This whole 'opening a can of worms' nonsense is such a yawn.
Whether his chunkified hirsuteness likes it or not, the fact remains that West Ham broke very specific rules which hadn't been knowingly breached before. Without a precedent the PL/FA had to act, they did however have previous cases of a similar nature as a point of reference and the FL treatment of clubs who had transgressed in similar circumstances. They opted to treat West Ham like the pampered and privileged oldest son, against those points of reference listed above. This would bring accusations of 'unfair' treatment. The appeal process was inevitable from that point forward, by either Sheffield United, Wigan or Fulham. The outcome of that says that 'the club' (West Ham) have done wrong and should pay compensation not and individual, but the club. It might have been an individual (step forward Mr Duxbury) who has been largely responsible for this, but he was working for the club as a whole.
Anyone who knows the smallest thing about football knows that the administration of the game and the actual playing of the game on the pitch are two totally separate entities. It is this very point that most West ham fans don't appreciate and why they get their collective pants in a knot over the whole thing (Tevez was crap, you weren't good enough, blah, blah). West Ham had breached the regulations of the game, the technical stuff that enables the game to take place, it happens away from the pitch and ensures that what happens on the pitch is as equal and fair as possible. That season what happens on the pitch isn't fair and equal as West Ham start with a technical advantage. The punishment should nullify what happens on the pitch, or the inequality should be in some way equalised, it wasn't in any way.
You cannot take the regulatory practice from the administrative side of the game and apply it to what happens on the pitch. All the examples that he gives in that article are incidence on the pitch, which are dealt with by an entirely different disciplinary system. They couldn't follow the course of the Tevez case if anybody involved wanted it.
Lazy journalism with no incite, recycled points and opinion and very little research.
