Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Tevez .....Again

Daily Mail reports that West Ham are desperate to keep Tevez for another year. They are offering him £115k a week but "will have to pay his 'owner' Kia Joorabchian up to £3m in a loan fee".
No no that can't be right. West Ham unilaterally tore up the contract with KJ. Otherwise the Premier League would look very foolish or just plain bent and that can't possibly be.............................

Comments

  • i thought this had been arranged weeks ago but was being kept quiet until all the hearing stuff died down ?
  • Would be nice if Charlton, Watford and Sheff Utd win the league, 2nd and play off place and tell the premierleague to stuff it we dont want to play in your corrupt league.

    Wont happen though.
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]Daily Mail reports that West Ham are desperate to keep Tevez for another year. They are offering him £115k a week but "will have to pay his 'owner' Kia Joorabchian up to £3m in a loan fee".
    No no that can't be right. West Ham unilaterally tore up the contract with KJ. Otherwise the Premier League would look very foolish or just plain bent and that can't possibly be.............................[/quote]


    I think you have overlooked Premier League Rule 78 Subsection D which states

    "Should any club be deemed to have won the World Cup they can get away with blue murder"
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving


    I think you have overlooked Premier League Rule 78 Subsection D which states

    "Should any club be deemed to have won the World Cup they can get away with blue murder"

    Shouldn't that read 'Claret and Blue Murder'
  • edited June 2007
    [cite]Posted By: PeanutsMolloy[/cite]Daily Mail reports that West Ham are desperate to keep Tevez for another year. They are offering him £115k a week but "will have to pay his 'owner' Kia Joorabchian up to £3m in a loan fee".
    No no that can't be right. West Ham unilaterally tore up the contract with KJ. Otherwise the Premier League would look very foolish or just plain bent and that can't possibly be.............................

    Incorrect. The contract was amended to remove the possible 3rd party influence clause, stating that tevez could be sold in any transfer window without west hams consent.
    Tevez is owned by MSI. West ham only hold his registration.


    [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]

    I think you have overlooked Premier League Rule 78 Subsection D which states

    "Should any club be deemed to have won the World Cup they can get away with blue murder"

    Quite right too.

    On a side note, rumours are that the decision of the arbitration will be made today.
    So we can finally put this to bed.
    (although people will still lable us as cheats based on half truths & complete untruths written in the press by people like oliver holt, without knowing the facts of the case).
  • think very few people have labled West Ham cheats. Its the Premier League where most of the anger and exasperation is pointed, and rightly so.
  • As I've said before they is no doubt that West Ham "cheated". They pleaded and were found guilty of breaking the rules knowingly QED they are cheats.

    The argument is over whether the punishment fits the admitted crime.
  • [cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]think very few people have labled West Ham cheats. Its the Premier League where most of the anger and exasperation is pointed, and rightly so.

    You'd be surprised how many people have said to me "you only stayed up because you cheated" blah blah blah.
    Any team that can do the double over both arsenal & man u deserves to stay up in my opinion.



    [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]As I've said before they is no doubt that West Ham "cheated". They pleaded and were found guilty of breaking the rules knowingly QED they are cheats.

    The argument is over whether the punishment fits the admitted crime.

    So whgat about this Steve Kabba deal then? Or the Howard situation between Man U & the blue scouse?
    These both invoked the 3rd party influence, where as the clause in tevez contract was never invoked.
    Are watford/sheff u/man u/everton all cheats?

    It was an administrative error by previous owners not to disclose all conditions of the contracts.
    These clauses could & would have been ironed out easily.
    The registration of the players have never been in question.

    £5.5m is a lot of money to pay for a clause in a contract that has never been invoked.
  • [cite]Posted By: Mortain[/cite] people will still lable us as cheats based on half truths

    no they will still lable you as cheats because you cheated ............. Messrs Brown, Aldridge and Duxbury were anxious to complete the registration of these players by the deadline of 31st August. They knew that the only means by which they could acquire them would be by entering into the third party contracts. Equally, they were aware that the FAPL, at the very least, may not -- and in all probability would not -- have approved of such contracts. They determined to keep their existence from the FAPL. In the case of the third element of the breach of Rule B13, namely the conversation between Mr Scudamore and Mr Aldridge, there is no dispute.
  • edited June 2007
    [cite]Posted By: Mortain[/cite]It was an administrative error by previous owners.

