Martin Samuel - The Debate

[Sothall_Blade]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...wich-accept-theyre-deservedly-going-down.html

The blind debating with the blind:-

West Ham fan:- "Sheffield United sued West Ham for £25m because we made a mistake in a grey area of the rules. They were not good enough to keep themselves in the league on the pitch. I’m glad to see them where they are now, and long may it continue. James, United Kingdom."



"It wasn’t a grey area, James, and it wasn’t a mistake. The rules were very clearly spelled out and West Ham lied about breaking them. The problem with Sheffield United’s original campaign for fairness is that they were also up to skulduggery over Steve Kabba’s transfer to Watford, but spoke and behaved as if the Carlos Tevez arrangement was the only rotten deal in town. This does not excuse West Ham, but it does support the suspicion that the clubs want the standards of the Wild West right up until the moment it affects them – when, suddenly, they want fairness."

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Martin Samuel - The Reprobate

 

[Gavlar]

well its big of him to admit that the shammers should have gone down yrs after the blades did.

In fairness he is only defending his club the same as we are tho, and the Kabba transfer was a weird one tho not really the same
in my view. not sure much will come in terms of retribution for Sunderland. Fairplay to Poyet he's done brilliantly.

The other issue for me is Man City getting fined £50 million which is pence to their owners when they could be docked points instead for breaching ffp rules.

 

[Balham]

well its big of him to admit that the shammers should have gone down yrs after the blades did.

In fairness he is only defending his club the same as we are tho, and the Kabba transfer was a weird one tho not really the same
in my view. not sure much will come in terms of retribution for Sunderland. Fairplay to Poyet he's done brilliantly.

The other issue for me is Man City getting fined £50 million which is pence to their owners when they could be docked points instead for breaching ffp rules.

The FFP rules are UEFA-enforced so there was no chance of docked points. The sanctions against Citeh are actually quite harsh; they'll only be allowed a squad of 21 in next season's European Cup, of which 8 have to be "homegrown".

What's annoying though is that the French club just as guilty (PSG) has only been fined €25m with no player sanctions.

 

[Gavlar]

The FFP rules are UEFA-enforced so there was no chance of docked points. The sanctions against Citeh are actually quite harsh; they'll only be allowed a squad of 21 in next season's European Cup, of which 8 have to be "homegrown".

What's annoying though is that the French club just as guilty (PSG) has only been fined €25m with no player sanctions.

reducing the squad to 21 isnt harsh at all. most teams who have won the trophy in the last few yrs have used 21 players.

didnt realise that PSG had less tho dont know how much they overspent? Cant believe points deduction or transfer embargos havent come into it. wheres the incentive to stop breaking the rules?

 

[Roygbiv]

His constant straw clutching about Steve Kabba are very embarrassing to read. It never nice to see a big man squirming.

 

[Gavlar]

I like this conversation that samuels has tho:

"Is my old memory playing tricks on me Martin, as I don't recall you saying West Ham should have points deducted over Tevez at the time. Hesablade, Sheffield.

I do like it when this happens, because it gives me the opportunity to set the record straight. It was always my belief that West Ham should have had points deducted, but my conviction was weakened considerably when it transpired that Sheffield United had a gentlemen’s agreement with Watford over Kabba. They sold Kabba to Watford, permanently, and then entered a secret, private arrangement that he would not play against them that season. Neil Warnock, the Sheffield United manager, and both club websites confirmed this. To my mind that made them hypocrites in their later protests, denouncing West Ham over third party interference while indulging in another form of it themselves. That remains my stance and I found Lord Griffiths verdict in the circumstances quite ludicrous. However, for my stance on West Ham and Carlos Tevez, I can refer you to a column I wrote for The Times, published on May 2, 2007.
'The club representatives lied and no mitigation outweighs that. Carlos Tevez, the West Ham player of the year, brought the club points which should have been taken away. West Ham’s penalty should have been the same whether applied in October or April, sitting in tenth place or 18th. It is also worthless to assess Tevez’s impact in terms of goals or points gained; he galvanised West Ham’s season, pure and simple. If the Premier League had demanded retribution equivalent to Tevez’s impact at Upton Park, points would not suffice; the only conclusion would have been summary relegation.'
So there, Blade. I did say it. In fact, I was even stronger then than now. Feel free to spread the word. Until next time."

