West ham no points deduction saga

Chucky the tree

With west ham winning thanks too two goals from tevez andd Wigan losing Dave Whelan must be raging.

He already said he will sue and now it must be definite. With middlesborugh now safe, i can see there campaign to take the PL to the cleaners starting now aswell.

Should make a very interesting summer.

zAbbo

we need more west ham threads here !!

wait until next week.

thebaz

if West Ham get eneogh points to stay up -- then they deserve to stay up - Wigan had eneogh games to win to stay up , but blew it, also they were involved in some dodgy deal with some Hearts player -- to me it sounds like small club whinging, just cause there now down in the drop zone .

PHB

To be fair, it wasn't just Wigan, it's all the clubs near the bottom. Hell even Fergie weighed in on it.
If they did field an illegal player, how is this situation different to that of AFC Wimbeldons?

The Muppet

PHB wrote:

To be fair, it wasn't just Wigan, it's all the clubs near the bottom. Hell even Fergie weighed in on it.
If they did field an illegal player, how is this situation different to that of AFC Wimbeldons?

Its a tough one. I would rather see such things decided on the pitch and not in a court room but If a team gains an unfair advantge by playing illegal players then they shoujld not get away with that. There is so much money at stake you have to understang the demoted clubs annoyance.

Revelation Joe

Tevez and Mascherano are/were *not* illegal players. Their contracts were perfectly in order and that is why Tevez is able to still play.

From the BBC:
"The actual registration of Carlos Tevez has not been called into question and he remains a West Ham United player approved by the Premier League."

The club was found guilty of acting improperly and withholding vital documentation over the duo's ownership

thebaz

Even Paul Jewell admitted it was Wigans fault that they are where they are , and not Tevez or West Hams fault -- fair play -- just there owner kicking off , about perceived injustice -- it was hardly match fixing , it was a paperwork irregularity -- which a 5.5 million fine seams sufficient -- particularly as it was down to a previous administration.

leninbenjamin

Revelation Joe wrote:

Tevez and Mascherano are/were *not* illegal players. Their contracts were perfectly in order and that is why Tevez is able to still play.

From the BBC:
"The actual registration of Carlos Tevez has not been called into question and he remains a West Ham United player approved by the Premier League."

The club was found guilty of acting improperly and withholding vital documentation over the duo's ownership

hmmm... as i understood it, Tevez's contract had to be renegotiated with MSI in order for him to have been able to play the last games. that would suggest he was an illegal player. I thought it wasn't the actual registration but the ownership/contract, and that it was the ownership that rendered him an illegal player...

regardless this is all a very shady business, and by the sounds of it this kind of activity is increasing. could be more of this lark on the horizon. can't be good for the game...

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote:

Its a tough one. I would rather see such things decided on the pitch and not in a court room but If a team gains an unfair advantge by playing illegal players then they shoujld not get away with that. There is so much money at stake you have to understang the demoted clubs annoyance.

Wonder will you change your tune if this is true:

The Premier League will look into Tim Howard's absence from Everton's 4-2 loss to Manchester United on 28 April.

The goalkeeper moved to Goodison Park on a season-long loan last season but agreed a permanent move in February.

A Premier League spokesman told the News of the World: "As Howard's is a permanent transfer there is no reason why he could not have played.

"Had such a clause been included, we would not have allowed it - it would be a case of third party interference."

The 27-year-old American was not allowed to feature against United and was replaced by second-choice keeper Iain Turner who made a crucial error as the visitors overcame a two-goal deficit to win.

And the Premier League are reported to be set to investigate whether an agreement over Howard's availability existed between the teams.

News of the World story, carried on the BBC website (and a whole load more)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/e/everton/6629661.stm

LostinBlanch

England could be thrown out of International competition and all English clubs banned from european competition if the FA are taken to court. Wasn't something similar threatened to Greece due to political interference?

Mitch Connor

therecklessone wrote:

Wonder will you change your tune if this is true:



News of the World story, carried on the BBC website (and a whole load more)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/e/everton/6629661.stm

BBC, the Guardian, and the Everton website have all said, all along, that the deal for Howard was signed with a view to him signing permently in June.

