Martin Samuel - again

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


FMBlade1 said:
Wilder didn't rule out legal action being taken by SUFC. That's a fact.

But then that means that the club's thinking is the same as mine which of course you don't like ;)
Click to expand...


Wilder said it would no doubt be discussed by those above him. He didnt "rule" anything in or out.
 
Going off topic a little, how old, tired and jaded is The Sunday Supplement now? When you compare it to the all round knowledge of the likes of NTT20 guys, Benjamin Bloom, Hugh Whizzy or even our own Blades Analytics, it reveals all its flaws . A group of aging arrogant men who know nothing about the game itself, know nothing about the fans and know nothing about anyone outside of the usual top 6.

Sky are missing a trick continuing down the route they are and with the journalists they use. There is loads of talent out there that would make for a much more entertaining show.
 
Samuels hit the nail on the head with his own words "West Ham got lucky in 2007 when they should have had points deducted"
As they hadn't, us (or Wigan) would be relegated.
Whichever of us got the short straw would have taken action.
All football knew that West Ham had survived due to playing a player for the whole season because they
had lied about his original contract.
It was not possible to retrospectively reverse our relegation but compensation was the legally possible 'recompense'
 
Sean Thornton said:
Wilder said it would no doubt be discussed by those above him. He didnt "rule" anything in or out.
Click to expand...

If SUFC are not discussing legal action or are ruling out legal action Wilder could have and should have said so.

He didn't.

Look I hope this is a road we don't have to go down and that we bounce back up the table but it's the right thing imho.
 
Sean Thornton said:
I wasn't answering the OP. You said plenty would agree with the above. Weren't they quotes?
Click to expand...

Re-read what you put.

So they are happy to deliberately misquote Wilder as well?

How are they misquoting Wilder when there are no quotes from Wilder in the piece in the OP?
 
CentralQuay said:
Is the article biased? Maybe.....


"Lord Griffiths also decided it was Tevez who was responsible for Sheffield United's defeat at home to Wigan on the final day of the season which sent them down"
"Yet to speak, as Chris Wilder did, of legal redress if Sheffield United missed out on Europe by the two points lost, ensured wider sympathy swiftly evaporated."


There are plenty of neutrals out there who agree with the above though.
Click to expand...

The problem with neutrals is they read articles from biased journalists with an agenda and believe what they say is true.

Samuels comments about Griffiths are as usual incorrect. He didn't decide anything himself and was the Chairman of an Independent panel. No reference was made to Sheffield United's defeat at Home to Wigan in the ruling.

The panel commented on West Hams Secretary Scott Duxbury not telling the truth regarding Tevez's third party contract arrangement to a previous Commission. The panel confirmed that had they been the Commission and had been aware of the contract circumstances they would have deducted points from West Ham leading to their relegation.

The third party contract was a breach of FA rules and subsequently rules were amended to ensure this did not happen again. The case is a landmark and benefits all Clubs to ensure none are put in this situation again so why would supporters of other clubs agree with the rantings of a bitter journalist who can't even get his facts right?


The dispute stemmed from West Ham’s signing of the Argentinian international Carlos Tevez in August 2006. The transfer caused much press speculation at the time, as many were suspicious about how a club of West Ham’s size and means could attract such a world class player. This suspicion appeared well founded when in March 2007 the FAPL charged West Ham with entering into contractual arrangements that breached FAPL rules in respect of third party ownership and duties of good faith. A disciplinary commission was convened to hear the case. Despite finding the club guilty of these charges, it decided to fine West Ham £5.5m rather than deducting points from it. Buoyed by this decision and the spectacular performances of Tevez in the last 10 games of the season, West Ham retained its place in the FAPL by three points at the expense of Sheffield United.

Sheffield United appealed against the commission’s decision, but was unsuccessful. However, the appeal panel expressed sympathy and concluded that if it had been in the commission’s position it would in all probability have deducted points from West Ham.

The claim relied on Sheffield United proving that:

(i) West Ham breached FAPL rules;

(ii) these breaches were compensatable in damages; and

(iii) these breaches caused Sheffield United loss.

The tribunal found in favour of Sheffield United on each of these points, and was due to hear evidence on the level of damages on 16 March 2009, the day after the settlement.

 
grafikhaus said:
Once again, our biased, West Ham supporting idiot pursues his own agenda.

I've copied and pasted the relevant bit so you don't have to scroll through the rest of his crap in todays article:


Wilder talks about legal action but club can't get lucky twice

Sheffield United got lucky in 2008 with the Lord Griffiths ruling. They scored fewer goals away from home, and lost more away games than any other team in the league in 2006-07, and that somehow became the work of Carlos Tevez and West Ham.

Words fail me. He's just repeating his mantra that it was all United's fault and nothing to do with the clearly-illegal fielding of an illegal player, in more than one game.

Lord Griffiths also decided it was Tevez who was responsible for Sheffield United's defeat at home to Wigan on the final day of the season which sent them down, and for the fact they took eight points from a possible 33 after February 10. West Ham ended up paying Sheffield United more than £10million.

