Sheffield United to sue West Ham for cost of relegation

Necronomicon

Ugh, here we go again. No linky yet, it's being reported on Sky Sports News. Sheffield United are sueing West Ham for the cost of their relegation.

Now I'm no fan of the hammers, but Sheffield United are a bit of a joke imo. Safety was well in their own hands, I think they were 7 or 10 points above the drop-zone at one stage towards the end of the season. If they had been good enough, it wouldn't have mattered if West Ham had Tevez, Ronaldo, Rooney and Drogba. At least this whole ordeal will be between the two clubs and Tevez can get on with launching his United career.

ntlbell

Necromomicon wrote:

Ugh, here we go again. No linky yet, it's being reported on Sky Sports News. Sheffield United are sueing West Ham for the cost of their relegation.

Now I'm no fan of the hammers, but Sheffield United are a bit of a joke imo. Safety was well in their own hands, I think they were 7 or 10 points above the drop-zone at one stage towards the end of the season. If they had been good enough, it wouldn't have mattered if West Ham had Tevez, Ronaldo, Rooney and Drogba. At least this whole ordeal will be between the two clubs and Tevez can get on with launching his United career.

The fact it was in there own hands is irevelant, I think it's fairly obvious how the tevez deal was done with united proved tevez shouldn't of been playing for west ham so you "ugh here we go again" all you want, but it's fairly serious.

_blank_

ntlbell wrote:

The fact it was in there own hands is irevelant, I think it's fairly obvious how the tevez deal was done with united proved tevez shouldn't of been playing for west ham so you "ugh here we go again" all you want, but it's fairly serious.

Agreed.

Say what you want about how SheffYoo went down, or didn't perform, the fact remains that West Ham played an illegal player, and weren't punished accordingly.

If this was YOUR club who had suffered, you'd like to see this happening too.

And anyone who says otherwise is a liar, a damned liar.

Necronomicon

Hey I'm not defending West Ham by any, any means. But I stand by my comments that Sheffield United need to look at themselves more for their relegation.

ntlbell wrote:

so you "ugh here we go again" all you want, but it's fairly serious.

Of course it's serious, but I say 'here we go again' because it was plastered all over the back pages for so damn long, looks like it's not gonna be settled for some time to come.

Villain

If they win the case it will make the FA look very bad!

_blank_

irish1 wrote:

If they win the case it will make the FA look very bad!

The FA already look like idiots.

This will make them look like bigger idiots.

ciaran76

DesF wrote:

The FA already look like idiots.

This will make them look like bigger idiots.

Agreed. The F.A. are a joke and tried to push it on FIFA who are a bigger joke.There are many players on these type on contracts in Italy,Spain and Portugal so FIFA didn't want to get involved.

astrofool

How exactly can Sheffield United "look at themselves more for their relegation". Do you think they don't realise they went down? Fact is, the appeal panel agreed with them that West Ham were not punished appropriately, and any points penalty would mean Sheffield United stayed up, so yes, they do have a case.

Now, in sport, you don't want to see this type of thing, but West Ham were the ones who cheated, not Sheffield United.

_blank_

astrofool wrote:

Now, in sport, you don't want to see this type of thing, but West Ham were the ones who cheated, not Sheffield United.

Yeah but some people think that because SheffYoo dodn't gain enough points, they don't deserve to be in the PL. They fail to realise that West Ham cheated to gain the points to enable them to stay in the PL, at the expense of SheffYoo, and the other relegated teams.

Also, I feel the fact that Neil Warnock was involved with them, this is clouding some people's judgement. Especially given his recent comments as regards a certain other manager.

Necronomicon

astrofool wrote:

How exactly can Sheffield United "look at themselves more for their relegation". Do you think they don't realise they went down? Fact is, the appeal panel agreed with them that West Ham were not punished appropriately, and any points penalty would mean Sheffield United stayed up, so yes, they do have a case.

Now, in sport, you don't want to see this type of thing, but West Ham were the ones who cheated, not Sheffield United.

