Leeds to sue? - Killa, Hulse & Bennett

[Linz]

Didn't really see this one coming, but I suppose it makes sense. Especially when you look at this picture:



Leeds United seek advice over Carlos Tevez affair

Ken Bates's intervention into the Carlos Tévez affair last night could indicate just how the dispute has reached absurd lengths. The Leeds United chairman has sought legal advice about a claim for a loss in payments that his club would have received from Sheffield United. The money, which is thought to total about £500,000, is based on contingency payments written into the contracts of three players that Leeds had sold to their Yorkshire rivals.

The clauses would have been invoked had Sheffield United avoided relegation from the Premier League in 2007. Bates believes that Sheffield United could now be liable to pay the money after they reached an out-of-court settlement with West Ham United worth about £25million to end the wrangle over the eligibility of the Argentina forward to play for the East London club during the 2006-07 season. Any potential legal action would not be directed at West Ham.

Leeds's case is based on the sales to Sheffield United of Rob Hulse for £2.2million, Matthew Kilgallon for £1.75million and Ian Bennett's free transfer. “We sold a number of players to Sheffield United with contingencies,” Bates said. “When they got relegated on the last day of the season we missed out on a substantial sum. That's what we lost and if they are being compensated for their loss, we believe we should be compensated for our loss.

“There are other clubs in the same boat who have similar claims. Ours is the biggest claim and it would be nice to collect that and strengthen our squad. We are currently taking advice on it and won't be commenting further at this time.”

West Ham said that the decision of an arbitration panel in September to award Sheffield United some compensation after their relegation from the top flight two years ago could have repercussions for the game. West Ham face legal action, worth between £4million and £5million, from Sheffield United players at the time for possible loss of wages and bonuses.

“It is now becoming clear that the ruling [by the arbitration panel] has encouraged a potentially endless legal chain of claims and counter claims, which can only be damaging to English football,” West Ham said. “We will strongly resist any attempts to prolong this matter through the courts both to protect our interests and those of the wider game. There is a lot more at stake than the finances of West Ham and we will do all we can to stop this matter ending in a form of legal anarchy.”

 

[The Inquisitor]

Anyone else want to sue us? I think the USA should claim millions off us seeing we were clearly behind 9/11 and are sheltering bin Laden in the cellar of the Boleyn, obviously. :lol:

 

[Sensiblade]

This is getting a bit widespread but I see where Leeds are coming from.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Ken Bates is a window licker.

 

[Pastyblade]

Anyone else want to sue us? I think the USA should claim millions off us seeing we were clearly behind 9/11 and are sheltering bin Laden in the cellar of the Boleyn, obviously. :lol:

I saw you in the cellar.

Going a bit far. If Leeds want to claim against SU I guess they're going to have to prove United actually claimed for those payments. If they didn't then I guess action lies with WH.

If there's one good thing to come out of this when all the dust settles it should be than no club is going to field a player illegally again in a hurry. The fall out from it is simply too severe to make it worthwhile and that has to be good for the game.

 

[TonyAgana]

we were clearly behind 9/11 and are sheltering bin Laden in the cellar of the Boleyn, obviously. :lol:

Nope. Just cheating, lying, lying and cheating about Tevez's registration. That's all.

 

[The Inquisitor]

Nope. Just cheating, lying, lying and cheating about Tevez's registration. That's all.

And this has what to do with Ken Bates?

 

[Bladesman]

And this has what to do with Ken Bates?

Just sounds like something Ken Bates would be involved in.

 

[jodman]

Anyone else want to sue us? I think the USA should claim millions off us seeing we were clearly behind 9/11 and are sheltering bin Laden in the cellar of the Boleyn, obviously. :lol:

If there is even a slight chance of earning a few quid then rest assured that Ken Bates will persue that chance with rabid determination.

 

[Billyblade]

Are we all suggesting that Ken Bates is a money-grabbing b#@*ard?
I hope you've all got some evidence to back up those scurrilous accusations.
If Ken the Teddy Bear did get any money, judging by the photo above he should spend the first bit of it at the dentists and Specsavers.

Get ready for lots of claims to come in now from companies who have lost advertising revenue,pie sales, programme sales etc.

