West Ham ruling rumour

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

Its safe to say the cockerneees aint happy! :)

Still they'll be okay though, they received the transfer fee for him from Man U didn't they? just use that ;)
 

It's just been on the radio (not some tinpot station either Radio 1 newsbeat I'll have you know!) that McCabe has announced that an independant tribunal has ruled in our favour but wouldn't get into how much money was involved
 
west ham confirmed to five live they were meeting with their lawyers to "digest the findings"
 
If they claim they cant afford it, tell them we'll take the club as collateral.........

........and then sell it all to QPR :D
 
Foxy said:
Its safe to say the cockerneees aint happy! :)

Still they'll be okay though, they received the transfer fee for him from Man U didn't they? just use that ;)
Click to expand...

The Jellied-Eel eating twats certainly ain't happy if this post on one of their forums is owt to go by.

thespider
Reserve Team



Posts: 734
Group: Registered
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Online
Reputation:
Post: #20RE: Reports of the tribunal result.

Mambo Wrote:

Will Watford sue Reading if they get relegated by the odd point ????



Exactly. Can someone just pay the IRA/ Al Qeada/ John McClain etc. to blow up Bramall Lane and have done with it. Fupping sh*t, moaning club.


Today 09:27 AM
Click to expand...
 
It's so funny how smug and generally arsehole-like they were before we won... and how angry they are now.

Even better - over on the 606 site, there are piggies bleating about how it's unfair as £30m could buy their club and give them a chance of success. Read it and weep, pork boys!
 
matth said:
It's so funny how smug and generally arsehole-like they were before we won... and how angry they are now.

Even better - over on the 606 site, there are piggies bleating about how it's unfair as £30m could buy their club and give them a chance of success. Read it and weep, pork boys!
Click to expand...


That is the best idea I've heard in ages. Buy the pig-swamp, get the JCBs in and flatten the dump and then build a state-of-the-art bacon factory on the site. Call it the "Sheffield Wednesday Bacon Company" :D :D
 
What will the money be used for i wonder???

And how and when will we recieve it??
 
i would have though a lot of it will go into paying mccabe back for the loans he's put in and to clear other debts. would very suprised if no more than £10m is made available for players. Some of the cash will prb go towards changing the kop too.
 
Let's wait and see how much first. There's very limited room for the cheating barstewards to move as well, as rule K5c effectively says "Right, that's it now lads. After this, it all ends."

The level of compensation is due to be set early next year, from what was on Five Live yesterday.

Well, this is from the BBC website now.
 
from bad to worse for the cheats


West Ham chief executive Scott Duxbury is almost certain to be subjected to a new Premier League investigation into his role in the Carlos Tevez scandal.

As the tribunal said in their report: 'If the Premier League had known what Mr Duxbury for West Ham was saying to Mr Joorabchian's solicitor (Graham Shear) following the commission's decision, we are confident the Premier League would have suspended Mr Tevez's registration as a West Ham player.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1061423/Under-Hammers-chief-faces-Premier-League-probe-Tevez-scandal.html
 
Someone else putting their opinion in the pot

LINK

Sky Sports said:
Football Association chairman Lord Triesman has criticised West Ham for appealing against an independent tribunal which ruled against them over the Carlos Tevez affair.

A Premier League arbitration panel found West Ham guilty of breaking league rules over the transfers of Tevez and Javier Mascherano in April 2007.

The league fined The Hammers £5.5million but decided not to deduct points, and West Ham went on to escape relegation at Sheffield United's expense.

Tevez played a major role in West Ham's miraculous end of season form which saved them; a turn of events that infuriated Sheffield United.

The Blades have continued their battle against West Ham and an independent FA tribunal ruled in their favour earlier this week, which means the East London club could be liable to pay as much as £30million compensation to The Blades.

However, West Ham have reacted by confirming they are planning to appeal the decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.

But Triesman is not happy that West Ham are to appeal the latest ruling.

"If it is going to go through the courts it is going to drag on, and on, and on," he told Sky Sports News.

"I never cease to be amazed about the ability of lawyers to argue about these things and that is peoples' right of course - but I think it would be much simpler for people to observe the rules of football.

