[Archived] West Ham Fined £5.5m

[daren]

not surprising but raises the point on that consideration alone - what the hell was the point of them reviewing it if if they couldn't do anything about the decision. How the hell can it not be irrational or peverse when a club cheats , lies and the panel even said they would have deducted points.

It's in the judgement! The panel decided that they could review the original judgement - but as it turned out, the decision they were forced to make was to agree with the arbitration panel's decision, but only because of the narrow terms with which they had to judge. There's a paragraph in there where the basically say it's the difference between unreasonable and unfair. The decision was unfair - but not unreasonable.

[trueblue]

Surely unfair is more serious than unreasonable??? In which case they should have had points deducted retrospectively !!

[den]

So, to conclude - as long as the Prem League go through the [correct procedures] motions, they aren't answerable to anyone. They can do what the hell they like.

Is that a fair summary?

[trueblue]

Sums it up quite adequately that Den

[American]

And those clubs that don't like it can break away and form their own league... They agreed to the policies, procedures and grievance process when they signed up for the millions of pounds in revenue.

[Fife Rover]

So, to conclude - as long as the Prem League go through the [correct procedures] motions, they aren't answerable to anyone. They can do what the hell they like.

Is that a fair summary?

It is a fair summary in so far as it goes; the trouble is that it does not go far enough. It is not only the FAPL that are riding rough shod over the "end user" ( which is of course US the fans). No it also the FA itself and all the "big club" owners/ administrators who either do nothing to rectify the miscarriage of justice or simply make innefectual noises of sympathy but actually do nothing. Not to mince words: these people are collectively taking the P**s out of us the paying public. It is of course for each and every one of us to decide for themselves what they will do about it.

[CAPT KAYOS]

It's in the judgement! The panel decided that they could review the original judgement - but as it turned out, the decision they were forced to make was to agree with the arbitration panel's decision, but only because of the narrow terms with which they had to judge. There's a paragraph in there where the basically say it's the difference between unreasonable and unfair. The decision was unfair - but not unreasonable.

But that's the thing all they have done is review it - they haven't made any judgement as they where conveniently strangled by the 'narrow terms' , which will already have been known before they undertook whatever it is they have done to reach the ridiculous conclusion they have reached - which as they say is not what they would have done themselves , this in my book adds up to the fact it was the wrong decision and both unfair and unreasonable never mind one or the other.

From all accounts the review was to determine whether points should have been deducted surely; or at least that's what my understanding of it was - if not what was the point of them doing this and why where Sheff Utd so determined to proceed on that basis??

There is something very strange gone on here or I have just completely misundertood the whole situation.

[thenodrog]

Well if that is it all done and dusted then I cannot help feeling that the rest of the Prem clubs (us included) did not do enough to assist justice to be done. They have all washed their hands after recieving that (threatening) letter from the Prem League. Even if they had officially kept their own council a spectator poll on all clubs official websites would have pressurised the Prem League significantly.

Imo the fairest and best solution all round (and the result which would best avoid heaps of trouble in the future ) would have been to relegate Sheff Utd as they did finish in the bottom 3, but also to have deucted points and relegated West Ham too for simply breaking the rules (more than once), with West Brom taking their place.

[Nate]

Just heard that Trevor Brooking yes Trevor Brooking was on the arbitration panel.

Can't be right, can it?

Serious? If that was the case and I was Sheffield Utd, I would of walked straight back out the door and create more negative press for the FA.

[daren]

The negative press is all contained in the report. It's pretty damning. I strongly suggest reading the whole judgement, it's interesting and the people reviewing it are clearly very frustrated indeed that they cannot overturn the decision.

One of the pieces of information that I got that I didn't know before was that the original arbitration panel were instructed NOT to invalidate Tevez's registration - this to me would have been the most suitable punishment along with a fine given the circumstances (the time in the league, the fact that there were new owners). The FAPL did a lot to help WHU sort the registration but absolutely did not ensure that it had happened; they even went to the length of sending a mail to the 4 clubs stating that the registration was OK when it clearly wasn't.

Shambles

[philipl]

This is a good if shaming summary of how West Ham/FAPL prevailed.

If Sheff Utd have any hope, it is in Joorbachian's papers relating to Tevez which have never seen the light of day (outside West Ham who presumably knew exactly what they were ripping up and thereby does not absolve the new management/ownership)

Paradoxically, the arbitration panel's judgement might well have made it more difficult for Sheff U to obtain justice in that the High Court will be loathe to intervene against any aspect of its judgement. Sheff U themselves agreed to be bound by the arbitration, I believe.

