1 edit
Originally posted by Angry BoyI think I need to see a doctor, I'm agreeing with a Liverpool supporter but my vote also goes for the Italy 3 Brazil 2 game in 1982.
Judging by your posts I don't think you're old enough to have watched it live. 😉
Mine vote goes for Italy 3 Brazil 2, in 1982
The Brazil side had easily the best attacking players in the competition and played such unbelievable attractive football, Zico, Scoratese, Falcao.
Brazil needed only a draw to progress to the semi finals and had played perfect football so far in the competition.
Problem is they could not defend, but they were so good they didn't need to, no team could get the ball off them, until they met Italy.
From what I remember it was loads of pressure from Brazil, Italy playing great counter attacking football. Italy unbelievably went 2-1 up, then Brazil scored to get the draw they needed.
When the game was nearly over Rossi pops up and scores to get a hattrick and shock the world of football.
Originally posted by Rooney Once a BlueI remember the Italian coach had been continually slated for some dreadful performances. Typical Italians, love being underdogs. Brazil 82 were an incredible team, they slaughtered the best Scotland team ever and decimated Argentina.
I think I need to see a doctor, I'm agreeing with a Liverpool supporter but my vote also goes for the Italy 3 Brazil 2 game in 1982.
The Brazil side had easily the best attacking players in the competition and played such unbelievable attractive football, Zico, Scoratese, Falcao.
Brazil needed only a draw to progress to the semi finals and had ...[text shortened]... me was nearly over Rossi pops up and scores to get a hattrick and shock the world of football.
England Brazil 1970 was a great game and England were awesome first half. Italy Germany semi was great as well.
If Tevez was not signed in the proper manner, as you seem to think, then how can he continue to be an asset in the premiership with another club...if WHU had an advantage, then so did liverpool.........you're the simpleton............as for not being old enough to remember the 1970 final, I was 13.....if brains were a disease you'd live forever.
1 edit
Originally posted by tawnyowl50 this year and going senile already? You're making yourself look stupid now. I see my last post was pulled for saying just that. Harsh (as it's true, you are) but fair (because it's in the rules).
If Tevez was not signed in the proper manner, as you seem to think, then how can he continue to be an asset in the premiership with another club...if WHU had an advantage, then so did liverpool.........you're the simpleton............as for not being old enough to remember the 1970 final, I was 13.....if brains were a disease you'd live forever.
One last time. West Ham did not own Tevez and Mascherano this made them ineligible under PL rules. When LFC bought Mascherano they did so from the company that owned him (not West Ham, hence the undisclosed fee). He's a Liverpool player, owned by Liverpool hence he's not ineligible to play for them.
GET IT?
Originally posted by Angry BoyRead this thick tvvt, and then tell me who's going senile. THEY WERE ELIGABLE ALL SEASON!!!!!!!!!!
50 this year and going senile already? You're making yourself look stupid now. I see my last post was pulled for saying just that. Harsh (as it's true, you are) but fair (because it's in the rules).
One last time. West Ham did not own Tevez and Mascherano this made them ineligible under PL rules. When LFC bought Mascherano they did so from the company t ...[text shortened]... Liverpool player, owned by Liverpool hence he's not ineligible to play for them.
GET IT?
I am sorry that you are disappointed with the Independent Commission's judgment.
It is important to understand that as a result of the potential Rule breach, the
Premier League (PL) convened the Commission in accordance with PL Rules. The
Commission conducted the proceedings and ensured consideration was given to due
process.
The Premier League appointed the three panel members on the basis of their
integrity, impartiality and expertise. Please see the attached Press release at
the time the Commission was convened. This release details the qualifications of
the panel members.
The judgment (a link to which is below) needs to be read as a whole to
appreciate the outcome that has been reached. The fine of £5.5 million is
unprecedented. Further, West Ham has fielded fully registered players throughout
the current season, the rule breach was in relation to third-party ownership,
not illegal registration.
http://www.premierleague.com/fapl.rac?comm...tegoryCode=News
Of course there have been copious amounts of press and media communication
following the conclusion of the Premier League season on Sunday 13th May. We do
appreciate that there are a lot of emotions running high for supporters such
that for clarification, we want to give a full explanation of how the affair has
been dealt with by the Premier League, to the Rule book, from the beginning:
Information came to the attention of the Board towards the end of January 2007
which led the Board to believe that there may have been breaches of Rules B.13
and U.18. The Board made immediate enquiries and corresponded with West Ham in
relation particularly to the third party contract which it was alleged could
constitute a breach of U.18. It is important to point out that West Ham disputed
the Board's interpretation of the contract and denied breaches of any rules.
The Board satisfied itself that there was a case to answer and proceeded, in
accordance with Section R of the Rules, to refer the matter to a Commission
appointed under Rule R.15. That Commission was independent of the Board. It was
chaired by a leading QC and had two further independent members. Those members
were drawn from a Panel of independent individuals approved by the Premier
League's 20 member Clubs.
The hearing date for the Commission was fixed for the earliest date possible,
following the completion of the various legal processes that are necessary in
order to bring a matter before a Commission and for the principles of natural
justice to be complied with.
The Commission met to hear the Charges on 26 April 2007. Until the hearing, the
Charge under U.18 was denied. The Charge under Rule B.13 was admitted in part,
but only insofar as it referred to a misrepresentation made by a former official
of the Club. Therefore, these Charges were fully contested until the hearing.
At the hearing West Ham decided to plead guilty to both Charges.
The Commission's decision was made and published on 27 April and, having had the
opportunity to see and hear all the evidence, decided for reasons which are set
out in detail in the Judgement, to impose the fine of £5.5 million. In addition,
the Commission ordered that the registration of Mr Tevez could be terminated by
the Premier League. A Board Meeting was convened immediately after the
conclusion of the Commission Hearing. The Board decided that in order for Mr
Tevez to be eligible to play, West Ham would be required to take immediate
action either to modify the offending third party contract in a manner
satisfactory to the Board or alternatively terminate outright. West Ham has
taken steps to comply with the decision of the Board and the Board is satisfied
that the steps West Ham has taken are such as to meet its concerns.
7. In summary;
Under no circumstances is this a matter where the Premier League has failed to
apply its own Rules. The Rules have been applied. An Independent Commission was
convened in accordance with those Rules. It was that Independent Commission and
not the Premier League or its Board which made the decision. The Commission is
free to make any decision that it chooses and those powers are specifically
reserved and referred to in our Rules.
The Rules give the Commission power to select from a full range of sanctions
including reprimand, fine, suspension, deduction of points, expulsion, any
combination of the foregoing or such any other penalty as it shall think fit and
the Commission also has the power to make such other Order as it thinks fit. The
Rules do not specify that points have to be deducted. Indeed they do not specify
any particular penalty. The full range of penalties is available to a Commission
and it is entirely up to the Commission as to what penalty is imposed.
One further point that ought to be borne in mind is that Rule B.12 confirms that
membership of the Premier League shall constitute an agreement between the
Company and Clubs and between each Club to be bound by and comply with, inter
alia, the Rules.
8. In conclusion - we believe we were right to bring the charges again West
Ham. We believe the Independent Commission was properly convened, its judgement
was rational and the sanction was one that it was entitled to make within its
powers. We also consider Tevez was at all times registered to play for West Ham
United and that they are bound to act in a manner that is consistent with them
having terminated the offensive third party agreement.
These three elements are within the Premier League's jurisdiction and we have
acted in accordance with the Rules operating for the purposes of the 2006/07
season. We have no wider remit - and neither should we.
As you are no doubt aware, an arbitration panel has been set up at the request
of Sheffield United FC which will specifically review the processes followed by
the Premier League from when the rule breach first came to our attention in
January of this year. You will appreciate that we are not able to comment
further on this until after the arbitration panel has sat (18th and 19th June)
as this is a legal matter in progress.
We do, of course, take the opinions of all fans seriously. Thank you for taking
the time to write to us
Kind regards
Communications Department
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Big Jack
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Find Member's Posts
post Jun 8 2007, 07:43 PM
Post #2
Reserve Team Player
***
Group: OWLSTALK MEMBERS
Joined: 4-November 04
From: underneath the arches
Member No.: 905
This will go down in history as the pigs who were not good enough trying to find away out of relega
Originally posted by fizzz24Your own words:
[b]Read this thick tvvt, and then tell me who's going senile. THEY WERE ELIGABLE ALL SEASON!!!!!!!!!!
"The Board decided that in order for Mr Tevez to be eligible to play, West Ham would be required to take immediate action either to modify the offending third party contract in a manner satisfactory to the Board or alternatively terminate outright."
"In order for Mr Tevez to be eligible to play"?
So he must have been ineligible before that then?
No more questions your honour.
Originally posted by Angry BoyThis is the last post I'm making on this, if the player was originally ineligable for whu, how can the transfer to the scousers be eligable? Just because he moved on, does that make everthing hunky dory? He obviously
Your own words:
"In order for Mr Tevez to be eligible to play"?
So he must have been ineligible before that then?
No more questions your honour.
came in initially wrong according to you.........now pxxs off
Originally posted by Tirau Danyeh .The semi was pretty good to...who was that against ..oh yes portugal
Not Pretty but still Englands finest hour.. all other results are insignificant.
1966 England 4 - Germany 2
And yep I watched it live on the box as a kid and collected every player in bubble gum cards.. they were champions of the world and very massive hero's to children of the sixties... the controversy didn't matter a fig!