West Ham Saga

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

Silverfox it was a clause in the third party contract which they did take immediate action so I don't get your point. You're just making me right.
 

Pumpy said:
Silverfox it was a clause in the third party contract which they did take immediate action so I don't get your point. You're just making me right.
Click to expand...

It says he was not eligible to play until the clause was sorted out.

So he was playing all that time when he wasn't eligible. (until the agreement had been ripped up?)

Something West Ham fans have always said we'd got wrong.

I'm just quoting the Premier League not the papers or the clubs or the fans.
 
Pumpy said:
Silverfox it was a clause in the third party contract which they did take immediate action so I don't get your point. You're just making me right.
Click to expand...

No, you stated that he was eligible to play. The letter states he wasn't.
 
Pumpy said:
Silverfox it was a clause in the third party contract which they did take immediate action so I don't get your point. You're just making me right.
Click to expand...

And you can't just 'end' a contract without the consent of all parties concerned. That's probably why Kia has been silent on the matter and left it with the lawyers.

If West Sham did 'just end' the contract, then not only are they in breach of contract to Kia, and possibly Tevez, but STILL in breach of Premiership rules, as the original contract, legally, is still in place.
 
The clause was ripped up there and then and re written. They were happy for him to play the next game.
 
But HH thats to do with the law courts got bugger all to do with the Premier league. If Kia sues and wins then he gets some money does'nt he!
 
Kia's gone quiet because he's about to become an even wealthier young man on flogging Tevez for 30 odd million
 
Pumpy said:
The clause was ripped up there and then and re written. They were happy for him to play the next game.
Click to expand...

But reading the email they have admitted he was not eligible before that point.

The email was passed on to the press and the Chairman anyway.

I suppose they could just claim it was an error again.

Don't know how many "mistakes" are allowed before someone takes real action.
 
Pumpy said:
The clause was ripped up there and then and re written. They were happy for him to play the next game.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that is one of the points we are to bring up at the Arbitration.

You cannot just rip up a contract without the agreement of the party whom the contract is with. Kia stated that it had been terminated exclusively on the West Ham side and that he would place the matter in the hands of his legal team.

You are still ignoring the majority of my points and also the major point in that if the contract HAD to be changed in order for him to play... this renders him inelligable for all the previous matches in which he has played.
 
Pumpy said:
But HH thats to do with the law courts got bugger all to do with the Premier league. If Kia sues and wins then he gets some money does'nt he!
Click to expand...

Is it not also a matter for the league? given that his eligibilty is purely based upon the legal merits of the document in question?
 
What points am I ignoring Foxy am trying to answer 10 people at once give us a friggin chance
 
Pumpy said:
What points am I ignoring Foxy am trying to answer 10 people at once give us a friggin chance
Click to expand...

They are all there for you to read. I guess its probably a clerical error that leads to you not responding to the ones you don't have an adequate arguement against ;)
 
Will take them all on matey no problem but can't be arsed to read over them again. Think I pretty much said everything
 

convienient :), perhaps by taking your approach the Premier League shall "win" the arbitration process ;)

If you can't be arsed to read our opinions, why bother coming here and slagging us off?
 
I think what you'll find the trouble is, is that, because this has never happened before and because these sorts of agreements are perfectly legal and accepted by FIFA and UEFA and used in many countries that everyone probably knows as much about it as you or I do. wether you think its right or wrong I think the Premier league gave an honest answer to an unseen problem. I certainly don't believe it's a North or South thing!
 
Foxy said:
I would suggest that is one of the points we are to bring up at the Arbitration.

You cannot just rip up a contract without the agreement of the party whom the contract is with. Kia stated that it had been terminated exclusively on the West Ham side and that he would place the matter in the hands of his legal team.

You are still ignoring the majority of my points and also the major point in that if the contract HAD to be changed in order for him to play... this renders him inelligable for all the previous matches in which he has played.
Click to expand...

There again, that was the point of the fine. The fact that he still shouldn't have been playing after the clause was tippexed out is just further fuel to the fire.

The fact that it was a fine, and not a points deduction is also something that nearly the whole football community has disagreed with. The only public voice of dissent I've heard was from Garth Crooks on Football Focus when, while clearly not happy with the decision, went into politician mode and said "I stand by the commission's decision.". He wouldn't say whether he agreed or not. All others there said (bearing in mind that this was a few weeks before the end of the season) it should have been a points deduction.
 
Pumpy said:
I think what you'll find the trouble is, is that, because this has never happened before and because these sorts of agreements are perfectly legal and accepted by FIFA and UEFA and used in many countries that everyone probably knows as much about it as you or I do. wether you think its right or wrong I think the Premier league gave an honest answer to an unseen problem. I certainly don't believe it's a North or South thing!
Click to expand...

An unseen problem??

Well yes when clubs lie it will be!

:rolleyes:
 
Pumpy said:
I think what you'll find the trouble is, is that, because this has never happened before and because these sorts of agreements are perfectly legal and accepted by FIFA and UEFA and used in many countries that everyone probably knows as much about it as you or I do. wether you think its right or wrong I think the Premier league gave an honest answer to an unseen problem. I certainly don't believe it's a North or South thing!
Click to expand...

However, the commission itself said that a points deduction would normally be the punishment. While I agree that this hasn't happened before, exactly, but similar cases have happened.
 
Pumpy said:
I think what you'll find the trouble is, is that, because this has never happened before and because these sorts of agreements are perfectly legal and accepted by FIFA and UEFA and used in many countries that everyone probably knows as much about it as you or I do. wether you think its right or wrong I think the Premier league gave an honest answer to an unseen problem. I certainly don't believe it's a North or South thing!
Click to expand...

You should therefore be able to see our point of view, rather than us being labeled "retards".

Does this fact mean its right for the panel to give the "loyal West Ham fans" or the time of the season as a reason for not reccommending an otherwise clarified on points deduction? The official documentation from the hearing clearly states this by the way, before you start saying i'm incorrect.

The Premier League found you guilty of rule breaking and lying, therefore an adequate punishment should have been handed out. Many members of the Premier League and influences in football agree that the punishment wasn't fitting, so why are we such a "joke" for requesting this?

All we want is proof that he was eligible, or in the case that he wasn't an adequate punishment. Why is this so hard to gain? If he was eligible as they say, then why won't they just show us the proof and everybody can get on with their normal jobs.
 
Apologies for the retards Foxy but i too get fed up with being labelled a cheating cockney cnut!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
'Memries' Sheffield United vs West Ham United: matches 1961 - 1994
Replies
7
Views
373
North Shields Blade
N
D
Beating west ham !
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
William P
William P
Zipwire
Culture
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
deplorable
D
U
You are the board
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
Gin&Juice
Gin&Juice
C
You're not West Ham anymore
2 3
Replies
68
Views
7K
Cappy
Cappy

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