 

[Roygbiv]

He's a professional journalist, He shouldn't comment on things about West Ham if he cant act impartially. His tagline should be 'I am a West Ham fan' whenever this subject comes up. I genuinely don't think he realises how biased he is on the subject but his editors should. It's like a United fan talking about who the bigger club in Sheffield is with no opposite argument from a Wednesday fan. The whole thing would be totally skewed in United favour.

Samuels can't be trusted to speak on this subject impartially and it's a slight on the paper that they let him carry on doing so. Then again it is the Mail

 

[Gavlar]

Who isnt biased? no journo is unbiased, they're human beings. If he was speaking out against the fowls would you care about his bias?

 

[SwissBlade]

The problem as always is that the kabba issue he clutches to was found to have been done correctly and neither ourselves, nor Watford were guilty of anything. Whatever his own conviction is, a decision of no wrong doing was found.

West ham were proved to have done wrong and consistently they lied. This has always been the point fat Sam as missed.

Bless him and his impartiality

 

[SwissBlade]

Who isnt biased? no journo is unbiased, they're human beings. If he was speaking out against the fowls would you care about his bias?

The point with the big lad is that he always claims to be unbiased

 

[JJ Sefton]

He's a big fat cunt.

Has he ever actually quantified what this 'skullduggery' around the Kabba transfer was?

 

[Bladepicker]

Is he still banging on about Steve Kabba?

Fact of the matter is, if it was a gentlemans agreement it did not have to be stuck to and Sheffield United had no direct influence on the player once he was sold. Had they turned round and said we are going to play him, we could do nothing about it as we did not own him.

The Tevez case was totally different.

Also one other thing always bugs me more than anything is how they were able to then register him correctly for the last four games of the season outside the emergency loan window. Very murky.

 

[Gavlar]

The problem as always is that the kabba issue he clutches to was found to have been done correctly and neither ourselves, nor Watford were guilty of anything. Whatever his own conviction is, a decision of no wrong doing was found.

West ham were proved to have done wrong and consistently they lied. This has always been the point fat Sam as missed.

Bless him and his impartiality

Why not message Samuels with this, he's pretty good at replying hence the thread. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, tho how far can things go with "gentleman's agreements?" What if Kabba had been scoring for fun for Watford then didnt play against the blades and Watford lost, would that still be fair?

 

[SESKU Blade]

no debate - he's a bell end

 

[Balham]

reducing the squad to 21 isnt harsh at all. most teams who have won the trophy in the last few yrs have used 21 players.

didnt realise that PSG had less tho dont know how much they overspent? Cant believe points deduction or transfer embargos havent come into it. wheres the incentive to stop breaking the rules?

For City it's effectively a squad of 14 - thirteen outfielders plus Hart - and the teams that have used 21 players have had the majority of that made up of bought-in players: Only Barcelona of the last 5 winning squads had fewer than 13 bought in players. City are in real trouble getting a competitive squad together for next season's CL.

Bayern (2013 winners): used 23 players, 17 bought in/6 homegrown (+2 unused homegrown)
Chelsea (2012 winners): used 19 players, 18 bought in/1 homegrown (+6 unused homegrown)
Barcelona (2011 winners): used 26 players*, 9 bought in/17 homegrown (+8 unused homegrown)
Inter (2010 winners): used 24 players, 21 bought in/3 homegrown (+6 unused homegrown)*
Barcelona (2009 winners): used 23 players, 11 bought in/12 homegrown (+8 unused homegrown)*

*teams can supplement their 25 man squads with U21 players.

PSG were massively overspent and have a ludicrous €200m a year sponsorship deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority that's been halved for the FFP calculation. This season they've bought Cavani (€60m), Marquinhos (€35m) and Cabaye (€25m) with only Sakho (€20m) bringing in a fee; last season they bought Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva (combined €50m), Lucas Moura (€40m), Lavezzi (€30m), Marco Verratti (€12m) and Van Der Wiel (€8m).

