Wigan May Sue West Ham + Premier League

[marshbags]

Published Date: 03 May 2007

Location: The Press Association Newsdesk

Quote:-

Wigan chairman Dave Whelan is considering legal action against either West Ham or the Premier League following the furore surrounding the signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.

Lawyers are looking into the findings of an independent panel that last week ordered the club to pay a fine of £5.5million after finding them guilty of two charges of irregularities relating to the transfers.

"The legal issue is being looked at by lawyers and QCs," confirmed Whelan. "Whether anything comes of it I cannot say because we are waiting for their advice. But the chairmen and chief executives of the clubs involved have spoken quite a lot about this these past few days, and two of the clubs are obtaining legal advice."

Whelan believes they should have been deducted 10 points but it is understood the Premier League are privately satisfied with the commission's final judgment.

The commission, chaired by Simon Bourne-Arton QC, was free to hand down any penalty it felt proportionate and appropriate as there is no recommended sanction contained within the regulations, nor has there been a precedent to the charges faced by the Hammers.

It is believed lawyers representing Fulham and Middlesbrough are at the forefront of deciding whether there are grounds to sue.

If that is the case then those two clubs will be supported by the Latics, Sheffield United and Charlton, sparking a potential civil war in English football.

Whelan added: "We, as a club, have not gone to the lawyers. If it is recommended we can take action with some element of success - we won't just be chasing nothing - then we will support it.

"If the advice we are given is positive and we can sue either West Ham or the Premier League, then I'm sure that will happen."

Unquote.

Ref.URL:-

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle....ticleID=2853886

West Ham were found guilty of offences committed long before the run in and should be dealt with on that basis irrespective of their position at the present time.

As is the normal proceedure in these sort of cases,

Points should be deducted accordingly and in this case justifiably

This is about paying an appropriate penalty and at least some of the points they gained during the offending period should be deducted as the situation demands of it.

If not, just as an observation, all the wealthier clubs will now be able to use this as a rule of law and with the backing of Q.C,s will in my honest opinion have the F.A. running scared and doing their well known party piece of.........

GIVING FAVOUR TO THE CHOOSEN FEW WHILE DOING THE OPPOSITE FOR ALL THE OTHERS ( MAJORITY )

marshbags

[EastSaxCol]

Whoooey. Let's all sue West Ham

Fact is that any court of law will be very loath indeed to touch what is effectively an internal FA/sporting matter. There is a precedence set over a Jockey Club affair.

Even if it went that far then any case would be deemed to fail.

Have a good day looking around Harrods boys.

PS

whilst we're at it:

As Dave Whelan is on the Premier League committee, can he explain how he turned a blind eye to Chelsea only receiving £500k of fines for four seperate instances of illegal player/personnel tapping WHICH DOES CARRY A STATUTORY 3 PTS DEDUCTION but not enforced by the Premier League ? How does he answer this without exposing himself to charges of a clear conflict of interest ?

[marshbags]

Whoooey. Let's all sue West Ham

Fact is that any court of law will be very loath indeed to touch what is effectively an internal FA/sporting matter. There is a precedence set over a Jockey Club affair.

Even if it went that far then any case would be deemed to fail.

Have a good day looking around Harrods boys.

Now to worry abou what really matters...beating Bolton tomorrow

Cummon You Ironzz!!!

Let,s forget the club West Ham and generalise as my gripe is about the situation itself and the so called F.A. rule book, it,s guidelines and inconsistencies on punishment when they are ignored, especially for the chosen few / glamour clubs, who have by comparison with those of a lower status??? been let off with what amounts to a slap on the hand.

This could have been any club in the football league and any of them in a similar situation who has after all broken the rules laid down.

To put the fine into context, although on the sight of it the amount appears massive and initially it appears to be a substancial one, But.....................................

When you consider this against how much they will benefit by in monetary terms, should they retain premier league status next season, it soon becomes a light fine indeed by comparison.

Since when has an offence of this nature had no effect relating to a deduction of points, or to go to the extreme in certain cases effected the relegating of a drop in status.

I also reckon that had West Ham been one of the other clubs who are considering the implications and the effect it could have on them, they would see it in an identical way and personally, your reaction would be totally different and quite rightly you would have a legitimate grievance as in this instance they have.

Football is once again thrown into disrepute regarding ethics on fair play and inconsistent assessment and the meting out of appropriate punishment that befits the offence.

In my opinion a fine and a points deduction should have been in order and fair on such an offence, irrespective of who the offending club is, along with the cancelling of any contracts made, unlawfully in this paricular case, making the two players inelligible to take any further part in the remainder of the season, if not permanently.

When you mention precedence i reckon this will have far reaching effects in the future should it be left as it is and unchallenged.

The precedent in this particular case will be give Q.C,s arguing right and wrong of similar offences will be there for all to witness.

marshbags

P.S

I believe it is right that a team is relegated because of it,s performance over a season, but in this case the players connected to this offence have been a part of this and therefore this has to be an influence in the teams status in staving off demotion, should it prove to be, in West Ham,s case.

