote:

Regarding the letter. Well boo hoo. Who is to blame for the reserve team being untested? And so what if they are. Must I say it again? It is a squad game. If you don't blood your players, then why bother having a reserve. And as for the players being scattered across london. They knew the 1st team players were sick the day before, they should have been recalled then.

I think you'll find there was a 17 man squad announced the night before. This is the squad that travelled to an away game.

I wholeheartedly agree that Spurs should have to field a team of reserves in any other circumstances apart from on the morning of the game. That is what happened.

Also, the fact remains that the police blocked the FAPL's appraisal of the situation, which means that technically a 4 hour delay should result in a postponement. The FAPL in essence blocked this action by stating there would consequences if Spurs didnt play the game.

Altheus

Here

therecklessone

A statement to Tottenham said: "We find no grounds for acceding to your request for a replay."

The 2-1 defeat ended Tottenham's Champions League hopes as Arsenal took fourth place in the league instead.

The statement added: "Tottenham did have the option of not fulfilling the fixture and will have made its own assessment of the risks associated with that decision.

"It would have been for an independent commission to have decided the merits of your case, rule on any sanction and/or the appropriateness of a replay.

Disgraceful. They threatened the club with sanctions if they didn't play, now throw that back in our faces by saying they'd only have considered a rearranged tie if we hadn't played? I hope we sue the hole of them now.

Pepe LeFrits

I like it. Spurs play the game, if they win, great, if they don't, demand a second stab at it.

Should Arsenal beat Barca, it'll only make it sweeter!

TheDoc

WEll i havnt read anyones things here jsut wanted to give my opinion.

You dont lose the champions league spot on one game, its over a season, there is games behind that spurs made a balls off so to blame it all on this one game is just ridiculous.

Also, Spurs have to prove their case by legal means and proff that having those ten players fit would have made a difference. How can they convince the governing body that if they had fit players they would have definatly won?

Sour grapes imo...

And if they are allowed replay it , it will be a disgrace and a sham,and why cant birmingham replay there match that coulda saved them, every team wil lwant replays of big games claiming on injuries etc.

No way they can get a replay, and if they do it really jsut cements the stupidity of the FA

GuanYin

Altheus wrote:

I think you'll find there was a 17 man squad announced the night before. This is the squad that travelled to an away game.

I wholeheartedly agree that Spurs should have to field a team of reserves in any other circumstances apart from on the morning of the game. That is what happened.

The away game was only in London. They had ample time to get players together.

Kingp35

Spurs New Kit



Spurs fans - tis a joke

el rabitos

nicer than that new leeds kit tbh

therecklessone

Kingp35 wrote:

Spurs New Kit



Spurs fans - tis a joke

Pony and trap are doing the new jersey...

Kingp35

el rabitos wrote:

nicer than that new leeds kit tbh

Wouldnt take much, its muck.

WhiteWashMan

spurs have posted up a response on their website in reponse.

its a shame we couldnt get the rules changed like liverpool did last year to get into the CL. oh well, i guess we'll just have to finish higher up the league next year.

p.pete

WhiteWashMan wrote:

spurs have posted up a response on their website in reponse.

its a shame we couldnt get the rules changed like liverpool did last year to get into the CL. oh well, i guess we'll just have to finish higher up the league next year.

Like Liverpool this year
Spurs's response in response, what's it in response to?

Mossy Monk

turns out it wasnt even food poisoning. winter vommitting bug according to Sky Sports News

The Insider

From Football365

Tottenham have been told that a stomach virus caused the sickness in their squad ahead of the West Ham game on Sunday.

Sky Sports News say that scientific tests have shown that there was nothing wrong with the food eaten by the Spurs players at the Marriott Hotel in Canary Wharf - it was just a stomach bug.

The club had been threatening to sue the East London hotel after several players - including Michael Carrick - were struck down with sickness that left them vomiting until the kick-off of the game at Upton Park.

Spurs lost the game 2-1 and were ousted from fourth spot by Arsenal, leaving the chairman Daniel Levy requesting that their game against the Hammers was replayed.

The Premier League understandably rejected their cheeky request and Levy reacted to the appeal decision with dismay, saying he despaired at the state of the rules which did not take into account such matters as food poisoning.

He said: "We are disappointed, but not surprised. We continue to feel justifiably aggrieved at the course of events and remain convinced that the game should never have been played.

"If the loss of over half a selected squad to an inexplicable illness in highly suspect circumstances does not warrant the postponement of a match, then I can only despair at the state of our governing rules."

