Why West Ham should NOT have points deducted over Tevez
In a recent comment on Soccerlens, a reader pointed out that the Premier League had posted the transcript of the West Ham ruling on their website and that one should read it before blindly commenting on the ruling.
Now I know that this is late (the ruling was made on 27th April 2007) and a lot has already been said about final punishment meted out to West Ham. However, I thought it would be negligent to not at least read the full transcript once. I’ve discussed the transcript below along with my opinions on it.
Before I start though, I would like to point out two things:
One, I’m a Manchester United supporter, so no for or against bias here. Actually, I started following West Ham more closely after watching them play last season (2005/2006) and have liked them since.
Two, My initial view on the Tevez issue was that the Commission had been lenient with West Ham and some of the reasons given for not deducting points were whimsical and flimsy.
I’m happy to see West Ham stay up (and I hope that the independent tribunal allows them to stay up) but that’s the football fan in me. The critic disagrees, but I’m open to different arguments, and because of that I wanted to read the full transcript and find out what really happened.
You can download a full copy of the transcript from here (FAPL website).
It would be tedious and repetitive to walk you through the transcript, plus if you want to understand the complete situation you really should take out some time to read it - 6000 words so it shouldn’t take you too long.
Background
It’s important to note that West Ham themselves forwarded the contracts of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano to the FA Premier League towards the end of January 2007. It is quite possible that if they had chosen to do so, they could have found a way to hide from this matter and drag it out even further. While there was always the case that third party ownership would cause problems there was no knowledge of the actual contractual details and because of that no serious case could be made against West Ham without looking at the contracts, and as far as the FAPL knew the contracts did not violate any rules.
The Commission statement also quotes the agreement between member clubs of the Premier League which states that each Chairman of the club members commits themselves to ensure that their clubs inter alia “behave with the utmost good faith and honesty to each other” and “will comply with the laws of the game and follow Premier League Rules, not only to the letter but also to their spirit and will ensure that our clubs and officials are fully aware of such rules”.
In essence, West Ham were, in respect of their FAPL agreement, expected to be fully aware of the rules.
The key characters are West Ham legal and commercial director Mr Scott Duxbury, West Ham CEO Paul Aldridge, FAPL secretary Ms Purdon (responsible for the regulation of the management of players to clubs in the Premiership) and FAPL general secretary, Mr Foster (responsible for player registrations with FAPL). As witness statements go, that of Mr Richard Scudamore, the FAPL chief executive, will be crucial to the proceedings.
Contracts
The crux of the whole argument. Essentially, both contracts (for Tevez and Mascherano) stated that it was up to the third party owners to determine when the player would be transferred away from West Ham, and that West Ham or the player himself had no say in the matter. To make this happen, the third party would have to pay a small sum to West Ham.
West Ham, under Terry Brown (chairman) and Aldridge (CEO) agreed to these terms.
The contracts allowed for the possibility of West Ham’s playing policies to be affected by the third party in four different ways:
A) The third party may be able to determine when and to whom the player may be transferred, which may not coincide with the wishes and interests of the club for whom the player is playing, or the player himself, and thus potentially influence the playing policies of the club.
B) In the event of the third party having a particular transfer in mind, it may seek to influence the playing performance of the player.
C) The third party could prevent a transfer of the player against the interests of the club.
D) The third party could prevent the termination of the player’s contract with the club and against the wishes of the club. The club’s disciplinary control of the player could be affected.
My personal view is that regardless of whether the third parties wished to impact West Ham’s playing policies or not, the clauses that allowed the third parties to solely determine the future of the player were in direct violation of rule U18, which states:
“No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches or in any (other) competitions.”
An argument was made that this rule did not apply to the Tevez / Mascherano situation because it did not affect playing terms - however, it did give the third parties the ability to influence the club’s transfer policy, which is covered in the rule above.
So yes, the contracts were illegal under the FAPL agreement. The interesting part here is that Mr Duxbury, legal and commercial director at West Ham, denied knowledge of the U18 rule. That is, in my view, gross misconduct. Ignorance of the law is hardly an excuse. There’s also the case of Paul Aldridge, telling Richard Scudamore that there was nothing wrong with the contracts, but that’s not relevant as it happened after the players had been transfered.
The contractual agreements related to Tevez and Mascherano was extremely interesting, and I’ve posted that full section here.