A glance at the table shows how dodgy it is for the clubs in question and if you take into account the 3 points gained in W.Hams last game with Tevez apparently being a big influence on the playing side of things.

Why or how he was allowed to play on is beyond reasonable comprehension.

14 Middlesbro' 36 9 3 6 28 23 1 7 10 12 25 -8 40

15 Sheff Utd 36 7 6 5 23 19 3 2 13 8 31 -19 38

16 Fulham 36 6 7 5 17 18 1 8 9 19 39 -21 36

17 Wigan 36 5 4 9 18 29 4 4 10 17 28 -22 35

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 West Ham 36 7 2 9 21 25 3 3 12 10 33 -27 35

19 Charlton 36 7 5 6 19 18 1 4 13 13 38 -24 33

20 Watford 36 3 8 7 18 24 1 4 13 8 34 -32 24

[mrbojangles]

I concur marshbags.

It was only this season that Bury got kicked out of the FA cup for fielding a player. The Shakers allowed midfielder Stephen Turnbull to take the field in the second round replay victory, despite both Bury and his parent club Hartlepool failing to inform The FA that the player had been given permission to perform in cup competitions after joining on loan.

So this guy had been given permission by both clubs whilst he was on loan but they had forgot to inform the FA that he had been given permission What a farse but they still got thrown out, losing many a much needed pound or two

[marshbags]

I concur marshbags.

It was only this season that Bury got kicked out of the FA cup for fielding a player. The Shakers allowed midfielder Stephen Turnbull to take the field in the second round replay victory, despite both Bury and his parent club Hartlepool failing to inform The FA that the player had been given permission to perform in cup competitions after joining on loan.

So this guy had been given permission by both clubs whilst he was on loan but they had forgot to inform the FA that he had been given permission What a farse but they still got thrown out, losing many a much needed pound or two

A good example of the inconsistencies B.J. and when i refer to the chosen few / glamourous clubs and others, hence the " slap on the hand quote i make "

I was specifically thinking of the less well off teams ( and therefore rife for intimidation ect. ) as the objective of my gripe, and, it,s about time they started giving out penalties in accordance with the ability to pay and the implications at these particular lower levels of the " Football League " by comparison, and take into account all the hardships they suffer as a consequence.

IT really was inconsistent in Bury,s case and must have cost them dearly, not withstanding the suffering of the supporters and all those connected to the club.

marshbags

[keddy]

I concur marshbags.

It was only this season that Bury got kicked out of the FA cup for fielding a player. The Shakers allowed midfielder Stephen Turnbull to take the field in the second round replay victory, despite both Bury and his parent club Hartlepool failing to inform The FA that the player had been given permission to perform in cup competitions after joining on loan.

So this guy had been given permission by both clubs whilst he was on loan but they had forgot to inform the FA that he had been given permission What a farse but they still got thrown out, losing many a much needed pound or two

A good example of the inconsistencies B.J. and when i refer to the chosen few / glamourous clubs and others, hence the " slap on the hand quote i make "

I was specifically thinking of the less well off teams ( and therefore rife for intimidation ect. ) as the objective of my gripe, and, it,s about time they started giving out penalties in accordance with the ability to pay and the implications at these particular lower levels of the " Football League " by comparison, and take into account all the hardships they suffer as a consequence.

IT really was inconsistent in Bury,s case and must have cost them dearly, not withstanding the suffering of the supporters and all those connected to the club.

marshbags

The judgement was made by an independent panel headed by an experienced judge. It was impartial and he made the sensible decision. Also it would have been absurd to have docked points from West Ham for making a minor infringement. Furthermore the player was registered and is not the same as the Bury example, besides it's a different governng body. Also the docking of points would have made an absurdity of the title race if Chelsea and man U were neck and neck, as we play Man Yoo on the last day. Well done Mr Richard Keys (Never thought I'd say this) for pointing that out. He also mentioned that the only time a team has been docked points was Middlesborough for not turning up. In fact I think the fine is too steep as Tottenham made a similar cock up and got away with a much smaller fine. Like the Totts precedent the club has different owners now who are not responsible for this act.Really what this is about is West Ham's resurgence and the threatened chairmen are clutching at straws trying to win by any other means and not on the pitch. They are 'bottling' it, in short and trying to use gamesmanship to undermine WHU in the run in. There is the bigger issue of too much money and the imbalance of the premiership and the rest but thats a related but different issue, as is the imbalance between the top 4 and the rest.. Anyway come on you Irons.

[EastSaxCol]

Let them put this into their pipes and smoke it.

The settlement of disputes, either between clubs, or between clubs and the Premier League itself is governed by Rule S2.

The opening line of rule S2 actually make it an express requirement of League Membership that all disputes should be settled by arbitration. In effect, if you take the League or another club to court, by doing so you invalidate your membership of the Premier League.

This means that the Premier League would be forced by their own rules to expel any parties to a High Court action.

[ThaiPauly]

If my memory serves me correctly didn't the Hammers benefit when a lower league team knocked them out of the cup , but then a replay was called for when the opposiion fielded an illegitimate (not a bas.ard) player for 2 minutes or something.