I never said they don't have a case. I simply meant it wasn't the West Ham saga alone that cost them their Premiership status. It was well within their own grasp in the latter stages of the season.

_blank_

Necromomicon wrote:

I never said they don't have a case. I simply meant it wasn't the West Ham saga alone that cost them their Premiership status. It was well within their own grasp in the latter stages of the season.

Yes, but West Ham got some results that probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't have been cheating by playing Tevez.

He scored against Manchester on the last day of the season for instance.

This goal directly contributed to Sheffield's relegation.

Necronomicon

DesF wrote:

Yes, but West Ham got some results that probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't have been cheating by playing Tevez.

He scored against Manchester on the last day of the season for instance.

This goal directly contributed to Sheffield's relegation.

That's a fair comment, and nothing I've said has meant to defend West Ham, but I still have to stick by my original point about Sheffield United. When it wasn't the Tevez thing, they were laying blame at the hands of Liverpool and United.

Sky have put it up now:

Sheffield United have confirmed they plan to sue West Ham for the cost of relegation from the Premier League.

The Bramall Lane club say they plan to go to the High Court to seek 'substantial compensation' from West Ham for their handling of the Carlos Tevez affair.

The Blades claim West Ham's former owners misled the Premier League about the original Tevez deal.

United have put the cost of relegation at between £30million and £50million.

Legal proceedings

Toby Craig, a member of the club's legal team, told Sky Sports News: "After careful consideration and discussion with our legal advisors, Sheffield United are today initiating legal proceedings against West Ham United to seek substantial compensation for our relegation from the Premier League.

"West Ham have admitted to lying to the Premier League in order to secure the registration of Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez, which is also a breach of West Ham's contract with all members of the Premier League, including Sheffield United.

"This action is distinct from the arbitration proceedings between the club and the Premier League during the close season.

Justice

"We have always said that we will do everything in our power to secure justice for Sheffield United and help it restore integrity for the reputation of English football which has been tarnished by this affair."

The Blades recently failed in a High Court bid to force new Premier League

disciplinary action against West Ham.

The move came after an arbitration panel rejected their claim against the Premier League for failing to dock West Ham points over the transfers of Tevez and Mascherano.

_blank_

Necromomicon wrote:

That's a fair comment, and nothing I've said has meant to defend West Ham, but I still have to stick by my original point about Sheffield United. When it wasn't the Tevez thing, they were laying blame at the hands of Liverpool and United.

I think you are mistaken slightly here.

I don't recall an official press release/conference from SUFC that sought to involve either Manchester or Liverpool.

That was Warnock and his ramblings, a different kettle of fish completely.

For instance, recently Roy Keane has lambasted the partners of footballers, is this to be taken as an official Sunderland stance, or merely the utterings of a mad Corkman?

Necronomicon

DesF wrote:

I think you are mistaken slightly here.

I don't recall an official press release/conference from SUFC that sought to involve either Manchester or Liverpool.

That was Warnock and his ramblings, a different kettle of fish completely.

For instance, recently Roy Keane has lambasted the partners of footballers, is this to be taken as an official Sunderland stance, or merely the utterings of a mad Corkman?

Well whether or not it was an official stance from the club, it was still laying the blame in the hands of others, something I just think we saw too much of from SU.

I think we're going around in circles to be honest.

I'm not saying they're wrong to fight West Ham, but imho they should have had their own house in order. Charlton and Watford were also relegated because they weren't good enough, the whole time West Ham were playing Tevez and Mascherano.

NotWormBoy

Yes, West Ham were at fault for playing Tevez, an illegal player, fine. They were punished, but not enough obviously - normally it'd be a points deduction. Sheffield have the right to feel seriously, seriously aggrieved, but how can they sue West Ham? If they were going to sue anyone, surely they should sue the FA (or have they tried that already?).