Knowledge of rule breach
There is some argument (from West Ham’s side) that they were not aware of the rule breach - and that if Mr Duxbury had known of the breach he (and by extension, West Ham) would have done things differently.
Short of calling it bullshit, I don’t know what else to say here. As legal director conducting transfers that clearly involve third parties and are therefore potentially problematic, it was Duxbury’s responsibility to be aware of all rules and regulations relevant to their situation.
At best, Duxbury and Aldridge hid some information from the FAPL. At worst, they openly lied to them. In either case, the rule violations still stand. However, if this matter had been brought to the FAPL’s attention earlier, there’s a good chance that West Ham would not be in the legal mess they found themselves in at the end of the 2006/2007 season.
FA Premier League and the unnecessary delay
The Commission also takes care to protect FAPL by saying that they were assured by West Ham that there were no irregularities and that the FAPL - essentially, Mr Foster, Ms Purdon and Mr Scudamore, believed West Ham (Duxbury and Aldridge).
That remained the position until 24th January 2007. On that date, Mr Igoe, the finance director of West Ham, was informed by the FAPL of a proposed report into third party ownership of footballers. He decided to forward the contracts to the FAPL.
In hindsight the FAPL should have been more vigilant and should have investigated the contracts fully.
According to my understanding, the FAPL had knowledge of the player contracts but not of the agreements made between the third parties and the club, West Ham. In my opinion the Premier League SHOULD have questioned how the players had been brought to West Ham if there had been no agreement between West Ham and any other club (as far as I’m aware, West Ham only signed agreements with the third parties) and if there WAS a deal made with those third parties, then Scudamore should have asked West Ham to share those documents.
The FAPL waited till January 24th before raising the matter again with West Ham. Around 4 1/2 months after that conversation between Scudamore and Aldridge.
In my view, certain individuals in the FA Premier League made grave errors of judgment and are responsible for this matter being resolved in late April and not early on in the season. Could this have affected the Commission’s decision in not giving a points penalty to West Ham?
The Penalty and Reasoning
The Commission decided to award a monetary fine and not a points deduction. They took the following factors into account:
One, the club’s pleas of guilty.
Two, the fact that the club is under new ownership and management. True it is that Mr Duxbury remains, but we are impressed by Mr Sturman’s point that Mr Magnusson could have cynically dispensed with his services so as to reflect more favourably upon the club.
Three, had the club in time made disclosure of the third party contracts to the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into which would not have offended the Rules. Mr Mascherano is now playing football for Liverpool. He is doing so pursuant to a contract entirely different in form to these contracts, and which has been approved by the FAPL. We have no reason to suspect that the same could not have been achieved with West Ham in August 2006.
Four, there has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party’s fault, the consequence is that a points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome, would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which would have consigned the club to certain relegation.
Five, Tevez has continued to play for the club after the discovery of these breaches. The FAPL had the power to have then terminated his registration. For understandable reasons, they did not. Had it not been for these proceedings, the club and the FAPL might have reached a similar situation to that pertaining to Liverpool and Mascherano. Tevez, we note, has played in more games post-24th January than before it.
Six, we have considered the position of the players and the fans. They are in no way to blame for this situation. Of course, if the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points. However, in this case, the fans and the players have been fighting against relegation. They have been doing so from between January and April. They have been so doing against the ever-present threat of a deduction of points. Those efforts and that loyalty would be to no avail were we to now, on what might be termed the eve of the end of the season, to deduct points.
Seven, it was Mr Igoe, thus the club, then under new ownership, who brought attention to these breaches.
The only factor that is credible is the new ownership of West Ham, although that factor is undermined by this:
When Magnusson took over, it’s believable that his advisers would have raised the issue of the two Argentinian players. At this point if Magnusson was lied to, and if at that point his advisers ALSO did not ask to see the third-party agreements, then they too are guilty of negligence.
And if West Ham’s new management was aware of those contracts AND they did not themselves offer that information to the Premier League until the Premier League talked about investigating into third party ownership of footballers, then West Ham’s new management are also guilty of a breach of rule B13.
In my view, the new management was in violation of rule B13. It can be argued that they had, by their inaction, agreed to the ‘invalid’ player contracts. I disagree with that - while the new management should have been more careful and diligent in dealing with the contracts, they cannot be held responsible for agreeing to the contracts.
Conclusion
As I said at the start, I’m biased towards West Ham. I want to see them in the Premiership, and I have no sympathy for a team that threw their Premiership status away on the last day in a home game, nor for a manager and chairman who have whinged so much this season that they came second place behind Jose Mourinho in the whinger’s league (personal opinion - I do respect Sheffield United’s spunk on the field this season though).
The main problem with the ruling is the caveat that if this hearing had happened earlier in the season, or if West Ham were not in a relegation battle, there is a very good chance (almost certain) that West Ham would have had points deducted.
The Premier League were also, directly or indirectly, responsible for delaying these proceedings.
I think the Commission weakened their own arguments considerably by taking into consideration the impact of relegation on the players and the fans. By making the punishment contingent on present circumstances, a precedent has been set for the future.
West Ham’s relegation rivals will argue that the gravity of the situation required that circumstances be ignored and the letter of the law be applied. In that case, West Ham would certainly have had points deducted.
There’s also the argument that this allows clubs to field players illegally and get away with it by paying a fine if they can argue for the right ‘circumstances’.
I don’t think this sets a precedent - deducting points (and thus affecting league standings) is a grave punishment and as such it is necessary to consider the club’s circumstances.
For me, the most convincing factor was the new ownership AND the delays - the first because FAPL did not inquire enough, and the second between seeing the contracts and the conclusion of these proceedings.
The Commission gave the right punishment, but perhaps the FA Premier League needs to be investigated as well - who will they pay the fine to? Shouldn’t Sheffield United be paid compensation by the FAPL?
Post-Commission
At the end, it was ordered that registration of Carlos Tevez be terminated by the FAPL. That date was 27 April. On 28 April, Tevez played for West Ham.
Was a new contract signed with the third parties in time? I think so - the proceedings gave West Ham and the third parties enough time to draft new contracts.
Would MSI agree to a new contract that DID not give them the complete transfer rights of the player? If they had, as I suspect, a gentleman’s agreement in place, or if West Ham have paid MSI a sum, or if any other outside agreement has taken place in which there is no legal, documented evidence that a third party has the ability to influence the club’s policies, then West Ham are legally clear and MSI would be open to signing a new agreement - and I’m sure this would have been drafted in advance.
Of course, it opens the possibility of West Ham employing the same legal stipulations that allowed Liverpool to enter an agreement for Mascherano.
Thank you for taking the time to read this extra-long article 
“Ethically” we probably should have been deducted points. However, in the same way that sometimes judges in criminal cases appear to give lenient sentances, the sentance given was still within their remit. They followed due process and came to a reasonable conclusion. Another reasonable conclusion would have been a points deduction. They decided not to do so.
Therefore, it is fine to think that West Ham should have had a points deduction but it was NOT an automatic punishment and there is no basis for a successful ‘appeal’ (from the perspective of Sheffield United) because the Prem League panel followed the disciplinary guidelines agreed by all Clubs to the letter.
The panel’s only error of judgement was publishing bizarre comments about not punishing West Ham fans. But it doesn’t change the fact that they came to a reasonable decision.
The bottom line is that Sheff Utd and Wigan would both have stayed up if they had not thrown away the massive points lead they both held on West Ham at various points in the season.
I cant remember the last book i read, oh yes i can it was that article, but im glad i did as it showed that all the talk of law suits, points deducted and multi million pound fines that have saturated our press for what seems like the whole season will now go away, and thank god for that as it’s been well and truely exhausted.
with such a well written piece stating all the facts if you intend to read it but think its a bit long, do please stick with it as it does exactly what it says on the tin, and Ahmed Bilal has picked the bones out of it to help us.
As unfair as it seems, the three relegated teams went down because of affairs on the field, not because of the Carlos Tevez affair.
You are missing one big point - the players were properly registered to play for WHU. they did not field any ‘illegal’ players. This has been stated by the EPL and agreed by UEFA and FIFA as I understand it. They had clauses in contracts that gave them only disadvantages and nothing that isn’t common to all loan deals. The contract and the registration are two different things.
Also, the panel did NOT order that the registration of Tevez be terminated. They ordered that it CAN be terminated and clearly left it to the EPL to decide. This is rather different. Sheff Utd and Wigan management are propagating some nonsense in order to divert attention from their appalling lack of fight at he end of the season. Sheff. Utd supporters came out of the last match of the season complaining about the management, but are now blaming it all on WHU. Wake up guys.
By far the biggest crime was allegedly lying to the EPL. Whether that warranted a points deduction is open to debate I guess, but I know of no precedent to base a decision on.