West Ham won the replay

HH, Keddy, do you recall who it was against?

[keddy]

If my memory serves me correctly didn't the Hammers benefit when a lower league team knocked them out of the cup , but then a replay was called for when the opposiion fielded an illegitimate (not a bas.ard) player for 2 minutes or something.

West Ham won the replay

HH, Keddy, do you recall who it was against?

I think you're talking about the Mannygate saga. 10 years ago or so. We had a player called Ommanyani (spelling?) who had been on loan to Charlton and had featured in a League cup tie for them. However after his loan spell was over, he came on as a late sub for us against Villa, later in the same competition, but not making an any real impact, though the Hammers won. However Deadly Doug Ellis discovered that he shouldn't have been playing, because he was cup-tied, and demanded a replay. The villans won the replay. The player was later thrown in the Thames to feed the fishes or was transfered to Scarborough or some other heavy punishment because He was supposed to have informed Harry 'Bagpuss' Redknapp about his appearance for the Addicks. Another cock-up from the Brown era .

[Jockstar]

heffield United manager Neil Warnock is fully behind the club as the Blades consider a legal case against West Ham and the Premier League.

The Yorkshire side have hired an international firm of lawyers to assess whether action can be taken following the Hammers' points deduction let-off a week ago.

Although an independent panel found them guilty on two charges of transfer irregularities with regard to their signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano, they opted for a fine of £5.5million.

The decision has since provoked outrage among a number of clubs, in particular those fighting against relegation like West Ham.

Plc chairman Kevin McCabe set to work within hours of the verdict being delivered by the commission last Friday in order to protect the Blades in the event of possible relegation.

Backing McCabe, Warnock said: 'Each and every individual club has to look at it and decide [what action to take] from within.

'If the club feels strongly then they should take it as far as they want to - each and every one of them.

'As the chairman represents this club, I support him. We all do, and I'm sure whatever will be, will be.'

On the decision to pursue a course of action against West Ham and the Premier League McCabe said: 'There was no hanging around, no grass growing around our feet.

'We took this course of action independently of anyone else in an attempt to try to protect ourselves should we suffer as a consequence of this bizarre decision.

'We have some excellent and reputable lawyers who have already been looking at this matter for us for a week.

'Obviously we hope that we don't suffer as a result, but we felt this needed to be done.'

Although acting 'independently', the other clubs involved in the relegation scrap will be anxiously waiting to hear whether West Ham and the Premier League have a case to answer.

Hammers and Premier League officials will undoubtedly argue there has been no precedent set as the current furore surrounds third-party liability in the contracts of Tevez and Mascherano.

They will also indicate a points deduction was among a list of options open to the panel as punishment, and not the sole option.

In response, should the clubs pursue legal action, they will make clear points penalties have been issued before for seemingly far less serious offences.

Middlesbrough were deducted three points a decade ago for failing to fulfil a fixture as 16 players were either ill or injured, a judgment that condemned them to relegation from the Premiership.

Earlier this season, League Two Bury were thrown out of the FA Cup for fielding an ineligible player, while AFC Wimbledon suffered a worse fate for a similar offence in the FA Trophy.

The Isthmian League club were expelled from the competition, were initially deducted 18 points that was reduced to three on appeal, and fined £400.

Simon Bourne-Arton QC, who headed the commission, also seemingly shot himself in the foot last week with his explanation of their decision.

One of their seven observations was that a points sanction at this stage of the season would have condemned the Hammers to certain relegation.

They added a different decision may well have been taken if the hearing had been in January as a points deduction with four months of the season remaining 'would have been somewhat easier to bear'.

[keddy]

heffield United manager Neil Warnock is fully behind the club as the Blades consider a legal case against West Ham and the Premier League.

The Yorkshire side have hired an international firm of lawyers to assess whether action can be taken following the Hammers' points deduction let-off a week ago.

Although an independent panel found them guilty on two charges of transfer irregularities with regard to their signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano, they opted for a fine of £5.5million.

The decision has since provoked outrage among a number of clubs, in particular those fighting against relegation like West Ham.

Plc chairman Kevin McCabe set to work within hours of the verdict being delivered by the commission last Friday in order to protect the Blades in the event of possible relegation.

Backing McCabe, Warnock said: 'Each and every individual club has to look at it and decide [what action to take] from within.

'If the club feels strongly then they should take it as far as they want to - each and every one of them.

'As the chairman represents this club, I support him. We all do, and I'm sure whatever will be, will be.'

On the decision to pursue a course of action against West Ham and the Premier League McCabe said: 'There was no hanging around, no grass growing around our feet.

'We took this course of action independently of anyone else in an attempt to try to protect ourselves should we suffer as a consequence of this bizarre decision.

'We have some excellent and reputable lawyers who have already been looking at this matter for us for a week.

'Obviously we hope that we don't suffer as a result, but we felt this needed to be done.'

Although acting 'independently', the other clubs involved in the relegation scrap will be anxiously waiting to hear whether West Ham and the Premier League have a case to answer.