But now it seems that those 'highly suspect circumstances' were not so highly suspect after all.

IMO the game should have never being postponed its the reason why clubs have such big squads. They came 5th over the course of 38 games not just one single game. A whole load of sour grapes on Spurs part if you ask me.

tred

The Insider wrote:

From Football365



IMO the game should have never being postponed its the reason why clubs have such big squads. They came 5th over the course of 38 games not just one single game. A whole load of sour grapes on Spurs part if you ask me.

from football365

MR LEVY
'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.'

RICHARD SCUDAMORE:
'On checking records it turns out to be as follows... Total eligible to play 52... 33 players used in the first team this season. Of the six players confirmed with S & D (sickness and/or diarrhoea), only two were in the starting eleven for your last three Premier League matches.'

ditpoker

SOURCE: SKYSPORTS NEWS....

London police raided the Marriot hotel this morning in a surprise attempt to uncover any activities consistent with a betting scam that lead to ten Tottenham Hotspur players being diagnosed with food poisoning on the morning of their final league game against West Ham. Following a length search of the hotel's kitchen police confirmed that all they were able to find was sour grapes and tough cheese.

As a spurs fan who cried when alan nielsen won teh worthington cup for us this whole food poisoning saga is hard to take... but the above was just too clever not to post!

Royale with Cheese

Ah yes, spurs look a right bunch of tits now. Justice has indeed been done (which is what most people in this thread wanted). If this had been Arsenal wanting a replay I think some stronger opinions may have been voiced in this thread.

Royale with Cheese

Damn, first double post ever.

The Muppet

The Insider wrote:

From Football365



IMO the game should have never being postponed its the reason why clubs have such big squads. They came 5th over the course of 38 games not just one single game. A whole load of sour grapes on Spurs part if you ask me.

If we're honest most Football clubs and fans would react exactly as Spurs has done if they found themselves in similar circumstances. Teams do have large squads but they are not normally as good as the first team players with the possible odd exception. If one or two first team players went down I would agree that the squad should cover but in this instance virtually the whole first team was effected.

If something sinister had casused the illness it would have been very serious for the reputation of the Premier League. Even though it appears now that there was nothing sinister what has happened to sportsmanship in football? Through no fault of their own Tottenham did not have a level playing field for their last game of the season, a game that could have seen them in the CL next year with all the benefits that brings.

IMO Tottenham have been treated very badly and If we're honest most of us would feel the same if we found our club in a similar situation.

BaZmO*

The Muppet wrote:

Teams do have large squads but they are not normally as good as the first team players with the possible odd exception.

Hinting at a certain Russian team there are we?

The Muppet wrote:

but in this instance virtually the whole first team was effected.

Does anyone actually have a list of the players that were affected?

therecklessone

From the Beeb:

Robbie Keane (played 90 mins)
Edgar Davids (90mins)
Michael Dawson (90 mins)
Aaron Lennon (90 mins)
Michael Carrick (63 mins)
Teemu Tainio (87 mins)
Radek Cerny (unused sub)
Tom Huddlestone (did not play)
Lee Barnard (12 mins)
Calum Davenport (3 mins)

The club doctor said this early this week:

“The most badly-affected players were Michael Dawson, Michael Carrick, Lee Barnard and Edgar Davids but the list goes on.

“Teemu Tainio called today to say he had diarrhoea and vomiting, the same symptoms as the other players. He was told to stay at home.

It's also believed two players, one of which was Aaron Lennon, collapsed in the dressing room after the game.

redspider

If, as people are saying here, that it looks now as if it was not malicious food posoining, and was just a random bout of illness (and not a maliciously-spread illness!), then the case is different.

It takes the conspiracy theory, the betting scam aspect out of it, and the cause was just 'lady luck'.

Having said that, Spurs may or may not have a case. It sounds like the choice whether to play or not was up to Spurs, that the risk is on their side as there is no independent assessment provided before the kick-off. If whatever the rules are were followed, then Spurs dont have a case. I am not aware of the minutae of the rules governing this situation, and indeed they may be vague, so open to interpretation. But, if Spurs feel they have a case, they can go to the International Court of Sports Arbitration or whatever legal recourse the clubs and the authorities have designated in their contracts.

From a business/legal perspective, there is no protection. If a company fails to do something because its staff are out ill, tough. Thats business, thats life. eg: Microsoft cant say "well we would have won that contract if only our 4 top sales people werent out ill, can the tender be done again?"

