[cite]Posted By: Solidgone[/cite]Would we have felt indifferent if we weren't relegation fodder? I'm sorry to say this but our team is not good enough for the prem and that's why we are where we are.
Course it hurts a little more cos we're that close to WHU but the fact we're in the doo-doo is totally irrelevant, I'd feel the same level of mistrust and utter contempt for the whole lot of them if we were mid-table.
The final insult was when the Premier League allowed Tevez to play on without even a hint of reservation - a total kick in the bollox for all who seek fair play, regardless of where they are in the table.
[cite]Posted By: Mortain[/cite]The only place i've heard this come from is the sun.
Story from nothing in my book (he says clutching at straws).
As for all this malarky about us going unpunished, I'd hardly say a £5.5M fine is no punishment.
I agree it is a let off, but is still a massive fine.
Its the premier league that have royaly cocked up here, in the amount of time it has taken to resolve the case.
They knew about the situation, as everyone else did, when we registered the players.
They shouldn't have allowed it to happen from the start, instead of acting only when complaints are made.
For the record, I agree the whole deal stinks and I agree we have got of lightly, but we haven't gone unpunished as some say.
On the case of the fine, I have no doubt that Eggy will seek redress from messrs Brown, Aldridge & Co and there is a good chance the club will recover the money. So it's extremely moot as to whether the fine will end up costing the club a penny. That's why only a points deduction would have been a true punishment.
Personally the reason why it was a fine and not points is because of the mal-administration by FAPL in not getting to the truth earlier. West Ham will quite rightly claim that a points deduction at this stage is against natural justice given the delay.
The whole thing is a mess and I have some sympathy for the position that West Ham would have been put in were a points deduction imposed this late in the season. Everybody mentions the ' Boro points deduction but from memory that came a lot earlier in the season so 'Boro would have had some chance of trying to get out of it. It would be very cruel if West Ham fought their way out of the relegation places only for the FAPL to come in and take points off them to push them back into relegation.
Should there have been a points deduction? Yes, but much earlier in the season.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick
The whole thing is a mess and I have some sympathy for the position that West Ham would have been put in were a points deduction imposed this late in the season. Everybody mentions the ' Boro points deduction but from memory that came a lot earlier in the season so 'Boro would have had some chance of trying to get out of it. It would be very cruel if West Ham fought their way out of the relegation places only for the FAPL to come in and take points off them to push them back into relegation.
Should there have been a points deduction? Yes, but much earlier in the season.
The late in the season thing just makes it even worse as far as I'm concerned - they have HAD THE BENEFIT of fielding an ineligible player UNPUNISHED for all that time. It is absolutely ludicrous and calls the whole ethics of the sport into question - now I really know that 'ethical' is not a word that can be associated with football.
The no points reduction was covered in the judgement, which suggested that there would have been a points reduction had the offence come to light earlier in the season, but since it came so late it was deemed unfair to West Ham. Therefore the only precedent that has been set has been a late in the season judgement.
OK so say for example I've booked my wedding (hypothetical of course) knowing that I was under investigation for a crime with possible jail sentence, and the judge lets me off with a fine cos it would be unfair.. hmmm
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The no points reduction was covered in the judgement, which suggested that there would have been a points reduction had the offence come to light earlier in the season, but since it came so late it was deemed unfair to West Ham. Therefore the only precedent that has been set has been a late in the season judgement.
Surely it came to light because WHU withheld the documentation from the EPL/FA.
maybe a better anology would be a West Ham player punching the ball off the line and the ref saying he wasn't going to give a penalty as it would punish the fans who had come to see the match.
Surely it came to light because WHU withheld the documentation from the EPL/FA.
...............
I'm referring to the decision to not dock any points, part of the rationale behind that was because the hearing took so late in the season that it would be unfair on WHU - you need to look up the decision for the correct wording. That justification suggested to me that had the hearing taken place earlier in the season that it may well have resulted in points being docked. So it would seem that the EPL have not necessarily set a precedent, however, it's going to be very difficult justifying a points deduction in the future.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]maybe a better anology would be a West Ham player punching the ball off the line and the ref saying he wasn't going to give a penalty as it would punish the fans who had come to see the match.[/quote]
Actually a better analogy would be that player not getting sent off because the referee has decided to award a penalty instead.
