[Archived] West Ham Fined £5.5m

[Manchester Blue]

There was no clause that stopped Howard playing that would be againt the rules. They had a gentlemans's agreement, not the first time and probably not the last. If Howard had stayed on loan he couldn''t have played anyway all United did was say we'd rather he didn't play against us and Everton accepted. I can remember Gillingham to Sheff U, Carl Asaba I think, and the gentleman's agreement was ignored, by Warnock surprisingly enough.

No comparison in my eyes, one is a situation which is somewhat questionable. One is a situation where a club has dishonestly acquired a player, or players in this case, lied about ownership of them and basically broken rules which were quite clear. Relegation and/or carpet bombing of the ground, when full of course is the only just outcome.

[joey_big_nose]

I think in certain situations it is. They allowed the Howard to Everton permanent deal to be signed in February.

I thought there were different rules for keepers. If you are caught with all your experienced keepers injured aren't you allowed an emergency loan?

I think Utd did that with Goram a while back?

[ihateburnley]

I thought there were different rules for keepers. If you are caught with all your experienced keepers injured aren't you allowed an emergency loan?

I think Utd did that with Goram a while back?

What an idiotic rule though. In my opinion, there should be no exceptions - if all your keepers are injured so bloody what!

I tell you what let's sell Brown, Enks etc and just keep Brad, on the theory that if he gets injured we are guaranteed to be able to sign an emergency keeper!

[philipl]

Charlton's earlier Court failure makes the Gang of Four's task much more difficult. If this is true, Joorbachian bought a pig in a poke when he loaned his players to an EPL club including allowing the club to register them. Under EPL rules, he had a non-enforcable agreement and so West Ham effectively nicked them off him when he gave consent to their registration. Of course, it was Liverpool who spotted this when they signed Mascherano "properly" and triggered the whole EPL investigation into West Ham's dealings. It seems that West Ham were disingenuous to say the least and Joorbachian could well have a claim for bad faith. However, as Joorbachian was trying to buy West Ham at the time, it could be argued he could well have allowed the situation to have developed in anticipation of regaining control over the players through the club purchase he was confident of achieving.

It seems that the West Ham furore is having two unfortunate side effects. The Stevens Bungs Report has again been shelved as the attempts to get unanimity on actions required have been wrecked.

More importantly for Rovers (and more damaging), the big clubs are so ###### off by the small clubs' recourse to legal action over the West Ham affair, they have used it as a chance to back slide away from the agreement to split the Premiership TV money more equitably.

[LeChuck]

From a selfish point of view i'm amazed anyone wanted West Ham to stay up. They will be much stronger next season and will be challenging for Europe at least. I'm pretty certain Sheff utd wouldn't be pipping us for Uefa next year but imagine if West Ham do.

It's exactly that reason that every club outside the top four should be fighting together, not just the four who have decided to persue it. Any clubs feeling they'll be in a relegation battle next season will much prefer Sheff Utd in the league that West Ham, and any teams with European aspirations will feel the same (especially if the £45 million figure has any truth in it).

I'm a little disappointed at the reaction of a lot of clubs who 'support' the case against West Ham but aren't actively involved in it. I'll wait until we find out who the unamed two are before passing judgement on ourselves, it actually wouldn't surprise me if we were one of the two.

I can't see how that has any bearing on the West Ham saga. The judge in that ruling said they would only intervene in exceptional circumstances. Well, in comparison to reducing the ban of a player by one game, I think this counts as an exceptional circumstance.

[philipl]

Well, you might think it is exceptional circumstances but it means the first item on the agenda is a Court ruling on what exceptional circumstances are before the Court even begins to consider the merits of the case. Given, the Premiership's composition changes on 1 June and two of the four disappear that day, this seems to be a big hurdle to me.

To be honest, I think the Gang of 4's case is a dead duck. Not morally- they are absolutely right. But legally and practically, they are on a loser. Dave Whelan has admitted the Premiership Tribunal's decision is binding but is arguing the Prem broke its transfer window rules by allowing West Ham to change the contractual terms on Tevez on 27 April.

The other point of weakness for West Ham and the EPL is what would be revealed if Tevez were to be transferred this summer- if he goes for £25m to Real Madrid, do West Ham get that cash having signed him on a free? The EPL will have forced West Ham to acknowledge their wrong doings by fining them £5.5m, and then making West Ham a £25m profit in 12 months by getting out of third party obligations at the insistance of the EPL!

