[quote][cite]Posted By: trickyrickycafc[/cite]from the bbc's website.
[i]The hearing report had also initially said that the Premier League could terminate Tevez's registration, and if West Ham wanted to play him they will have to re-sign him.
However, West Ham have made quick progress on a new agreement and avoided losing their star striker. [/i]
is that a new agreement with MSI, or a new agreement with the FA?![/quote]
But the transfer window is shut...how can you register a player outside the window?
Presumably WHU will have claimed that as the contract is invalid that Tevez is or was a free agent and therefore they could sign him outside the window?
They have waited until three games left in the season to deliver a punishment which is unprecedented in it's leniency as regards not docking points.
..............
Presumably they were hoping that West Ham would be either relegated or effectively relegated by that point making the question of points reductions irrelevant.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]They have waited until three games left in the season to deliver a punishment which is unprecedented in it's leniency as regards not docking points.
..............
Presumably they were hoping that West Ham would be either relegated or effectively relegated by that point making the question of points reductions irrelevant.
Yes. I posted on this a few weeks ago. The FAPL were always going to settle it this way. You couldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet seat!!
They have had months to deal with this since this officially came to light. If they had dealt with it months ago they could have docked them points and then at least West Ham could have had time to get enough points to keep them up. They left it to the last minute and then bottled the decision to dock them points because it would effectively relegate them.
Personally, I think the rules about third party ownership is going to have to be looked at again and in future these kind of arrangements will be allowed provided the player cannot be moved without the agreement of the club he is loaned to.
If the contractual position of these players was known at the time of their transfer, the authorities would have passed them subject to the above provisio.
That the FAPL failed to investigate this matter effectively is pathetic. This should have been sorted in September.
disgusting... tevez had his registration cancelled and then reinstated and 5.5 mil? just cos they haven't got the bollocks to relegate them, cop out c**ts
It's the inconsistency that stinks with this! Other teams transgress (Middlesbrough, Swindon, AFC Wimbledon, Rotherham etc) and they suffer points deductions or automatic relegation not West Ham though.
To rub salt into the wounds this is not the first time West Ham have cheated. Anyone remember Manny Onimymou(?spelling) a player they brought on as a sub in a Carling Cup game when cup tied? Their punishment- replay the game. Earlier this season Bury played an illegible player against Chester in the FA Cupand won the match. Their punishment- chucked out the competition and Chester took their place!
Trevor Brooking must have some compromising photos of his committee pals I reckon!
So obvious they weren't going to dock points. The floodgates have been opened for teams to play any player as and when they like. 5.5 mill is a drop in the ocean when your chasing champions league/avoiding relegation.
disgrace..... always gonna happen though, if we'd done the same thing we'd have probably been sent down outright and had all our our points divied up amongst the rest of the teams in the league....
Oh well nothing changes we knew that these controlling bodies were never gonna play fair so sod it onwards and upwards......
As others have suggested - and Paul Jewell has just said on the radio - the FA were obviously hoping that West Ham would already have been relegated by the time they reached their decision.
For a club that spent £6m in January on an injury-prone centre back, a fine like that in connection with their player of the year is a bit of a snip.
The whole situation is one enormous farce - so corrupt it feels like it can't possibly be true, yet sadly it is. I'm astonished the media haven't really made more of it. One caller to 606 last night pointed out that there would almost certainly have been a clause in the buyout agreement which will allow Egghead to land the fine at the door of the previous regime. So they will effectively get away scot free, despite having seriously and deceitfully broken the rules.
I have avoided reading about this so far (too busy) but the tribunal report is beginning to sound like a case fopr the defence!
The change of ownership is so completely irrelevant I cannot believe that the panel giving their ruling have even mentioned it. It is West Ham Utd the football club and legal entity which competes in the Premier League. It is West Ham which failed to disclose material "side-contracts".
As people point out the new owners have held back x% of the deal in case of this or relegation due to points deduction and the seriousness of their plight led to Terry Brown getting the push off the board in January. So it costs them nowt.
And it is West Ham who have been allowed to re write a player's contract & loan deal and then register this change outside of any transfer window.
I would love to see a sports lawyer's opinion of what grounds we or any other club would have for legal action if West Ham escape relegation by a point or two - and this should be published asap.
[cite]Posted By: seriously_red[/cite]I would love to see a sports lawyer's opinion of what grounds we or any other club would have for legal action if West Ham escape relegation by a point or two - and this should be published asap.
I suspect the FAPL will rely upon the following in batting away any suits from aggrieved clubs:
1. the "independence" of the panel?
2. continue to argue that Eggy co-operated with the FAPL and West Ham pleaded guilty to the charges and thus they received a more lenient penalty?
3. The rules of natural justice must apply as the process of dealing with this was necessarily long it meant that in deducting them points at this late stage of the season would be seen as unfair as West Ham could do little about it? Had the decision been made earlier at least West Ham could have focussed on trying to secure extra points?
You can then add to that the position usually taken by the courts that this is essentially an matter for the governing body to decide upon and not one for judges.
I suppose its also going to be a case of whether there is written into the FAPL rules, that disputes may be appealed to a higher legal body and whether any decision of that higher body is binding upon the parties.
I can't remember but when Tottenham (via Alan Sugar) successfully over-turned the points deduction imposed due to financial irregularities of the Scholar stewardship of the club, was it the FA's own appeals process which gave the ruling or did it go to court?
What I find fascinating is that assuming that a club which is relegated instead of West Ham takes the FAPL to court and wins (and that it can be done quickly, say before the start of pre-season training), what will FAPL do? Will they send down West Ham instead, or something else? What are the options?