I have no doubt this is all crap to be honest. Too many sources say the loan was still ongoing through to the end of the season.

It simply doesn't make financial sense either, for Everton to fork over a few million months before they need to.

therecklessone

LostinBlanch wrote:

England could be thrown out of International competition and all English clubs banned from european competition if the FA are taken to court. Wasn't something similar threatened to Greece due to political interference?

The FA are not party to this, the Premier League have jurisdiction.

Anyway, there is a difference between legal action and political interference. There will be no blanket ban.

therecklessone

Tauren wrote:

BBC, the Guardian, and the Everton website have all said, all along, that the deal for Howard was signed with a view to him signing permently in June.

I have no doubt this is all crap to be honest.

Beeb article:

Before the match Everton boss David Moyes appeared to suggest that there had been a verbal agreement between the clubs over Howard's omission.

Moyes said: "While Tim Howard was on loan he would not have been able to play against his parent club, United. But although we have now signed him ourselves, United wanted the loan clause to remain in operation.

"It was partly the reason we were able to tie up the deal for next season as early as we did, we have abided by their wishes."

And Everton spokesman Ian Ross said that as a condition of making the loan deal permanent in February, United had insisted Howard did not play in the game at Goodison Park.

Although Howard's move was completed outside the transfer window, loan deals can be made permanent at any time.

Premier League profile

United States international goalkeeper initially joined Everton on season-long loan from Manchester United for the 2006/2007 campaign before signing a five-year deal with the Toffees.

Mitch Connor

Info i have seen

By Les Roberts Monday 23rd April 2007 Everton Website wrote:

The book of bad headlines has been dusted off to hail the comeback of Iain Turner after a successful loan spell at Sheffield Wednesday.

Moyes' Assett stripping quango's Scottish international 'keeper has had a great time at Hillsborough, keeping three clean sheets and helping the Owls produce an 11-match unbeaten run that has put them to within touching distance of the play-off positions.

But he has been recalled from that loan spell, presumably, to play in goal against Man United on Saturday as Tim Howard is ineligable for the game.

There's been a lot of confusion as to whether or not Howard would be able to play against United as the news broke, back in February, that we had signed him from the Old Trafford club.

All that had actually happened though was that we had agreed a deal with Man United to make the move to Goodison a permanent one.

Which means that we can't actually sign him until the transfer window re-opens in June and, therefore, he is still just on loan from United and so can't play in goal against them.

But, the prospect of seeing Richard Wright face United's strike force was obviously giving David Moyes the sort of sweats normally associated with Steve Watson stepping off the bench and so he decided to recall Turner.

BBC report of transfer wrote:

"The 27-year-old United States star has signed a five-year contract, that will start at the end of the season."

therecklessone

ManYoo official site

14/02/2007 17:00, Report by Ben Hibbs
Howard joins Toffees

United goalkeeper Tim Howard has made his loan move to Everton permanent with immediate effect.

Loan deals can be made permanent at any stage of the season, and he signs for an undisclosed fee on a five-year contract.

therecklessone

Toffees official site

Everton have announced that a deal has been completed with Manchester United to make Tim Howard a permanent addition to the Club's ranks.

Everton have agreed an undisclosed fee with the Old Trafford outfit for the US international goalkeeper.

Howard has committed his long-term future to the Blues signing a five year deal that is in place now and will run until the summer of 2012.

<snip>

Although the transfer window is currently shut, Premier League rules permit domestic loan deals to be made permanent outside the window.

By moving now for the goalkeeper, Everton have ensured one of the Premiership's most consistent performers will remain at Goodison for the peak years of his career.

Vokes

Gah, rules contradicting each other again?

So one rule says loan deals can be made permanent at any stage.

But the main (FIFA?) rule says transfers are made in the Jan and Summer windows?

Very confusing

Mitch Connor

well, we'll know soon enough.

One thing i would point out, and i don't know if it will be of importance, is the fact that when Andy Cole signed for united, he was not allowed to play against newcastle that season.

PHB

AFAIK, and nobody is 100% sure except United and Everton, but he is still technically a United player. However, he is defo joining Everton at the end of the year, he has signed a pre-contract.