West Ham aren't responsible (other than being the ones punished) for the fact they didn't get the necessary punishment from the FA. The FA are responsible for that. So they're the one's who should be sued, not West Ham in my view.

thebaz

Sheffield had it in there own hands to stay up -- beat mighty Wigan at home -- they blew it -- West Ham pulled of a mighty miracle by winning a bunch of matches , when they appeared doomed , playing decent football, unlike the dour Sheffield "bogball" -- i think everyome knows the deal was dodgy , and West Ham got off lightly , but such things happen -- Boro were unlucky to get docked points a few years ago , for players being sick -- but Sheffields ongoing grievances are becoming boring to me , accept it like men , and respond positivly like boro did -- whats probably reall bugging them is they got beaten at home to Wigan

_blank_

thebaz wrote:

"bogball"

I know it was bad, but to compare it with GAA is a bit extreme tbh.

Mr Alan

thebaz wrote:

Sheffield had it in there own hands to stay up -- beat mighty Wigan at home -- they blew it -- West Ham pulled of a mighty miracle by winning a bunch of matches , when they appeared doomed , playing decent football, unlike the dour Sheffield "bogball" -- i think everyome knows the deal was dodgy , and West Ham got off lightly , but such things happen -- Boro were unlucky to get docked points a few years ago , for players being sick -- but Sheffields ongoing grievances are becoming boring to me , accept it like men , and respond positivly like boro did -- whats probably reall bugging them is they got beaten at home to Wigan

Your logic is so unbelievably flawed.

As if West Ham playing good football and pulling off good results has ANY bearing on this situation. They cheated. They were good to watch, but mainly because they had a striker who was in a rich vain of form at the end of the season. A striker, who SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PLAYING!

Hope Sheffield Utd win this case. I hate Warnock and his grievences with Rafa, Ferguson etc are stupid. But Sheffield Utd were dealt with unbelieveably unfairly in this situation and deserve some compensation.

Everyone is aware, that if Sheffield Utd had have beaten Wigan they would've stayed up, but that has zero relevence to this conversation, so stop bringing it up.

Mezcita

millersangel wrote:

Your logic is so unbelievably flawed.

As if West Ham playing good football and pulling off good results has ANY bearing on this situation. They cheated. They were good to watch, but mainly because they had a striker who was in a rich vain of form at the end of the season. A striker, who SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PLAYING!

Hope Sheffield Utd win this case. I hate Warnock and his grievences with Rafa, Ferguson etc are stupid. But Sheffield Utd were dealt with unbelieveably unfairly in this situation and deserve some compensation.

Everyone is aware, that if Sheffield Utd had have beaten Wigan they would've stayed up, but that has zero relevence to this conversation, so stop bringing it up.

Meh. West Ham have been punished as per the rules of the Premier League. Sheffield United can bang on about it all they like but they are clutching at straws here. To single handily blame their failure to stay up on the performance of one individual player is madness.

Fundamentally they had the whole season to put themselves in a position to stay up.

They blew it.

Revelation Joe

millersangel wrote:

As if West Ham playing good football and pulling off good results has ANY bearing on this situation. They cheated. They were good to watch, but mainly because they had a striker who was in a rich vain of form at the end of the season. A striker, who SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PLAYING!

Says who? Tevez's player registration was completely in order and that is the only criterion that says whether a player can play for a club or not.

Why don't Sheffield United sue David Unsworth? He scored the goal that won the game for Wigan and meant that Blades got relegated.

They wanted West Ham to be deducted points for the whole Tevez affair. But only if that means that West Ham get relegated. So if the FA say 'OK, we're going to deduct two points from West Ham's total for 06-07' would Sheff U be happy? No, because West Ham would still stay up by one point.

astrofool

In sport, you don't cheat, if you do cheat and get caught, you automatically lose whatever the prize is, the prize in this case was not being relegated, West Ham weren't punished appropriately for cheating, and another team suffered as a result. It could so easily have been Wigan of Fulham who went down instead of Sheffield United, what you think of a club, has nothing to do with the fact that they were treated unfairly.