1. Send West Ham down instead?
2. Keep both up and have four down the following season to bring things back to balance?
3. Keep both up and cancel this years play offs?
4. Keep both up and increase the league numbers to 21?
bit in the paper about Scudamore visiting each club (in the relegation battle) to smoothe things over but looks like as many as six clubs could appeal this... going to be interesting!
IMO, the Mirror is up there with the Sun for it's reliability, but I really hope this is true and that us and the other relegation threatened clubs are prepared to take action. The reasons given for a no point deduction are unbelievable!
Having seen the 7 "reasons" not to deduct points I think the one about upsetting West Ham fans is the most ridiculous. Together with the delay in resolving the issue I can see it all ending at the sports arbitration court in Switzerland.
Given the support AFC Wimbledon gathered I trust that whoever finishes 18th will get national backing to appeal the leniency of the punishment.
I suspect Scudamore may have told the other teams that they "might" have another look if it all goes to the wire.
Have you all listened to the latest on this on BBC Sport website. I'm beginning to really like Dave Whelen. Top man for carrying on with it even though they're now safe.
Comments
[i]The hearing report had also initially said that the Premier League could terminate Tevez's registration, and if West Ham wanted to play him they will have to re-sign him.
However, West Ham have made quick progress on a new agreement and avoided losing their star striker. [/i]
is that a new agreement with MSI, or a new agreement with the FA?![/quote]
But the transfer window is shut...how can you register a player outside the window?
Presumably WHU will have claimed that as the contract is invalid that Tevez is or was a free agent and therefore they could sign him outside the window?
..............
Presumably they were hoping that West Ham would be either relegated or effectively relegated by that point making the question of points reductions irrelevant.
Yes. I posted on this a few weeks ago. The FAPL were always going to settle it this way. You couldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet seat!!
They have had months to deal with this since this officially came to light. If they had dealt with it months ago they could have docked them points and then at least West Ham could have had time to get enough points to keep them up. They left it to the last minute and then bottled the decision to dock them points because it would effectively relegate them.
Personally, I think the rules about third party ownership is going to have to be looked at again and in future these kind of arrangements will be allowed provided the player cannot be moved without the agreement of the club he is loaned to.
If the contractual position of these players was known at the time of their transfer, the authorities would have passed them subject to the above provisio.
That the FAPL failed to investigate this matter effectively is pathetic. This should have been sorted in September.
To rub salt into the wounds this is not the first time West Ham have cheated. Anyone remember Manny Onimymou(?spelling) a player they brought on as a sub in a Carling Cup game when cup tied? Their punishment- replay the game. Earlier this season Bury played an illegible player against Chester in the FA Cupand won the match. Their punishment- chucked out the competition and Chester took their place!
Trevor Brooking must have some compromising photos of his committee pals I reckon!
What a bunch of corrupt tossers!
Oh well nothing changes we knew that these controlling bodies were never gonna play fair so sod it onwards and upwards......
For a club that spent £6m in January on an injury-prone centre back, a fine like that in connection with their player of the year is a bit of a snip.
The change of ownership is so completely irrelevant I cannot believe that the panel giving their ruling have even mentioned it. It is West Ham Utd the football club and legal entity which competes in the Premier League. It is West Ham which failed to disclose material "side-contracts".
As people point out the new owners have held back x% of the deal in case of this or relegation due to points deduction and the seriousness of their plight led to Terry Brown getting the push off the board in January. So it costs them nowt.
And it is West Ham who have been allowed to re write a player's contract & loan deal and then register this change outside of any transfer window.
I would love to see a sports lawyer's opinion of what grounds we or any other club would have for legal action if West Ham escape relegation by a point or two - and this should be published asap.
I suspect the FAPL will rely upon the following in batting away any suits from aggrieved clubs:
1. the "independence" of the panel?
2. continue to argue that Eggy co-operated with the FAPL and West Ham pleaded guilty to the charges and thus they received a more lenient penalty?
3. The rules of natural justice must apply as the process of dealing with this was necessarily long it meant that in deducting them points at this late stage of the season would be seen as unfair as West Ham could do little about it? Had the decision been made earlier at least West Ham could have focussed on trying to secure extra points?
You can then add to that the position usually taken by the courts that this is essentially an matter for the governing body to decide upon and not one for judges.
I suppose its also going to be a case of whether there is written into the FAPL rules, that disputes may be appealed to a higher legal body and whether any decision of that higher body is binding upon the parties.
I can't remember but when Tottenham (via Alan Sugar) successfully over-turned the points deduction imposed due to financial irregularities of the Scholar stewardship of the club, was it the FA's own appeals process which gave the ruling or did it go to court?
What I find fascinating is that assuming that a club which is relegated instead of West Ham takes the FAPL to court and wins (and that it can be done quickly, say before the start of pre-season training), what will FAPL do? Will they send down West Ham instead, or something else? What are the options?
1. Send West Ham down instead?
2. Keep both up and have four down the following season to bring things back to balance?
3. Keep both up and cancel this years play offs?
4. Keep both up and increase the league numbers to 21?
bit in the paper about Scudamore visiting each club (in the relegation battle) to smoothe things over but looks like as many as six clubs could appeal this... going to be interesting!
mirror
again, it says in the paper today there is uncertainty over his ownership, and who is liable if he is injured etc.
its a joke....
sorry thats ridiculous. in fact i'm not apologising for finding it ridiculous!
how 'nice' of them to be so good willed!
Conn on the Guardian Blogs
Samuel's in the Times
Given the support AFC Wimbledon gathered I trust that whoever finishes 18th will get national backing to appeal the leniency of the punishment.
I suspect Scudamore may have told the other teams that they "might" have another look if it all goes to the wire.