West Hams Appeal

[Greasy Chip Butty]

West Ham's hopes of avoiding a huge pay-out over the Carlos Tevez affair were dealt a potentially devastating blow when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) said that they would not hear an appeal without the agreement of Sheffield United.

Should we let them appeal, apparently its up to us!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...o-leave-the-club-on-the-ropes---Football.html

 

[Sensiblade]

Hmm, what should United do????

A: Let them appeal and go through lots of court crap
B: Tell West Ham to F'off and wait to see what the Board award us.

what to do???

 

[Bladesman]

Hmm, what should United do????

A: Let them appeal and go through lots of court crap
B: Tell West Ham to F'off and wait to see what the Board award us.

what to do???

They could of said that regarding this latest tribunal but they said yes to it. (Not sure if they legally a had to say yes to it though?)

 

[Mousey]

The thing with that is that if we do indeed agree to it, it will show how strongly we believe in our cause and will cost them several more of their precious pennies

 

[Bladesman]

Could really do with the cash ASAP though.

 

[Linz]

I can't believe this is actually news... the whole point of arbitration is that both parties agree to it.

I'd tell them to balls. Didn't the CAS refuse to hear our case?

 

[sendô WHU]

This will be interesting. Seems to me McCabe just kept moaning to everyone he could until he found someone who agreed with him. I'm expecting now he's got the result he wants to refuse this, rather than continue his 'fight for justice'.

 

[Linz]

This will be interesting. Seems to me McCabe just kept moaning to everyone he could until he found someone who agreed with him. I'm expecting now he's got the result he wants to refuse this, rather than continue his 'fight for justice'.

Yeah, because obviously a party who cheated, lied, then continued to cheat which led to them being punished isn't justice at all?

 

[Foxy]

This will be interesting. Seems to me McCabe just kept moaning to everyone he could until he found someone who agreed with him. I'm expecting now he's got the result he wants to refuse this, rather than continue his 'fight for justice'.

Have you read the hearings?

Every single one of them agreed with him, the problem is they decided they couldn't change the initial decision.

Have you read the findings/new evidence provided in the latest case? If so, how can you possibly defend the actions of West Ham United?

 

[sendô WHU]

Yeah, because obviously a party who cheated, lied, then continued to cheat which led to them being punished isn't justice at all?

The PL delt with the initial offense. Everything since is unproven as from what I've seen so far.

Have you read the hearings?

Every single one of them agreed with him, the problem is they decided they couldn't change the initial decision.

Have you read the findings/new evidence provided in the latest case? If so, how can you possibly defend the actions of West Ham United?

I haven't managed to read it all yet, mainly due to time but also due to finding the full transcripts, but it seems to me the whole thing is based on conjecture - particulary that formed by sports journalists who had a vested interest in hyping up the Tevez story - and second guessing the outcome of a football match if one player wasn't playing.

 

[Foxy]

The PL delt with the initial offense. Everything since is unproven as from what I've seen so far.

They didn't deal with it anywhere nearly in a proper manner that is the initial issues.

The second issue is that then West Ham ignored completely the PL's demands from that initial ruling.

I haven't managed to read it all yet, mainly due to time but also due to finding the full transcripts, but it seems to me the whole thing is based on conjecture - particulary that formed by sports journalists who had a vested interest in hyping up the Tevez story - and second guessing the outcome of a football match if one player wasn't playing.

The outcome of matches dependant on a player is a side issue.

The main issue at hand is the cheating, lying, lying again then cheating again. This is what the punishment is for.

 

[Linz]

The PL delt with the initial offense. Everything since is unproven as from what I've seen so far.

Unproven to you perhaps, but proven enough beyond the "more likely than not" needed in civil law to make a judgment.

The initial offence was dealt with, but evidently, there is more than enough suspicion of subsequent offences to find in our favour.

I haven't managed to read it all yet, mainly due to time but also due to finding the full transcripts, but it seems to me the whole thing is based on conjecture - particulary that formed by sports journalists who had a vested interest in hyping up the Tevez story - and second guessing the outcome of a football match if one player wasn't playing.

The full transcript of the judgment is available on this forum, under the thread called "Our claim".

As mentioned above, civil law is based upon a "more likely than not" weight of evidence, unlike criminal law which is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

As mentioned elsewhere, just because a player is crap doesn't mean you can break the rules for them. WHU seem to be clinging to this but it didn't really matter in the outcome.

Interesting you should mention biased journalists, have you read Fatty Samuel's comments lately? An epitome of tin-pot, rabble-rousing journalism if ever I saw it.