A points deduction was only one the potential punishments and not the prescribed one. Sheffield United and the rest of the ‘Gang of Four’ seem to have missed this point.
Also the PL were told that they ‘could’ choose to revoke Tevez’s registration but not that they had to.
Rule U18 is also very obscure and apparently sits next to a rule saying what logos must be put in the match day programme (or something similar). No excuse for Duxbury not to check it out when suggested, but perhaps an indicator of how important the PL considered the issue.
Sheff Utd should have played to the final whistle of the season rather than assuming that WHU would receive a points deduction and get them out of jail.If McCabe and Warnock has spent less time complaining to the press then who knows what might have happened.
I’ve read the judgment too and must confess to being a West Ham Fan.
I think many people, most of whom haven’t read anything more than the back pages of the tabloids, have made the fundamental error of questioning the merits of the panel’s decision. While we can all have our own views on whether the panel were too lenient/too harsh, the only way to challenge its decision is if it can be shown it was wrong in law or reached through an erroneous procedure.
The gang of four and more importantly their lawyers, have never put forward such an argument forward, so while their views are interesting, they’re completely irrelevant.
Another point that is often overlooked is that the ’side’ agreement at the centre of the problem did not benefit West Ham and so their acquiescence to it can hardly be described as ‘cheating’. They’d agreed to allow an important player to be taken away with little notice or benefit - it that’s cheating I wish other teams would cheat more often!
I’m still waiting to find out what Tevez’s ‘owner’, Joorabchian, will do, as the panel gave an opinion that this side agreement is unenforceable in English law, as it is a restraint on trade for Tevez.
As WHU hold Tevez’s registration and a valid player contract, this would seem to mean that Joorabchian cannot now move or sell him on without the club’s agreement and might explain why he hasn’t sold him on for £40m to Milan/Chelsea as he said he might.
The commission did not order Carlos Tevez’s contract to be terminated, but that it ‘can’ be terminated which is a big difference.
The FAPL therefore chose not to order the contract to be terminated and allowed the particular agreement to be removed, which allowed Carlos Tevez to continue playing. There was no new contract or transfer outside of the window.
I just want to comment on this para (below). West Ham did not deliberately enter into a contract which allowed the first part to happen (”No club etc, etc”). They ‘bought’ 2 players and the contracts had a dodgy clause. This does not mean the contracts are illegal as stated but simply requires a ‘change of terms’ which is implied by the FAPL stating that there was no reason this could not have been avoided if WH had contracts the same as the Liverpool one for Mascherano.
So it can be argued that the old administration were negligent and incompetent, but it can’t be argued that this was a deliberate act breaking the rules with an invalid contract. That is why any comparisons are irrelevant. Middlesborough broke the rules, Wimbledon broke the rules (big time) and Shef Utd broke the rules (v West Brom) ALL DELIBERATELY.
At the end of the day the biggest rule is that the teams with the least points go down. It wasn’t Tevez or WH that caused Sheff Utd to have the lowest points, it was their players and manager. See if arbitration turn this over, deduct enough points from WH and re-instate SU and see the court case that emerges. The Premier League would be finished (not a bad thing in my mind as the bare naked greed and covetousness along with a strange brand of kick-and-run football that characterizes Harry Enfield programs have ruined a once great league)and so would next season. In addition, all manner of precedents (take a look at some of the ‘deals’ that Man Utd, Chelski and the other big clubs have been involved in) would be put under the microscope. Bring it on. Finally, all I can say is I hope one day, those that run League 2 wake up one morning and say, “This is b?ll?x, lets rename the league Division 4, rebrand ourselves as ‘the REAL football league’, lower prices to compare with the cinema, pool the money earnt from cups, etc and divide it equally, put players on an average wage, try and provide decent entertainment for our hard working fans in the stands”. Oops sorry that’s how it used to operate (and we used to win in Europe).
———————————————————–
From Article
“No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches or in any (other) competitions.”
An argument was made that this rule did not apply to the Tevez / Mascherano situation because it did not affect playing terms - however, it did give the third parties the ability to influence the club’s transfer policy, which is covered in the rule above.
So yes, the contracts were illegal under the FAPL agreement.
An alternative view…
1. The third party interest rule wasnt written with third party owned players in mind, it is an anti match fixing rule, so that it covered the circumstances of Tevez in the first place is purely by chance and not in keeping with the original spirit of the rule - The rule was stretched in order to charge West Ham.
2. The FAPL acknowledge in their letter to the premiership clubs that ‘Clubs’ in the plural do not agree that the rule should be applied to third party owned players, so it isnt unanimously agreed that the rule should be applied to Tevezes circumstances - This assumably due to the stretching of the spirit of the rule.
3. The rule was not actually broken as no third party influence was wielded, therefore the breach of the rule was no more than a technical breach - Yes, maybe the wording was contravened (accepting of course that the rule should have applied in the first place which is by no means agreed upon) but no substantial breach of the rule took place, there was no third party interest used.
4. Lets for the sake of argument take it that a material breach of the rule did take place, meaning that Tevez was sold with WHU having no say in the matter - That surely would have been a disadvantage to WHU, so there was no advantage to be gained even if the rule was properly broken.
5. At the recent premier league meeting it was agreed that the third party rule wasnt clear enough, and that additional rules or wording needed to be added to make things as clear as they should be - So now the rule was an inadequate rule in the first place.
Wasnt this rule stretched as far as it could be so as to be able to charge WHU with it ?
Might it just be that the FAPL are now reaping what they sowed ? In that they close to trumped up the charge setting off Fulham, Wigan, Charlton, and Sheff Utd on their case purely because they were the teams that might have benefitted from a WHU point deducion.
Ah! it is interesting to see that someone has at last tried to give a fair assessment.
However, and I really find this boring, even in a carefully considered and worded analysis, we still find that one of the key accusations has been repeated as if it is true, when actually it is factually incorrect.
“At the end, it was ordered that registration of Carlos Tevez be terminated by the FAPL. That date was 27 April. On 28 April, Tevez played for West Ham.”
I reproduce the actual wording from the commission herewith:-
“We order the registration of Carlos Tevez CAN (my caps) be
terminated by the FAPL, and we order that West Ham pay
the costs of these proceedings.”
Please note, the commission did NOT order that the registration should, must or will be terminated but gave the FAPL the power to terminate the contract should they decide to do so.
Hence the continual statements from both the PL and WHU that Carlos Tevez has always been correctly registered to WHU and remains correctly registered. There has never been any doubt in this fact and it is why the Sheff Utd case is against the PLs application of the procedures and not against WHU.
This myth (that Tevez was re-registerd outside the transfer window) has continually been propagated by a number of people including Mr Whelan and Mr McCabe, for whatever personal reasons they have, in spite of the PL continually pointing out that they are incorrect.
John
There are a few of questions I have about this:-
Is there guidance as to how many points a club can be deducted? Is there a maximum and a minimum?
Is the Tim Howard/Everton/Man Utd incident anything similar to this one?
The legal cliche says ‘Let the punishment fit the crime’. In my opinion the financial punishment is correct in this case.
The crime is witholding information on third party influence on the club, which in practice was negligible - and certainly less than that dictated by Man Utd on the goalkeeper they faced in four Premier League matches this season.
By volunteering the third party contracts in January, and pleading guilty, West Ham went some way to make up the bad faith shown by their earlier dealings. This reduced the fine by £3M. The punishment of £5.5M represents a drop of 11 league places. Had West Ham been safe fom relegation, then this would be seen as very severe.
If points were deducted in late April, this would clearly consign the club to relegation. Cost: £30m+?
It would have triggered an appeal by West Ham, which would be based on the delays introduced by the Premier League, and would expose the shambles of the U18 influence rule. This would rumble on and with sounder grounds than the tissue-thin case that Sheffield United are pursuing.
So a severe fine was the decision, which allowed for West Ham to accept their penalty and move on. It also gave the Premier League the luxury of getting the U18 rule re-written at leisure.
Any recriminations from Sheffield United should be for the incompetence of their manager in squandering a massive points advantage over West Ham in March/April, and not for the impartial decision of an independent commission.
This is something I have said from the outset. When West Ham were handed the fine they were 19th in the table I beleive and had to get some results from their remaining games. Both Wigan and Sheffield Utd were in better posistions than them in the table.
No one expected them to pull off the great escape, and I believe the Premier League only hit them with a fine in the hope that nature would take it’s course and that they would be relegated.
