[Archived] West Ham Fined £5.5m

[DaveyB]

No, I'm really pleased that they didn't get deducted points. I'm not a Hammers fan but I think the relagation scrap should be fair and not involve a team having disadvantage compared to the others. I think West Ham will still go down but at least this result is fair on the fans.

That's the point though isn't it - it isn't fair. WHam have had an unfair advantage over all the over teams by fielding a player they weren't allowed to. How many goals has Tevez scored/made? How many points has he won for them?

Would somone like Wigan have a chance of taking legal action if they were relegated by a point or two instead of Wham??

Edit: Someone posted this on the 606 forum:

"I wish people would read properly.

West Ham were NOT found guilty of fielding an ineligible player.

They WERE found guilty of not providing the right paperwork to the F.A and not acting in "the utmost good faith" etc....

This is why we have not been deducted points for every game Tevez has played in, because he is not as such an ineligible player for West Ham. It was the manner and the state of the paperwork that was at fault."

A reading of the report on the BBC website suggests that this is the case.

He obviously was ineligible though wasn't he, otherwise they wouldn't have to re-sign him now??

Wasn't it Bury that were thrown out of the FA Cup this season for fielding an ineligible player? If that's the precedent then that should be the punishment, not a fine, not a points deduction, but just automatic relegation!!

[broadsword]

Eh? If they didn't provide the right paperwork, why didn't the FA do something at the time?

And I agree with Mr C, if they didn't properly sign him, then he wasn't eligible to play for them.

Why it has taken until late-April to resolve is beyond me.

[roversmum]

Article - 'Hammers Chief Pleased With Fine' That's alright then.... Disgraceful.

[philipl]

BBC comment

Once again football comes out of this looking awful.

Why did Bury, Chester, MK Dons etc and not West Ham get kicked out of competitions and points deducted for ilegible players?

Why did Boro get docked three points for not showing up at Ewood (and get relegated) and WHam showed up with a key player who shouldn't have been there and not get docked three points?

Why did Tevez and chum show up at West Ham last August and the FA/Prem league wait a whole season and change of management to do anything?

Why was change of ownership admissable for West Ham and not for Rotherham?

I almost hope West Ham send Wigan down. The legal case Dave Whelan would bring will be spectacular.

[broadsword]

"Ilegible" Phil?!

[Eddie]

All for show. 5.5 million will mean nothing if they stay up and even if they stay down it will hardly be financially crippling. Taking 1 point off of them would have done more than this.

[OJRovers]

I think the FA left it this late to make the ruling because they hoped that West Ham were already down - so a points deduction would mean nothing - that hasn't happened so they've had to fine them.

[Fife Rover]

"Ilegible" Phil?!

He means the writing on their signing-on forms was unreadable.

[philipl]

woops- typing too quickly too early to be either legible or eligible

[92er]

Bury were indeed thrown out of the FA cup for playing an ineligible player, but Gordon Taylor is quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying " A small club like Bury were thrown out over an inelegible player. The same approach could have been adopted here so I am sure West Ham are breathing a huge sigh of relief".

He also says "Fans of other clubs may not be happy with the verdict but if you need to stay in a division because another club have been deducted points it's not the sporting ethos you would want.I can't believe anyone would want to stay up that way".

I imagine some people on here would disagree.

[stuwilky]

The wording in the Judgement is actually quite concerning....

"The Rules of the FAPL allow us to penalise a club by deducting points. That is a course that we consider would normally follow from such a breach of these Rules." - so why didnt you?

"the fact that the club is under new ownership and management. True it is that Mr Duxbury remains,"

"Five, Tevez has continued to play for the club after the discovery of these breaches. " - How the fact they continued to flout the rules is a defence Im not quite sure?

"we have considered the position of the players and the fans. They are in no way to blame for this situation" - but Rotherham's. Middlebrough's, and Bury's are? Not to mention AFC Wimbledon in the Ryman league earlier this season? 23

[modes98]

BBC comment

Why did Tevez and chum show up at West Ham last August and the FA/Prem league wait a whole season and change of management to do anything?