I for one am tired of the whole thing.The money that we get is not going to make that big a difference anyway. We get that kind of money every year by under-selling our best player. All I'm happy about is that by agreeing to settle out of court, West Ham have admitted guilt.

We are now going to be unfairly blamed for ruining football as we know it when everyone knows that the thing that ruined football in the first place was when the money got piled into the game, turning everyone into a set of greedy bastards.

 

[The Inquisitor]

Are we all suggesting that Ken Bates is a money-grabbing b#@*ard?
I hope you've all got some evidence to back up those scurrilous accusations.
If Ken the Teddy Bear did get any money, judging by the photo above he should spend the first bit of it at the dentists and Specsavers.

Get ready for lots of claims to come in now from companies who have lost advertising revenue,pie sales, programme sales etc.

I for one am tired of the whole thing.The money that we get is not going to make that big a difference anyway. We get that kind of money every year by under-selling our best player. All I'm happy about is that by agreeing to settle out of court, West Ham have admitted guilt.

We are now going to be unfairly blamed for ruining football as we know it when everyone knows that the thing that ruined football in the first place was when the money got piled into the game, turning everyone into a set of greedy bastards.

Agree with most of that thought this out of court settlement for a lot less than McCabe was asking could equally be seen as McCabe backing out of something he got his head too deep into too.
It has set a dangerous precedent for all of football though. It has opened the floodgate for footballers and clubs sueing anyone about anything.
Take the Tevez thing for example, Sheffield United managing to get money out of West Ham means they could out of Liverpool for playing a weakened team against Fulham, Fulham and Wigan could sue West Ham over prize money for not finishing above them and then you get the likes of Bates in the papers this morning threatening to sue as well not to mention Warnock and former Sheffield United players. Yes, West Ham did wrong, they were fined for it but does this matter really deserve to be dragged out to every man and his dog? I personally prefer football being settled on the pitch. If this is the state it's come to I think I would have even prefered a Sheffield United v West Ham match at a neutral ground to decide who stays up and who goes down, sounds crazy but is it anymore crazy than this carry on?

 

[The One]

Agree with most of that thought this out of court settlement for a lot less than McCabe was asking could equally be seen as McCabe backing out of something he got his head too deep into too.
It has set a dangerous precedent for all of football though. It has opened the floodgate for footballers and clubs sueing anyone about anything.
Take the Tevez thing for example, Sheffield United managing to get money out of West Ham means they could out of Liverpool for playing a weakened team against Fulham, Fulham and Wigan could sue West Ham over prize money for not finishing above them and then you get the likes of Bates in the papers this morning threatening to sue as well not to mention Warnock and former Sheffield United players. Yes, West Ham did wrong, they were fined for it but does this matter really deserve to be dragged out to every man and his dog? I personally prefer football being settled on the pitch. If this is the state it's come to I think I would have even prefered a Sheffield United v West Ham match at a neutral ground to decide who stays up and who goes down, sounds crazy but is it anymore crazy than this carry on?

The rumour I heard is that we did right to settle because we wasn't sure how much longer we could afford to carry things on.

 

[The Inquisitor]

The rumour I heard is that we did right to settle because we wasn't sure how much longer we could afford to carry things on.

I'm glad you mentioned it because I would have been jumped all over if I'd said it. Equally though, these Blades fans who think it was West Ham backing down have a point too. I said before, the clubs are looking to just put this behind them but no one is really going to be completely happy with this settlement. I was just relieved that after 2 years of shit talking in the press it was finally done and dusted and the media would shut up but no, There's Warnock and even Bates (wtf???) in the papers the next day. Oh how I long for the days when talking about my team meant talking about football and not having to go off and get a law degree to understand what's going on!

 

[Danblade]

It should be made clear that this legal action is directed at Sheffield United and not West Ham as the title of the thread suggests:

"Bates believes that Sheffield United could now be liable to pay the money after they reached an out-of-court settlement with West Ham United worth about £25million to end the wrangle over the eligibility of the Argentina forward to play for the East London club during the 2006-07 season. Any potential legal action would not be directed at West Ham."