See above.

At the time Griffiths' verdict — in effect, that a club was not responsible for its own league position — seemed calamitous because it opened the door to so many legal challenges.

In fact, it barely exists as a precedent these days because football wisely acknowledged its rogue nature and no club has pursued that path since.

Until last week, when Sheffield United were unlucky with a technology call at Aston Villa, and immediately raised the possibility of a return to law.

Yes, it was unfortunate to be on the wrong end of a 9,000-1 chance missed call by Hawk-Eye's goal-line technology. Yes, it was poor that VAR did not have the gumption to call it to referee Michael Oliver.

Yet to speak, as Chris Wilder did, of legal redress if Sheffield United missed out on Europe by the two points lost, ensured wider sympathy swiftly evaporated. It was a mistake, but they happen. The technology failed and humans have been taught not to trust their eyes. Frustrating, yes. But actionable?

As far as I'm aware, Chris Wilder has been very careful not to speak of legal redress, but has intimated that any action could come from players who, having missed out on bonuses based on United's final position, may seek action. Also any team who is relegated by one point would have a very strong case against Villa, VAR tec.

The error happened in the 41st minute. That means Sheffield United had 49 minutes plus two sets of additional time to defeat Aston Villa, and did not. A legal suit would also have to presume that the game would have unfolded identically and the goal would not have influenced Villa's approach: their game plan would not have changed whether losing or drawing.

Again, Samuel falls back on the 'Wigan incident' where he's repeatedly told of United's poor form at the end of the season, yet conveniently chooses to ignore the pivotal reason why United went down - Tevez in 2007 and Villa this season.

Sheffield United would then need to prove this single incident was the reason for their failure to reach Europe rather than — say — Sunday's 3-0 defeat at Newcastle, or home defeats by Leicester, Southampton and Newcastle.

West Ham got lucky in 2007 because they should have been deducted points that would, in all likelihood, have relegated them. Yet Griffiths' judgement was flawed. He died in 2015, aged 91, and we wish Sheffield United well finding another sound legal mind who seconds him.

So now he's calling the judge's sanity into question. Quite disgraceful.
Click to expand...

I like the idea that getting a ruling in your favour is "luck". And I particularly like the idea that it "opened the door to so many legal challenges". Can anyone name another such legal challenge in the past fourteen years? Anyone?
 
CentralQuay said:
Re-read what you put.

So they are happy to deliberately misquote Wilder as well?

How are they misquoting Wilder when there are no quotes from Wilder in the piece in the OP?
Click to expand...


In your zeal to be the latest contrarian on here, the job tends not to last long btw, people get bored of it, you seem to have missed - even though you posted it - this


"Yet to speak, as Chris Wilder did, of legal redress if Sheffield United missed out on Europe by the two points lost, ensured wider sympathy swiftly evaporated."

Chris Wilder spoke?

You said some people agreed. Hence my question.

Waffle about the OP all you wish. I replied to you.
 
Sean Thornton said:
It's not his decision. And no doubt outside his remit, as anyone with common sense should realise. Stop with the faux law shit, you're embarrassing yourself again.
Click to expand...

It's not his decision. Yet he is the most high profile ambassador, and in effect spokesman for the club. It is outside his remit, where did I suggest otherwise?

If SUFC weren't considering taking legal action he could have, and should have said so. He didn't.

The club could have consequently gone out and clarified or 'corrected' him by saying 'there have not and will not be discussions.

The club have not ruled out taking legal action.

Fact.
 
The government should have used that cunt to encourage social distancing. :fattwat: 🥧 💩
 

FMBlade1 said:
It's not his decision. Yet he is the most high profile ambassador, and in effect spokesman for the club. It is outside his remit, where did I suggest otherwise.

If SUFC weren't considering taking legal action he could have, and should have said so. He didn't.

The club could have consequently gone out and clarified or 'corrected' him by saying 'there have not and will not be discussions.

The club have not ruled out taking legal action.

Fact.
Click to expand...


So you agree it's outside his remit but expect him to discuss it in detail ? Are you alright?

By not giving a comment either way he quite rightly prevented any "correction". Maybe he knows a bit more about how these things work than you, because shooting from the hip doesn't seem to have worked to well on here for you.
 
Sean Thornton said:
In your zeal to be the latest contrarian on here, the job tends not to last long btw, people get bored of it, you seem to have missed - even though you posted it - this


"Yet to speak, as Chris Wilder did, of legal redress if Sheffield United missed out on Europe by the two points lost, ensured wider sympathy swiftly evaporated."

Chris Wilder spoke?

You said some people agreed. Hence my question.

Waffle about the OP all you wish. I replied to you.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a quote is?

Samuels, despite being a fat scruffy mess, does not directly quote Wilder.
Neither does the OP.

So they are happy to deliberately misquote Wilder as well?

They do not quote him!
 
I'm a big believer in what goes around comes around in football, even if it takes years.