    Crap, it was concealed by Scott Duxbury, your clubs legal and commercial director.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Oh i've no problem with West Ham 'cheating'. Anyone can cheat as much as they like, as long as they are punished appropriately when discovered. And they weren't.
  • West Ham United cheated ................ Mr Aldridge, told him he would place the fact of the third party ownership into what he called side agreements, which he said he would not disclose to the FAPL. Mr Duxbury claims that he again checked the Rules to satisfy himself that such non-disclosure would be permitted. He again failed to look at Rule U18, and was of the view that non-disclosure was permissible. He advised Mr Aldridge of his opinion, and advised Mr Aldridge that if he was asked by the FAPL if there were such agreements that he was not to deny that, but to say that all information required to register the players had been submitted. Mr Aldridge was not a witness to be called by either party. He has not made a statement. We do not know what he may have said as to this. He has thus not been here to answer for himself. We can only proceed upon such evidence as we have. By the 31st, Ms Purdon and the FAPL had been told by Mr Duxbury that certainly in the case of Tevez, a third party, namely MSI, purported to own the player's registration.

    On 1st September, due to media speculation as to how these players had been signed by West Ham, the FAPL wished to clarify the position. Ms Purdon, and to this extent there is common ground, and Mr Duxbury had a telephone conversation in which she asked him if the club had entered into any arrangements with any third parties. Ms Purdon says that his answer was an unequivocal "no". Mr Duxbury says that he essentially ducked that question. He did not say yes, he did not say no. He merely replied that all documents required for registration had been provided. In doing so, he was in the belief that no Rule had been broken because he, despite having reminded himself of the rules, had failed yet again to read U18.
  • [cite]Posted By: No.1 in South London[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Mortain[/cite]people will still lable us as cheats based on half truths

    no they will still lable you as cheats because you cheated ............. Messrs Brown, Aldridge and Duxbury were anxious to complete the registration of these players by the deadline of 31st August. They knew that the only means by which they could acquire them would be by entering into the third party contracts. Equally, they were aware that the FAPL, at the very least, may not -- and in all probability would not -- have approved of such contracts. They determined to keep their existence from the FAPL. In the case of the third element of the breach of Rule B13, namely the conversation between Mr Scudamore and Mr Aldridge, there is no dispute.

    ***BANGS HEAD ON WALL***

    There are no rules against 3rd party opwnership of players.
  • edited June 2007
    but there are rules against lying to the FAPL and there are rules about concealing the truth ................. to me that's cheating - what would you call it?
  • So we can finally put this to bed.
    (although people will still lable us as cheats based on half truths & complete untruths written in the press by people like oliver holt, without knowing the facts of the case).

    ....................

    Sorry dude, West Ham cheated by signing two players illegally they even pleaded guilty to breaking the rules.

    No amount of claiming that journalists in the media, who probably know a lot more than you or I, will change that.

    What is at stake is whether the punishment West Ham received is appropriate or not, and whether a fine without pints reduction or automatic relegation was enough. My belief is that West Ham signed these players to make a difference on the pitch, did so knowing full well that they were breaking the law ie illegally and therefore a points reduction is in order in addition to a fine. That West Ham were not docked points has nothing to do with "half truths and untruths". West Ham cheated, end of.
  • [quote][cite]Posted By: Mortain

    ***BANGS HEAD ON WALL***

    There are no rules against 3rd party opwnership of players.[/quote]

    The fact is that the Commission admitted that it would ordinarily deduct points from WHU but for reasons that are universally regarded as absurd it decided to impose a fine instead. An arbitrary decision, contrary to precedent and plain wrong. It saved WHU from relegation. A gross injustice. FACT.
  • [cite]Posted By: Mortain[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]

    Any team that can do the double over both arsenal & man u deserves to stay up in my opinion.
    .

    any team that tonk a team 4-0 deserve to stay up in my opinion also.

    growl
  • [cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]As I've said before they is no doubt that West Ham "cheated". They pleaded and were found guilty of breaking the rules knowingly QED they are cheats.

    The argument is over whether the punishment fits the admitted crime.

    I suspect that Eggy "admitting" they cheated was part of a "behind the scenes" bargain which lead to the financial and not points deduction punishment. After all we do not know whether Brown or Aldridge accept that interpretation of events as they were not called upon to testify.

    By the way I understand that this Appeal panel is not necessarily the end of the process, it is merely a staging point. If the panel uphold the Blades appeal, they merely pass it back to the FAPL for further consideration. The FAPL could then ask the original commitee to revisit the issues. My gut feeling is that the Panel will say that the Blades have been relegated unfairly.
  • The Premier League were scandalously lax in their punishment of the club because the offence certainly meritted a significant points deduction. Failure to do this sets a terrible precedent and amounts to a cheaters charter .

    That said, most of the people at West Ham cheated who are no longer there, so it is unfair to label the current administration and fans (even Mortain) as a bunch of cheats - all they are doing now is fighting their corner which is fair enough.

    Because of Premier League incompetance and tardiness there is no easy solution now - I would suggest that West Ham are given a choice:

    (a) get their £5M back but swap places with Sheffield United ie. relegation

    (b) a 10 points deduction next season, plus a huge fine (say £20M) which should be paid to Sheffield United by means of compensation.

    If they refuse to make the choice then relegate them.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!