 

[derrywan]

It hasn't really though - we had a situation where a fellow company member was found to have acted in demonstrable bad faith and we suffered harm as a direct consequence. It's a petty rare coincidence of cause and effect, which you'd struggle to see happen again: Bad Faith action + provable loss arising as direct consquence of said action.

The liverpool example, or even the morgan - hume example, that keeps coming up wouldn't have both characteristics enabling a grounds for legal action. Rafa playing a team made up of professional footballers, some of them internationals, is an entirely objectively reasonable and expected course of action (whatever subjective opinion of the quality or merits of those footballers), and there was no direct and incontrovertable link to the harm we suffered (relegation). There was a significant time lag where any number of other events could have occured.

As regards the hume - morgan incident, the booking showed that in the objective opinion of the referee, the arbiter on the day, Morgan's actions were possibly of a lower grade of carelessneses or recklessness but were tolerable within the rules of the game (hence booking not sending off). Therefore factually the transgression was dealt with (as the 2nd alleged incidence of west ham lying has not been - hence new pl/ fa enquiry). The gap in time before harm might be suffered (relegation) from the match date also diminishes the argument that any direct causal link exists between action and alleged secondary effect.

 

[The Inquisitor]

It should be made clear that this legal action is directed at Sheffield United and not West Ham as the title of the thread suggests:

"Bates believes that Sheffield United could now be liable to pay the money after they reached an out-of-court settlement with West Ham United worth about £25million to end the wrangle over the eligibility of the Argentina forward to play for the East London club during the 2006-07 season. Any potential legal action would not be directed at West Ham."

Which raises more legal stuff. Do the Blades pay this out of their settlement with West Ham or will this set in motion another long, drawn out case against the Hammers seeing as you now have an arguement that this was also our fault due to this settlement which has still not resoved, legally who is to blame?

It hasn't really though - we had a situation where a fellow company member was found to have acted in demonstrable bad faith and we suffered harm as a direct consequence. It's a petty rare coincidence of cause and effect, which you'd struggle to see happen again: Bad Faith action + provable loss arising as direct consquence of said action.

The liverpool example, or even the morgan - hume example, that keeps coming up wouldn't have both characteristics enabling a grounds for legal action. Rafa playing a team made up of professional footballers, some of them internationals, is an entirely objectively reasonable and expected course of action (whatever subjective opinion of the quality or merits of those footballers), and there was no direct and incontrovertable link to the harm we suffered (relegation). There was a significant time lag where any number of other events could have occured.

As regards the hume - morgan incident, the booking showed that in the objective opinion of the referee, the arbiter on the day, Morgan's actions were possibly of a lower grade of carelessneses or recklessness but were tolerable within the rules of the game (hence booking not sending off). Therefore factually the transgression was dealt with (as the 2nd alleged incidence of west ham lying has not been - hence new pl/ fa enquiry). The gap in time before harm might be suffered (relegation) from the match date also diminishes the argument that any direct causal link exists between action and alleged secondary effect.

How provable in direct response though are West Hams actions in relation to Sheffield Utd getting relegated? Obviously I am biased but I really dont see that Sheffield Utd getting relegated can be squarely placed at the door of a single player on another team. But this is where we are going over old ground again and why this settlement has left so many unanswered questions, no one has had their day in court and been proved right or wrong and due to this settlement, most likely wont ever. Both our clubs have basically decided not to gamble. Warnock, some former Sheffield Utd players and Leeds??? (wtf) dragging this out is of no benifit to either of our clubs and can potentially open up a can of worms which have just been burried.

 

[derrywan]

How provable in direct response though are West Hams actions in relation to Sheffield Utd getting relegated?

"provable" in a civil law sense - that on the balance of probabilities WHU's bad faith actions were more likely to have contributed to the relegation than to have had nothing to do with it

 

[TonyAgana]

And this has what to do with Ken Bates?

Knock-on effects. Come on son, it's not difficult to work out.