Karma would be West Ham going down by one goal less than Villa.

The failure to award a perfectly good goal has far more chance of causing West Ham issues than ourselves imho.
 
CentralQuay said:
As valid as the argument that Sheffield United lost 2 points because they were not given a goal in the 41st minute.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that and I don't think anyone else is.

The 50 odd people who have signed the petition want it replayed from 43 minutes with us 1-0 up. Then we can see what happens.
 
GreasyChipBeattie said:
Nope.
They came to where I worked some years ago and completely made up a story because they didn't get the answers they wanted!
Also, my ex-missus was hospitalised after nasty accident which made the front page of the evening paper (not Sheffield) and they hounded me to get a story.
They somehow got my details (from a neighbour I think) called me at work pretending to be some one else and when I refused to co-operate told me 'It's up to you. You can give us the story or we'll just make our own up'
And they did.
Click to expand...

The downside to freedom of the press is unscrupulous journos.

Watching Murder in the Car park at present and it's outrageous.

The bottom line is that too many journalists and publications don't care less about ruining lives for a tin pot story.
 
CentralQuay said:
Do you know what a quote is?

Samuels, despite being a fat scruffy mess, does not directly quote Wilder.
Neither does the OP.

So they are happy to deliberately misquote Wilder as well?

They do not quote him!
Click to expand...


As a pedant of some standing, yes I do know what a quote is. The article mentions Wilder speaking of legal redress as if he encouraged or welcomed it. Rather than what he actually said. Obviously l should have said "agreed with what Samuels said about Wilder" although l doubt that would be clear enough for you either. Maybe someone without an agenda would look more at the point being made, which using "quote" aside, was quite clear.

Feel free to carry on. I'll leave it with you.
 
FMBlade1 said:
I'm not saying that and I don't think anyone else is.

The 50 odd people who have signed the petition want it replayed from 43 minutes with us 1-0 up. Then we can see what happens.
Click to expand...


How can you start a game at 1-0 from the 43rd minute when no goal was given?
 
Sean Thornton said:
How can you start a game at 1-0 from the 43rd minute when no goal was given?
Click to expand...

Erm.... give the goal?

In the same way England were 'given' the penalty retake the referee had originally not given to them:

www.theguardian.com

England U19 Women to replay final seconds of Norway game after howler

The England Under-19s Women’s team will replay the final seconds of their European Championship qualifier against Norway on Thursday night after Uefa admitted the referee made a mistake in the original encounter
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Roygbiv said:
Going off topic a little, how old, tired and jaded is The Sunday Supplement now? When you compare it to the all round knowledge of the likes of NTT20 guys, Benjamin Bloom, Hugh Whizzy or even our own Blades Analytics, it reveals all its flaws . A group of aging arrogant men who know nothing about the game itself, know nothing about the fans and know nothing about anyone outside of the usual top 6.

Sky are missing a trick continuing down the route they are and with the journalists they use. There is loads of talent out there that would make for a much more entertaining show.
Click to expand...

Repulsive entitled red-top dinosaurs. The only reason they survived the passing of the Keys/Gray era is because everyone’s having a lie-in when they’re on tele.

Football journalism is overwhelmingly shite, populated by ex-pros and old hacks. Their time is up.
 
Sean Thornton said:
As a pedant of some standing, yes I do know what a quote is. The article mentions Wilder speaking of legal redress as if he encouraged or welcomed it. Rather than what he actually said. Obviously l should have said "agreed with what Samuels said about Wilder" although l doubt that would be clear enough for you either. Maybe someone without an agenda would look more at the point being made, which using "quote" aside, was quite clear.

Feel free to carry on. I'll leave it with you.
Click to expand...

I have no agenda/bias towards the issue.

It's possible to think that Samuel's in a knob, and the line about the Judge's 'mind' is disgraceful.....
And still think that his point about Sheffield United's inability to pick up points across multiple games, not just the Wigan one, was as much of a factor in relegation, if not more so, than Carlos Tevez.

Just like the 3-0 defeat at Newcastle, where 3 potential points were lost, is more damaging than 2 potential points lost at Villa.
 

Roygbiv said:
Going off topic a little, how old, tired and jaded is The Sunday Supplement now? When you compare it to the all round knowledge of the likes of NTT20 guys, Benjamin Bloom, Hugh Whizzy or even our own Blades Analytics, it reveals all its flaws . A group of aging arrogant men who know nothing about the game itself, know nothing about the fans and know nothing about anyone outside of the usual top 6.

Sky are missing a trick continuing down the route they are and with the journalists they use. There is loads of talent out there that would make for a much more entertaining show.
Click to expand...

Barely a mention on Sunday of that VAR incident on that show. It was if the entire thing never happened. They gave Wilder a quick pat on the back for the season we have had so far and quickly moved on.

They are struggling to get a decent presenter since Brian Woolnough. I didn't mind Neil Ashton that much but he was no where as good as Woolnough. Jacqui Oatley is meant to be presenting it now but during lockdown she hasn't been doing the show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom