West Hams Appeal

[derrywan]

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

Here's the nub - we can't go to PL because we are no longer members of the PL thanks to WHU's bad faith actions. That's why the FA arbitration system exists as it does - to provide an overarching check and balance on the entire football community, not limited to one competition or group of people. The FA was the only route you left us as there was no legal standing to go elsewhere. And it's not "suing" - its an agreed settlement. You can't then complain when you don't like the final outcome reached by your own panel appointees. And this is the final outcome. It's a shame it's taken this long for the truth over Duxbury's duplicitous actions to come out, but it's good for the game in the long run that we have a dispute resolution system which has been proven to work after all, even if we did take the long way round.

 

[metalblade]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/28/westhamunited.manchestercity

 

[Linz]

McCabe was showing round what was presumably a fake note yesterday and finding it very amusing... I think someone's knocked him up a "Bank of West Ham" note

'If Kevin McCabe has said this is not for money but a matter of integrity and honour,' a West Ham insider told Observer Sport, 'well, he should go to CAS. If not, the question for him becomes does be believe this is honourable?'

There's no honour amongst cheats and liars... I'm surprised West Ham even know the meaning of the word.

 

[bettsyblade86]

yh did u not the notes that were being paqssed round? p*ss funny. £30 million pound notes in the purple style of the new on es, wiv tevez face on one side and brookings on the other, and says bank of west ham rather than bank of engalnd, brilliant notes and looked VERY authentic actually, somebody has been hard at work!

 

[Linz]

yh did u not the notes that were being paqssed round? p*ss funny. £30 million pound notes in the purple style of the new on es, wiv tevez face on one side and brookings on the other, and says bank of west ham rather than bank of engalnd, brilliant notes and looked VERY authentic actually, somebody has been hard at work!

I did assume that was what it was but didn't get hold of one

If anyone has one and can scan it in, I'd love to see 'em. McCabe was certainly very amused by it.

EDIT: Beightonblade has obliged: HERE

 

[Pastyblade]

Sendo WHU couldn't get the part of your post I wanted alone to select so I'll just address it verbally instead.

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 you 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.

 

[Bladesman]

Wigan and Fulham have claims in Carlos Tevez affair
By Jeremy Wilson

Last Updated: 10:43PM BST 29 Sep 2008

Wigan and Fulham, however, have been told that they could make good cases for a combined claim of almost £1 million.

With West Ham poised to lodge a statement of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the potential legal ramifications from the independent tribunal’s ruling have continued to emerge.

The tribunal decided that Carlos Tevez had been worth at least three points to West Ham over the season, meaning Wigan and Fulham could also say that their final position in the table was one place lower than otherwise would have been the case – a difference of just under £500,000 in prize money.

“I do think this ruling opens the way to good claims by Wigan and Fulham if they finished within three points of West Ham,” said Andrew Quick, an expert in dispute resolution and a partner at Stevens and Bolton LLP. “Under the Premier League rules, all clubs agree with each other to comply with those rules. There is no such agreement between a club and a player of another club. ”

As well as the appeal to the CAS, West Ham are to demand a forensic examination of Sheffield’s accounts and will want to ensure that the calculation for damages takes into account the substantially reduced costs that are associated with relegation.

West Ham also believe that Sheffield have a moral obligation to participate in an appeal to the CAS. As yet, there has been no communication between the clubs about having the case heard at the CAS or the possibility of an out-of-court settlement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...e-claims-in-Carlos-Tevez-affair-Football.html

 

[derrywan]

"Moral obligation" My Hole. Where was their moral obligation not to lie to fellow clubs and the PL? Knackers.

 

[Pastyblade]

If United allow this appeal to take place then they they're showing stupidity beyond belief.

They have a just judgement and should hang onto it, not chance losing it in some stupid gamble under pressure from West Ham.

 

[tommy]

Hammered again! Now West Ham face £1m legal action

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ction-Fulham-Wigan-Tevez-affair.html?ITO=1490

 

[Bladesman]

Good good.

You know Mohammed Al Fayed will go after them for some cash. lol

 

[Pastyblade]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ction-Fulham-Wigan-Tevez-affair.html?ITO=1490

I added my post.

 

[sendô WHU]

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.

That's a slightly blinkered viewpoint. Bolton had just lost Allardyce when we played them. Even Sheff Utd would have beaten them.

Here's the nub - we can't go to PL because we are no longer members of the PL thanks to WHU's bad faith actions. That's why the FA arbitration system exists as it does - to provide an overarching check and balance on the entire football community, not limited to one competition or group of people. The FA was the only route you left us as there was no legal standing to go elsewhere. And it's not "suing" - its an agreed settlement. You can't then complain when you don't like the final outcome reached by your own panel appointees.

West Ham were forced into this latest arbitration as far as I recall. The PLs ruling should have been final, and if Sheff Utd didn't like it, then they should be able to take it up with the PL or FA, whether they are PL members or not. They shouldn't be suing another club because they didn't like a PL ruling on a rule infringement.

There's no honour amongst cheats and liars... I'm surprised West Ham even know the meaning of the word.

Oh Linz, your posts are normally so much better.

To give an analogy, if a car thief runs into you 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?

That's what car insurance is for

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.

The PL punished West Ham for fielding Te....oh what's the point?

"Moral obligation" My Hole. Where was their moral obligation not to lie to fellow clubs and the PL? Knackers.

McCabe et al have done nothing but bang on about "Fairness in football" like they're on some sort of moral crusade. Given the complexities of this case, the fact that it is a first in football in this country, and the ramifications that any outcome will have on the footballing world as a whole, you'd think that the humble Mr McCabe would be happy to let as many official bodies go over this as possible, so as to get the best possible outcome for the footballing world as a whole.