 

[Roygbiv]

He's a professional journalist, He shouldn't comment on things about West Ham if he cant act impartially. His tagline should be 'I am a West Ham fan' whenever this subject comes up. I genuinely don't think he realises how biased he is on the subject but his editors should. It's like a United fan talking about who the bigger club in Sheffield is with no opposite argument from a Wednesday fan. The whole thing would be totally skewed in United favour.

Samuels can't be trusted to speak on this subject impartially and it's a slight on the paper that they let him carry on doing so. Then again it is the Mail

Who isnt biased? no journo is unbiased, they're human beings. If he was speaking out against the fowls would you care about his bias?

The fact that he continually says that he isn't biased and he has a platform to influence people who don't know anything about the subject is wrong in my opinion. The Mail isn't a local paper. It's one read by people all around England. What he is doing isn't journalism, it's him sticking up for his club and slaughtering another purely due to his own bias. That's not what he gets paid for. The fact he happens to have some sort of status as football journalist shouldn't allow him to blindly stick up for the club he supports. In his words, when you become a sports journalist you are supposed to "hang up your scarf ". It's quite clear he is unable to do this and for this reason he shouldn't be trusted to make comments about anything to do with West Ham

 

[Gavlar]

For City it's effectively a squad of 14 - thirteen outfielders plus Hart - and the teams that have used 21 players have had the majority of that made up of bought-in players: Only Barcelona of the last 5 winning squads had fewer than 13 bought in players. City are in real trouble getting a competitive squad together for next season's CL.

Bayern (2013 winners): used 23 players, 17 bought in/6 homegrown (+2 unused homegrown)
Chelsea (2012 winners): used 19 players, 18 bought in/1 homegrown (+6 unused homegrown)
Barcelona (2011 winners): used 26 players*, 9 bought in/17 homegrown (+8 unused homegrown)
Inter (2010 winners): used 24 players, 21 bought in/3 homegrown (+6 unused homegrown)*
Barcelona (2009 winners): used 23 players, 11 bought in/12 homegrown (+8 unused homegrown)*

*teams can supplement their 25 man squads with U21 players.

PSG were massively overspent and have a ludicrous €200m a year sponsorship deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority that's been halved for the FFP calculation. This season they've bought Cavani (€60m), Marquinhos (€35m) and Cabaye (€25m) with only Sakho (€20m) bringing in a fee; last season they bought Ibrahimovic and Thiago Silva (combined €50m), Lucas Moura (€40m), Lavezzi (€30m), Marco Verratti (€12m) and Van Der Wiel (€8m).

thanks for the info Balham, City should have stuck to the rules then, they would have been made aware of them and should have stuck to them like anyone else.

No idea why PSG havent been penalised in the same way then, seems pretty ridiculous.

 

[Gavlar]

The fact that he continually says that he isn't biased and he has a platform to influence people who don't know anything about the subject is wrong in my opinion. The Mail isn't a local paper. It's one read by people all around England. What he is doing isn't journalism, it's him sticking up for his club and slaughtering another purely due to his own bias. That's not what he gets paid for. The fact he happens to have some sort of status as football journalist shouldn't allow him to blindly stick up for the club he supports. In his words, when you become a sports journalist you are supposed to "hang up your scarf ". It's quite clear he is unable to do this and for this reason he shouldn't be trusted to make comments about anything to do with West Ham

Fair enough, he does have a platform youre right. Though I never believe anyone who says 'I'm not biased'.

He does admit that they should have been docked points and quotes an article from 2007 where he said the same thing then.
If he wants to question the Kabba situation he is free to. It doesnt seem like the same thing at all, but it doesnt really help the blades case. He admits time and time again that West sham lied and broke the rules.

 

[Darren]

I like this conversation that samuels has tho:

"Is my old memory playing tricks on me Martin, as I don't recall you saying West Ham should have points deducted over Tevez at the time. Hesablade, Sheffield.