"The FA is a pretty decent regulatory body and there is no reason why a very big club shouldn't feel that it should regard those rules too."
Click to expand...
 
Fat Sam is at it again

FAT SAMS SPEAKEASY

TIMES ONLINE said:
The Right Honorable The Lord Griffiths, a man who collects lucrative legal commissions as enthusiastically as he does definite articles, is available as a mediator and arbitrator in the specialist areas of international and domestic commercial disputes, according to his CV. Pools forecasts are not mentioned, but even so, he could be worth a ring.

Griffiths can predict football matches, you see - right down to knowing how many points a team will get through a season, or in a sequence of matches. And using these special powers, he can factor in results from around England to give a precise monetary value on the worth of those wins. Griffiths is very talented. I bet he nails those ten home-wins coupons every week.

Yesterday, a tribunal led by Griffiths found that one player - Carlos Tévez - had decided the Premier League relegation issue in 2006-07, as fact. Not as opinion. Not with any vague doubt that the hundreds of other footballers, managers and coaches who were involved might have had some impact, too. Not with any pretence to evaluate their presence.

Griffiths said that Sheffield United went down because of Tévez. He, and two friends, then replayed the season in their mighty minds and, despite all of this action taking place in a hypothetical dimension, prepared to hand down a finite punishment, payable in hard cash. Be warned, this is what happens when you invite lawyers to the party.

It does not matter whether one has any sympathy for West Ham United. Senior club officials, including Scott Duxbury, who was inexplicably retained and promoted to chief executive, misled the Premier League over the signings of Tévez and Javier Mascherano, a scandal that could have resulted in the club being relegated. West Ham were fortunate that the league table was taken into account by the original independent commission, sitting on behalf of the Premier League, which decided to impose a financial penalty rather than a points deduction, for fear of deciding the relegation issue in a legal chamber, rather than on a football pitch.

Yet this ruling is as bad, if not worse, because it takes relegation issues away from the football pitch and back to the legal chamber. It sets a precedent that any relegated team with a grievance that can be put down cunningly to one incident, or one player, have a claim. The same applies to a team denied a prize, or perhaps a Champions League place. It moves English football nearer to the game in Italy or Brazil, where important issues are often not resolved until late in the close season and fixture lists are printed pending courtroom appeal.

Think of what happened between Watford and Reading on Saturday: the goal that never was. The Football League has announced that the match will not be replayed, despite a noble offer from Steve Coppell, the Reading manager. Yet what if Watford are two points short of promotion come the end of the season? What if Reading keep another team out of the Premier League by one point? Considering the Griffiths ruling, these clubs have a case against the Football League, or perhaps against Stuart Attwell, the referee.

It may not end there. Hull City looked to have started the season very well, then Danny Guthrie, of Newcastle United, broke Craig Fagan's right leg with a foul tackle. If the fortunes of the club take a downturn with the loss of an important player, to what extent is Guthrie, or his club, responsible? And what might that be worth? Now that Griffiths has determined that a season can be played out accurately in a man's head, where does this end?

Perhaps the one saving grace of the ruling in favour of Sheffield United is that the claim was for compensation, not reinstatement, although Kevin McCabe, the club's plc chairman, may feel empowered to push for the big one now. Welcome to a world of 21-team leagues, of relegationlawyers4U.com. Welcome to a world in which the most important player at your club is no longer the striker, but the QC engaged by the owner.

Can one man keep a team up or relegate another? We all say these things, but they are unproven opinions, not hard facts. I think that Tévez may have been the difference for West Ham that season, just as Chris Waddle was for Tottenham Hotspur one year and Matthew Le Tissier was for just about his entire career at Southampton. But do I know this? No. A million intangible factors contribute to events in each season and every one is unquantifiable in finite terms. Yet the FA's independent tribunal took into account as one of Sheffield United's witnesses the testimony of the chief football writer of The Daily Telegraph, who said that Tévez kept West Ham up.

