Tevezgate part 7000 begins today

[Foxy]

Well todays the day the hearings kick back off... Lord Griffiths, a former president of MCC, Sir Anthony Colman, a former High Court judge, and Robert Englehart, QC will be the panel.

What do we think? any chance?

If they have any sense, they'll award a penalty of some sort and outline the fact that it isn't the Blades opening the floodgates to similar actions, but the Premier League + West Ham not playing fairly/acting correctly.

 

[Kev Gee]

I think there wil be some sort of compo.

But not enough that West Ham will moan.

 

[matth]

I don't think we'll get anything, to be honest. We haven't so far, so there's no reason to expect us to now.

Not that I am saying we shouldn't fight it, you understand - I think we should, all the way. I just don't think anyone's going to admit now that what happened was a travesty of justice.

 

[Bladesman]

I reckon we will get a couple of mil out of court.

 

[Come from away]

I think the old boys from London (as you get closer to the Queen you like to forget the muck from the North) will look after the old boys from London. If the suit were the other way round West Ham would get millions. Your cynic for the day.

 

[The One]

I think if we carry on fighting it West Ham will get fed up and just give us some money.

 

[beightonblade]

"What could turn out to be more interesting is if they seek a judicial review of the league's decision to allow Tevez to play the last three matches of the season. To me, that issue does not appear nearly so clear-cut."

Above is a quote from the opposition, strange very strange.

Give us the money and f8ck off.

 

[keenzy]

says something if their paying off kia. their trying to hide something. Stevie wonder could see that!

 

[Samantha]

OK, let me try and get my head around this:

We lost an arbitration against The Premier League.

This time the arbitration is against Wet Spam themselves?

 

[jodman]

I've been having a quick look on some of the West Ham forums and i notice that they are focusing heavily on the alleged clause in the contract of Steve Kabba which prevented him from playing against us following his move to Watford.

I have a very poor long term memory so could someone explain exactly what came of the allegations against us in the aforementioned matter?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Bladesman]

I've been having a quick look on some of the West Ham forums and i notice that they are focusing heavily on the alleged clause in the contract of Steve Kabba which prevented him from playing against us following his move to Watford.

I have a very poor long term memory so could someone explain exactly what came of the allegations against us in the aforementioned matter?

Nothing coz apparently there was never a clause in the contract and Kabba could of played against us.

Gentlemens agreement between Warnock and Aidy might of been why he didnt play against us.