Big praise for Mr McCabe...

[sendô WHU]

Even ignoring the fact that this "story" is no where near as nailed on, nor investigated, as the Tevez deal.... A look at the differing fortunes of the said players should tell you all you need to know....

Carlos Tevez continued the season to play every single game for West Ham, scoring goals and contributing majorly to their performances. Eventually and ironically signed for Manchester United, where he is now a regular.

Steve Kabba, continued being crap and not holding down a place in an already poor team, followed by being loaned out to a struggling Blackpool.

So it matters with Tevez because he's a good player, but because Kabba is crap, who cares?

Let's not forget - if WHU hadn't broken the rules in the first place, none of this court stuff would have happened. It's all well and good complaining about what the court action will do to football, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the reason the court action took place in the first instance is because WHU broke the rules.

And were duly punished by the people who wrote and maintain those rules.

It was Sheff Utd that involved the courts, and they did that not on footballing grounds, but because of money.

 

[Linz]

It was Sheff Utd that involved the courts, and they did that not on footballing grounds, but because of money.

Which as a PLC with shareholders, we were always going to do.

Put it this way.

Say you were going for a job worth £30 million a year. There's only you and another candidate. The big fat bosses at the top don't particularly like you very much because your suit is from Debenhams. The other candidate has a suit from Hugo Boss.

Now you go through the interview process. You both undergo tests and you're just heading out in front, much to the grievance of the flash git and the top bosses, who don't really want to hire you, thinking the flash git will fit in so much better in this particular company.

Coming down to the final test and you're in front. However, the flash git has added something to his CV which pushes him back in favour. He wins the £30 million contract and you have to go back to your minimum wage job, serving burgers at McDonalds.

It then turns out, the flash git had embellished his CV with something that was just not true. And it was this something that meant that he got the job over you. You point this out to the top bosses, but they aren't having any of it.

Wouldn't you feel a bit aggrieved?

 

[Foxy]

So it matters with Tevez because he's a good player, but because Kabba is crap, who cares?

No, it serves to further support the case that Kabba was dropped on merit and injury reasons, rather than any conspiracy.

It was Sheff Utd that involved the courts, and they did that not on footballing grounds, but because of money.

We involved the courts for one reason only.... The seemingly corrupt footballing organisations failed to reach an acceptable decision.

 

[sendô WHU]

Linz - Sheff Utd were only out in front after beating West Ham at Brammall Lane. Warnock then rested several players for the visit to Old Trafford because he didn't think it possible to even pick up a point there.

That point might have saved you and sent Wigan down. After all, Tevez or no Tevez, West Ham wen't there and kept a clean sheet.

 

[Foxy]

Warnock then rested several players for the visit to Old Trafford because he didn't think it possible to even pick up a point there.

He actually changed formation in an attempt to restrict Man U/hope to catch them on the break. Whatever he might flippantly say about his "reserves" doing well against Man U, that was the thinking behind it.

It nearly worked too, go and have a look who most peoples man of the match was? (clue: "reserve" and spped merchant Luton Shelton, who should have had a nailed on penalty and terrified the Man U defence that night).

That point might have saved you and sent Wigan down. After all, Tevez or no Tevez, West Ham wen't there and kept a clean sheet.

We can pick points all day, we were relegated on merit and performances. HOWEVER, 1 team also stayed up who broke the rules, this was West Ham. No matter what points we dropped, if West Ham had been punished properly and/or the illegal player not been allowed to play, we'd have been "good enough" to stay up.

 

[Linz]

Linz - Sheff Utd were only out in front after beating West Ham at Brammall Lane. Warnock then rested several players for the visit to Old Trafford because he didn't think it possible to even pick up a point there.

That point might have saved you and sent Wigan down. After all, Tevez or no Tevez, West Ham wen't there and kept a clean sheet.

And you claim it is us obsessed with Tevez's playing role?

The ruling mentioned him more as an indication as to why West Ham were more inclined to lie their way into keeping him than to say that if so-and-so had played X amount of points would have been won or lost.

West Ham lied were found in breach by the PL and were fined. They then lied again and so have been found guilty of this and sued.