If there was a malicious situation though, it would be different: "We coud have won that large contract but our 4 sales people were posoined by Google". In that case the tender would be re-opened or Microsoft recompensed.

redspider

GuanYin

Mossy Monk wrote:

turns out it wasnt even food poisoning. winter vommitting bug according to Sky Sports News

No it was food, apparently they all had some sour grapes!

[Edit]Ah crap someone got there before me!

I've seen conflicting reports as to how many Spurs players were actually confirmed as ill.

The 10 players count only comes from the spurs doctor.

therecklessone

psi wrote:

I've seen conflicting reports as to how many Spurs players were actually confirmed as ill.

The 10 players count only comes from the spurs doctor.

The Spurs doctor (who was at the hotel) says 10 players.

Richard Scudamore (who was on his way from his home to Highbury) says 6.

GuanYin

therecklessone wrote:

The Spurs doctor (who was at the hotel) says 10 players.

Richard Scudamore (who was on his way from his home to Highbury) says 6.

So we're agreed, no independent observer managed to verify the number of ill spurs players and less than ten tested positive to disease causing organisms.

therecklessone

psi wrote:

So we're agreed, no independent observer managed to verify the number of ill spurs players and less than ten tested positive to disease causing organisms.

Eh, no. We're not agreed. The FAPL account of 6+2 is based on a consultation between PL Company Secretary Jane Purdon and the Spurs doctor.

Both sides base their claim on the advice of the same medical professional, so someone is misrepresenting the facts. I'm inclined to believe its the FAPL.

Richard Scudamore wrote:

We had made an informed estimate as to how many registered players THFC had. On checking records it turns out to be as follows:

- Registered players (full contracts) 48

- Out on loan (-6)

- In on loan +1

- Scholars +9

- Total eligible to play 52

- 33 players used in the first team this season

Correct figure for # of players used in the 1st team? 29 in the PL, 1 more in the Carling Cup. Of those 30, 8 were not at the club as of last Sunday morning.

GuanYin

therecklessone wrote:

Eh, no. We're not agreed. The FAPL account of 6+2 is based on a consultation between PL Company Secretary Jane Purdon and the Spurs doctor.

Both sides base their claim on the advice of the same medical professional, so someone is misrepresenting the facts. I'm inclined to believe its the FAPL.

Well to be honest, I'm not convinced by the spurs doctor at all. He has cited Food Poisoning as the probable cause to the extent it was investigate as the most likely cause.

It turns out now that one of the players had norovirus before the hotel incident. I work in the area of gastrointestinal illness, specifically infectious organisms and I can tell you now if one had norovirus, its what they all had (the infectious exposure is only 6 virus particles).

[CSI Boards Investigates]
Norovirus is nasty and its very surprising that a trained medical professional put forward the suggestion of food poisoning from a meal over gastroenteritis, after examining the patients and didn't flag norovirus. For one thing, symptoms of noro- usually takes 24 hours to manifest, depending on how health you are, so from an epidemiological point of view, one of those players was sick before the others and before the food and this wasn't mention.

The other option is that they all caught it from another source (although the medical test results mentioned so far make this seem unlikely) in which case why wasn't this metioned or investigated?

If the report is true and its norovirus, then somebody somewhere between the spurs doctor and the media is playing silly buggers. Thats why I'm suspicious that no independent medical professional evaluated the players at the time and why, quite frankly, I don't believe the story spurs have put forward.[/CSI Boards]

Correct figure for # of players used in the 1st team? 29 in the PL, 1 more in the Carling Cup. Of those 30, 8 were not at the club as of last Sunday morning.

Spurs website shows 27 first team players currently registered and at the club.

therecklessone

psi wrote:

It turns out now that one of the players had norovirus before the hotel incident. I work in the area of gastrointestinal illness, specifically infectious organisms and I can tell you now if one had norovirus, its what they all had (the infectious exposure is only 6 virus particles).

"The information received so far is inconclusive, but more importantly, the results shown as yet are inconsistent," commented Dr Charlotte Cowie, Head of Medical Services at Spurs.

"Despite there being the presence of Noro virus in one sample, it is not present in another sample from an equally affected individual.

Source

Dr Alex Mellanby, Consultant in Communicable Disease Control at the Health Protection Agency, said norovirus, a form of viral gastroenteritis, was found in a sample from one of those affected.

But he added: "No definite conclusion as to the cause of the outbreak can be drawn from this one result.

"Only after we have received the results from tests being undertaken on further samples will we be able to make any definite conclusions."

Doubt over Spurs "food poisoning"

psi wrote:

Spurs website shows 27 first team players currently registered and at the club.

