West Ham - Not Guilty?

[Sothall_Blade]

"West Ham co-owner David Sullivan has told Soccernet the club should not have pleaded guilty in the Carlos Tevez affair and says they do not yet know the full cost of the various lawsuits against the club.

Former chairman Eggert Magnusson with Tevez in 2007
Sullivan has rated the club's debt at £110 million. There is £50 million to be paid to banks, £40 million to other clubs and £20 million to Sheffield United over Tevez.

West Ham reached an agreement regarding compensation over Tevez in March last year after the player - whose signing was deemed to have breached Premier League third-party rules - helped the Hammers avoid relegation at Sheffield United's expense in 2007.

Sullivan told Soccernet in an exclusive interview: "West Ham pleaded guilty. They shouldn't have done. They should have fought the case.
"Instead, this club has to pay out. We have a well-documented legal settlement and there is no way out of it, other than to offer to pay Sheffield United a lump sum - then they might accept a slight deduction. Does anyone have a spare £30 million?

"And that is not where it ends. Clubs like Fulham are still suing West Ham over Tevez, and as new owners we intend to fight these issues."
The size of a payment due to former manager Alan Curbishley has also still to be decided. The manager won a compensation claim late last year after having left West Ham in September 2008, and Soccernet understands that Curbishley could be owed up to £3.5 million, although West Ham might try to settle at £1.25 million.

Sullivan said: "The club have already lost their case with Alan. It's a question of how much, and we shall now try to settle. We are all hoping Alan gets himself another job, as it would mitigate his loss!"


Ha, Ha, Ha! Is the reference to them needing a spare £30 Million to pay us off with a freudian slip I wonder? I would make them pay the whole lot out of principle and hope it bankrupts them.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Does anyone have a spare £30 Million?

Well with about £400 Million to your name I'd say you probably do.


I didn't actually read that as they owe us £30 Million, more like that's what we wanted so they offered to pay up £15 Million in one chuck and then a lower amount settled over time.

 

[SwissBlade]

Brilliant! But then I don't know why he's whinging, he knew all this when he led the takeover! Did he not do his research?

He's done nothing but whinge since he arrived and I think its fantastic!

 

[Maidenhead]

Brilliant! But then I don't know why he's whinging, he knew all this when he led the takeover! Did he not do his research?

He's done nothing but whinge since he arrived and I think its fantastic!

Even better news is that they are still BEING sued by Fulham over the "Tevez affair"

Come on Fulham.

I don't think we should ever forget the support given to us by Charlton, Fulham, Wigan, Middlesboro and Liverppool.

Their fans should always be welcome at BDTBL

 

[Oreyt]

Someone described Gold and Sullivan as 'A dystopian Father Christmas and his leering elf'.
Spot on.

 

[SwissBlade]

West Ham suing should be a national sport

 

[JJ Sefton]

True, Ive not heard anything about this Fulham thing for a while.

 

[Oreyt]

Even better news is that they are still BEING sued by Fulham over the "Tevez affair"

Come on Fulham.

I don't think we should ever forget the support given to us by Charlton, Fulham, Wigan, Middlesboro and Liverppool.

Their fans should always be welcome at BDTBL

Always appreciated the Man City fans singing ''We should be at Bramall Lane'' at them on the first day of the season.

 

[Darren]

"West Ham co-owner David Sullivan has told Soccernet the club should not have pleaded guilty in the Carlos Tevez affair and says they do not yet know the full cost of the various lawsuits against the club.

Former chairman Eggert Magnusson with Tevez in 2007
Sullivan has rated the club's debt at £110 million. There is £50 million to be paid to banks, £40 million to other clubs and £20 million to Sheffield United over Tevez.

West Ham reached an agreement regarding compensation over Tevez in March last year after the player - whose signing was deemed to have breached Premier League third-party rules - helped the Hammers avoid relegation at Sheffield United's expense in 2007.

Sullivan told Soccernet in an exclusive interview: "West Ham pleaded guilty. They shouldn't have done. They should have fought the case.
"Instead, this club has to pay out. We have a well-documented legal settlement and there is no way out of it, other than to offer to pay Sheffield United a lump sum - then they might accept a slight deduction. Does anyone have a spare £30 million?

"And that is not where it ends. Clubs like Fulham are still suing West Ham over Tevez, and as new owners we intend to fight these issues."
The size of a payment due to former manager Alan Curbishley has also still to be decided. The manager won a compensation claim late last year after having left West Ham in September 2008, and Soccernet understands that Curbishley could be owed up to £3.5 million, although West Ham might try to settle at £1.25 million.