If not, I would say United should get a points deducation using the common system of the amount of games it effected, so it would be a 3 point deducation afaik.

p.s. The official site has been known to get lots of things wrong in the past. It's not actually run by United, but a United sub-company, who really just do stuff of their own accord.
Manchester Evening News specifically states:

Howard's new deal will start from the beginning of next season and run until 2012, with the current loan continuing for the rest of the campaign.

It seems odd that they would do that for no reason.
Why would you assume that like?
I think the other articles are assumptions, while this one is based on data.

Chucky the tree

thebaz wrote:

Even Paul Jewell admitted it was Wigans fault that they are where they are , and not Tevez or West Hams fault -- fair play -- just there owner kicking off , about perceived injustice -- it was hardly match fixing , it was a paperwork irregularity -- which a 5.5 million fine seams sufficient -- particularly as it was down to a previous administration.

Considering boro were docked 3 points due too not playing a match which relegated them i expect them to wade in aswell, and rightly so.

PHB

Well, apparently he could have play, and both clubs confirmed this.

To be honest, this all sounds a bit dodgy, especially with those comments from Moyes. Is that defo what he said?
Is it possible he was mistaken, Howard was mistaken, and the board never told them?

All sounds a bit dodgy to be honest

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote:

Wonder will you change your tune if this is true:



News of the World story, carried on the BBC website (and a whole load more)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/e/everton/6629661.stm

No It will not but its not true anyway. As i understand it Howard transfer did not go through before the transfer deadline. How could he possibly sign in february when the window closes in january? . So technically he is still on loan and teh story is just the usual NOTW muck raking.

~Rebel~

This is from SkySports.com

http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=465230&CPID=8&clid=1&lid=3&title=Duo+in+clear+over+Howard+deal

The Premier League has confirmed neither Manchester United or Everton have broken any rules regarding Tim Howard's transfer.

So nothing to worry about!

thebaz

Chucky the tree wrote:

Considering boro were docked 3 points due too not playing a match which relegated them i expect them to wade in aswell, and rightly so.

2 wrongs don't make it right -- boro shouldn't have had points deducted when they had , they had a virus outbreak and couldn't field a team -- West Ham haven't done eneogh for a points deduction IMO -- if Wigan can't get the points to stay up, they deserve to go down

therecklessone

PHB wrote:

To be honest, this all sounds a bit dodgy, especially with those comments from Moyes.

Agreed.

The Muppet wrote:

How could he possibly sign in february when the window closes in january?

The answer to that is included in a number of posts on the thread, I'll leave you to read back over them...

leninbenjamin

there more than likely was an agreement, just not in writing and not in anyway that the premier league could provide evidence of.

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote:

Agreed.



The answer to that is included in a number of posts on the thread, I'll leave you to read back over them...

The red blinkers didn't allow me see those posts earlier. I'm not sure if they are right as there are conflicting views on the issue. It was clearly reported at the time that Howard was on loan until the end of the season. Either way its irrelevant now as United have been cleared of any wrong doing.

Chucky the tree

thebaz wrote:

2 wrongs don't make it right -- boro shouldn't have had points deducted when they had , they had a virus outbreak and couldn't field a team -- West Ham haven't done eneogh for a points deduction IMO -- if Wigan can't get the points to stay up, they deserve to go down

I agree on the Boro point, terribly harsh when they got done.


But could it not also be argued that if wigan broke the rules they could of gained enough points to stay up?

i tried to edit my title but it wont work.

zAbbo

Boro got the points deducted mid season afaik.

I reckon WH will go down regardless.

Het-Field

Football should be fought on the pitch no in the courtroom. No points deductions are ever warrented, unless the match is fixed

Revelation Joe

Het-Field wrote:

Football should be fought on the pitch no in the courtroom. No points deductions are ever warrented, unless the match is fixed

What about mass brawls on the pitch? Crowd invasions and crowd trouble (although you don't get many of those these days). Personally, I would deduct points for those.

therecklessone

Het-Field wrote:

Football should be fought on the pitch no in the courtroom. No points deductions are ever warrented, unless the match is fixed

Really? A team fields 11 unregistered players and wins...they still keep the points?