14 May 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopA right old cockernee you are aren't ya?
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!.... WE'RE STAYING UP.... THE LAND OF JELLIED EELS, KNEES UP MOTHER BROWN, CHAS & DAVE, THE KRAYS, THE BO BELLS... YES! YES! YES!.... WE STAYING UP...
ONCE MORE....
WE'RE STAYING UP....
BYE BYE SHEFFIELD.... 😵
Can't even spell Bow Bells right!
14 May 07
Originally posted by Angry BoyWho says £5.5m is not a just sentence.
Very lucky indeed. You broke the rules and somehow escaped a just and fair punishment.
Also lets remember it was The Brown Pardew era that ushered in Tevez and Macherano.
Finally would the result of the season been any different if the two players had been signed in the conventional way.
14 May 07
Originally posted by invigorateThe usual punishment for offences of the type are point deductions. £5.5M is nothing compared to what Sheffield Utd are going to lose in revenue next season.
Who says £5.5m is not a just sentence.
Also lets remember it was The Brown Pardew era that ushered in Tevez and Macherano.
Finally would the result of the season been any different if the two players had been signed in the conventional way.
It doesn't matter who the individuals involved in the deals were - they were representing West Ham. Therefore West Ham broke the rules.
West Ham couldn't afford to sign them "in the conventional way". Without Tevez West Ham probably would have gone down, anyway what does it matter? They can argue he didn't keep them up single handedly - but he shouldn't have even been playing.
14 May 07
Originally posted by Angry BoyCan you give me an example of joint ownership of a player leading to a points deduction.
The usual punishment for offences of the type are point deductions. £5.5M is nothing compared to what Sheffield Utd are going to lose in revenue next season.
It doesn't matter who the individuals involved in the deals were - they were representing West Ham. Therefore West Ham broke the rules.
West Ham couldn't afford to sign them "in the conventional ...[text shortened]... an argue he didn't keep them up single handedly - but he shouldn't have even been playing.
14 May 07
Originally posted by FleabittenOn the other hand, Tottenham were found guilty of making illegal payments to players in 1994, but the 12-point penalty imposed on them for the 1994-95 season was overturned because the offence had happened under previous ownership. West Ham, having been bought by an Icelandic consortium, are in a similar position.
AFC Wimbledon were docked 3 points for fielding an ineligible player. Not sure what made the player 'ineligible', though.
14 May 07
I've talked about this in a couple of other threads and happily admit that I don't know enough to say definitively whether or not a point deduction was warranted. What do you think of the argument that not applying a points deduction sets a dangerous precedent? Could it lead to other teams exploiting the ruling?
14 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by invigorateWest Ham have admitted that they fielded players illegally. Tevez was ineligible to play as he was not under West Ham's sole ownership. There are plenty of examples of points being deducted from teams who field ineligible players. The FA and leagues customarily deduct points, without mercy, when clubs fail to complete the required paperwork to register players. Bury were thrown out of the FA Cup earlier this season for cocking up the administrative procedure when playing Stephen Turnbull - on loan from Hartlepool, who were happy for him to play.
Can you give me an example of joint ownership of a player leading to a points deduction.
That's what you get for honestly stuffing up paperwork. West Ham lied!
14 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by invigorate.. and the Premier League have already stated that this is one of the reasons that they showed leniency and didn't dock points. But the offence warranted docking points, any leniency shown should have been a reduction of these points. In the end, 3 points would have been enough.
On the other hand, Tottenham were found guilty of making illegal payments to players in 1994, but the 12-point penalty imposed on them for the 1994-95 season was overturned because the offence had happened under previous ownership. West Ham, having been bought by an Icelandic consortium, are in a similar position.
Tevez featured in further West Ham games after the charges were brought on January 24. The Premier League had the power to stop him playing but did not. More leniency.
In other words, West Ham paid £5.5M to stay in the Premiership. Relegation will cost Watford, Sheff Utd and Charlton about £30M each next year alone. I'm sure they'd have coughed up the fine willingly to stay in the Premiership.
The moral of the story? Crime pays.
14 May 07
Originally posted by Angry Boythe moral of the story is support west ham, and you will die a happy man
.. and the Premier League have already stated that this is one of the reasons that they showed leniency and didn't dock points. But the offence warranted docking points, any leniency shown should have been a reduction of these points. In the end, 3 points would have been enough.
Tevez featured in further West Ham games after the charges were brought on ...[text shortened]... ghed up the fine willingly to stay in the Premiership.
The moral of the story? Crime pays.
- Joined
- 05 Jan 05
- Moves
- 687691
15 May 07
Originally posted by Angry Boynevermind they will lose Tevez and they will finish bottom of the premiership next year
.. and the Premier League have already stated that this is one of the reasons that they showed leniency and didn't dock points. But the offence warranted docking points, any leniency shown should have been a reduction of these points. In the end, 3 points would have been enough.
Tevez featured in further West Ham games after the charges were brought on ...[text shortened]... ghed up the fine willingly to stay in the Premiership.
The moral of the story? Crime pays.
can't help feel the influence of Trevor Brooking in the FA helped West Ham avoid a points deduction
15 May 07
Originally posted by FleabittenThis is laughable. They signed a player from a League of Wales and apt was not in place. however if the player had been signed from say Swansea( welsh team playing in english league), it would have been fine.
AFC Wimbledon were docked 3 points for fielding an ineligible player. Not sure what made the player 'ineligible', though.