 

[sendô WHU]

They didn't deal with it anywhere nearly in a proper manner that is the initial issues.

Maybe so but they dealt with it nonetheless, that really should have been the end of it.

The second issue is that then West Ham ignored completely the PL's demands from that initial ruling.

No, the PL was happy for him to continue playing, the issue is whether or not the third party influence still existed after the hearing, which it didn't.

The outcome of matches dependant on a player is a side issue.

The main issue at hand is the cheating, lying, lying again then cheating again. This is what the punishment is for.

The outcome of matches dependant on a player is the crux of the report from the latest arbitration. It is the whole basis of McCabe's arguement - that West Ham would have been relegated but for superma... err I mean Tevez.

Unproven to you perhaps, but proven enough beyond the "more likely than not" needed in civil law to make a judgment.

The initial offence was dealt with, but evidently, there is more than enough suspicion of subsequent offences to find in our favour.

I guess this is the problem when you start mixing football, money and the courts.

The full transcript of the judgment is available on this forum, under the thread called "Our claim".

Cheers

Interesting you should mention biased journalists, have you read Fatty Samuel's comments lately? An epitome of tin-pot, rabble-rousing journalism if ever I saw it.

Martin Samuels is a West Ham fan so his journalism is always going to be slightly on the biased side (then again, point me to a piece of journalism that is truly neutral, it's difficult to do), but I thought it was a decent piece that made some good points - though I can see why you thought the opposite.

Sheff Utd fans seem to take great joy in labelling West Ham "cheats", though the flipside is West Ham fans have come to label Sheff Utd as "hypocrites".

 

[Foxy]

Maybe so but they dealt with it nonetheless, that really should have been the end of it.

So whatever the PL says should go, without any comeback? whether or not independent members believe it to be right or wrong?

No, the PL was happy for him to continue playing, the issue is whether or not the third party influence still existed after the hearing, which it didn't.

This was based on a number of conditions. Most importantly that West Ham terminated third party agreements which existed. It has since been established that West Ham "gave assurances" that this would happen, yet privately continued to be bound by the agreement, thus lying to the Premier League again and contravening 2 or 3 subsections of PL rules. If third party influence didn't exist, why did Kia seek to sue the club only to mysteriously drop all claims the same week as he was employed by West Ham United?

The outcome of matches dependant on a player is the crux of the report from the latest arbitration. It is the whole basis of McCabe's arguement - that West Ham would have been relegated but for superma... err I mean Tevez.

The claim is that West Ham's breaking of the rules, admission of this and then further breaking of the rules was of direct detriment to Sheffield United. However Tevez played (you can argue this based on opinion only) or what impact he had is irrelevant. West Ham cheated, pleaded guilty to cheating and then continued breaking the rules.

The only reason the impact Tevez made is part of the arguement is the laughable defence from West Ham that it wasn't a problem that they cheated, as Tevez didn't help on his own anyway?

I guess this is the problem when you start mixing football, money and the courts.

No, the problem is, when you cheat, aren't properly punished and continue to cheat. The concequences are, someone loses out, that someone wasn't West Ham United.

The only dangerous precident set throughout this whole saga was allowing cheats to prosper and the management of a footballing body favouring the "big club" over the "small fry".

 

[Linz]

Sheff Utd fans seem to take great joy in labelling West Ham "cheats", though the flipside is West Ham fans have come to label Sheff Utd as "hypocrites".

See, if we're harking back to Kabba as aforementioned obese rag-writer seems want to do, there are a few facts that West Ham fans themselves appear to be ignoring.

Namely, that both Sheffield United and Watford state that there was never any agreement not to play Kabba. He was playing shit and we would have welcomed him in the opposition. He was also injured, which is why he did not play, and I believe he also failed to make an appearance for Watford for the rest of their season.

The only "evidence" West Ham have in the Kabba matter is that of Neil Warnock saying something in an interview and possibly a report on our official site.

I'll deal with each of these individually.

Neil Warnock = this is a man who used to tell blatant lies to our local press because he could not stand them, the feeling was mutual. Instead of refusing to talk to them, as some managers would, Warnock would make up stories and fantasies in order to mess with their heads. Anything that Neil Warnock has ever said needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt and a dictionary to look up the word "sarcasm". He was also unlikely to know the ins and outs of a contract a player was making with another club, indeed, the money men deal with this. Our verdict... talking bollocks.

