bolton points deduction

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

blade too long said:
its not the trevor bit that bothers me , its
both hartlepool and hereford were docked 3 points for 1 incident of 1 player playing in one game

west ham played 2 ineligible players over 20 odd games then lied to the tribunal and played them again after they were fined, still not properly registered
but werent brought to book for that
Click to expand...
I should have realised you would just completely miss the point
My bad
 



vorpal blade said:
I was walking to Bramall Lane when I discovered that they had delayed the decision on what to do with West Ham. It was apparent immediately that it was to be too late to dock points.

If they had reached the decision sooner to dock points, it wouldn't necessarily have condemned West Ham to relegation - it would have given them a fighting chance as it were.

Leaving it so late that a points deduction would have definitely sunk them was impossible because the likes of Scudamore weren't ever going to be brave enough to do that and if they had docked too few points to sink them they'd have been accused of tokenism.

West Ham are; like it or not, among the best supported teams in the league, the Premier league wants them in the top division and the certainly DO have friends in high places...... they are part if the establishment, it's naive to think that there was no influence on the powers that be from the likes of Brooking.
Click to expand...
So how did Trevor do this ?

Invite the chairs of the independent inquiry round to his gaffe for jellied eels and pie and mash ?
 
vorpal blade said:
I was walking to Bramall Lane when I discovered that they had delayed the decision on what to do with West Ham. It was apparent immediately that it was to be too late to dock points.

If they had reached the decision sooner to dock points, it wouldn't necessarily have condemned West Ham to relegation - it would have given them a fighting chance as it were.

Leaving it so late that a points deduction would have definitely sunk them was impossible because the likes of Scudamore weren't ever going to be brave enough to do that and if they had docked too few points to sink them they'd have been accused of tokenism.

Therefore, by leaving a decision on punishment till the last minute, it was always going to be impossible to dock points.

West Ham are; like it or not, among the best supported teams in the league, the Premier league wants them in the top division and they certainly DO have friends in high places...... they are part if the establishment, it's naive to think that there was no influence on the powers that be from the likes of Brooking.
Click to expand...

There was no influence on the tribunal from Brooking, Scudamore or anyone else. They made a genuine error of judgement. What happened is, in a nutshell and without writing an essay, exactly as I said at #56. I won't say much more but suffice to say I'm not naive and I'm not guessing...
 
Had a bid accepted for Eoin Doyle, as have Portsmouth apparently. I thought Bolton didn't have a pot to piss in? How does that work then?

 
Fanny magnet said:
It was a premier league tribunal
In fact the f.a. we're instrumental in us getting some kind of justice

The Trevor brooking thing is just ill informed ignorant bollox I'm afraid

The tribunal was chaired by 3 qc's none of which were sir Trevor or in fact anyone to do with west ham
Click to expand...

Three man panel; one QC chairman. :)
 
vorpal blade said:
who were they? were they paid (I guess yes but mere "expenses"?) who paid them these "expenses'?

You presumably have spoken to one of the panel otherwise you would be guessing wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

I think we all bump into people now and then, don't we?...

No Brooking; No conspiracy, sad to say. Warnock and McCabe relegated us, with a hand from the Everton player. It really is that boring.

Revie, Bremner, Fashanu, Segers, Big Fat Useless Hoofy Sam and the Cockney Wide Boy's dog might be far more fertile ground. I wouldn't know.

That's it I'm afraid. Not like me to be coy I know, but there'll be no more.
 
the tribunal made the decision not to dock West Ham points with only three matches to go..... the comments of a second panel (presumably some sort of appeal panel) on the lenient sentencing of the first reads thus.... (according to the Mail)

Screen Shot 2017-01-31 at 00.33.51.png

in other words, the first panel ducked making a decision (the reasons for which I have outlined above).

They didn't realise that Manchester United would buy Tevez from Kia Joorabchian immediately after letting the more than very happy Hammers win their final match at Old Trafford. Still fixing a result of a match can't have been part of the deal....could it?
 
Last edited:
and Pinchy, even if you have chatted to one of them or their servants, it wouldn't stop you telling me who sat on the original panel would it? unless it was SO "independent ", it was a secret?

but agreed, its too late.... till the morning....
 