Now, I have a great deal of time for the chief football writer of The Daily Telegraph. He is a friend and a professional whom I respect enormously. Yet he is no more an expert in this matter than any devotee of football. Neither am I. If writers could predict the outcome of matches so precisely that we could say for certain, not just as an opinion, what specific factors have won and lost games, or how a match would have panned out had a single participant been removed, we would not need to work. No journalist would present his views as anything more than informed estimation. It is a punt, really. All of it. A good one, we hope, and we like to think entertaining, but a punt nonetheless.

So why was the man from the Telegraph even called? Why does an independent tribunal with the power to pass a ruling that will change football in England irrevocably rely in part on speculation and guesswork? It beggars belief. From this day, every football administrator in every league in the land will open his postbag in the month after the season has ended wincing, for ever in fear of the writ that will take him to court on nothing more than prophecy.

Sheffield United have been hawking this case from commission to courtroom to tribunal until they have found men misguided enough to believe that they can imagine the league programme and legislate on these visions. So what, exactly, are supporters buying tickets for now, if what they see may be rendered meaningless by the interpretation of a committee at a later date? Had West Ham been deducted three points at the time of the first commission for lying to the Premier League, few would have complained. Once the decision to fine was made, however, any further punishment would have to be issued retrospectively, with the season over.

Sheffield United know precisely what adjustment needs to be made to achieve the desired outcome, which is why Tévez's worth to West Ham is always calculated at three points. It is the number required to keep Sheffield United up on goal difference, astutely overriding their failings, as if these, too, could be put down to a player in a different match, representing a different team.

Sheffield United lost more away matches than any other club that season and scored fewer goals away from home. That is not the work of Tévez. Neil Warnock, the manager at the time, fielded a weakened side against Manchester United and lost and his team won only a single match in the last five, against Watford, when Steve Kabba, a former player, mysteriously did not play for their opponents. That was not down to Tévez, either.

Kabba is the sort of figure who could become hugely significant now that matches can be played in the minds of lawyers. He is on loan to Blackpool, was formerly a Sheffield United forward who had been loaned to Watford, with the deal then made permanent. Before Sheffield United and Watford met on April 28, 2007, Warnock, and match preview articles published on both official club websites, stated that Kabba could not feature because of an agreement as part of his transfer.

Kabba had played in 14 of the previous 15 matches for Watford and all of the previous eight. Any arrangement regarding his deselection would be illegal and a case of third-party interference. When the statements about Kabba were brought to the attention of the Premier League, it launched an investigation and Watford provided contract details showing that no pact had been put in writing. “There may be gentlemen's agreements between managers that, in fairness, clubs know nothing about,” McCabe said.

Yet Warnock was quoted in a local newspaper confirming that he had checked the issue and had been told that Kabba could not play, so it was not the manager's work. The most plausible explanation, therefore, is that a private deal was struck between clubs. To believe otherwise is to accept that an official information outlet of Sheffield United would carry false information uncorrected for several months, coincidentally replicated at Watford. Kabba-less, Watford lost 1-0.

And here is the rub. Who is to say that those three points for Sheffield United were any more, or less, significant than any match won by West Ham, with or without Tévez? And if West Ham could countersue, hire private investigators and subpoena everyone involved in the Kabba transfer to get to the bottom of it, would football have to peer deep into the brilliant mind of Griffiths and friends so that they could replay that match, too?

We all think that Tévez was a huge player for West Ham that season, but we cannot know for sure. We cannot faithfully evaluate his goals against the saves of Robert Green or the performances of Matthew Upson in central defence. Certainly, he cannot be held responsible for Sheffield United losing at home to Wigan Athletic on the final day of the season or Warnock's understrength team against Manchester United.

Yet we can begin to estimate the cost to football of Griffiths's foolish precedent. Right now, this is a row about money between two groups of very rich men, vainly dressed up as a fight between right and wrong. But where it goes from here cuts to the heart of Saturday afternoons, a time of the week that will increasingly cease to be of significance to football supporters - for, as we know, lawyers do not work on Saturdays.
Click to expand...