But I guess the need to win at all odds comes above sportsmanship these days for many people...

thebaz

millersangel wrote:

Your logic is so unbelievably flawed.

As if West Ham playing good football and pulling off good results has ANY bearing on this situation. They cheated. .

I support neither club , but i know who as a neutral i'd prefer to watch , and i'm not the FA , just a fan .

My own club Everton , had a strange agreement with Man U about not playing Tim Howard against them , is that cheating ?

Is Liverpool not putting out there strongest team, to suit there European needs , cheating other clubs ?

is Alex ferguson unnaturally soaking old trafford pitches before certain matches , cheating ?

Flawed logic

Get over it, Sheffield United were relegated cause they lost at home to Wigan , and West Ham pulled of a mini miracle on the football field where it counted -- not because of one players flawed documentation

Mr Alan

Revelation Joe wrote:

Says who? Tevez's player registration was completely in order and that is the only criterion that says whether a player can play for a club or not.

Tevez's registration was 'completely in order' because West Ham withheld information in regards to his ownership when registering/purchasing him. If they had declared all the information, they would not have been allowed to register him at all. Hardly sounds 'in order' to me.
Hence the reason they were fined.

Sheffield Utds issue seems to be that they feel that according to the PL rules/or judgements they have made in the past they had to deduct points from West Ham but bottled the decision. Leaving them as the victims in the situation.

Revelation Joe wrote:

Why don't Sheffield United sue David Unsworth? He scored the goal that won the game for Wigan and meant that Blades got relegated.

Because Unsworth didn't do anything wrong. West Ham did. Surely you see the difference here??!

Revelation Joe

millersangel wrote:

Tevez's registration was 'completely in order' because West Ham withheld information in regards to his ownership when registering/purchasing him. If they had declared all the information, they would not have been allowed to register him at all. Hardly sounds 'in order' to me.
Hence the reason they were fined.

Sheffield Utds issue seems to be that they feel that according to the PL rules/or judgements they have made in the past they had to deduct points from West Ham but bottled the decision. Leaving them as the victims in the situation.

From the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6602697.stm
The Hammers were also warned that Tevez would be ineligible to play unless they cancelled the third party agreement that existed in his original contract.

The club made quick progress on a new agreement and have now received the Premier League's clearance.

A club statement read: "Following discussions with the FA Premier League, West Ham United can confirm Carlos Tevez is available for selection for the rest of the season, including Saturday's game against Wigan Athletic.

"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."

I notice you didn't argue my third point about points deduction. If West Ham had been fined £5.5m and deducted two points, the outcome at the end of the season would be no different. Sheffield United down, West Ham up.

Mr Alan

Revelation Joe wrote:

From the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6602697.stm
The Hammers were also warned that Tevez would be ineligible to play unless they cancelled the third party agreement that existed in his original contract.

The club made quick progress on a new agreement and have now received the Premier League's clearance.

A club statement read: "Following discussions with the FA Premier League, West Ham United can confirm Carlos Tevez is available for selection for the rest of the season, including Saturday's game against Wigan Athletic.

"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."

I notice you didn't argue my third point about points deduction. If West Ham had been fined £5.5m and deducted two points, the outcome at the end of the season would be no different. Sheffield United down, West Ham up.

'The club made quick progress on the new agreement', is they key sentence there. The reason they were being punished was for the old agreement.

In realtion to your third point - don't really see the point in arguing it. A club being deducted two points? Think if there was a points deduction, it would usually be for a minimum of three, but maybe i'm wrong about that.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

'The club made quick progress on the new agreement', is they key sentence there. The reason they were being punished was for the old agreement.

In realtion to your third point - don't really see the point in arguing it. A club being deducted two points? Think if there was a points deduction, it would usually be for a minimum of three, but maybe i'm wrong about that.

also, you can not cancel a contract unilaterally unless there are provisions in the contract for you to do just that under certain circumstances. Coinsidering the stance Man Unted, Tevez, Kia Joorabchian took, along with information contained in the findings of the panel that reviewed the PL's decision, there were no such stipulations in place for the canceling of the 3rd party agreements and nobody agreed with West Hams request to cancel the contract. So, the 3rd party agreements stood, and always did stand.

