we know it has to be a 3 point deduction because that has to be the only reason afc wimbledon had their 18 points deduction reduced to 3 points to save the embarrassment of having to deduct 18 points from west ham as well...
Appeal isn't until the end of April and if there's still a chance of them staying up, then they'll get a heavy fine. I just can't see them deducting points if it will send them down.
[cite]Posted By: InspectorSands[/cite]Assume they won't get any points deducted. Stuff 'em, worry about us instead.
I'm afraid it has got to the point in the season when we unfortunately have to worry about West Ham, Sheff Utd, Fulham. Unless we win all of our remaining games, we have to keep an eye on their results.
[cite]Posted By: Weegie Addick[/cite]Surely they must be confident of that outcome, or why is Tevez still playing every week? Or did they buy him outright in Jan and I missed that?
If we are going to get points deducted, it won't matter if tevez has played once or 20 games.
We haven't bought him.
I think its the mascherano (sp?) deal that is the dodgier one of the two. That's the only reason I can think of that he wasn't played, that they realised there was a risk of losing the points for every game he appeared in. Liverpool paid the management company £10million to buy out his contract, so they must have thought there was something dodgy that wasn't worth risking.
The fa won't deduct points unless it makes no difference. If they do and it means west ham go down the close season will end up with court hearings to get the deduction removed. There is no way the FA will want that to happen.
[cite]Posted By: kigelia[/cite]The fa won't deduct points unless it makes no difference. If they do and it means west ham go down the close season will end up with court hearings to get the deduction removed. There is no way the FA will want that to happen.
now the precedent has been set with afc wimbledon the points deduction has to apply this season...otherwise anybody that goes down that would have stayed up if west ham were 3 points lighter will no doubt feel they have a valid case and try and recover their losses from not being a pl club...and we all know a club that will fight its corner if it feels it has a grievance over a perceived injustice...
It's the Mascherano deal that is dodgy...The News of the World claimed to have documents detailing a £339,000 payment in relation to the deal, which was not disclosed, as required, to the FA.
I think that is the reason why he was played so little at West Ham, with the threat that the FA might deduct points based on all the games he played in as with AFC Wimbledon.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ltgtr[/cite]we know it has to be a 3 point deduction because that has to be the only reason afc wimbledon had their 18 points deduction reduced to 3 points to save the embarrassment of having to deduct 18 points from west ham as well...[/quote]
I seem to recall a comment from the FA that the maximum fine is three points.
The main issue here is the failure of West Ham to give a full disclosure of the "material" facts of the "loan agreements" to the Premier League.
The appeal hearing is on 26th April.
There has already been an "FA spokesman" saying that three points is the maximum and that anyway West Ham may well be relegated by then.
If West Ham stay up by a couple of points, and no points are deducted, I can see a battle through the courts by the third bottom club. On the other hand West Ham will almost certainly sue if they are docked the points and get relegated. The Premier League have got themselves into a total mess by not dealing with this quickly and presumably hoping that the Hammers will have already been relegated.
The phrase "couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery" comes to mind.
Comments
...to our detriment
I'm afraid it has got to the point in the season when we unfortunately have to worry about West Ham, Sheff Utd, Fulham. Unless we win all of our remaining games, we have to keep an eye on their results.
But the only results we can do anything about are our own.
Let other clubs worry about us. And they will.
Don't trust anything that comes out that c**ts mouth!!!
(brown that is, not your mate!!!)
If we are going to get points deducted, it won't matter if tevez has played once or 20 games.
We haven't bought him.
So IF IF IF West Ham get docked points - it'll be no more than 3, if the FA are consistant.
If the FA have the bottle to do it.
WHam will start next season with minus 3 points.
That way, WHam get away with it and the FA save face.
now the precedent has been set with afc wimbledon the points deduction has to apply this season...otherwise anybody that goes down that would have stayed up if west ham were 3 points lighter will no doubt feel they have a valid case and try and recover their losses from not being a pl club...and we all know a club that will fight its corner if it feels it has a grievance over a perceived injustice...
So, Rothko, are you saying it's only a Premier League case, and not a direct FA one?
So the AFC Wimbledon case is not a precedent either?
I've not genned up on all the ins and outs of this case, so excuse my ignorance.
I think that is the reason why he was played so little at West Ham, with the threat that the FA might deduct points based on all the games he played in as with AFC Wimbledon.
I seem to recall a comment from the FA that the maximum fine is three points.
The appeal hearing is on 26th April.
There has already been an "FA spokesman" saying that three points is the maximum and that anyway West Ham may well be relegated by then.
If West Ham stay up by a couple of points, and no points are deducted, I can see a battle through the courts by the third bottom club. On the other hand West Ham will almost certainly sue if they are docked the points and get relegated. The Premier League have got themselves into a total mess by not dealing with this quickly and presumably hoping that the Hammers will have already been relegated.
The phrase "couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery" comes to mind.