Still don't understand how they are being allowed to sign players. There accounts should be in by today but reading there message board doesn't look like its going to happen. It also doesn't sound as if they made any payment for Amiobe although they agreed to.
 
vorpal blade said:
West Ham are; like it or not, among the best supported teams in the league, the Premier league wants them in the top division and they certainly DO have friends in high places...... they are part if the establishment, it's naive to think that there was no influence on the powers that be from the likes of Brooking.
Click to expand...

its not the just the fact they were only fined , but how after being fined for playing an ineligible player , how did that same player whos startus at the club didnt change score a winner in the last game
whilst still not being a west ham player as the rules stood
they told the tribunal they were buying his contract , they never did, he was still a third party player which , by the prems own rules was illegal
they should have been done again as they carried on breaching the rules unhindered
 



Pinchy said:
There was no influence on the tribunal from Brooking, Scudamore or anyone else. They made a genuine error of judgement. What happened is, in a nutshell and without writing an essay, exactly as I said at #56. I won't say much more but suffice to say I'm not naive and I'm not guessing...
Click to expand...

You're right - Scudamores role was to ensure that Tevez was available for selection after the Tribunal said he shouldn't be.
(Unilateral termination of contracts anyone?)
 
Last edited:
blade too long said:
its not the just the fact they were only fined , but how after being fined for playing an ineligible player , how did that same player whos startus at the club didnt change score a winner in the last game
whilst still not being a west ham player as the rules stood
they told the tribunal they were buying his contract , they never did, he was still a third party player which , by the prems own rules was illegal
they should have been done again as they carried on breaching the rules unhindered
Click to expand...
They weren't fined for playing an ineligible player (Scudamore insisted that Tevez was always registered, even though his contract was unacceptable to the PL, so he couldn't have been registered if they hadn't lied about it????)
Their fine was for misleading the PL.
 
Bartyblade said:
You're right - Scudamores role was to ensure that Tevez was available for selection after the Tribunal said he shouldn't be.
(Unilateral termination of contracts anyone?)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Nobody should think I have any time for him (He's all about money; no respect for the traditions of the game). I'm simply saying the Independent Tribunal were not partisan at all. They made a genuine mistake. A bit like refs do every Saturday. They know that.
 
Bartyblade said:
They weren't fined for playing an ineligible player (Scudamore insisted that Tevez was always registered, even though his contract was unacceptable to the PL, so he couldn't have been registered if they hadn't lied about it????)
Their fine was for misleading the PL.
Click to expand...

and again , they continued to mislead the prem and nothing was done
 
blade too long said:
and again , they continued to mislead the prem and nothing was done
Click to expand...
With apologies - a brief resume:
WHAT DID WEST HAM DO WRONG?
Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez were signed on terms which broke two Premier League rules. First, the contracts allowed the companies which owned the players’ economic rights to move them to another club during any transfer window. West Ham would receive a nominal fee but had “no right of objection”.
This broke rule U18, which prohibits a club from entering into an agreement which gives a third party influence on the performance of the team. To make matters worse, West Ham were found to have told a “direct lie” to the Premier League in order to cover up the fact the contracts contained third party agreements.
West Ham pleaded guilty to both breaches of Premier League rules.
The Premier League’s independent commission fined them £5.5million after deciding “this was not only an obvious and deliberate breach of the rules, but a grave breach of trust as to the Premier League and its constituent members.
“In our finding the club has been responsible for dishonesty and deceit.”
WHY DO OTHER CLUBS BELIEVE WEST HAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOCKED POINTS?
Because the Premier League’s commission said so. They admitted a points deduction “would normally follow from such a breach of rules” – but then provided seven reasons for not doing so.
Chief among them was the fact that a loss of points would “certainly have relegated” West Ham and cost them up to five times the £5.5million they were fined.
The commission also took into account the fact West Ham is under new ownership, and that the club’s players and fans were not to blame for the situation.
The so-called ‘Gang of Four’ object to the panel’s reasoning for not docking points. However, the commission was free under Premier League regulations to impose whatever punishment they deemed “proportionate and appropriate”.
WHY WAS TEVEZ ALLOWED TO PLAY FOR WEST HAM AFTER THE RULING?
West Ham were instructed by the commission to remove the third party agreement in Tevez’s contract before he could play again.
The club say they did as soon as they received the judgment – and their actions satisfied the Premier League, (aka Scudamore) who cleared Tevez to play.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2007/05/15/tevez-controversy-explained-375522/#ixzz4XM7mk0ok
 