However, I don't think West Ham should be sued because the PL failed to appropriately punish west ham - it should be the PL getting sued IMO.

Revelation Joe

millersangel wrote:

'The club made quick progress on the new agreement', is they key sentence there. The reason they were being punished was for the old agreement.

Which doesn't affect the games that Sheffield United are complaining about. They only started moaning when Tevez hit form and began scoring and West Ham started putting together a winning run. Were they moaning when they were well outside the bottom three? No. Were they complaining when they beat West Ham 3-0? No.
Sheffield United did not play well enough over 38 games to score enough points to finish outside of the bottom three places.

millersangel wrote:

In realtion to your third point - don't really see the point in arguing it. A club being deducted two points? Think if there was a points deduction, it would usually be for a minimum of three, but maybe i'm wrong about that.

I know But would they still have grounds to complain because they thought West Ham weren't deducted enough points? I can't see how!

Mr Alan

Joe, you're providing me with no revelations here (see wat i did there?! )

I agree with you Sheffield Utd played bad football last year, and wouldn't have been relegated if they had have beaten Wigan. But the simple fact is that a team that avoided relegation narrowly, did so by cheating. Sheffield Utd are right to complain. the quality of their team has no bearing on this discussion.

Just because the Tevez registration was sorted out for the end of the season when the final games were played does not mean they are then immune to punishment for their actions earlier in the season.

thebaz

i think Sheffield Utd should have been deducted 6 points for the quality of there "football"

Mr Alan

thebaz wrote:

i think Sheffield Utd should have been deducted 6 points for the quality of there "football"

Good point

Mushy

Now, unfortunately I'm anti-SeffYoo/Warnock here, so my judgement will be a bit clouded. But I have to say, how come the matter was only brought up by SUFC after they were relegated? Why not months before it, in September when the transfer took place? Thats my main gripe against them in this case.

Mr Alan

Shouldn't make a difference when they made their complaint, its a valid one. I'm sure at the start of the season they were busy preparing themselves for the season as opposed to investigating all the transfers.

leninbenjamin

would this have any bearing on the whole FIFA refusal to recognise court judgments thingy? could the FA get punishment for this?

Mitch Connor

Mushy wrote:

Now, unfortunately I'm anti-SeffYoo/Warnock here, so my judgement will be a bit clouded. But I have to say, how come the matter was only brought up by SUFC after they were relegated? Why not months before it, in September when the transfer took place? Thats my main gripe against them in this case.

because up until March/April of this year there was no evidence in the public domain to say the transfer/registration of Tevez was not legal. When the issue came to light, it was to be delt with by the PL - so there was no need for Sheff United to go to court over it. When the PL screwed up the deecision, Sheff United were part of the group that called for an appeal and resit of the case. This got screwed up too. They have since been told the PL did nothing legally wrong so couldn't bring the case to court against them, so now they have been gathering evidence so they can bring West Ham to court.

Basically, Sheffield United have take the course of action any others would have done in the same circumstances.

Besides, In September, Sheffield United were not the victims of any damages, and it would not have been their place to bring a case against West Ham - it is the place of the governing body.

Revelation Joe

millersangel wrote:

Just because the Tevez registration was sorted out for the end of the season when the final games were played does not mean they are then immune to punishment for their actions earlier in the season.

Which they were, by being fined £5.5 million

Mitch Connor

Revelation Joe wrote:

Which they were, by being fined £5.5 million

that is the reason i don't think any action against West Ham will be succesful - the action would need to come against the PL.

However, if Sheffield United can prove that West Ham were still in breach of the rules, as I believe they were, after the original case was brought against them, right up to when they released Tevez/s registration, then it is possible that both West Ham and the PL will get into a lot of legal trouble over it.