Our official site = there is a reason unofficial sites exist. This is an official site who listed Paddy Kenny's height as 5'12" for a whole season without seeing the mistake. Our kick off for the Port Vale match in the cup this season was 00:00 until the day before our game. We've also been known to have random match reports from conference league clubs appear on our front page. In short, the people responsible for running our official site wouldn't know their arse from their elbows so to base a vendetta on what they claim would be misinformed at best. Our verdict... bollocks.

 

[metalblade]

Can someone explain why £2m was paid to WHU for Tevez by Man U and the rest went to Kia Joorabchian ?

 

[Dronfield_Blade]

Can someone explain why £2m was paid to WHU for Tevez by Man U and the rest went to Kia Joorabchian ?

Because Kia owns the rights to Tevez and West Ham held Tevez's registration which ment Man Utd couldn't sign Tevez without his Registration so man Utd had to pay 2m for his registration and the money Man utd will pay to sign Tevez will go directly to Kia Joorabchian.

 

[derrywan]

I've never found West Ham very appealing at the best of times, and less so now.

 

[sendô WHU]

So whatever the PL says should go, without any comeback? whether or not independent members believe it to be right or wrong?

It should be really shouldn't it? That's the whole ethos of PL membership - if someone breaks the rules, the PL punishes them and everyone abides by it.

This was based on a number of conditions. Most importantly that West Ham terminated third party agreements which existed. It has since been established that West Ham "gave assurances" that this would happen, yet privately continued to be bound by the agreement, thus lying to the Premier League again and contravening 2 or 3 subsections of PL rules. If third party influence didn't exist, why did Kia seek to sue the club only to mysteriously drop all claims the same week as he was employed by West Ham United?

It seemed to me that West Ham ripped up the offending 3rd party clause/contract in order to abide by PL's ruling, which Kia wasn't happy with, and so wanted to sue, but WH placated him by giving him a job, which he would have been happy with, because he's wanted to buy the club for a while now.

The only reason the impact Tevez made is part of the arguement is the laughable defence from West Ham that it wasn't a problem that they cheated, as Tevez didn't help on his own anyway?

Eh? The point is Sheff UTd argue the opposite - he did it all on his own.

No, the problem is, when you cheat, aren't properly punished and continue to cheat. The concequences are, someone loses out, that someone wasn't West Ham United.

The only dangerous precident set throughout this whole saga was allowing cheats to prosper and the management of a footballing body favouring the "big club" over the "small fry".

I seem to be wasting my time debating this with you, as you are seemingly fixated on the "cheats cheats cheats" aspect of the 'arguement'.

If Sheff Utd feel that the PL didn't punish West Ham satisfactorily at the original hearing, then they should take that up with the PL, not with West Ham. That is what gets my goat about this whole affair.

The only "evidence" West Ham have in the Kabba matter is that of Neil Warnock saying something in an interview and possibly a report on our official site.

Hang on, if a verbal agreement is legally binding in a civil case if it can be seen that the terms of the agreement have been adhered to, then surely Sheff Utd's manager and official website saying that Kabba can't play due to a verbal agreement between the clubs constitutes the same?

Neil Warnock = this is a man who used to tell blatant lies to our local press because he could not stand them, the feeling was mutual. Instead of refusing to talk to them, as some managers would, Warnock would make up stories and fantasies in order to mess with their heads. Anything that Neil Warnock has ever said needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt and a dictionary to look up the word "sarcasm". He was also unlikely to know the ins and outs of a contract a player was making with another club, indeed, the money men deal with this. Our verdict... talking bollocks.

All seems a little convenient to me.

As for official club websites, well they're all shite, but they remain a mouthpiece of the club in question.

 

[metalblade]

Because Kia owns the rights to Tevez and West Ham held Tevez's registration which ment Man Utd couldn't sign Tevez without his Registration so man Utd had to pay 2m for his registration and the money Man utd will pay to sign Tevez will go directly to Kia Joorabchian.

We all know why Kingy, apart from those who live in the WHU dream world.

 

[Linz]

Hang on, if a verbal agreement is legally binding in a civil case if it can be seen that the terms of the agreement have been adhered to, then surely Sheff Utd's manager and official website saying that Kabba can't play due to a verbal agreement between the clubs constitutes the same?

The only problem in that being, something the manager said and something that was said on the official site AFTER the deal has been done have absolutely no bearing on any contract or agreement that was in place and neither Neil Warnock or the official site are parties to the contract or agreement.

Keep trying, I really do enjoy the ins and outs of contract law

 

[derrywan]

The issue is that even if WHU were punished at the first hearing for an earlier offence, they have never been punished for the second breach of rules which has emerged regarding the lies over contract status which duped the PL into allowing the registration to continue for last 2 games of season. New Offence = New punishment.