However, the riches of the FAPL might work against them. Sheff U gambled £500K to gain a broadly favourable if ineffective (from their standpoint) judgement at arbitration. That £500K is gone and irrecoverable unless theyt do something pretty spectacular.

They now face the following conundrum- wave goodbye to approx £50m in FAPL income or risk another £500K on extracting the Joorbachian papers in the High Court. Assuming Sheff U have another £500K to gamble then if the legal experts say there is a 1% chance of succeding, Sheff U would be neutral on a cost benefit basis.

At a 10% chance of prevailing they might go for it. Especially if the 10% is made up of 50% chance of the High Court forcing Joorbachian disclosure times a 20% (at present) chance of the disclosure leading to FAPL reinstatement. And there might be other probabilities relating to damages from FAPL or even from West Ham.

The arbitration panel could only offer Sheff U weasel words and no practical relief of pain. To have done the latter would have opened the door to Sheff U going back saying if you gave us this much, why not that?

Sheff U now have a walk away/ all out fight decision.

[Paul]

This gets more and more interesting by the day. Having read The Arbitration Panel's review (it takes some getting through, but everyone should read this) it is clear the Review Panel could NOT have made any difference. The panel clearly believe the punishment levied on WHU was wrong but they are powerless, under their terms of reference, to take any significant action. SUFC never had a chance and this review is simply a case of being seen to do "the right thing" i.e give SUFC the chance of an appeal.

The information in the PDF, which several people have linked to, makes it absolutely clear WHU broke rules, lied, cheated and once found out made only half-hearted efforts to correct the situation. IMV points deduction would not have been adequate punishment, WHU should have been relegated outright. WHU's actions to correct the situation were pathetic and designed as nothing more than a stalling process. It must be deeply embarassing to support WHU this morning. We have to ask just what does a club have to do before it is thought to have seriously broken the rules?

This cover up demonstrates how rotten the PL is. It would be good to see fans demonstrate their disapproval. I'd like to see the FSF organising a boycott of all WHU games next season. Reduced gates or even empty grounds would soon show the FAPL what we think of them.

[CAPT KAYOS]

This gets more and more interesting by the day. Having read The Arbitration Panel's review (it takes some getting through, but everyone should read this) it is clear the Review Panel could NOT have made any difference. The panel clearly believe the punishment levied on WHU was wrong but they are powerless, under their terms of reference, to take any significant action. SUFC never had a chance and this review is simply a case of being seen to do "the right thing" i.e give SUFC the chance of an appeal.

This is exactly the point I was getting at Paul - it is clear, so what was the purpose of the review other than what you said re the to ' be seen to be doing the right thing'?.

In addition, as I have questioned before, if it is this clear - I still don't understand why Sheff Utd pursued (with others) for this review by the panel ... is there something that is underhand and is not being revealed?

[BRFC4EVA]

Its all so incredibly frustrating. We can't do anything about it, we're just helpless to watch the biggest farce since in premiership history take place The fa and the panel clearly have no balls whatsoever, and i expect West Sham to be crucified at every away ground this season. There is certainly no other team id rather take 6 points off with this latest development.

[Fife Rover]

I realise it easy for me to say this as I live a long way off Blackburn and only go to a handful of Rovers home games each season anyway. However, I can say that amongst the handful of games I attend at Ewood, WHam is almost always one of them. I can say now that this season it will absolutely NOT be one of them.

OK, I hear you all saying; big deal; that will really worry Rovers and WHam (FAPL as well). No, on it's own it won't. But if all you lot did the same and possibly the message could be got around to all the other clubs in th EPL for their fans to make a decision, then just possibly it MIGHT get noticed in high places and cause a bit of a re-think. Worth a go I would say.

[roversmum]

I will if you will.......

[Fife Rover]

I will if you will.......

Thank you Mum. Well said; that's 2 of us now! Whose next?

[sussexrover]

Surely its better to boycott the away game - a boycott of a match at Ewood hits Rovers in the pocket.

[Fife Rover]

Surely its better to boycott the away game - a boycott of a match at Ewood hits Rovers in the pocket.