I do like it when this happens, because it gives me the opportunity to set the record straight. It was always my belief that West Ham should have had points deducted, but my conviction was weakened considerably when it transpired that Sheffield United had a gentlemen’s agreement with Watford over Kabba. They sold Kabba to Watford, permanently, and then entered a secret, private arrangement that he would not play against them that season. Neil Warnock, the Sheffield United manager, and both club websites confirmed this. To my mind that made them hypocrites in their later protests, denouncing West Ham over third party interference while indulging in another form of it themselves. That remains my stance and I found Lord Griffiths verdict in the circumstances quite ludicrous. However, for my stance on West Ham and Carlos Tevez, I can refer you to a column I wrote for The Times, published on May 2, 2007.
'The club representatives lied and no mitigation outweighs that. Carlos Tevez, the West Ham player of the year, brought the club points which should have been taken away. West Ham’s penalty should have been the same whether applied in October or April, sitting in tenth place or 18th. It is also worthless to assess Tevez’s impact in terms of goals or points gained; he galvanised West Ham’s season, pure and simple. If the Premier League had demanded retribution equivalent to Tevez’s impact at Upton Park, points would not suffice; the only conclusion would have been summary relegation.'
So there, Blade. I did say it. In fact, I was even stronger then than now. Feel free to spread the word. Until next time."

Does this not alter the general view of Samuels? He says WHU should have been relegated. Had that happened, what went on with Kabba would have been irrelevant (and as neither United or Watford were subjected to any sanction I assume no rule was broken). Even if Samuels takes the position that we should have been docked the 3 points we won in the Watford game allegedly subject to the "gentleman's agreement", we would still have stayed up.

Whisper it quietly, but he appears to be on our side....

 

[Roygbiv]

Double post

 

[Bladepicker]

Does this not alter the general view of Samuels? He says WHU should have been relegated. Had that happened, what went on with Kabba would have been irrelevant (and as neither United or Watford were subjected to any sanction I assume no rule was broken). Even if Samuels takes the position that we should have been docked the 3 points we won in the Watford game allegedly subject to the "gentleman's agreement", we would still have stayed up.

Whisper it quietly, but he appears to be on our side....

But Darren, even though he agrees West Ham should have been relegated, even if we had points deducted for the Kabba incident (which is balony), he doesn't think we had a right to pursue this justice in the courts and thinks a judge was barmy to rule in our favour?

Very strange set of opinions there? Seems the fat bastard doesn't know his exact opinion on this one as he has spouted so much bullshit about it over the years.

 

[Groucho Blade]

What Samuels always misses because it doesn't fit with his weary anti-Blades worldview is that Kabba didn't play against us cos he was injured. He barely played again (if at all) for Watford that season because a) injury and b) he wasn't much cop so he wasn't picked.

 

[Darren]

But Darren, even though he agrees West Ham should have been relegated, even if we had points deducted for the Kabba incident (which is balony), he doesn't think we had a right to pursue this justice in the courts and thinks a judge was barmy to rule in our favour?

Very strange set of opinions there? Seems the fat bastard doesn't know his exact opinion on this one as he has spouted so much bullshit about it over the years.

His argument is that:

(1) The PL is governed in a Wild West fashion. This is wrong and, if this were not the case, WHU would and should have been relegated

(2) However, all the PL clubs are happy with the Wild West regime until it adversly effects them, when they go crying to the Courts. This is wrong and hypocritical

It's a coherent argument, but not a good one I think, given that the Courts decided that even the PL Wild West rules were broken.

 

[Darren]

What Samuels always misses because it doesn't fit with his weary anti-Blades worldview is that Kabba didn't play against us cos he was injured. He barely played again (if at all) for Watford that season because a) injury and b) he wasn't much cop so he wasn't picked.

But that's not his point. He says that Watford and United had an agreement that Kabba wouldn't play against United after Kabba was transferred and that that constitutes 3rd party control over a player. The fact that Kabba didn't play for other reasons is irrelevant.

If he is right about there being an agreement (and he says it was on both clubs' websites), it seems to me he has a point. Clearly, though that sin was tiny in comparism to WHU's sin.

 

[Bladesway]

Cheds coming out of prison soon. We have a new kit can someone draw one, Samuels is a ****, please make sure this is added to the monthy thread recycler Foxy.

 

[SwissBlade]

Why not message Samuels with this, he's pretty good at replying hence the thread. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, tho how far can things go with "gentleman's agreements?" What if Kabba had been scoring for fun for Watford then didnt play against the blades and Watford lost, would that still be fair?