 

[Foxy]

It should be really shouldn't it? That's the whole ethos of PL membership - if someone breaks the rules, the PL punishes them and everyone abides by it.

In an ideal world it would be. Should the main mouthpiece for such an organisation come out in the press and "warn off" the "smaller club" though? Should they be able to (in the eyes of many) show bias towards the more fashionable club? Should they not be held accountable to their decisions?
It's like saying that the whole ethos of the game is that the referee and officials are placed on the pitch to ensure the match is fair and WHATEVER they say/do is fine, just because of their position.

Say Mr Controversial linesman of the minute decided to give a goal every time the ball went out of play, should we not be able to challenge this?

It seemed to me that West Ham ripped up the offending 3rd party clause/contract in order to abide by PL's ruling, which Kia wasn't happy with, and so wanted to sue, but WH placated him by giving him a job, which he would have been happy with, because he's wanted to buy the club for a while now.

So in essence, even should the new findings be completely discounted, he still had control over the club in such a way that they had to give him a job in order to stop him enforcing his control?

Seems more likely an easier method of hiding the fact the original agreement was still intact. Just a different method of moving funds around.

Did anyone, other than Mr Scudamore ever receive evidence of this "ripping up"?. Kia's lawyer seems pretty convinced that West Ham just said they had terminated any deal and yet still decided to abide by the arrangement in order for him to carry on playing.

Eh? The point is Sheff UTd argue the opposite - he did it all on his own.

No, we argue that West Ham cheated to their advantage, which beyond doubt, majorly contributed to our relegation. All the other arguement serves to do, is back up our claims. Yes other player could have scored the goals, but the fact is, it happened and was against the rules. Can you deny, with good reasons, that Carlos Tevez and his illegal registration didn't have a positive impact on your quest to stay up?

I seem to be wasting my time debating this with you, as you are seemingly fixated on the "cheats cheats cheats" aspect of the 'arguement'.

If Sheff Utd feel that the PL didn't punish West Ham satisfactorily at the original hearing, then they should take that up with the PL, not with West Ham. That is what gets my goat about this whole affair.

Remind me again what this whole case is about. West Ham broke the rules, lied, lied again, then broke the rules again. THAT IS THE ISSUE. There would be no case whatsoever to hear if these things had not happened! That is why I, Mr McCabe, the legal teams and members of the Arbitration panel keep mentioning it!

We did take it up with the PL, this is what the original and subsequent arbitration was about. They ruled that we were right, the punishment was strange in its leniency, would have been different if all the facts and evidence had been taken into account but that they couldn't change the punishment as they had no power to do so.

Since this time, further evidence has surfaced which suggests West Ham continued to break the rules and further back up our initial arguement.

This is why we pursued it and why we did things in the order we did and ultimately, why shouldn't West Ham be accountable for their actions.

I agree with you, the premier league is as much at fault, we keep saying this, it doesn't mean however that West Ham are an innocent party.

Hang on, if a verbal agreement is legally binding in a civil case if it can be seen that the terms of the agreement have been adhered to, then surely Sheff Utd's manager and official website saying that Kabba can't play due to a verbal agreement between the clubs constitutes the same?

Only if that verbal agreement actually took place. If West Ham feel there is a case to answer on that one, they should bring it up. I'd imagine the silence from everyone but Mr Samuels and the odd annoyed West Ham speaks volumes as to the validity of the claims.

 

[sendô WHU]

The only problem in that being, something the manager said and something that was said on the official site AFTER the deal has been done have absolutely no bearing on any contract or agreement that was in place and neither Neil Warnock or the official site are parties to the contract or agreement.

Keep trying, I really do enjoy the ins and outs of contract law

Ahh, it can't be proven. Sheff Utd must be innocent of any wrongdoing. Fair enough.

The issue is that even if WHU were punished at the first hearing for an earlier offence, they have never been punished for the second breach of rules which has emerged regarding the lies over contract status which duped the PL into allowing the registration to continue for last 2 games of season. New Offence = New punishment.

Fair enough. If that is the case, Sheff Utd should be complaining to the PL, not trying to sue.

In an ideal world it would be. Should the main mouthpiece for such an organisation come out in the press and "warn off" the "smaller club" though? Should they be able to (in the eyes of many) show bias towards the more fashionable club? Should they not be held accountable to their decisions?

I completely agree with your sentiments. I say again - is it West Ham's fault that the PL gave out the punishment they did?