Boy, is that going to go down well!

This is being reflected by the £120K a week West Ham have offered Tevez on a new regularised contract. Neither the EPL nor the West Ham board dare let Tevez move in my opinion. How much of that £6m a year wage would go to Tevez's agent Joorabchian is something that would probably be kept quiet.

Which brings us round to a key problem about West Ham staying in the EPL. They will and are going to drive the increased Prem riches into the pockets of players and agents far more quickly than would happen if they were not in the EPL.

All round a pariah club.

[youandwhosearmy]

according to the bbcs gossip page:

West Ham striker Carlos Tevez is set for a £30m move to Real Madrid - with West Ham not seeing a penny of any fee. (The Sun)

if this is the case, how can West Ham own him?

thats right, they dont

[Ozz]

Oh Dear, Bladdered stick his nose in! Look Out Curbs!

[cn174]

I dunno if this has been posted further up, but the breaking news on bbc says that FIFA are gonna look into whether west ham should be docked points

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/e...rem/6657697.stm

[Jan]

Realistically, this is the best outcome for the FA/PL. They can't be seen to go back on their original judgement (Which the world and his wife is up in arms against), but if FIFA investigates and orders a points deduction it's a win:win situation (and they don't get sued by West Ham, FIFA does).

[den]

FIFA do say that the paperwork looks fine to them.

[Roversider]

Realistically, this is the best outcome for the FA/PL. They can't be seen to go back on their original judgement (Which the world and his wife is up in arms against), but if FIFA investigates and orders a points deduction it's a win:win situation (and they don't get sued by West Ham, FIFA does).

Not going to happen I'm afraid. Blatter is doing his usual posturing but FIFA allow players contracts to be owned by agents in South America so it will all relate to the registration which will no doubt turn out to be legal.

I think West Ham will walk away with just the fine and everyone will think they got off lightly. Might be interesting to see whether Sheff U sue West Ham for damages though.

The big loser is Scudamore who has been badly tarnished by the whole affair - oh, and the FA Premier League image.

Bad news if relegation issues are dragged into the courts.

It will all turn out, as Neil Warnock said, to be tomorrows chip papers. The Blades will continue to feel grievance but to no avail.

[Fife Rover]

FIFA do say that the paperwork looks fine to them.

What is your source for that Den?

[den]

What is your source for that Den?

Sepp Blatter was quoted as saying that on SSN.

Here also."According to our files the transfer of Tevez was done correctly according to the international transfer of players."

[philipl]

Looks like West Ham have benefitted from a spectacular own goal off the field as well as Devine intervention on it.

For the Prem to be so confident of their ground, this has to be true. I guess Joorabchian was so wrapped up in trying to buy West Ham he actually did enter into an unenforcable contract with the WHammers. If so much as a cent goes direct from West Ham to Joorabchian on a Tevez transfer, the whole Premiership/West Ham position unravels. The press are going to be watching the Tevez transfer like a hawk.

If Joorabchian does go to Court over his claim against West Ham, Sheff U will have every moral right to insist on the Preemiership delaying their relegation until the case is determined. The Prem made the ripping up of the West Ham agreement central in their 6 page defence of the West Ham ruling they circulated to the 20 Prem clubs yesterday. I somehow think Joorabchian will be talked out of taking his legal case to Court one way or another.

Septic Blast has not missed his chance to walk in where he's not wanted. Quite what FIFA will achieve by this is a good question but clearly the Prem's mishandling has opened themselves up to FIFA trying exercise its power and influence over a league so rich it is in danger of moving beyond anyone's control.

No doubt the FIFA team will be falling back onto failings by the Premiership enquiry team such as these. If FIFA really want to stir it (and Blatter probably does) it will be all but impossible not to point to failings in the processes used by the Prem and their enquiry team- no matter how hypocritical the criticisms would be coming from FIFA or justified/unjustified the attack might be. Some compromise/ behind doors deal will be cobbled with FIFA much to the detriment of English soccer.

[Tris]

The most sensible compromise I've seen so far is that the Premier League consists of 21 clubs next season - ie both Sheff Utd and West Ham stay up.