 

[The Inquisitor]

"provable" in a civil law sense - that on the balance of probabilities WHU's bad faith actions were more likely to have contributed to the relegation than to have had nothing to do with it

Oh yes, I give you that Tevez was a contributing factor but how contributing given Sheffield United's poor season and some poor performances by Tevez (where our record was actually worse with him playing) and the other 10 men we had on the pitch. Tevez actually played 90 minutes against Sheffield Utd, did fuck all and you beat us 3-0. Surely a team that could do that should have nad it in them to beat Wigan at home when they were all geared up for a huge game?

Hope this dosen't sound insensitive and I mean it in no way as Sheffield Utd are as evil as this but here's an example. Say you were driving after downing a bottle of scotch and I came the other way, speeding like a lunatic and with dodgy brakes on my car which I knew about, I spun out of control and headed straight for you. Because of your poor reactions due to drink, you didn't avoid me when you could if you had been sober. Of couse I should take most of the blame for that seeing I caused it but you could have avoided it if sober. Do you not think you should take at least some of the blame for that?
Probably a bad example because drink driving is illegal whereas playing crap isn't but do you get the idea? West Ham broke the rules but you wouldn't have got relegated if you were even slightly better. Fulham and Wigan were pretty crap but managed to avoid relegation by playing very slightly better than you. For a team to be able to hammer us and then not go on to not get a result at home to Wigan kind of indicates that you didn't play as well as you were capable of against Wigan.

 

[madeinsheffield]

How can Leeds sue us when we haven't actually sued WH, we settled, and more to the point, STILL nobody has been told how much! Plus regarding Leeds, Colin, and some of the players getting any compo, they are going to need one hell of an expensive legal team to even get anywhere, look how much United must have spent in the past 2 years

 

[Linz]

Probably a bad example because drink driving is illegal whereas playing crap isn't but do you get the idea?

I'd say you were mixing criminal law and civil law in your example The burdens of proof are different as are the sentences meted out.

 

[Blunkett]

This is from a Barnsley fan, so many apologies for posting here, and I await your abuse but:

Firstly, this payment should have no effect on the "Hume Case" whatsoever. The only claim that could possibly be made between the two parties in that respect could be Hume suing Morgan for loss of earnings - appearance fee, goal bonus, win bonus etc(granted, there's not been many of the latter).

Secondly, Sheff Utd HAVE been made out to be bloodsucking vampires, looking to suck the life out of the Englsih game. However, the fact remains that if Fulham or Wigan had gone down, then Dave Whelan and Mr Harrods would be in exactly the same position as you are now. I believe that the every chairman in the bottom half of the Premier League in the offending season will probably back this up.

However, West Ham have already being punished for playing Tevez illegally. They were fined 5.5million by the Premier League. Whether this was a large enough punishment (it probably wasn't) is not now the issue. The offence was comitted and West Ham paid for it. I can't see how West Ham can be tried twice for the same crime (is this not a case of The Double Jeopardy Law, where no one can be tried twice for the same crime).

If I was McCabe, I would be suing the Premier League for the 20million from the cost of relegation - not West Ham. It was the Premier League who gave out the Pussy Punishment to West Ham, and imo, should be the recipients of the claim. All the P.L had to do was to bar Tevez from playing.

Also, Jagielka et al claiming against West Ham is pure greed imo. The bloke probably has earned more since his move to Everton than he would have if you lot had stayed up. He's also had an England call up, which, again, chances are, he would not have received should he have still been a blade.

Finally, when the 20million comes through, will The Blades give back the parachute payments they received from relegation? Because obviously, if they had stayed up, then you would not have received this amount?

Please don't crucify me on this post, i've only come on here for a bit of a sensible debate, as on the Dingle Board, all we seem to post is how we can sue you lot for millions if we go down. I'm sure Mr Samuel is part of our site admin.

Cheers.

 

[Vistoma]

"Finally, when the 20million comes through, will The Blades give back the parachute payments they received from relegation? Because obviously, if they had stayed up, then you would not have received this amount?"


No.... this would have been taken into account when deciding the amount claimed in the first instance

 

[Linz]

This is from a Barnsley fan, so many apologies for posting here, and I await your abuse

Any abuse and I will personally be spanking bottoms!

Firstly, this payment should have no effect on the "Hume Case" whatsoever. The only claim that could possibly be made between the two parties in that respect could be Hume suing Morgan for loss of earnings - appearance fee, goal bonus, win bonus etc(granted, there's not been many of the latter).