So in essence, even should the new findings be completely discounted, he still had control over the club in such a way that they had to give him a job in order to stop him enforcing his control?

That's not what I said is it? He had no control over the club, he had a discrepancy with the club.

Did anyone, other than Mr Scudamore ever receive evidence of this "ripping up"?. Kia's lawyer seems pretty convinced that West Ham just said they had terminated any deal and yet still decided to abide by the arrangement in order for him to carry on playing.

It could just as easily be that they just lied to Kia and his lawyer?

No, we argue that West Ham cheated to their advantage, which beyond doubt, majorly contributed to our relegation. All the other arguement serves to do, is back up our claims. Yes other player could have scored the goals, but the fact is, it happened and was against the rules. Can you deny, with good reasons, that Carlos Tevez and his illegal registration didn't have a positive impact on your quest to stay up?

No-one cheated. It's not like they brought in a ringer is it? They signed him believing the registration to be kosher. It was later (much later) discovered that a rule that next to no-one realised existed had been broken. The PL had a hearing, and punished West Ham as they saw fit. They ordered WH to carry out certain actions in order to allow Tevez to continue to play, which they were seen to do. If they didn't then the PL should be imformed and West Ham suitably punished.

I have no problem with a club being punished for breaking rules. I'd happily see more of it, especially given the way that the "sky 4" seem to get away with murder. What I find irritating is when one team tries to blame all their misfortunes on the performances of one single player in 3 games at the end of a season.

We seem to be going in circles, so I might aswell just leave it at that and be done.

 

[Foxy]

Based on your last responses to my points, you REALLY need to read and digest the latest documentation.

 

[Linz]

Ahh, it can't be proven. Sheff Utd must be innocent of any wrongdoing. Fair enough.

Erm... no.

It's like me going to the shop, buying something and walking off before the shop next door says I need to dance around, clap three times and pay £20 extra before I get my goods.

The contract was made between me and the shop I bought the items from and was made at the point of sale. There has been an offer, acceptance and consideration is fulfilled ergo, the contract is fulfilled.

The shop next door is not a party to this contract for one so can be discounted from the scenario in the first instance. Whatever they said is not a term of the contract. And as all good law students know, for a term of a contract to be actionable, it cannot be post-contractual.

Unless you know better, Neil Warnock does not deal with the contracts for a player leaving the club and neither does the official site thus, they are not parties to any contract or agreement with Watford.

Taking the logical jump... regardless of what they say, it is not a term of the contract whether express or implied as a) they are not parties and b) what is being said is after the agreement to loan the player.

Neither you or I can point to any evidence of an "agreement" beyond that I have mentioned above. If there is evidence that an agreement was in place between parties of a contract before Kabba was allowed to move, then I would like to be made aware of it.

I really am enjoying this refresher in contract law... I only had to deal with it for four years

 

[metalblade]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport...s-appeal-30m-compensation-claim.html?ITO=1490

Oh dear :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[silverfox]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport...s-appeal-30m-compensation-claim.html?ITO=1490

Oh dear :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Nice find MB

I Quote........

'We would need agreement from Sheffield United and for Football Association rules to allow an appeal to CAS.'

Sheffield United would never submit to an appeal that might overturn the decision of the independent tribunal.

And FA rules stipulate that there can be no appeal from the verdict of an independent tribunal.

Rule K5c states that clubs entering into arbitration 'shall be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any recourse to a court of law".

 

[Bladesman]

Mail have done them no favours with this mistake though.

"Head to head: Carlos Tevez of West takes on Kevin Geary of Sheffield during the 2006-07 season"

You mean Derek Geary you muppets!

Also we are Sheffield United not just "Sheffield".

 

[keenzy]

This will be interesting. Seems to me McCabe just kept moaning to everyone he could until he found someone who agreed with him. I'm expecting now he's got the result he wants to refuse this, rather than continue his 'fight for justice'.

Thing is, what grounds have west ham got to appeal? It's unfair?

The CAS looked at the evidence and facts and decided over a long time that WHU cheated.

They have studied the evidence which shows in our favour. What ground have WHU got to appeal on?


Also, the last 2 games, you beat bolton 3 - 1, tevez scored 2, and you beat man united 1 - 0.

Take the goals tevez scored off, and its a draw at bolton and a draw at man utd. So 4 points lost and a poorer GD, you would have gone down. So all this about "tevez didn't keep us up on his own" is just tosh.


Also on SSN that our players may sue WHU for loss of earnings! can we sue for depression