And if WHU should escape relegation it'll be like the defending team had then saved the penalty.
Until now I wouldn't have minded had WH escape relegation, but after the blatant cheating by the old WH board added to which you can add their lying, means that I hope they go down.
what i don't get is -how can Liverpol be sanctioned by the FA and Premier Lague to play Mascherano yet Wes Ham ger fined £5m - surely if it is against the rules for West Ham it is against the rules for Liverpool - what is the difference.
The delay was mostly because Mascherano had played for two different clubs in one season and appealed to UEFA to allow him to play for a third - pleading not for the first time that they were a special case. So not much point signing him unless they could play him.
Amazing though that Mascherano couldn't get a game for WHU but has become a more or less regular starter for Liverpool.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]
Amazing though that Mascherano couldn't get a game for WHU but has become a more or less regular starter for Liverpool.
I suspect this is about the only indication of third party influence. The takeover fell through and Liverpool were interested in the player. I imagine that some leaning on the player/West Ham was done to make sure he didn't get injured to protect the deal.
I can see where people are coming from with this but, in all honesty, if we can't get to more than 37 points then do we really deserve to stay up anyway?
The Tevez thing is probably unfair but we should be looking at ourselves and from the departure of Parker until the arrival of Pardew this club has been going backwards and I just hope that Pards can have a mass clear-out in the summer and get us back on track. I think he will.
Comments
Course it hurts a little more cos we're that close to WHU but the fact we're in the doo-doo is totally irrelevant, I'd feel the same level of mistrust and utter contempt for the whole lot of them if we were mid-table.
The final insult was when the Premier League allowed Tevez to play on without even a hint of reservation - a total kick in the bollox for all who seek fair play, regardless of where they are in the table.
On the case of the fine, I have no doubt that Eggy will seek redress from messrs Brown, Aldridge & Co and there is a good chance the club will recover the money. So it's extremely moot as to whether the fine will end up costing the club a penny. That's why only a points deduction would have been a true punishment.
Personally the reason why it was a fine and not points is because of the mal-administration by FAPL in not getting to the truth earlier. West Ham will quite rightly claim that a points deduction at this stage is against natural justice given the delay.
The whole thing is a mess and I have some sympathy for the position that West Ham would have been put in were a points deduction imposed this late in the season. Everybody mentions the ' Boro points deduction but from memory that came a lot earlier in the season so 'Boro would have had some chance of trying to get out of it. It would be very cruel if West Ham fought their way out of the relegation places only for the FAPL to come in and take points off them to push them back into relegation.
Should there have been a points deduction? Yes, but much earlier in the season.
The late in the season thing just makes it even worse as far as I'm concerned - they have HAD THE BENEFIT of fielding an ineligible player UNPUNISHED for all that time. It is absolutely ludicrous and calls the whole ethics of the sport into question - now I really know that 'ethical' is not a word that can be associated with football.
Surely it came to light because WHU withheld the documentation from the EPL/FA.
...............
I'm referring to the decision to not dock any points, part of the rationale behind that was because the hearing took so late in the season that it would be unfair on WHU - you need to look up the decision for the correct wording. That justification suggested to me that had the hearing taken place earlier in the season that it may well have resulted in points being docked. So it would seem that the EPL have not necessarily set a precedent, however, it's going to be very difficult justifying a points deduction in the future.
Actually a better analogy would be that player not getting sent off because the referee has decided to award a penalty instead.
And if WHU should escape relegation it'll be like the defending team had then saved the penalty.
Until now I wouldn't have minded had WH escape relegation, but after the blatant cheating by the old WH board added to which you can add their lying, means that I hope they go down.
Liverpool took 6 weeks to complete the deal, so it was done properly
Amazing though that Mascherano couldn't get a game for WHU but has become a more or less regular starter for Liverpool.
I suspect this is about the only indication of third party influence. The takeover fell through and Liverpool were interested in the player. I imagine that some leaning on the player/West Ham was done to make sure he didn't get injured to protect the deal.
The Tevez thing is probably unfair but we should be looking at ourselves and from the departure of Parker until the arrival of Pardew this club has been going backwards and I just hope that Pards can have a mass clear-out in the summer and get us back on track. I think he will.