I take his point completely about the way things could move forward from here, however he really needs to look at his writing style and try to keep his column less biased. We all know he's a WHU fan, just dont make it so obvious. Try to be objective
 
MAQ said:
Fat Sam is at it again

FAT SAMS SPEAKEASY



I take his point completely about the way things could move forward from here, however he really needs to look at his writing style and try to keep his column less biased. We all know he's a WHU fan, just dont make it so obvious. Try to be objective
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Although like alot of West Ham fans he is bitter about the decision the other day. So he will certainly struggle to hide his bias. The guy should be flipping burgers at upton park rather than writing for a paper.
 

Bladesman said:
Exactly.

Although like alot of West Ham fans he is bitter about the decision the other day. So he will certainly struggle to hide his bias. The guy should be flipping burgers at upton park rather than writing for a paper.
Click to expand...

Sod him. They've been smug gets for 16 months, so I'm enjoying watching them spit their dummies out.
 
shorehamview said:
I had an email from The Times when I was on my jollies asking for my reply to this from the West Ham fan.
They said that I might like to put my point, from the "moral high ground".

So here it is.
Click to expand...


Hahahahaha, you're making the West Ham board sound like a bunch of Vicky Pollards! Yeahbutnobutyeahbutno, but what happened was that Scudamore the slag went and told trevor that eggy fancied him so trevor went and gave eggy a blow job and then he said that i did it but i never did i never so then trevor said scudamore should just tell eggy to take the money and run so he did but i never
 
West Ham have broken Premier League rules by allowing an unregistered doctor to treat their players. (The Sun)

Dont learn do they?
 
back on the subject.

I heard today that they are to pay us £10m a year for 5 years :confused:
 
FA believe arbitration court have no authority
Published Date: 16 October 2008
By James Shield

THE COURT of Arbitration for Sport, who yesterday announced their will consider the legitimacy of West Ham's efforts to appeal against Sheffield United's victory in the Carlos Tevez Affair, could incur the FA's wrath if they decide to hear the Premier League club's case.
Officials in Lausanne, where CAS is based, expect to announce their decision towards the end of the next month after receiving submissions from both Upton Park and Bramall Lane.

United won a landmark legal ruling last month when an independent tribunal headed by Lord Griffiths ordered West Ham to pay them damages for illegally fielding the Argentine striker during season 2006/07.

Like United, the FA, whose laws provided the framework for the latest hearing, do not believe CAS have any authority to intervene.

Despite refusing to comment publicly on the matter - other than to stress they had no influence over Griffiths and his team - Soho Square could take the view that CAS is eroding its authority if it gives West Ham the green light.

United have also declined the invitation to elaborate on the details of the documentation they forwarded to Switzerland on Friday. But it is believed to focus on two areas.

The first is that that both they and West Ham agreed to be bound by the findings of Griffith and his colleagues beforehand.The second centres on FIFA's statute book which, outlining CAS' role, appears to suggest that their verdict is impossible to overturn.

Meanwhile, United will not be signing former Spain international Gerard Lopez. The ex-Barcelona midfielder, who completed a trial at United last week, is now expected to pursue a career on North America's MLS.
Click to expand...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sportheadlines/FA-believe-arbitration-court-have.4597490.jp
 
For sanity's sake, I've split the threads.

All the cat stuff is now HERE... (had to keep it in a public forum so the go-kart fans could continue getting their knickers in a twist about it ;))
 
Linz said:
For sanity's sake, I've split the threads.

All the cat stuff is now HERE... (had to keep it in a public forum so the go-kart fans could continue getting their knickers in a twist about it ;))
Click to expand...



can i not put my cat queries on here then?

i prefered the cat/whu combination

it was cool for....:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MayorOJC
Out of Contract Players
2 3
Replies
71
Views
5K
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
brownblade
Easy win v West Ham 😉
Replies
13
Views
2K
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
L
Player Suggestion Andy Irving
Replies
6
Views
3K
Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn
Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn
Frankie as in Howard
exiting stadium after derby game
Replies
10
Views
2K
alehousekid
alehousekid
B
93/94???!!!
2 3
Replies
77
Views
2K
ShorehamRevolution
ShorehamRevolution

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