It's only one match, but with no home fans present on any ground (and hopefully each one in turn) it will cause a sensation. The clubs will be up in arms and the FAPL will be forced to re-act. Hopefully it would only take one or two matches into the season, so we would see a result in August. The difficult bit would be to persuade fans at all clubs to take part, but not impossible. I say let's try it! It could well be that the fans of many other clubs also feel that justice has been kicked in the teeth and would be willing to give it a go.

[bellamy11]

It's only one match, but with no home fans present on any ground (and hopefully each one in turn) it will cause a sensation. The clubs will be up in arms and the FAPL will be forced to re-act. Hopefully it would only take one or two matches into the season, so we would see a result in August. The difficult bit would be to persuade fans at all clubs to take part, but not impossible. I say let's try it!

The difficult part would be getting more than 15 people at this club to take part. I'd certainly rather turn up and watch us try to beat them.

Even if the attendance for our West Ham home game was, say, 10,000 people, and we got Wigan to do the same etc, what are the FAPL going to do - relegate West Ham? Deduct them points? Absolutely nothing would happen anyway.

[Billy Castell]

What should now happen is that all teams withold any payments to Wham, don't sell players to Wham, and don't turn up to Wham games. They are cheats, and should be shunned and exiled from the Premiership. I say this as there is not a chance that the fine will turn into a points deduction. Maybe MSI can chuck us a few decent Latin Americans so we can build a better squad. If players like Tevez and Mascapone cost us £5.5m, that would be a bargain if we can break into the Champions League places.

[Tris]

The BBC is talking rubbish again, two days after reporting that Benni was absent from training at Rovers they have Sheffield United heading for the High Court.

Sheffield United have launched an appeal in the High Court claiming the arbitration panel made an error in judgement over the Carlos Tevez affair.

Sheffield United's own site says the opposite.

Appeal not made - As a point of clarification for our supporters (and media), Sheffield United have NOT lodged an appeal following the Arbitration decision on Tuesday - despite reports to the contrary.

The accurate explanation is that Sheffield United's lawyers had to inform the Premier League that the Club has applied to find out if the club can lodge an appeal through the Civil Courts.

I hope they carry it on, if only to keep the wind up the idiots at the PL who have allowed things to get to where they are, and keep the start of this years competition in jeopardy.

[philipl]

The BBC seem to have left their brains behind this week.

Appealing an arbitration decision which you had pre-agreed to be bound by is a recipe for spending a lot of money on your own and the other side's legal costs.

Sheff U have to go round the side if they are going to do anything- such as finding a way to put Joorbachian under oath. As they have no direct relationship with him that is very tricky.

As for shaming Wazz Sham when they come to Ewood, a rowsing chorus of boos and cheat cheat cheat is the best way of showing them surely? Even better, there has got to be a catchy song that every Prem club should sing at the imposters? Budding lyricists/songwritersplease?

Boycotting them at Ewood only hurts Rovers.

[Paul]

This is exactly the point I was getting at Paul - it is clear, so what was the purpose of the review other than what you said re the to ' be seen to be doing the right thing'?.

In addition, as I have questioned before, if it is this clear - I still don't understand why Sheff Utd pursued (with others) for this review by the panel ... is there something that is underhand and is not being revealed?

Yep this is very interesting. I hadn't read the terms of reference before the Arbitration Panel sat, like everyone I guess, I thought the panel had greater powers or terms of reference than it is now apparent they had. So why on earth did SUFC agree to the panel? Their lawyers must have been able to interpret the terms of reference far better than any of us. It seems the panel could only judge if the original findings where "fair and reasonable," presumably this means fair and reasonable to WHU and to other PL clubs. It was reasonable I suppose. Fair is another question but it seems, from reading the judgement, questioning the "fairness" of a ruling is extremely difficult.

I'm no lawyer but get the feeeling SUFC might have been better heading straight for the courts rather than bother with this whitewash panel.

[Beta Ray Bill]

The difficult part would be getting more than 15 people at this club to take part. I'd certainly rather turn up and watch us try to beat them.

Even if the attendance for our West Ham home game was, say, 10,000 people, and we got Wigan to do the same etc, what are the FAPL going to do - relegate West Ham? Deduct them points? Absolutely nothing would happen anyway.

If only 10k turned up for the match, the FA would probably relegate us, saying we don't have enough fans. Afterall not upsetting the legion of 'Appy 'Ammers was actually cited as a reason to not deduct points!