The Tevez Affair - WHU to pay 30M to Sheff Utd??

Ludo

Well if the stories going around at the moment are true then this is opening up a right can of worms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/23/westhamunited.sheffieldunited?gusrc=rss&feed=sport

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport/football/article-1059998/EXCLUSIVE-Hammered-West-Ham-facing-30m-payout-Sheffield-United-win-legal-battle.html?ITO=1490

Personally, I can't believe some of the quotes in this article are true.

The judgment reads: 'On the totality of the evidence, we have no doubt that West Ham would have secured at least three fewer points over the 2006-07 season if Carlos Tevez had not been playing for the club.

'Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence that we heard, that even over the final two games of the season, West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins that West Ham secured in those last two games.'

That is rubbish. Absolutely no way to prove that claim (or disprove it of course) and therefore to base a 30Million fine on if is scandalous.

Sheff Utd got relegated because they were sh*t at the end of the season when it mattered. They were safe until they had an awful run.

IF this is all true, then it leaves the door open to all sorts of claims by clubs. Hey that goal was offside. Lets go to a tribunal and sue for 40 Million...feck sake.

Balls...it is up on the BBc news scrolling banner now also saying MORE SOON...

****..

Forever blowing bubbles!!!

Ludo

In fact...we were given permission by the FA to play Tevez for the remainder of the season by the FA...hmmm. If this ruling says they are basing their findings on the last two games of the season then there is nothing to worry about. We should be covered or else we can sue the FA for the money as it would be their fault for clearing Tevez to play.

:mad::mad::mad:

Mitch Connor

Ludo wrote: »

In fact...we were given permission by the FA to play Tevez for the remainder of the season by the FA...hmmm. If this ruling says they are basing their findings on the last two games of the season then there is nothing to worry about. We should be covered or else we can sue the FA for the money as it would be their fault for clearing Tevez to play.

:mad::mad::mad:

You were given permission to play Tevez on the basis that you owned him, that the third party contracts were 'torn up'.

All evidence seen after this farcical FA ruling points to the fact this was not the case as you can simply not tear up contracts, so the FA's permission was based on a lie.

Ludo

Well then maybe WHU should sue Liverpool for playing a weakened team against Fulham on the last day of that season. IF Liverpool had played a full strength team, Fulham MAY not have won and therefore MAY not have stayed up and Sheff Utd MAY have survived and not needed to sue us who MAY not have won if Tevez had not played.

That is a lot if IFs and MAYs just like this ruling. All rubbish of course and totally un-provable (sp?) but apparently that is the way football is going.

hmm..if Watford get relegated this year by a point, maybe they can sue Reading or the referee who allowed THAT goal...you see where this is going?

Once an issue has been addressed and sorted out, you cannot go back at the end of the season just coz you made a balls of things yourself and blame another team. Sheff Utd had plenty of opportunities to save themselves and didn't. They deserved to be relegated.

Mitch Connor

Ludo wrote: »

Well then maybe WHU should sue Liverpool for playing a weakened team against Fulham on the last day of that season. IF Liverpool had played a full strength team, Fulham MAY not have won and therefore MAY not have stayed up and Sheff Utd MAY have survived and not needed to sue us who MAY not have won if Tevez had not played.

That is a lot if IFs and MAYs just like this ruling. All rubbish of course and totally un-provable (sp?) but apparently that is the way football is going.

hmm..if Watford get relegated this year by a point, maybe they can sue Reading or the referee who allowed THAT goal...you see where this is going?

Once an issue has been addressed and sorted out, you cannot go back at the end of the season just coz you made a balls of things yourself and blame another team. Sheff Utd had plenty of opportunities to save themselves and didn't. They deserved to be relegated.

None of your points have any validity.

Liveprool playing a weakened team - playing players that they are legally entitled to play, cause they own them legally. Nothing against the rules.

Watford vs Reading - it was not reading who made the mistake, it is not on Reading to put it right, Reading did nothing wrong.

Sheffield United were arguably put out of the league because of a team fielding an illegal player.