Mr Alan

thebaz wrote:

I support neither club , but i know who as a neutral i'd prefer to watch , and i'm not the FA , just a fan .

Which team you'd prefer to watch has no bearing on this conversation.

thebaz wrote:

My own club Everton , had a strange agreement with Man U about not playing Tim Howard against them , is that cheating ?

Yes that is cheating. And if there was something in his contract to stipulate he could not play against Utd, both parties would be punished as it is a third party having influence over team selection. Because its a gentlemans (term used loosely) agreement, its near impossible to prove, although if i remember correctly, after the game Everton bottled with their reserve goalie in, there was noises that the FA were looking into the arrangement wit Howard to find out if all was above board. Suprise Suprise, nothing more was heard of it.

thebaz wrote:

Is Liverpool not putting out there strongest team, to suit there European needs , cheating other clubs ?

No that is not cheating.

thebaz wrote:

is Alex ferguson unnaturally soaking old trafford pitches before certain matches , cheating ?

Wouldn't call it cheating, but its not really very sportsman-like.

thebaz wrote:

Flawed logic

Get over it, Sheffield United were relegated cause they lost at home to Wigan , and West Ham pulled of a mini miracle on the football field where it counted -- not because of one players flawed documentation

I think you are really missing the point of this whole argument.

Necronomicon

millersangel wrote:

Yes that is cheating. And if there was something in his contract to stipulate he could not play against Utd, both parties would be punished as it is a third party having influence over team selection. Because its a gentlemans (term used loosely) agreement, its near impossible to prove, although if i remember correctly, after the game Everton bottled with their reserve goalie in, there was noises that the FA were looking into the arrangement wit Howard to find out if all was above board. Suprise Suprise, nothing more was heard of it.

The reason nothing came of that iirc is because Howard was still on loan, he had signed only a pre-contract agreement to sign in the summer - therefore he was still a United player when they played Everton.

Mr Alan

Necromomicon wrote:

The reason nothing came of that iirc is because Howard was still on loan, he had signed only a pre-contract agreement to sign in the summer - therefore he was still a United player when they played Everton.

Thought he had signed full time. thanks for clarifying

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

Thought he had signed full time. thanks for clarifying

nah - it is wrong.

United tried to put a clause in the contract stating that he could not play against us that season. They did not feel it would be a problem as Howard was initially on loan so adding this clause into the a permenent sale contract would not have actually changed what would have happened without the sale. This was clearly inputed into the original documents sent to the FA/PL when the transfer was agreed. When they looked over the contract, the PL siad teh clause needed to be removed, and it was.

So, there was no loan in place at the time, and there was no official agreement the leave Howard out.

I would point out though that this is common enough in football - such as Robbie Savage not playing against Birmingham when he signed for Blackburn, Andy Cole not playing against Newcastle when he signed for Man United

Necronomicon

Tauren wrote:

nah - it is wrong.

United tried to put a clause in the contract stating that he could not play against us that season. They did not feel it would be a problem as Howard was initially on loan so adding this clause into the a permenent sale contract would not have actually changed what would have happened without the sale. This was clearly inputed into the original documents sent to the FA/PL when the transfer was agreed. When they looked over the contract, the PL siad teh clause needed to be removed, and it was.

So, there was no loan in place at the time, and there was no official agreement the leave Howard out.

Thanks for clearing that up - although I could've sworn I heard on the news that he had only signed a pre-contract agreement. Ah well.

I would point out though that this is common enough in football - such as Robbie Savage not playing against Birmingham when he signed for Blackburn, Andy Cole not playing against Newcastle when he signed for Man United

It has been very common, but I thought the powers that be were trying to clamp down on it in recent agreements because it constitutes as third party interference?

_blank_

Necromomicon wrote:

It has been very common, but I thought the powers that be were trying to clamp down on it in recent agreements because it constitutes as third party interference?

They can't clamp down on a 'Gentleman's Agreement'.