Combine that with a points deduction for West Ham next season - and "The gang of 4" can hardly object. It isn't right, because West Ham should be down in the Championship, but it's the best anyone is going to get.

[Jammy]

The most sensible compromise I've seen so far is that the Premier League consists of 21 clubs next season - ie both Sheff Utd and West Ham stay up.

Combine that with a points deduction for West Ham next season - and "The gang of 4" can hardly object. It isn't right, because West Ham should be down in the Championship, but it's the best anyone is going to get.

I thought that, but that will upset the top four, who for a while have been asking for a reduction in games!

[CAPT KAYOS]

Overall what ever happens here just typifies what problems the abundance of money has brought to the game and its continuation to ruin it as a Sport for evermore.

[American]

I was reading today on the F365 letters page that the last time a club was dropped because of financial regularities, the playoff loser was promoted, not the 18th place finisher (and 18th that season was Wednesday).

[American]

I love the front page of Football365.com

'West Ham Won't Shaaaaare!'

Sheffield United have got down on both knees, started crying and threatened to hold their breath until they die if the Premier League don't let them join in. "The simple answer is why not have 21 clubs in the Premiership next season and relegate four of them at the end?" begs chief executive Kevin McCabe, completely ignoring the fact that that makes a mockery of his club's claim that West Ham should have been booted out. And with that, a potentially serious legal situation became just something to laugh at Sheffield United about. All's well that ends well..

[Ray-Von]

I was reading today on the F365 letters page that the last time a club was dropped because of financial regularities, the playoff loser was promoted, not the 18th place finisher (and 18th that season was Wednesday).

Swindon were relegated in 1990 from the then 1st Division to the 3rd for making illegal payments. Sunderland (who they beat in the final) were promoted instead.

Ironically, Swindon beat Rovers in the play-off semi-final. And yes, I am still bitter.

[LeChuck]

The most sensible compromise I've seen so far is that the Premier League consists of 21 clubs next season - ie both Sheff Utd and West Ham stay up.

Combine that with a points deduction for West Ham next season - and "The gang of 4" can hardly object. It isn't right, because West Ham should be down in the Championship, but it's the best anyone is going to get.

But then either four teams from the Premier League would have to be relegated or only two clubs from the Championship could be promoted.

The impact of that kind of decision would spread so wide that it's impossible to implement. At the moment there are one or two clubs directly effected by what West Ham did...put the '21 club league' thing into practise and you're talking dozens of clubs.

[Tris]

But then either four teams from the Premier League would have to be relegated or only two clubs from the Championship could be promoted.

The impact of that kind of decision would spread so wide that it's impossible to implement. At the moment there are one or two clubs directly effected by what West Ham did...put the '21 club league' thing into practise and you're talking dozens of clubs.

4 down next season. It gives the club which has been cheated the chance of a fair fight, without the endless legal implications of trying to relegate the cheats.

And every team in the league is directly affected - because whilst 19 clubs didn't break the rules, one club clearly did. The entire competition has been influenced by the contribution of Carlos Tevez.

One can even argue that the timing of the announcement of the fine was pivotal the day before an absolutely key game in the battle for relegation - instead of being deflated by the correct punishment West Ham flew into that game against Wigan (3-0 win) totally bouyed by their good fortune - and with Tevez still on the pitch. Don't forget that not even 2 weeks earlier, Sheffield United had stuffed the Hammers 3-0.

And all it's cost them is a handful of biscuits.

[Billy Castell]

Maybe a thumb war between the Sheff Utd and Wham chairmen could settle it. Or an egg and spoon race. Mind you the Wham chairman might glue his egg to the spoon, and claim he should not be punished, as the offending adhesive belonged to a previous board member, and he left it in the office when departed for the new regime.

[ihateburnley]

Why have Sheffield United been any more affected by West Ham's actions than any of the other clubs? They didn't get relegated because of West Ham, they got relegated because they couldn't beat Wigan at home when it mattered. If you start talking about Sheff United staying up because they were 'affected', then you could point out:

- Charlton and Watford to stay up as they will have been 'affected' mentally, knowing that a world class player was playing for their relegation rivals

- Rovers to qualify automatically for Europe as Tevez's goal against us shouldn't have happened, and therefore we should have more points on the board

What a complete and utter mess. Why they just didn't dock points straight away is totally beyond me.