Hammers and Premier League officials will undoubtedly argue there has been no precedent set as the current furore surrounds third-party liability in the contracts of Tevez and Mascherano.

They will also indicate a points deduction was among a list of options open to the panel as punishment, and not the sole option.

In response, should the clubs pursue legal action, they will make clear points penalties have been issued before for seemingly far less serious offences.

Middlesbrough were deducted three points a decade ago for failing to fulfil a fixture as 16 players were either ill or injured, a judgment that condemned them to relegation from the Premiership.

Earlier this season, League Two Bury were thrown out of the FA Cup for fielding an ineligible player, while AFC Wimbledon suffered a worse fate for a similar offence in the FA Trophy.

The Isthmian League club were expelled from the competition, were initially deducted 18 points that was reduced to three on appeal, and fined £400.

Simon Bourne-Arton QC, who headed the commission, also seemingly shot himself in the foot last week with his explanation of their decision.

One of their seven observations was that a points sanction at this stage of the season would have condemned the Hammers to certain relegation.

They added a different decision may well have been taken if the hearing had been in January as a points deduction with four months of the season remaining 'would have been somewhat easier to bear'.

Instead of hiring an international team of Lawyers wouldn't these chairmen be better off spending the money on a few decent players as the real reason for their lowly status is what's been going on, on the pitch. If Fulham, Wigan, Charlton or Sheffield Utd go down it's because they couldn't do it on the grass and they won't do it in the courtroom either because they haven't got a leg to stand on. It was a reasonable judgement from an impartial judge and they haven't got a chance. In fact I think the fine is too heavy and I hope it can be reduced on appeal. Just a media bandwagon and an attempt by a few very dubious characters to undermine West Ham's revival. Come on you Irons!!

[Jockstar]

heffield United manager Neil Warnock is fully behind the club as the Blades consider a legal case against West Ham and the Premier League.

The Yorkshire side have hired an international firm of lawyers to assess whether action can be taken following the Hammers' points deduction let-off a week ago.

Although an independent panel found them guilty on two charges of transfer irregularities with regard to their signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano, they opted for a fine of £5.5million.

The decision has since provoked outrage among a number of clubs, in particular those fighting against relegation like West Ham.

Plc chairman Kevin McCabe set to work within hours of the verdict being delivered by the commission last Friday in order to protect the Blades in the event of possible relegation.

Backing McCabe, Warnock said: 'Each and every individual club has to look at it and decide [what action to take] from within.

'If the club feels strongly then they should take it as far as they want to - each and every one of them.

'As the chairman represents this club, I support him. We all do, and I'm sure whatever will be, will be.'

On the decision to pursue a course of action against West Ham and the Premier League McCabe said: 'There was no hanging around, no grass growing around our feet.

'We took this course of action independently of anyone else in an attempt to try to protect ourselves should we suffer as a consequence of this bizarre decision.

'We have some excellent and reputable lawyers who have already been looking at this matter for us for a week.

'Obviously we hope that we don't suffer as a result, but we felt this needed to be done.'

Although acting 'independently', the other clubs involved in the relegation scrap will be anxiously waiting to hear whether West Ham and the Premier League have a case to answer.

Hammers and Premier League officials will undoubtedly argue there has been no precedent set as the current furore surrounds third-party liability in the contracts of Tevez and Mascherano.

They will also indicate a points deduction was among a list of options open to the panel as punishment, and not the sole option.

In response, should the clubs pursue legal action, they will make clear points penalties have been issued before for seemingly far less serious offences.

Middlesbrough were deducted three points a decade ago for failing to fulfil a fixture as 16 players were either ill or injured, a judgment that condemned them to relegation from the Premiership.

Earlier this season, League Two Bury were thrown out of the FA Cup for fielding an ineligible player, while AFC Wimbledon suffered a worse fate for a similar offence in the FA Trophy.

The Isthmian League club were expelled from the competition, were initially deducted 18 points that was reduced to three on appeal, and fined £400.

Simon Bourne-Arton QC, who headed the commission, also seemingly shot himself in the foot last week with his explanation of their decision.

One of their seven observations was that a points sanction at this stage of the season would have condemned the Hammers to certain relegation.

They added a different decision may well have been taken if the hearing had been in January as a points deduction with four months of the season remaining 'would have been somewhat easier to bear'.

Instead of hiring an international team of Lawyers wouldn't these chairmen be better off spending the money on a few decent players as the real reason for their lowly status is what's been going on, on the pitch. If Fulham, Wigan, Charlton or Sheffield Utd go down it's because they couldn't do it on the grass and they won't do it in the courtroom either because they haven't got a leg to stand on. It was a reasonable judgement from an impartial judge and they haven't got a chance. In fact I think the fine is too heavy and I hope it can be reduced on appeal. Just a media bandwagon and an attempt by a few very dubious characters to undermine West Ham's revival. Come on you Irons!!

Forgot to say. These are not my views but are taken from soccernet.com.

[marshbags]

heffield United manager Neil Warnock is fully behind the club as the Blades consider a legal case against West Ham and the Premier League.

The Yorkshire side have hired an international firm of lawyers to assess whether action can be taken following the Hammers' points deduction let-off a week ago.