Ludo

Your argument has no validity. Where is the proof that Tevez was fielded illegally? There was never a claim about that or a case about it after the initial one which cleared him to play. If that was proven that WHU did some illegal moves after the initial case, then fair enough. But nothing says they did.

Also..to show the craziness of this ruling:

http://soccerlens.com/did-sheffield-united-violate-rule-u18/2077/

Sheff Utd broke the exact same rule by putting a clause in Kabbas move to Watford not allowing him to play against them. He didn't play..Sheff Utd won, watford got relegated!

lordgoat

Ludo wrote: »

Your argument has no validity. Where is the proof that Tevez was fielded illegally? There was never a claim about that or a case about it after the initial one which cleared him to play. If that was proven that WHU did some illegal moves after the initial case, then fair enough. But nothing says they did.

Also..to show the craziness of this ruling:

http://soccerlens.com/did-sheffield-united-violate-rule-u18/2077/

Sheff Utd broke the exact same rule by putting a clause in Kabbas move to Watford not allowing him to play against them. He didn't play..Sheff Utd won, watford got relegated!

As far as i remember wasn't Kabba's move til the end of the season a loan and then made permanent? Which would break no rules. Same as what happened with Howard from Man U to Everton.

I thought it was disgraceful at the time that W Ham got away with it. Points should have come off during that season.

Xavi6

Yep West Ham got off awfully lightly at the time and it appears justice may finally be served, albeit too late for Sheffield United. They should just be thankful they kept their Premiership status.

Ludo

I actually agree points should have been deducted at the time. BUT once a decision was reached and WHU abided by it, then that should be that. To come back over a year later and fine them possibly up to 30 mill for abiding by a decision is crazy.

Can someone somewhere please point out to these muppets that:
A) He was cleared to play.
we were fined by the FA, that was the appropriate punishment decided by
the powers that be.
C) The rule was changed because it was so unclear.
D)The FA has sat twice on the matter and have thrown the case out twice.
E) If SU had of drawn with Wigan they wouldnt have been relegated so it
should actually be their own players that they are seeking compensation from
in particular whoever it was that missed the penalty.
F) If SU are due compensation becuase we werent docked points by the FA or because the FA allowed us to play Tevez in the final few games then the
organisation who should be compensating them is the FA.

citytillidie

All teams played 38 games it is up to the players playing to get as much points as they can to either stay up, win the league or get into europe.

Mr Alan

Ludo wrote: »

Can someone somewhere please point out to these muppets

lovely :rolleyes:

Ludo wrote: »

A) He was cleared to play

cleared to play if the contract was void, and if he was WestHams player outright. I believe the issue here is that he wasn't.

monkey9

Ludo, you're comparisons are pointless! There's nothing illegal about Liverpool fielding whatever team they like, nothing illegal about Sheff Utd drawing or missing a penalty, there's nothing illegal about referees making mistakes and points dropped due to error.

Wreck

Ludo wrote: »

Can someone somewhere please point out to these muppets that:
A) He was cleared to play. Based on false information
we were fined by the FA, that was the appropriate punishment decided by
the powers that be. Decided by the FA, not a court of law.They are not the final authority
C) The rule was changed because it was so unclear.
D)The FA has sat twice on the matter and have thrown the case out twice. Again the FA are not the final authority, and SU have every right to appeal this decision.
E) If SU had of drawn with Wigan they wouldnt have been relegated so it
should actually be their own players that they are seeking compensation from
in particular whoever it was that missed the penalty. This is just totally flawed logic and makes little sense.
F) If SU are due compensation becuase we werent docked points by the FA or because the FA allowed us to play Tevez in the final few games then the
organisation who should be compensating them is the FA. The FA's decision to allow Tevez to play was based on false information supplied by West Ham

I'm astounded that SU are only seeking £30 million in compensation, as the cost of being relegated that season could conceivably end up being alot more if they don't get promoted again soon. It'll be really interesting to see what figure the tribunal eventually decide to give them and how it is calculated.

Mossy Monk

This is amazing. I now have a reason to hate Sheffield United again.

Villain

Fair Play to Sheff Utd imo, West Ham could be under pressure if they have to pay £30 million

raven136

Mossy Monk wrote: »

This is amazing. I now have a reason to hate Sheffield United again.

why?are they not right?

leninbenjamin

hmm... finding it very hard to form an opinion on this. I quite dislike Sheffield United and their actions at the time, but it does seem like they have a valid case.

tbh, i think the blame for this should fall on the FA. they were the ones who failed to enforce the rules adequately, and they obviously didn't follow up to see whether Tevez was illegal or not for those final games.

Ludo

Mr Alan wrote: »

cleared to play if the contract was void, and if he was WestHams player outright. I believe the issue here is that he wasn't.

If that is proven then fair enough...I will agree with this no problem.

The whole thing was a mess and Scott Duxbury shoudl be thrown out on his ass from WHU and the PL idiots who gave the original cop-out verdict and approval to play on should resign immediately.

BUT from the current information available about the decision it appears that they are guessing and making assumptions about how a team of 11 players would have performed if 1 of them wasn't present. That is crazy. If Tevez wasn't there to score against ManU, then who is to say another player wouldn't have been. If Tevez hadn't been allowed play, then he wouldn't have blocked the ball from going into the Blackburn goal by accident and we would have got three points there and survived. My point is simply that you cannot decide what course events would have taken if a certain player in an eleven man team is not present and then hand down a potentially 30 million verdict based on those assumptions.

Anyway, actual fine won't be decided for a few weeks more. I would say it will probably be in the region of 5 million again. If it is any higher WHU will fight it all the way to the CAS and launch all kinds of counter suits as they are not going to just hand over 30 mill without a fight I would have thought.

PHB

This should have been done at the time, there should have been a points deduction. Tevez made a difference by playing. Yes somebody else might have won the game for them, but they played him, he made the difference, they have to deal with the consequences of that.

That said, since it wasn't done, I don't understand why anybody, bar West Ham fans, would be annoyed at seeing justice done, even if its taken years.

zAbbo

Doesn't matter if Tevez played a stormer or not, If WHU fielded a player who was ineligible - the results of those games should have been changed to 3-0 losses and WHU disqualified.

Isn't that the way it happens in almost every other sport in the world? Ineligible or unregistered player = forfeit?

Now the problem is that we're 16 months down the line, and the PL look like they'd prefer is this problem just went away.

They already found WHU guilty of breaching PL regulations, and got a measly 5.5m fine instead of docked points.

Ludo

Precedents were in place for deducting points for fielding ineligible players (suspended, not registered but NOT 3rd party influence) already...2 points was the previous max I believe. But this was a slightly different situation apparently as it was so close to the end of the season and could have adversely affected the league run in (this was the cop-out by the PL) so the precedent was not applied but WHU were fined instead.

"In Richard Scudamore's letter to the FA chairmen in May 2007 he made it clear that the Premier League was the only league to have such a rule on 3rd party interference. The Football League didn't have such a rule nor did FIFA. The Premier League had never had to enforce the rule before. He also said that it was a completely different offence to playing an unregistered or suspended player and that comparing points deductions handed out for these misdemeanours was inappropriate."

All in all it is an unholy mess caused by Terry Brown and Duxbury and then made infinitely worse by the original PL arbitration panel and the allowing of Tevez to continue playing.

Technically he is on loan at ManU now also from the same MSI (Kia Jorb...) crowd. Who is to say that they are not breaking the rules also. If the new WHU owners had not brought this stupidity of the previous owners to the PL none of this would have been known about.

I see it has started already:

http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/index.php/2008/09/23/five-football-courtcases-waiting-to-happen

leninbenjamin

zAbbo wrote: »

Isn't that the way it happens in almost every other sport in the world? Ineligible or unregistered player = forfeit?

indeed, this is normally the case. i know this first hand

bazzman

Villain wrote: »

Fair Play to Sheff Utd imo, West Ham could be under pressure if they have to pay £30 million

i think that west ham kind of knew that there would be a fine they had to pay soon, hence the sale of anton n mccartney to sunderland n the release of freddie against curbs wishes!!

Charlie

West Ham used to be one of the teams I would 'look out for' every Saturday. Great academy, and always the perennial underdogs. I always wanted to see them do well (aprt from when they were playing Newcastle obviously). But when this whole mess came up, my opinion of them changed and I was well put off by them. I don't blame their fans, but the current structure in that club (ever since those Icelandics and Eggo came in) seems fairly rotten and incompetent. They have dragged the name of West Ham United through the mud.

The FA and Premier League have a big role in this mess as well. I only wish someone would slap Richard Scudamore and tell him to grow a pair. He always strikes me as a spineless money man, who's intent is to bleed the fans dry, and throw tradition out the window.

amacachi

Surely if anyone has to make a compensation payout it should be the FA? They're the ones who originally cleared him to play.

spockety

amacachi wrote: »

Surely if anyone has to make a compensation payout it should be the FA? They're the ones who originally cleared him to play.

Didn't they clear him to play on the understanding that any and all agreements between West Ham and Tevez's owners had been torn up?

It appears that was not the case....

leninbenjamin

spockety wrote: »

Didn't they clear him to play on the understanding that any and all agreements between West Ham and Tevez's owners had been torn up?

It appears that was not the case....

yup. West Ham claimed to have torn up the contract, but they had no right to do so unless they agreed with Joorbachan, who repeatedly said at the time he never gave agreement.

I'm assuming in the interim that something was actually agreed with Joorbachan however as he seems to to be in good standing with the board and doing some consultancy work with them. but i don't ever hearing how that dispute was resolved, and more importantly when.

gixerfixer

IMO from what i have read West Ham are up sh*t creek here. Coming soon West Ham player clearout sale....all players half price or less. Buy 1 get 1 free special offer.:D

Guy:Incognito

Everyone is missing the main point.

Neil Warnock was relegated out of the league for the good of everyone and everything involved. The rest of the clubs and their fans in the Pl should club together and pay the fine as a thanks to West Ham.

acquiescefc

Threw ten points away,
Couldnt beat 10 man wigan.
Football is ruined, thanks to Kevin 'a club in each country' Mccabe
Enjoy the 30 mill, you aint got it yet tho.
You will never accept it, you werent good enough.

If they miss out on the playoffs cos of Reading theyll appeal that..




UTO

String

We stayed up because of our performance without tevez and also we only needed a point to stay up so it didnt matter if tevez scored. 30mill wont be too bad we sold about 20mill worth players in summer and bought no one expensive and are trying to cut squad. End of the day sheff united are championship team delighted

This aint going to affect us at all...

Ludo

gixerfixer wrote: »

IMO from what i have read West Ham are up sh*t creek here. Coming soon West Ham player clearout sale....all players half price or less. Buy 1 get 1 free special offer.:D

Buy one get Nigel Quashie FREE...

The Volt

Xavi6 wrote: »

Yep West Ham got off awfully lightly at the time and it appears justice may finally be served, albeit too late for Sheffield United. They should just be thankful they kept their Premiership status.

+1

The FA bottled it, West Ham should have been kicked out of the league

Pepe LeFrits

There's talk of multiple Sheffield United players suing West Ham now too. This is getting ridiculous...

Mitch Connor

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

There's talk of multiple Sheffield United players suing West Ham now too. This is getting ridiculous...

while i have agreed with Sheffield United's cause - i can see no reason for the players to be able to sue - there was nothing really preventing them from staying in the premiership - the players that were good enough have been bought by premiership sides.

Pepe LeFrits

They're claiming loss of earnings based on bonuses for keeping Sheffield in the premiership as well as on relegation wage-reduction clauses in their contracts.

Mitch Connor

hmmm, suppose that is fair enough so then.

This could all have been avoided if the FA were competent, but this season with Terrygate, Watford having an FA charge for complaining about THAT goal....etc its very vlear that they are not.


Bunch of bottlers.

pesireland

I Don't think West Ham should have to pay the £30 odd million the FA should be held accountable for allowing it.

No one player keeps a team up thats been disrespectful for the other team mates, they all played a part, even if tevez was there stand out player.