I think the insurance Sheffield United have should cover that though?

However, West Ham have already being punished for playing Tevez illegally. They were fined 5.5million by the Premier League. Whether this was a large enough punishment (it probably wasn't) is not now the issue. The offence was comitted and West Ham paid for it. I can't see how West Ham can be tried twice for the same crime (is this not a case of The Double Jeopardy Law, where no one can be tried twice for the same crime).

See, this is something the West Ham fans don't understand either and the West Ham supporting press have been keen to push this as being the truth. It isn't.

West Ham lied about the registration of Tevez - rule break one

They got found out and fined £5.5 million... assuring the Premier League that everything would now be above board.

They then lied again about the legitimacy of the transfer when questioned - rule break two.

Also, Jagielka et al claiming against West Ham is pure greed imo. The bloke probably has earned more since his move to Everton than he would have if you lot had stayed up. He's also had an England call up, which, again, chances are, he would not have received should he have still been a blade.

I agree... but I think the players denied the fact they were going to sue when this was all raised a while back... at least the ones still at the club did. I definitely wouldn't condone this sort of behaviour.

Finally, when the 20million comes through, will The Blades give back the parachute payments they received from relegation? Because obviously, if they had stayed up, then you would not have received this amount?

I think these were factored in and deducted from the amount we were claiming.

Please don't crucify me on this post, i've only come on here for a bit of a sensible debate, as on the Dingle Board, all we seem to post is how we can sue you lot for millions if we go down. I'm sure Mr Samuel is part of our site admin.

Cheers.

No worries... all those looking for sensible debate are welcome

 

[Blunkett]

"Finally, when the 20million comes through, will The Blades give back the parachute payments they received from relegation? Because obviously, if they had stayed up, then you would not have received this amount?"


No.... this would have been taken into account when deciding the amount claimed in the first instance

I didn't realise this. How much were the parachute payments out of interest?

Linz - I also didn't realise that West Ham lied again after been punished.

 

[The One]

However, West Ham have already being punished for playing Tevez illegally. They were fined 5.5million by the Premier League. Whether this was a large enough punishment (it probably wasn't) is not now the issue. The offence was comitted and West Ham paid for it. I can't see how West Ham can be tried twice for the same crime (is this not a case of The Double Jeopardy Law, where no one can be tried twice for the same crime).

They were punished the first time they lied, then they said he was legit, which wasn't the case, and continued to play him illegally at the end of the season. (after the initial punishment)

Am I right or am I getting mixed up?

 

[Linz]

Am I right or am I getting mixed up?

Nope... that's right.

They were fined for the initial rule break but no punishments have yet been forthcoming for subsequent ones. The Premier League are cacking themselves and are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If they punish West Ham now, they are admitting that they allowed themselves to be lied to and the £5.5 million punishment was not enough to deter West Ham from carrying on with their naughtiness.

If they don't, then they are saying that they weren't lied to again and in which case, why have West Ham coughed up?

 

[Vistoma]

I didn't realise this. How much were the parachute payments out of interest?

Linz - I also didn't realise that West Ham lied again after been punished.

I am not sure how much we got but the figures from last year are as follows which indicate we would have got £13m over 2 years.

Reading, Birmingham City and Derby this season - receive “parachute payments” for the first two seasons outside the top flight to soften their landing in the second tier. These payments are up from almost £6.5million to £11.4million.

 

[Charles]

Linz

Surely it has not been proved that West ham lied about Tevez in the second instant. This was a Tribunal in which West Ham could not appeal.
If this had gone to a court of law West ham may well have won the day. This is the area the FA and PL are looking into and if they come back and find that West Ham had done nothing wrong then how do we then stand?

 

[Sensiblade]

Linz

Surely it has not been proved that West ham lied about Tevez in the second instant. This was a Tribunal in which West Ham could not appeal.
If this had gone to a court of law West ham may well have won the day. This is the area the FA and PL are looking into and if they come back and find that West Ham had done nothing wrong then how do we then stand?

Lots of if's and but's there.

If West Ham were totally innocent then they wouldn't have agreed to pay and they would have fought all the way.