Although an independent panel found them guilty on two charges of transfer irregularities with regard to their signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano, they opted for a fine of £5.5million.

The decision has since provoked outrage among a number of clubs, in particular those fighting against relegation like West Ham.

Plc chairman Kevin McCabe set to work within hours of the verdict being delivered by the commission last Friday in order to protect the Blades in the event of possible relegation.

Backing McCabe, Warnock said: 'Each and every individual club has to look at it and decide [what action to take] from within.

'If the club feels strongly then they should take it as far as they want to - each and every one of them.

'As the chairman represents this club, I support him. We all do, and I'm sure whatever will be, will be.'

On the decision to pursue a course of action against West Ham and the Premier League McCabe said: 'There was no hanging around, no grass growing around our feet.

'We took this course of action independently of anyone else in an attempt to try to protect ourselves should we suffer as a consequence of this bizarre decision.

'We have some excellent and reputable lawyers who have already been looking at this matter for us for a week.

'Obviously we hope that we don't suffer as a result, but we felt this needed to be done.'

Although acting 'independently', the other clubs involved in the relegation scrap will be anxiously waiting to hear whether West Ham and the Premier League have a case to answer.

Hammers and Premier League officials will undoubtedly argue there has been no precedent set as the current furore surrounds third-party liability in the contracts of Tevez and Mascherano.

They will also indicate a points deduction was among a list of options open to the panel as punishment, and not the sole option.

In response, should the clubs pursue legal action, they will make clear points penalties have been issued before for seemingly far less serious offences.

Middlesbrough were deducted three points a decade ago for failing to fulfil a fixture as 16 players were either ill or injured, a judgment that condemned them to relegation from the Premiership.

Earlier this season, League Two Bury were thrown out of the FA Cup for fielding an ineligible player, while AFC Wimbledon suffered a worse fate for a similar offence in the FA Trophy.

The Isthmian League club were expelled from the competition, were initially deducted 18 points that was reduced to three on appeal, and fined £400.

Simon Bourne-Arton QC, who headed the commission, also seemingly shot himself in the foot last week with his explanation of their decision.

One of their seven observations was that a points sanction at this stage of the season would have condemned the Hammers to certain relegation.

They added a different decision may well have been taken if the hearing had been in January as a points deduction with four months of the season remaining 'would have been somewhat easier to bear'.

Instead of hiring an international team of Lawyers wouldn't these chairmen be better off spending the money on a few decent players as the real reason for their lowly status is what's been going on, on the pitch. If Fulham, Wigan, Charlton or Sheffield Utd go down it's because they couldn't do it on the grass and they won't do it in the courtroom either because they haven't got a leg to stand on. It was a reasonable judgement from an impartial judge and they haven't got a chance. In fact I think the fine is too heavy and I hope it can be reduced on appeal. Just a media bandwagon and an attempt by a few very dubious characters to undermine West Ham's revival. Come on you Irons!!

You Quote

[/b] If Fulham, Wigan, Charlton or Sheffield Utd go down it's because they couldn't do it on the grass[/b]

Unquote

W.Ham did NOT do it on the field either in spite of the contributions of the two ILLEGALLY signed players.

They deserved a points deduction based on the gains they have made while playing two ineligible players from their first contributions way back at the start of the season. ( August 2006 )

The fact that it has taken so long to address it all is also questionable via interference from ???? in high places who possibly influenced such delaying tactics for whatever reasons

This is about right and wrong, nothing more and nothing less.

Your club not only broke the rules to achieve this, they then lied to try to get out of it and mislead the authorities.

Perhaps you will dismiss a certain Mark Lawrenson as a Dubious Character also, as he thinks the premier league got it totally wrong.

Quote

By Mark Lawrenson

BBC Sport football expert

West Ham v Bolton

You can guarantee that Bolton will always fight for the points, wherever they play. It is not in their nature to roll over. It is Sammy Lee's first game in charge so that adds extra incentive for the players - and of course, Bolton are still pushing for a Uefa Cup place.

I know West Ham had a really good win at Wigan last time out but I feel it's probably too little, too late. I also feel that they should have been docked points over the signings of Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez and I wonder if relegation might be their inescapable fate.

Perhaps that would be a little bit of karma in action, although it's not West Ham's fault they haven't been docked points - it is because the Premier League has made a nonsensical decision.

Unquote.

Listen to Lawro's views on BBC Radio Five Live's Drive programme at approximately 1720 BST on Fridays. Lawro reserves the right to revise his predictions, based on any late team news.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The result of this decision does no good what so ever for the reputation of the administration who,s inconsistency always favours the the higher levels of the football league while punishing clubs in the lower echelons on scales that, by comparison with their means and status cannot be compared.

It will come back on all concerned big time, sometime in the future, make no mistake.

marshbags

P.S.

There is also and observation by Phil Mcnulty of BBC sports that I will post in another reply in response to your undermining of " dubious characters " who disagree with the outcome.

[marshbags]

One other independant and unbias observation as follows along with the url to access the 606 debate that is ongoing based on it,s contents.