Sullivan said: "The club have already lost their case with Alan. It's a question of how much, and we shall now try to settle. We are all hoping Alan gets himself another job, as it would mitigate his loss!"


Ha, Ha, Ha! Is the reference to them needing a spare £30 Million to pay us off with a freudian slip I wonder? I would make them pay the whole lot out of principle and hope it bankrupts them.

They didn't plead guilty when we sued them. They fought it and lost, much to my (and lots of other people's) surprise. They then tried to appeal to the Council of Arbitration in Sport, but we got an High Court injunction preventing them from doing so. It was only then that WHU negotiated a settlement.

I don't know where Sullivan gets the idea that WHU somehow rolled over and gave up on this issue.

 

[raul]

Liverpool? What did they do?

 

[Maidenhead]

Always appreciated the Man City fans singing ''We should be at Bramall Lane'' at them on the first day of the season.

Yep, I forgot that one.

Come on Citeh

 

[Maidenhead]

Liverpool? What did they do?

I know I'm getting old and my memory isn't what it once was but I'm pretty certain Liverpool supported our initial case against the P.L and provided technical support and expertise to us too.

The only one of the "bigger" clubs to make any public noise at all.

 

[Deleted member 2102]

I know I'm getting old and my memory isn't what it once was but I'm pretty certain Liverpool supported our initial case against the P.L and provided technical support and expertise to us too.

The only one of the "bigger" clubs to make any public noise at all.

Their CEO Parry testified for us at the original hearing.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

Liverpool? What did they do?

Wasn't it all tied in with the fact that they had Mascharano (sp?) on loan from WHU that season - and for a time it was unclear about his ownership too?

 

[Maidenhead]

Their CEO Parry testified for us at the original hearing.

Thanks, it appears that my memory hasn't completely gone yet.

 

[yorkshirecoast]

Even better news is that they are still BEING sued by Fulham over the "Tevez affair"

Come on Fulham.

I don't think we should ever forget the support given to us by Charlton, Fulham, Wigan, Middlesboro and Liverppool.

Their fans should always be welcome at BDTBL

Make the cheating Scousers welcome at the Lane? Give over.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

If that poisonous little twat (allegedly) can afford to offer some special player (Van whythelongface Nistelrooy) £100k a week for 3 years he can pay us £30m.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

They didn't plead guilty when we sued them. They fought it and lost, much to my (and lots of other people's) surprise. They then tried to appeal to the Council of Arbitration in Sport, but we got an High Court injunction preventing them from doing so. It was only then that WHU negotiated a settlement.

I don't know where Sullivan gets the idea that WHU somehow rolled over and gave up on this issue.

I think he means they shouldn't have pleaded guilty to the original accusations of cheating.

 

[Selly]

I think he means they shouldn't have pleaded guilty to the original accusations of cheating.

Thats my reading of it as well.

He is probably somewhat forgetting that one of the (rather rediculous) reasons (although by no means the most rediculous) for not docking them points was their please of Guilty.

Had they pled Guilty they would probably have been deducted points and would probably have gone into admin.

 

[Selly]

Had they pled Guilty they would probably have been deducted points and would probably have gone into admin.

Sorry i just read that back, of course they wouldn`t have been deducted points, they are media & FA darlings WHU after all...

 

[TonyAgana]

If that poisonous little twat (allegedly) can afford to offer some special player (Van whythelongface Nistelrooy) £100k a week for 3 years he can pay us £30m.

Makes you sick, doesn't it? Everybody is pissing and whining about how several premier league canoes are up shit creek without their paddles yet the minute one gets bailed out the first thing they talk about is how much more money they can piss up a wall.

Gentlemen, it doesn't matter whether the television company gives us £3m or £33m, we'll piss it up the wall on wages.

It seems West Ham are taking it one step further and seem intent on pissing their bail money up walls too.

 

[derrywan]

they didn't really plead guilty to anything. But after brazening out the dispute, they came unstuck as the same dubious approach to business which caused them to have to bend the rules to stay up (to keep turnover at business plan levels) also meant they were in such financial doo-doo that with our claim hanging over them their auditors were refusing to sign off on their last accounts.

Without the last accounts signed they couldn't be put on the market, therefore they shafted themselves into a corner where the only way to get investment was to fix their debt to us and bloody fast. Bongo Sullivan is talking out of his commercial hole. He couldn't have bought the club if a settlement wasn't reached.