28. Of those, 6 haven't made an appearance for the first team this season. That makes 22 players with first team appearances this season, which would tally with my [30-8=22] in the earlier post. Of that 22, 4 were injured (King, Stalteri, Jenas, Mido) and 10 were suffering from varying degrees of, how shall I put it, the s*its. Scudamore's figures are still wrong.

FWIW, here's the team we could have put out:

Martin Fulop (GK)

Kelly
Naybet
Gardner
Lee

Jackson
Murphy
Bunjevcevic
Marney

Reid
Defoe

Players in italics had no first team appearances this season.

Chardee MacDennis

'On checking records it turns out to be as follows... Total eligible to play 52... 33 players used in the first team this season. Of the six players confirmed with S & D (sickness and/or diarrhoea), only two were in the starting eleven for your last three Premier League matches... We of course realise that for THFC a feeling of unfairness at the ill fated events of last Sunday will linger but trust that you will put this behind you and concentrate on domestic and UEFA Cup success next season' - Richard Scudamore's open reply to Daniel Levy's open letter.

says it all in my opinion...l

el rabitos

'On checking records it turns out to be as follows... Total eligible to play 52... 33 players used in the first team this season. Of the six players confirmed with S & D (sickness and/or diarrhoea), only two were in the starting eleven for your last three Premier League matches... We of course realise that for THFC a feeling of unfairness at the ill fated events of last Sunday will linger but trust that you will put this behind you and concentrate on domestic and UEFA Cup success next season' - Richard Scudamore's open reply to Daniel Levy's open letter.

roughly translated means, quit moaning and get on with it.

BOHSBOHS

t

Blackjack

As a Spurs fan, I'm a bit disappointed, however I did always maintain that if the Arse beat us to 4th place on the EPL, then I could not complain about it. Had we finished 4th, and then missed out on the CL because Arsenal (and I don't think it's likely) won the CL, I'd have felt considerably aggrieved. As it stands, I'd like to see Arsenal win the CL, but seriously can't see them overcoming Barcelona.

Given the circumstances of the last game, I don't think it's unreasonable for Spurs fans to be a little put out, although the FA were also put in an impossible situation. Replaying the game would have set a dangerous precedent, however had there been proof of Malicious intent or any Betting scam, then the Premier League would have had to take some action - not to do so would have been allowing such activity to go unpunished. It was not proven, and therefore no action should have been taken.

Levy as Chairman had to challenge the situation. If he had not, then he would have been failing as a Chairman. He has a responsibility as the Chairman of a PLC to ensure that he creates the best possible situation for the club, and represent the best interests of the Company and it's shareholders. If that involves challenging the Premier League, then that is what he must do. There is a huge amount of money involved in qualifying for the champions league. If Levy were to simply shrug his shoulders and say "Oh well, that's just unlucky" how well received do you think he would be at the next AGM?. He'd be out on his Arse, and quickly. Football is a business, and needs to be run like a business in the environment its created for itself. Levy was doing what every other Chairman of a football club would and should have done. Not to do so would have meant not doing his job.

As the Muppet said, everyone would feel the same way as Spurs fans do now if their team was in this situation.

KdjaCL

Blackjack wrote:

As the Muppet said, everyone would feel the same way as Spurs fans do now if their team was in this situation.

Only if they failed to do the necessary before this game took place, but Spurs had 4 oppurtunities to "cement" 4th place 1 being vs Arse, they failed and thus are a UEFA cup team rather than a CL team. Spurs fans knew this before the last game as they watch them every week.

Granted the food **** may have provided sour grapes but every Spurs fan knew they lost the 4th place weeks ago by failing to beat teams lower then them.



kdjac

astrofool

Do pool fans think if their club chairman had done nothing last year, that they'd have been able to play in the CL this year? Of course Levy had to do something, it's his job.

el rabitos

Do pool fans think if their club chairman had done nothing last year, that they'd have been able to play in the CL this year? Of course Levy had to do something, it's his job.

common sence allowed liverpool to defend the trophy that they WON. the thought that a team would win the champions league but not quatlify for it through their domestic league was not taken into consideration when the rules of the tournement were drafted.

thus the exception was made and the rules stated accordingly for any future situation.

has anyone taken into consideration the idea that maybe spurs would have been beaten by west ham anyway? spurs havent exactly got a reputation for winning the "big games" when it matters, theres no guarantee they would have won with a full strenght team anyway.

the only compensation they should get is the money the would have got for entering the champions league. not that i think they should even get that tbh.