Unless of course he's just interested in lining his pockets.

It's difficult to discuss this subject without having a biased viewpoint. I've tried and failed several times, as have many West Ham fans. But I've found Sheff Utd fans to be just as bad the other way round. Clearly the whole affair and your subsequent relegation is still something that stirs emotions, but come on, you all have to at least admit that it is all about the money and nothing to do with "fairness in football" or the "injustice" of West Ham staying up after "cheating"?

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

I'm quite surprised that a further investigation has not been ordered. Al Fayed is now making noises about compensation and Whelan at Wigan is making mutterings about Scudamore et al at the FA.

The findings of the arbitration panel, that rule 15b was broken and continued to be broken after the initial PL ruling (the scandalous £5m fine) does warrant a further investigation in any ordinary situation,but this is the PL/FA we are talking about. Whatever the situation West Ham as a club (not the fans, the board and those in charge) look to be at best duplicitous and at worst fraudulent with intent. I know most of the board have now moved on, but the main instigator Mr Duxbury remained at the club. But aside from that, take on a company, take on all assets and all liabilities!

Expect more fall-out from this!

 

[Pastyblade]

That's what car insurance is for



The PL punished West Ham for fielding Te....oh what's the point?

What about being injured at work as a result of a failure of your employer to comply with Health and Safety Regulations. They get fined for failing to comply, should you not get any compensation for your injuries because they got prosecuted?

You seem unable to seperate the 2 issues. One is CRIMINAL (in WH's case a breach of league law rather than criminal law per say) the other is CIVIL ie compensatory to compensate the injured party for the losses that occurred as a result of the unlawful act.

WH are not being punished twice. They have been punished once by the league for breaking the rules. They are now being required to compensate SU for the damage that occurred as a result of that breach. That isn't a punishment, its a reparation and reparation is an established practice in all areas of law. The whole principle of law is to put an injured party back into the position they would have been in had the injury not incurred. SO if they lost financially as a result of a breach of law, then the law seeks to compensate them for their financail loss. Again its not a punishment, its a reparation - putting right the losses that occured as a result of the wrong.

It seems to me that WH fans are getting mad at SU when in fact they should be asking questions of their own club:

1. Why didn't WH take legal advice on the implications of fighting relegation? Surely a solicitor could have spotted the implications and advised of any possible claims / liabilities?

2. If they did take legal advice, then why weren't they advised of the fact that they might be liable for civil damages to other parties that suffered finanical losses as a result?

3. If they were advised of those dangers, then why did they take a chance and choose to fight to stay up (if thats what happened), instead of volunteering to take relegation and thus avoid those penalties?

It seems to me that the WH board have some questions to answer here and maybe the WH fans would be better asking their own board for answers than engaging in verbal warfare with SU fans.

 

[bladeswench]

The long and the short of it is at the end of the day your team fielded an illegal player and continued to do so. They intentionally broke the rules. But instead of getting mad at your club leadership you are complaining about us getting fair compensation because your team cheated. That is a fact. So please go take it up with the people who cheated.

 

[Sensiblade]

Originally Posted by sendô WHU View Post


The PL punished West Ham for fielding Te....oh what's the point?

The fact that yes they were punished for playing him before the punishment is irrelevant, they then played him illegally after the punishment and deserve further sanction for doing so (£30million sounds about right to me)

 

[Bladesman]

Blades want £50m in Tevez claim
Published Date: 05 October 2008

Sheffield United plan to increase their demand for compensation over the Carlos Tevez affair to £59m.
The Blades originally filed for just over £30m when their case for damages against West Ham was upheld by an independent tribunal headed by Lord Griffiths.

But it will be well into 2009 before the exact figure is determined after the Yorkshire club agreed to a Hammers request to delay the hearing that will set the amount.

The hearing should have started on Friday, but will now take place in February.

But the News of the World says that Bramall Lane directors are considering a revision of their demands after being advised that their relegation at the end of the 2006-07 season will have cost them a lot more than £30m in the long term.

http://www.lep.co.uk/national-football/Blades-want-50m-in-Tevez.4559932.jp

 

[Linz]

I've just been reading our favourite WHU forum with regards to this thread.

Apparently, we should come up with a better argument for West Ham being punished other than them having cheated and lied

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

West Ham at the PL/FA. (This is genuinely how it has panned out!!!!)

Errr, You've registered a player and were told you can't that it's a contravention of our laws. The registration is OK, loaning the player is fine, a 3rd party is fine, but the 3rd party controlling who he plays for and when he leaves is not. Have a pitiful fine and a slap on the wrists.

Later:

Errr, excuse us again but we realise that he can't play for you if that bit about his move-on and fee is still in there, so we have to cancel his contract. O, you can send us the new paperwork with that bit missing. Normally that would need the 3rd party to give written consent, but as it's you, winners of the world cup and all, that'll be fine!

Later again:

Err, sorry to bat on about this, but that tribunal about the compensation thing with those nasty northern types, is saying that although you told us that you'd ripped up the contract bit about 3rd party control of fee and who he plays for, it appears that you actually didn't and that he was playing for you under exact same status as when we gave you the slapped wrists. Now we can't get involved in this compensation stuff, that is your problem, but this news is making us look like proper beasts with favourites and all. You really most stop it with the, as you say, porkies! Now run along and play!!

 

[Linz]

I just can't get over the WHU logic...

"Yes, I'm sorry officer. You caught me clocking 120mph on the motorway. But that's not a good enough reason to punish me... come up with a better one."

 

[keenzy]

must be the smog over london that clouds ones judgements.