Quote:-

Have West Ham got off lightly?

Premiership | West Ham United

by Phil McNulty - BBC Sport 27 April 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West Ham may just have been handed the most expensive slap on the wrist in football history.

Make no mistake, they have taken a heavy financial hit with a record ฃ5.5m fine after being found guilty of charges relating to the transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.

But if West Ham and chairman Eggert Magnusson end the season with their Premiership status assured, they may consider the punishment a price worth paying.

And this is because anything was preferable to the points deduction that would have killed their hopes of staying in the Premiership stone dead.

West Ham are considering their options as far as a possible appeal in concerned.

They would do well to take their medicine, hand over the cheque, and walk quietly away.

West Ham were found guilty of acting improperly and withholding vital documentation over the duo's ownership.

Among the reasons for the decision not to deduct points was the club's guilty plea and the fact that they are under new management and ownership.

Should that matter?

If an offence is worth a ฃ5.5m fine, then surely it is an offence on a scale worthy of a points deduction?

Bury were kicked out of the FA Cup after fielding an ineligible player in on-loan Stephen Turnbull, even though they came clean themselves.

Rotherham started this season at minus 10 points after creditors put together an agreement to stop the club going under.

Different leagues and different circumstances perhaps, but this almost appears that the Premier League has given West Ham a massive fine in an attempt to cover up the fact they were afraid to dock them points.

If the deals contravened Premiership rules - and Tevez's contract has already been deemed illegal under Premiership rules - this calls into question the eligibility of both players to represent West Ham.

As someone who has a lot of affection for West Ham, I would not like to see them go down.

But make no mistake, the Premier League has taken the soft option in fining the club. They are very lucky not to have their ticket into the Championship already stamped.

And could it be that we have not heard the last of this issue.

Wigan chairman Dave Whelan was a leading light in the fight to have West Ham investigated.

He is not a man to go quietly or fail to fight his corner.

If West Ham survive and Wigan drop in their place, do not expect silence from the JJB Stadium.

West Ham will not hand over a ฃ5.5m cheque with pleasure - but if that is the price on the ticket to next season's Premiership, they will happily pay up.

Unquote.

For lots of other views that i feel sure you will appreciate, please go to the url for ref. and additional info.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A22115602

marshbags

P.S.

It will be interesting to see if a certain " Former West Ham chairman Terry Brown " has something to say in the future on this subject

[keddy]

One other independant and unbias observation as follows along with the url to access the 606 debate that is ongoing based on it,s contents.

Quote:-

Have West Ham got off lightly?

Premiership | West Ham United

by Phil McNulty - BBC Sport 27 April 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West Ham may just have been handed the most expensive slap on the wrist in football history.

Make no mistake, they have taken a heavy financial hit with a record ฃ5.5m fine after being found guilty of charges relating to the transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.

But if West Ham and chairman Eggert Magnusson end the season with their Premiership status assured, they may consider the punishment a price worth paying.

And this is because anything was preferable to the points deduction that would have killed their hopes of staying in the Premiership stone dead.

West Ham are considering their options as far as a possible appeal in concerned.

They would do well to take their medicine, hand over the cheque, and walk quietly away.

West Ham were found guilty of acting improperly and withholding vital documentation over the duo's ownership.

Among the reasons for the decision not to deduct points was the club's guilty plea and the fact that they are under new management and ownership.

Should that matter?

If an offence is worth a ฃ5.5m fine, then surely it is an offence on a scale worthy of a points deduction?

Bury were kicked out of the FA Cup after fielding an ineligible player in on-loan Stephen Turnbull, even though they came clean themselves.

Rotherham started this season at minus 10 points after creditors put together an agreement to stop the club going under.

Different leagues and different circumstances perhaps, but this almost appears that the Premier League has given West Ham a massive fine in an attempt to cover up the fact they were afraid to dock them points.

If the deals contravened Premiership rules - and Tevez's contract has already been deemed illegal under Premiership rules - this calls into question the eligibility of both players to represent West Ham.

As someone who has a lot of affection for West Ham, I would not like to see them go down.

But make no mistake, the Premier League has taken the soft option in fining the club. They are very lucky not to have their ticket into the Championship already stamped.

And could it be that we have not heard the last of this issue.

Wigan chairman Dave Whelan was a leading light in the fight to have West Ham investigated.

He is not a man to go quietly or fail to fight his corner.

If West Ham survive and Wigan drop in their place, do not expect silence from the JJB Stadium.

West Ham will not hand over a ฃ5.5m cheque with pleasure - but if that is the price on the ticket to next season's Premiership, they will happily pay up.

Unquote.

For lots of other views that i feel sure you will appreciate, please go to the url for ref. and additional info.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A22115602

marshbags

P.S.