Bartyblade said:
With apologies - a brief resume:
WHAT DID WEST HAM DO WRONG?
Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez were signed on terms which broke two Premier League rules. First, the contracts allowed the companies which owned the players’ economic rights to move them to another club during any transfer window. West Ham would receive a nominal fee but had “no right of objection”.
This broke rule U18, which prohibits a club from entering into an agreement which gives a third party influence on the performance of the team. To make matters worse, West Ham were found to have told a “direct lie” to the Premier League in order to cover up the fact the contracts contained third party agreements.
West Ham pleaded guilty to both breaches of Premier League rules.
The Premier League’s independent commission fined them £5.5million after deciding “this was not only an obvious and deliberate breach of the rules, but a grave breach of trust as to the Premier League and its constituent members.
“In our finding the club has been responsible for dishonesty and deceit.”
WHY DO OTHER CLUBS BELIEVE WEST HAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOCKED POINTS?
Because the Premier League’s commission said so. They admitted a points deduction “would normally follow from such a breach of rules” – but then provided seven reasons for not doing so.
Chief among them was the fact that a loss of points would “certainly have relegated” West Ham and cost them up to five times the £5.5million they were fined.
The commission also took into account the fact West Ham is under new ownership, and that the club’s players and fans were not to blame for the situation.
The so-called ‘Gang of Four’ object to the panel’s reasoning for not docking points. However, the commission was free under Premier League regulations to impose whatever punishment they deemed “proportionate and appropriate”.
WHY WAS TEVEZ ALLOWED TO PLAY FOR WEST HAM AFTER THE RULING?
West Ham were instructed by the commission to remove the third party agreement in Tevez’s contract before he could play again.
The club say they did as soon as they received the judgment – and their actions satisfied the Premier League, (aka Scudamore) who cleared Tevez to play.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2007/05/15/tevez-controversy-explained-375522/#ixzz4XM7mk0ok
Click to expand...
but thats the point , they lied again , What they told Scudamore was pure fabrication
they never changed the agreement as the third party wouldnt sell
he joined man utd from the third party

The Argentine, who join United from West Ham a year ago, is half-way through a two year loan arrangement between United and sports investment firm, MSI, who own the player's economic rights.

reports the express ,
he was always owned by MSI

the punishment they got was neither proportionate or appropriate in any football way
hartlepool got docked 3 points for an email being 10 minutes late on a registration

here west ham pissed all over registration ruiles for months on end
 
Last edited:
blade too long said:
but thats the point , they lied again , What they told Scudamore was pure fabrication
they never changed the agreement as the third party wouldnt sell
he joined man utd from the third party

The Argentine, who join United from West Ham a year ago, is half-way through a two year loan arrangement between United and sports investment firm, MSI, who own the player's economic rights.

reports the express ,
he was always owned by MSI

the punishment they got was neither proportionate or appropriate in any football way
hartlepool got docked 3 points for an email being 10 minutes late on a registration

here west ham pissed all over registration ruiles for months on end
Click to expand...
To close this off - West Ham did exactly what Scudamore allowed them to do ( and who can blame them).
Remember "I'll be on hand 24 hours a day to help West Ham with their difficulties.
Everything that West Ham got away with was facilitated by Scudamore.
The one body he couldn't manipulate was the final inquiry - the only one that did something for US
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Will the pigs get more points than us this season?
Replies
14
Views
805
Loco Blade
Loco Blade
Ron_Justice
'Memries' Two seasons ago - Am I stupid?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Kozzy_is_my_Dad
Kozzy_is_my_Dad
Westran
Promoted teams and points deductions
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
YES Blade
YES Blade
FriethBlade
Leicester points deduction next season?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
19K
blade too long
blade too long
Rodley
Felt a bit sorry for SWFC today
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
6K
Yewsman
Y

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