 

[lenners]

They didn't plead guilty when we sued them. They fought it and lost, much to my (and lots of other people's) surprise. They then tried to appeal to the Council of Arbitration in Sport, but we got an High Court injunction preventing them from doing so. It was only then that WHU negotiated a settlement.

I don't know where Sullivan gets the idea that WHU somehow rolled over and gave up on this issue.

You were only surprised because you didn't listen to the voice of reason.
Always an open and shut case, just a matter of time...

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Sorry i just read that back, of course they wouldn`t have been deducted points, they are media & FA darlings WHU after all...

For what it's worth, I think Sullivan is plain wrong as even though they did eventually plead guilty, the minutes from the original Premier League hearing make it quite clear that based on the evidence, they would have found them guilty anyway.

Extract from the Premier league hearing minutes:-
“Thus, an officer of the club, its chief executive officer, told Mr Scudamore a direct lie, namely there was no documentation of whatever kind in respect of these players which the FAPL had not seen. That being the basis upon which we will proceed, what then is the appropriate penalty? In determining that, we have taken into account and given West Ham credit for the pleas of guilty and we have taken into account their hitherto exemplary disciplinary record.

We are of the view that these are exceedingly serious allegations because they amount to not only an obvious and deliberate breach of the Rules, but a grave breach of trust as to the FAPL and its constituent members, because in our finding the club has been responsible for dishonesty and deceit.

The Rules of the FAPL allow us to penalise a club by deducting points. That is a course that we consider would normally follow from such a breach of these Rules. Many clubs may be of the view that all competitions should be decided on the pitch and not by tribunals.

Whilst that is a natural and understandable view, the fact remains that some breaches will be of such a serious nature that only a deduction of points would be appropriate. Some clubs, here perhaps those who are locked in the relegation battle with West Ham, may be of the view that only a points deduction would be appropriate.

Here, we have finally come to the view that a deduction of points would not be proportionate punishment. We have taken the following factors into account: One, the club's pleas of guilty" ....Two etc etc etc....it's not fair on their poor fans....their players have been trying really hard..they owned up eventually....they helped England win the world cup..etc...etc.”

 

[JJ Sefton]

If memory serves they did plead not guilty to start with, it was only the day before the arbitration panel convened that they changed their plea.

 

[Selly]

If memory serves they did plead not guilty to start with, it was only the day before the arbitration panel convened that they changed their plea.

Correct, almost certainly to string out the process to as close to the end of the season as possible.

The theory being it's a lot easier to deduct 1, 2, 3 or a gazillion points when there are still 60 to play for, much harder when there are only 9 remaining.

 

[Selly]

The Rules of the FAPL allow us to penalise a club by deducting points. That is a course that we consider would normally follow from such a breach of these Rules. Many clubs may be of the view that all competitions should be decided on the pitch and not by tribunals.

Whilst that is a natural and understandable view, the fact remains that some breaches will be of such a serious nature that only a deduction of points would be appropriate. Some clubs, here perhaps those who are locked in the relegation battle with West Ham, may be of the view that only a points deduction would be appropriate.

Here, we have finally come to the view that a deduction of points would not be proportionate punishment. We have taken the following factors into account: One, the club's pleas of guilty" ....Two etc etc etc....it's not fair on their poor fans....their players have been trying really hard..they owned up eventually....they helped England win the world cup..etc...etc.”

By god it's a measure of my feeling on this matter that I read that back nearly 3 years after it was written and my blood has started boiling again.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sothall_Blade]

If memory serves they did plead not guilty to start with, it was only the day before the arbitration panel convened that they changed their plea.

Correct, almost certainly to string out the process to as close to the end of the season as possible. The theory being it's a lot easier to deduct 1, 2, 3 or a gazillion points when there are still 60 to play for, much harder when there are only 9 remaining.

Yep and it worked too. Arbitration minutes:-

"Four, there has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party's fault, the consequence is that a points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome, would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which would have consigned the club to certain relegation. "

 

[marko1889]

wish they just get the money paid in full and move on. really hope they go down.

 

[Selly]

Yep and it worked too. Arbitration minutes:-

"Four, there has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party's fault, the consequence is that a points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome, would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which would have consigned the club to certain relegation. "

Hadn`t spotted that bit (in bold) before.

So no-ones fault

Certainly not the accused who would not have needed 3 month to prepare their case if they were going to please Guilty all along would they.

No, no-ones fault...