It will be interesting to see if a certain " Former West Ham chairman Terry Brown " has something to say in the future on this subject

Yes I do consider Lawrenson as a dubious character with an axe to grind because he has a vested interest in the story continuing, as he is part of part of the media bandwagon. There is not a hope that this going to stand up in court as the clubs have agreed to binding arbitration and the process was fair. The precedent has already been established with the Tottenham case and they were given a much smaller fine. Yes it will be interesting to hear what Terence Brown says. It was done under his watch and now we have different owners. As for Dave Whelan he isn't the best man to represent this case for the other clubs as he has a dodgy business background and has been fined before.What is also amazing is Charlton have joined the bandwagon considering Pardew signed the players in the first place. What is really cowardly is these teams cannot do it on the pitch so their chairmen have to resort to this. However they are wasting their time and money as this will be laughed out of court.

[EastSaxCol]

On a somewhat lighter note perhaps.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...2072938,00.html

Daaaaaaaaave Whelan, is a whiner, is a whiner

Russell Brand

Saturday May 5, 2007

The Guardian

Dave Whelan, the chairman of Wigan Athletic, in my view, can eff right off. I'm proper brassed off (at first I was just cheesed off, then browned off till eventually I reached the summit - brassed off) with all of West Ham's fellow relegation strugglers clamouring for a points deduction after last week's tribunal decreed that a £5.5m fine would be penalty enough. Six clubs in total, naturally the ones vying with the Irons for a place in the Championship, all met up, like castrato assassins, thumbing their impotent nubs, plotting litigation against a club that have endured a season of unremitting punishment. Eff off.

Where would it all end? If they successfully brought about legal action to convert West Ham's fine to a points deduction West Ham could protest about that and bring action until the fact that this carousel of legal activity was once "the beautiful game" would be forgotten in the blur. It's interesting though to learn how your team is regarded by folk outside the clan. I was tickled to hear Whelan refer to West Ham as "a big club" and a beneficiary of favouritism. Perhaps one judges the size of the team one follows in the context of the chief rivals encountered; and in the Premiership in London that's Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs - all teams that in terms of silverware and funds overshadow West Ham. Not in the area of support though, no, nor in calibre of supporter, that's where the Hammers tower, precisely because we have to endure defeat, ignominy and poverty (not me personally any more, I've recently acquired a nest-egg).

AFC Wimbledon have suffered a deduction this season for comparable offences and this, along with the demented belief that Wigan or Watford, had they similarly transgressed would have their season's points tally reduced by half and be forced to play their remaining games with teams comprising drugged, woodland animals, is the foundation for Whelan's spiteful scheming. He can eff right off. He's simply a bit peeved that West Ham now have a decent chance of avoiding relegation by, horror of horrors, winning football matches. Call me a cad but this is the fashion in which I like to see the Premiership conducted - perhaps Whelan (and I'm fighting powerful urges to grant him an alliterative nickname now, eg, Whining Whelan) would prefer it if instead of facing Bolton at Upton Park on Saturday West Ham appeared at the Old Bailey and had Rumpole or Judge Pickles decide the outcome of the match using their genitals as a sexy divining rod of soccer justice? I reckon he would, I reckon he'd get off on it.

I myself am a bit peeved that Manchester United didn't win in Milan giving us an all-English final but I shan't dwell on it or start a barmy campaign to have Kaka and Ancelotti appear before Chelmsford magistrates' court and be given community service. I shall just wish Liverpool all the best and hope they bring home the cup, even though they prevented West Ham winning their only trophy for 25 years by beating them on penalties in Cardiff last year.

I was disappointed after that match and on the way home, with Olympian and chum Ade Adepitan, the two of us grieved and consoled ourselves with the knowledge that football can be painful and seemingly unfair, we didn't try to raise the ghost of Biblical adjudicator King Solomon and ask him if he could stop Stevie Gerrard scoring just as stoppage time began. It's just not on.

West Ham's purchase of Tevez and Mascherano was obviously, to some degree, irregular, but they have been fined five-and-a-half million quid as a result and it's not as if the transaction was an unqualified success - the whole thing's been a right balls up; as was the sacking of Pardew and the bonds scheme which sold the club to the fans a few years back and the enormous expenditure on a daft model of a boat that adorns the club's foyer. West Ham's only crime is that they are a shambolic club. And that is also their punishment.

[email protected]

[soihok]

Well.

I think that this whole affair is really sad for the spirit of the game.

The loser will inevitably be the fan!

I am a Blade.I would,nt want see the an amazing end to the season in the Premiership decided off the field in some chuffing office.

I think that the players in question are under performers also.....so does it really reflect the team in general. NO.

I feel disappointed that Sheff U are asking for 10 pints deducted from Wesht am,but we are talking loads of money now rather a good game of football.I wonder what my Grandad would have made of it.

I hope for the best.

Cheers

[EastSaxCol]

Well.

I think that this whole affair is really sad for the spirit of the game.

The loser will inevitably be the fan!

I am a Blade.I would,nt want see the an amazing end to the season in the Premiership decided off the field in some chuffing office.

I think that the players in question are under performers also.....so does it really reflect the team in general. NO.

I feel disappointed that Sheff U are asking for 10 pints deducted from Wesht am,but we are talking loads of money now rather a good game of football.I wonder what my Grandad would have made of it.

I hope for the best.

Cheers

Good sentiments from someone who obviously loves the game and is a real supporter.