If it's not in the contract, a player could suddenly develop a 'cold' or a 'tight hamstring' or a 'ketchup bottle fell on my toe' type scenario, and not play.

Not really much the FA or anyone else can do about that imo.

Mitch Connor

Necromomicon wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up - although I could've sworn I heard on the news that he had only signed a pre-contract agreement. Ah well.

Thwere was a lot of confusion about it at the time, but i remember it getting cleared up by David Gill the following week.

Mr Alan

DesF wrote:

They can't clamp down on a 'Gentleman's Agreement'.

If it's not in the contract, a player could suddenly develop a 'cold' or a 'tight hamstring' or a 'ketchup bottle fell on my toe' type scenario, and not play.

Not really much the FA or anyone else can do about that imo.

i agree, but do ya think that is right? for instance, i'd be pretty sure Everton would've beaten Utd if they had Howard in goal last season. Last couple of games in the PL could've been totally different

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

i agree, but do ya think that is right? for instance, i'd be pretty sure Everton would've beaten Utd if they had Howard in goal last season. Last couple of games in the PL could've been totally different

The same howard that completely screwed up against chelsea gifting them the win? Its not like he is a super keeper - Turner (was it turner?) made some very good saves in the game, only one mistake.

Anyway, look at the other side of the coin. Imagine Everton were 2 up and Howard screwed up, can you imagine what people would have been saying then?

Probably similar, but more heated, to what they said about Phil Neville.

_blank_

millersangel wrote:

i agree, but do ya think that is right? for instance, i'd be pretty sure Everton would've beaten Utd if they had Howard in goal last season. Last couple of games in the PL could've been totally different

If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

Mr Alan

I thought the goalie was at fault fo two of the goals?

PHB

Tevez was an illegal player. End of. Whatever technical solution the PL pretended to have found was out the window once Tevez moved to United. The fact that West Ham were allowed to compromise all but proves that MSI had some control, and therefore West Ham were in breach of the rules again.

AFC Wimbeldon were deducted a massive amount of points for fielding an illegal player.
The PL thought West Ham would go down, so it wouldn't matter, and it'd be fine, and they'd have their 5.5 million. Tevez played incredibly though and kept them up. The PL got ****ed over. Now they are trying to cover their asses. I think a real court will screw them over royally.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

I thought the goalie was at fault fo two of the goals?

nothing he could have done about Rooney's goal imo, nothing at all about Eagles' (was a very good finish) and i don't remember him being at fault for the own goal.

NotWormBoy

PHB wrote:

Tevez was an illegal player. End of. Whatever technical solution the PL pretended to have found was out the window once Tevez moved to United. The fact that West Ham were allowed to compromise all but proves that MSI had some control, and therefore West Ham were in breach of the rules again.

AFC Wimbeldon were deducted a massive amount of points for fielding an illegal player.
The PL thought West Ham would go down, so it wouldn't matter, and it'd be fine, and they'd have their 5.5 million. Tevez played incredibly though and kept them up. The PL got ****ed over. Now they are trying to cover their asses. I think a real court will screw them over royally.

I actually agree with you and/but I feel at this stage the fault lies with the Fa/PL. West Ham took their punishment (as lenient as it was) and got on with things. The PL are at fault as much as West Ham now (though obviously, its all West Ham's fault) for not being consistent.

I doubt Sheffield will get anywhere, but if they do get something from West Ham, I suspect the Hammers will pay up, laugh it off and give Sheffield the finger from a league above. And count themselves lucky. Because I suspect they'll be in the PL next year and Sheffield might not be.

Revelation Joe

PHB wrote:

Tevez was an illegal player. End of.

No! No no no no no no no.
Tevez was never playing for West Ham illegally.
What West Ham did wrong was to allow a third party (in this case, MSI) to have influence over team decisions - that is, that they could remove Tevez from the West Ham squad if they so wished.
That has no bearing at all on Tevez's eligibility to play for West Ham.