 

[matth]

That's the best thing about all this; WHU fans and apologists are apoplectic with rage because we've won. Never mind the fact that they broke the rules, got a lenient punishment, and so broke them again (unilaterally breaking a contract? I'd love to be able to do that myself, and I'm just an individual...), and in doing so dragged football through the mud.

Look, your team cheated. Yes, you got punished for that, albeit extremely leniently, with excuses about it 'not being fair on the fans and players' bandied about. What makes it worse is that you then cheated again. Whatever you might think about the ruling, or this or that, the fact that you cheated remains. You can cry, you can bleat, you can spout hyperbole about the death of football all you want, but you still cheated. At the risk of sounding childish, 'you started it'.

What sets the more dangerous precedent? Is it that a team who had an unfair and illegal advantage have been sued for legitimate loss of revenue by a team that got relegated? Or that a team that have broken the rules not once, but twice, be allowed to get off with a fine that represents less than 10% of the revenue they stood to make?

 

[Foxy]

What sets the more dangerous precedent? Is it that a team who had an unfair and illegal advantage have been sued for legitimate loss of revenue by a team that got relegated? Or that a team that have broken the rules not once, but twice, be allowed to get off with a fine that represents less than 10% of the revenue they stood to make?

The answer to this one appears to be linked with the name of your team and/or the league you currently play in

Certainly if you believe the media/West Ham fans

 

[Foxy]

hmmmz, more squirming and attempting to get out of it... once again ignoring the facts/evidence presented in the hearing and bullshitting some more...

Sheffield United will have to wait until 2009 at the earliest before learning if they will receive any compensation from West Ham United after tomorrow's planned direction hearing was postponed indefinitely.

West Ham's new legal representatives, led by reknowned sports lawyer Maurice Watkins successfully argued that having only been appointed in the wake of the arbitration judgment last week they had not been given sufficient time to explore the full intricacies of the case. Their plea for more time was accepted by the under-pressure Lord Griffiths, head of the arbitration panel which found in Sheffield United's favour.

An unnamed Hammers spokesman said tonight:

"We believe that the arbitration panel's ruling needs to be reviewed by a court which can help resolve the outstanding issues in this case. This is not about the issue of damages - the current ruling has major implications for English football.

"West Ham will continue to look at the available options for further action and we believe that Sheffield United should join us in a hearing at the Court of Arbitration [for Sport]."

The Hammers take their case to the CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland tomorrow where a claim to have their case heard will be submitted. That hearing still depends on the agreement of Sheffield United, who have up until now given no indication that they will adhere to West Ham United's request. However it is thought that pressure will now be put on the Blades to comply with West Ham's request by other clubs due to the significance of the arbitration panel's ruling.

Despite Sheffield United's current stance West Ham United remain confident that a positive outcome can be reached, either with or without the proposed CAS hearing going ahead. Having already been sanctioned for the offence by the Premier League's world-record £5.5million fine a key argument is that it would be unfair for the club to be penalised a second time for the same offence.

In a refreshing change, the usually far-from-media-shy Blades chairman Kevin McCabe refused to comment on the setback, saying only:

"If that is what they are saying, then that's their prerogative. We will not be commenting."

 

[matth]

Of course, it would be unfair to be penalised for the same offence twice, unless of course the same offence was repeated. Under these circumstances, one would imagine that a sanction far in excess of the original ruling would be appropriate.

 

[Pastyblade]

And were duly punished by the people who wrote and maintain those rules.

It was Sheff Utd that involved the courts, and they did that not on footballing grounds, but because of money.

Sendo, you obviously missed my post in another thread so I'll copy it here:

The whole issue of damages isn't about punishing West Ham, its not about punishing them twice, its a completely different thing - its about a civil claim for the financial losses that have resulted.

To give an analogy, if a car thief runs into your car, are you really going to argue that because the Criminal Court gives him a fine for driving, he shouldn't have to pay for the damage to you or your car?

The difference is one is a punishment, the other is a reparation for the loss suffered.

If West Ham feel the league are in part responsible for this, then they should sue the league to recover the damages they've had to pay to United. United's claim is against West Ham as its West Ham that did the wrong doing against United by fielding Tevez, not the league.