It was only when they started to win games that all the problems started, as there was a real chance that they could pull it off. Kevin McCabe should shut his mouth and be glad that Sheffield was only slapped with a £10,000 for that debarcle against West Brom, where the match was abandoned after 3 of their players were dismissed and two limped off with mysterious injuries. As I remeber there was outcry calls for points to be docked and such like(which incidentally would have seen them relegated)but no just a fine, so McCabe has set the precedent there.
Overall a good argument, but you made one mistake which I would like to correct. The commission did not order the contract of Tevez to be cancelled, they ordered that the FAPL “COULD” cancel the contract. I think, for whatever reason, they chose not to.
John
I think this analysis is flawed. West Ham’s breach was not fielding illegal players or signing players owned by third parties. It was entering into an agreement which could have enabled the third party to influence their policy, and not revealing that. There was no evidence that the third party ever did influence thier policy, and the comment made by the lawyers at the hearing was that the agreement was probably unenforceable as a restraint of trade in any event.
There was more mitigation than you think. It is clear that quite a number of clubs have not understood the significance of rule 18 which is why the PL agreed at the recent chairmans meeting to clarify it. Further the PL admitted at the hearing that had the agreements been volunteered when they should have been it would almost certainly have been possible for amendments to have been negotiated as in fact happened when Mascherano was transferred to Liverpool. It is therefore unlikely WH gained any actual advantage from the non-disclosure.
Taking all these matters into account it is a mystery to me why anyone believes a points deduction would have been an appropriate punishment. Although undoubtedly guilty this was a relatively minor breach of the rules. One mans justice is rarely the same as anothers, but to my mind it is difficult to argue a £5.5m fine - more than three times the previous record could not have been a proper punishment when the actual offence and surrounding circumstances are taken into account.
I disagree with your comments about the new regime. On acquisition I would certainly have expected the purchasers to have seen the relevant contracts. I think they would have been entitled to have expected however that the old regime would have supplied all the relevant paperwork to the PL at the time of the transfer. The fact that they didn’t, and accordingly a breach of the rules had occurred should have been disclosed to the purchasers in the usual letter of disclosure. Mr Magnusson has gone on record as saying it wasn’t. Your argument that he should have assumed a breach of the rules when it wasn’t disclosed is nonsense.
It is of course highly relevant to the eventual outcome. The tribunal made it clear that the fact the offence had been committed by a previous regime was an important factor in their decision. It seems to be generally overlooked that this is one area where there is in fact a precedent - namely when Tottenham avoided a points deduction on precisely the same ground. In the light of that decision it would in fact have been surprising if the tribunal had allowed a points deduction.
It seems to me that you like most of the press has difficulty putting this case in its proper context. Last year in Italy clubs had points deducted ( from the following season ) for what amounted to trying to influence the outcome of matches. West Ham’s offence doesn’t come near that category.
I THAUGHT ONCE THE PANEL ,WHO HAD BEEN SELECTED BY THE PREMIER LEAGUE MEMBERS IE TEAMS HAD RULED THEN THAT WAS IT?
WHAT ON EARTH HAS HAPPENED TO ALL THE OTHER TEAMS THAT WERE SO CALED ANGERED BY THE DECISION?
THE PL RULES HAVE BEEN BROKEN…WE PAY THE FINE…MOVE ON.
WE DONT MAKE THE RULES,WE DIDNT DECIDE THAT WAS THE PUNISHMENT NEEDED,THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL THE TEAMS IN THE PL MADE THAT DECISION.
WHY CANT THAT THICK NORTHERN MONKEY JUST GET OVER IT AND REALISE HE OWNS A CLUB THAT HAS NO PLACE IN THE BEST LEAGUE IN THE WORLD.YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE IN LIFE AND SU GOT JUST THAT.
The whole problem of third party ownership is that all players on loan to other clubs are owned by a third party.
This means that a Man U goalkeeper, playing for Watford or Everton my be transferred by Man U, without Watford or Everton’s knowledge - similar to WHU and Tevez etc. don’t you think ?
A third party rule where Man U had clauses stopping these loan players playing against them (Man U) - the third party.
Also, Premiership clubs own players in other countries, and this now happens in UEFA games. Chelsea had a Brazilian player with a Belguim team who played against Arsenal, but if they had won, was not allowed to play against Chelsea.
If the FA had gone to hard on WHU, they would have had to look at every loan player’s contract. The clause 18 in question has now been rewrittten, it would be interesting to see what has been changed.
Regards
Steve P
I think it was right under the circumstances not to deduct points as the ramifications would go well beyond what might normally be expected.
If three points were to be deducted then we’d be relegated. The equivalent of docking Pompy 16 points or Tottenham 22 points. If the standard punishment is automatic relegation than so be it - but if the standard punishment is the loss of a few points, causing a club to slip down the league a place or two, then anything that goes beyond this needs careful thought.
An example in law: you get 3 points for speeding and when you reach 12 you get banned, but if a ban would cause you to lose your livelihood then an exception is usually made (in instances of ‘totting up’).
Of course, if Dean Ashton hadn’t got injured on England duty in September, none of this would matter now.
You guys are right, of course - it’s ‘CAN’. Thanks for correcting me.
Changes things a bit, in terms to what happened afterwards, but everything else stays the same.
However, I seem to recall that since the agreement for Tevez between MSI and West Ham was still illegal at the time. So basically only the Tevez - third party agreement changed, which was prepared ahead of time.
And West Ham had a day to share those documents with FA Premier League.
Did I get that right guys?
Good article and responses. Personally, I think Sheffield United are just clinging on to any possible chance they can see of either obtaining compensation or being reinstated.
One of the Sheffield United supporters internet sites ran a poll seven weeks before the end of the season and asked the question along the lines of “Can we get out of this relegation battle”. 62% of those who responded said that Sheffield United were not dependent upon any other club and that their destiny was in their own hands. They were seven points clear of a relegation place at that time.
They were relegated and now they seek to blame others.
The real argument that Sheffield United have - should be with Liverpool who fielded nine squad players against Fulham. If Liverpool had won that match - then Fulham would have been relegated.
You say “That is, in my view, gross misconduct. Ignorance of the law is hardly an excuse.” We are talking about a rule which no-one knew about, a rule that the arbitration panel itself said many clubs still believe West Ham have in fact not broken.
In effect is was a little known law, the small print of which is open to interpretation. A law that no other league in the world has, a rule which the English FA do not have. A rule in fact that if West Ham broke would lead to them possibly having their best player taken away from them.
So no advantage would accrue to West Ham only a disadvantage. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called ‘gross misconduct’.
You say it is ‘bullshit’ that West Ham were unaware of the law. Is it ‘bullshit’ then that no other club were aware of this rule either?
You also claim that if the hearing had taken place earlier in the season you say West Ham would have had points deducted. I very much doubt this. West Ham did not field ineligible players - what they did was break a little known rule by which they gained no advantage.
It is therefore very unlikely they would have had points deducted and for which a £5 million fine seems far too harsh.
This is the last time I come to your blog - I am sick of this trolling of West Ham fans.
I notice no one has commented on why SU think they even have the right to argue a case against the ruling. All EPL clubs signed an agreement prior to the panel deliberating, approving the individuals selected and agreeing that their ruling was final and binding. The only club that had the right to appeal was WHU, the accused.
If the EPL want to put this to bed once and for all they should instruct the arbitration panel to fine the Hammers 2 points. What will McCabe say to that?
“However, I seem to recall that since the agreement for Tevez between MSI and West Ham was still illegal at the time. So basically only the Tevez - third party agreement changed, which was prepared ahead of time.”
Almost correct Ahmed. The third party agreement between MSI & West Ham was literally torn up.
There is no longer any agreement between MSI & West Ham.
West Ham have full control over Tevez future
Hope this helps
i dont usually lyk ma utd fans but i do like this one west ham should not be deducted points asnd never should be, its all legal and dave wheelan is just a misrable c***t
[...] previous discussions on the subject, please read this and this - both articles discuss the initial Commission findings and the problems with those [...]
THE REAL REASON WEST HAM STAYED UP IS THAT MAN UTD FIELDED THEIR ‘RESERVE’ TEAM. LIVERPOOL ALSO FIELDED A ‘RESERVE’ TEAMS. BOTH OF THESE ACTIONS AFFECTED WHO WERE RELEGATED. I CAN SEE THE AREA OF TEAMS FIELDING WEAKENED TEAMS, ACTIONS WHICH AFFECT RELEGATION BEING A PROBLEM IN FUTURE YEARS.
The Man Utd team that played that day against West Ham was practically the same line-up as the one that beat Roma 7-1 in the Champions League, give or take substitutions. Was that a reserve team??? Wow!!!
[...] before you try to burn the site down…read this, this, this, this and this - at the very least you’ll have some context for this [...]