From what was said on SSN when it broke yesterday, the FA would not have been aware of the situation if mascherano hadn't moved to liverpool on loan. The full paperwork wasn't submitted in august so they had no reason to doubt the move, then 2 further sheets showed up when liverpool tried to register him. That to me shows intent to decieve the FA & Premier league, they are very lucky not to get a points deduction, but West Ham would have taken it on and on for ages with legal challenges.

[Tris]

Wigan 0 - 3 West Ham (latest).

Yesterdays decision is an absolute disgrace. It looks increasingly likely that West Ham will stay up, with the catalyst having been a player who should never have stepped onto a pitch wearing their colours.

How the FA can eject Bury from the FA Cup for something far less but sanction West Ham's admission of guilt throughout a league season - and hand them an enormous morale booster the day before their most important fixture in the run in is quite beyond me.

I agree with philipl - I look forward to Dave Whelan taking this one to the courts.

[SouthAussieRover]

Excellent result for West Ham.

I hope they can pull of staying up.

[modes98]

I look forward to Dave Whelan taking this one to the courts.

They did mention that a number of PL clubs were considering legal action. They should have lost all the points in games where Tevez and Mascherano played. The FA are weak.

[Paul]

BBC comment

Once again football comes out of this looking awful.

Why did Bury, Chester, MK Dons etc and not West Ham get kicked out of competitions and points deducted for ilegible players?

My guess is because of the timing of the decision. Deduct points now and WHU are relegated, it's almost certain WHU would challenge the deduction (and therefore the relegation) in the courts. Such action would prevent both the PL and Championship from making any preparations for next season - fixtures etc, etc. the PL commission was never going to deduct points from WHU. The Icelandic biscuitman will be happy, he still has a fighting chance of surviving in the PL and can sue the previous management for the £5.5m. There job done, the PL looks tough and no one really gets hurt. Isn't that nice?

The solution was simple. WHU should have beeen deducted points with the deduction imposed next season. If the PL and Championship couldn't agree on this (presuming WHU are relegated) the PL could simply have fined WHU "x" points from the start of their next PL season.

It's a stitch up, and another example of what money and foreign ownership will / is doing to the game.

[Alan75]

Spare a thought for Lancaster and Rotherham who have been religated, not because of playing illegible players, but because they were not financially sound.

A law for the rich and another for the poor.

[Ozz]

The beauty of this is of course that they get a huge monster fine, and still get relegated.

[RovertheHill]

It's not a monster fine if they do not get relegated. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the income they will receive. Yet again the FA under Brian Barwick have made a complete mess of this, as they did with appointing a new England coach. If indeed taking points off them is "unfair" to the fans then they should at least beforfeiting their TV money from the prem league next year if they stay up.

[philipl]

Fine and no points deduction precedent set by Accy Stanley earlier this season.

[American]

But, but, but, but, that can't be true. We know the authorities would never give a team from the north leniency like that.

[Laurence]

This all smells pretty bad to me. Its like when Chelsea were found guilty of tapping-up Cashley Cole and were fined for it. It means that you can break the rules as much as you like as long as you can afford to pay the fine. For clubs with money it means they can do what they like and not really have to worry about it. Not impressed

[stuwilky]

Fine and no points deduction precedent set by Accy Stanley earlier this season.

When did the FA start working on precedents?

I can give you a list as long as your arm of points deduction for similar activities.

I say similar, because very few of them - if any - involve a club WILLFULLY DECIEVING THE FA.

[Scotty]

Wasn't the judgement against West Ham made by the Premier League? And aren't they a different organisation than the FA? Or are they all part of the same organisation?

[joey_big_nose]

This all smells pretty bad to me. Its like when Chelsea were found guilty of tapping-up Cashley Cole and were fined for it. It means that you can break the rules as much as you like as long as you can afford to pay the fine. For clubs with money it means they can do what they like and not really have to worry about it. Not impressed

That is the nub of it. If we (or CHarlton, or Bolton, or Everton) had been fined 5.5m we would be screwed. Water off a ducks back to someone willing to spend the sort of money that West Ham's chairman was.

The fine is enormous. WHere is the money going to go? It better be somewhere entiely divorced from those who run the FA and their programmes otherwise its effectively bribary.