Sadly I have no desire to give him any more time than necessary, but I'll happily debate it on here.

 

[Bladesway]

But that's not his point. He says that Watford and United had an agreement that Kabba wouldn't play against United after Kabba was transferred and that that constitutes 3rd party control over a player. The fact that Kabba didn't play for other reasons is irrelevant.

If he is right about there being an agreement (and he says it was on both clubs' websites), it seems to me he has a point. Clearly, though that sin was tiny in comparism to WHU's sin.

But none of what we or Watford did constitutes a third party in the way that Tevez was owned by a third party does it? Or perhaps I am missing something. Furthermore West Ham had the opportunity to come clean and tear up the initial agreement when they got fingered for this earlier in the season, they lied to the PL when they said it had been sorted and actually it hadn't been. In effect Tevez played that last and fateful game at Old Trafford in which he scored and won them the game keeping them up, when technically it was illegal for him to play.

What we did with Watford is technically a bit naughty and perhaps should garner us a reprimand, what West Ham did was outright lying compounded by the fact they lied twice in effect, once after they got caught the first time.

The bare fact is the PL want clubs like West Ham in their league and they don't want clubs like us because we don't bring anything more than underdog spirit. Until we are owned by a billionaire and have a 50,000 staduim at which point the goalposts move significantly.

Shouldn't someone come on and tell us how West Ham won the World Cup in 66 by the way?

 

[Darren]

But none of what we or Watford did constitutes a third party in the way that Tevez was owned by a third party does it? Or perhaps I am missing something. Furthermore West Ham had the opportunity to come clean and tear up the initial agreement when they got fingered for this earlier in the season, they lied to the PL when they said it had been sorted and actually it hadn't been. In effect Tevez played that last and fateful game at Old Trafford in which he scored and won them the game keeping them up, when technically it was illegal for him to play.

What we did with Watford is technically a bit naughty and perhaps should garner us a reprimand, what West Ham did was outright lying compounded by the fact they lied twice in effect, once after they got caught the first time.

The bare fact is the PL want clubs like West Ham in their league and they don't want clubs like us because we don't bring anything more than underdog spirit. Until we are owned by a billionaire and have a 50,000 staduim at which point the goalposts move significantly.

Shouldn't someone come on and tell us how West Ham won the World Cup in 66 by the way?

The 3rd party point is that Watford had Kabba's registration, yet another party (SUFC) were imposing conditions as to when he could play. That does seeem third party influence, but as you say was a mote compared to the beam in WHU's eye.

If, as he says though, it was publicsed on both club's website at the time of the transfer and as United were not playing Watford until 3 months later, there was plenty of time for the PL to tell the clubs that that agreement was null and void and that Kabba was free to play in the game and perhaps hit the clubs with a fine for being naughty. Maybe they did do that and Kabba did not play for injury/crapness reasons.

 

[SwissBlade]

But that's not his point. He says that Watford and United had an agreement that Kabba wouldn't play against United after Kabba was transferred and that that constitutes 3rd party control over a player. The fact that Kabba didn't play for other reasons is irrelevant.

If he is right about there being an agreement (and he says it was on both clubs' websites), it seems to me he has a point. Clearly, though that sin was tiny in comparism to WHU's sin.

Again Darren, his argument about the kabba deal is pretty null and void as the investigation found no wrong doing. West ham were found guilty of wrong doing.

The problem he admits that he had with the west ham fiasco was the punishment, not the decision. The decision was not in doubt.

So I assume that he had faith in the system of investigation just not the punishment.... Except when it comes to kabba... Which he felt was bad investigationismness

Either the Premier is good at investigating stuff or it's not.

What frustrates me with him is that he calls us hypocrites for seeking justice, yet he thought we were in the right... We just weren't allowed to go after justice.

Yet he believes that the deal with Watford was wrong and he has pursued this since 2006 that justice wasn't done...

Now with Sunderland he fears that the other teams will seek justice... And that's bad, because we sought justice when he believed that we should've been dealt justice for a separate incident which was proved to be just and correct....