Only quibble is comments about Tevez and Mascherano. Tevez aside (he's been the driving force behind our resurgence) Mascherano has really looked the class that he is at Liverpool. So why he couldn't get a game at West Ham only Pardew knows.

All the best mate.

Relegated

Watford

Charlton

Fulham

See you next season then

[soihok]

Yeah,,,hope so

[EastSaxCol]

Yeah,,,hope so

Well

Watford

Wigan

Charllton

[ThaiPauly]

Watch the rats desert the court action once it has been decided who stays up next Sunday

I don't think that Fulham or Sheffield United will want to proceed with court action if they don't get relegated!

It will be the team in 18th place that will have to go it alone then...IMO that will be Wigan..Charlton wont be able to muster a case as it will not help them if they finish 19th..or whoever finishes 19th, if thats Wigan hen it will be left to Charlton, but probably knowing what Whelan's like he'll probably continue out of sheer bloodymindedness.

Did'nt his company JJB Sports just get fined several mllion quid for overcharging for England shirts????? Maybee they should have had points deducted as it was Wigan that benefit from his money, he probably made enough out of selling those shirts at inflated prices to buy Heskey!..Pity he wasted it when he could have got someone decent LOL

Will anybody have any sympathy for Wigan if they go down now? Cannot see them getting anything at Sheffield United next week personally.

I would like to see the Blades stay up ..even if its because we always....whoops can't go there anymore on this thread LOL

TP

Reason for edit: Smelling Pistakes

[soihok]

Reason for edit: Smelling Pistakes

[EastSaxCol]

A refreshing article :

Dont Blame West Ham, Blame The System!

The Hammers' relegation rivals are considering legal action over the seemingly light punishment meted out by the Premier League. But their argument is flawed and will only serve to make the lawyers rich.

corporations and unsavoury characters all keen to get their grubby hands on a slice of the creamy football cake awash with money' Let me begin by stating that I have no allegiance whatsoever to any club in the Premiership. My team Leeds United are doomed to obscurity so I am writing as a neutral who loves the game. I’m concerned at the ongoing saga involving West Ham and the irregular signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.

I won't go into the mechanics of exactly what West Ham were supposed to have done wrong - like the readers of this piece, I only know what I have read in the newspapers and other media. But it seems to me that the clubs threatening to take the Premier League to court over the saga are clutching at straws.

There is an illogical strand to the argument that because Tevez has been playing well lately for the Hammers, so his presence has compromised Wigan, Sheffield United and Charlton’s chances of avoiding the drop. The clubs, along with Fulham, and as reported in Sunday’s Observer newspaper, possibly Middlesbrough and Aston Villa, are taking legal advice as to whether they can effectively bankrupt the Hammers even if the east London club are relegated. But their argument about Tevez’s alleged influence works both ways.

He and Mascherano were playing decidedly badly for the Hammers at the beginning of their ill-fated adventure in England, so the Upton Park lawyers could just as easily argue that their presence in that period potentially was actually a causing factor in the club’s slippery slope down the table. Who knows, maybe without those players, the Hammers under the system effectively created by old boss Alan Pardew the season before, may have won games without the South American ‘superstars’. Pardew made no secret of the fact that the players were foisted upon him by the club; he would not have gone looking for them in the market.

I agree that the £5m fine imposed on West Ham for flouting Premier League rules was a tad light, and that yes, the PL could have taken points off. But then you are back to a scenario of weighing up a player or players' influence on the performance of an entire team. That West Ham have made a remarkable comeback latterly under Alan Curbishley with a resurgent Tevez in the lead role is beyond question, but the clubs in trouble at the bottom would do well to remember that they are struggling because they are not good enough, not because of Tevez.

Over a season, the table does not lie. Charlton and Wigan have had poor seasons, all the more surprising because over the past two campaigns, they have played to a higher standard. Where Charlton have a more valid argument is that in two crucial games, they were directly or indirectly ‘robbed’ of two points. In the home draw against Fulham - Pardew’s first for the club as manager - the linesman (I still can’t get myself to call them referees’ assistants) made a howler and from an ensuing free-kick that never was, Fulham levelled in injury time. And the Hammers’ revival was kick-started by a more than dubious away win at Blackburn where the referee should have been sent a link to opticians in his local area.

These for and against decisions make up the minutiae of a season and I’m sure fans can point to half a dozen going each way for their club over a campaign. It’s all part of the game and good makes for good banter at work on a Monday morning. What worries me is when a drama suddenly becomes a crisis with the subsequent instructing of lawyers, whose real interest, with the greatest of respect to their professional acumen, is to keep the case going on as long as possible.

And it’s a bit rich of clubs to complain about irregular transfer dealings at West Ham when the whole system seems to be creaking under the weight of agents, corporations and unsavoury characters all keen to get their grubby hands on a slice of the creamy football cake awash with money.

Unfortunately, this is where the game has ended up, so don’t single out West Ham for trying to pull a fast one. Instead reflect on a system which has failed to control the game spiralling out of control.

http://www.sportingo.com/football/why-hamm...blame/1001,3319