It could (and should) have been Wigan - a truely dire team who bring nothing to the Prem IMO.
Who are the 100 Blades?
- Thread starter silverfox
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
It could (and should) have been Wigan - a truely dire team who bring nothing to the Prem IMO.
Why should we be the ones to suffer then? Hence the reason we take our case against the PL because of their incompetence.
No, it shouldn't. They didn't cheat. West Ham did, whether you like it or not. It should have been West Ham who went down.
shorehamview
Pink Sambuca drinking World Champion.
The good name of the club? Cheating West Ham, the new Dirty Leeds?
There is only one thing I have to say with regards to that, sir, and it is simply
Fish Cocks.
I will not sully myself with bandying words with you any more.
Very good question that, Silverfox. I was wondering the same. Does anyone know anyone that is going? (Although nobody ever seems to know anyone concerned with BIFA)
well said.
- Admin
- #43
Did he do this in disguise in a Liverpool suit then?, because that’s who brought it to the table.
Whether or not there is a new regime in charge, West Ham United have gained an unfair advantage by breaking rules and the repeatedly lying about them. Therefore West Ham as an entity should have been punished accordingly.
The game is decided upon points, the whole standings of the game come down to points, as you so accurately point out by saying we didn't get enough. Why then, is an acceptable punishment based on money and not points?
You and many others bleat about this record fine and how massive it was, absolutely unbelievable beyond belief! You paid £5mill for the chance of staying up (and gaining £60mill) whilst cheating. Bargain if you ask me.
Remind me how much you paid for Matthew Upson again? compare and contrast the value of those amounts
Anyway, I don't know why I mention the fine, its obviously been a very worthwhile punishment! What better way to punish a club with a new owner who is absolutely loaded!
Hurt you plenty though, its not like you can splash the cash now is it
?
We were. We were fined £5.5m. Whether you or Sheff Utd agree with it is irrelevant. Relegation should never be decided off the field. You all moan about £5.5m being nothing compared to £60, but if West Ham had still gone down (which at the time of the hearing was very likely), we'd have been a lot worse off.
Like it or not, for all the bandying of the word "cheat" - and kicking and screaming on here that West Ham should have gone down - the fact is the 'Tevez deal' was little more than a loan from a third party, and the 'rule breaking' was a mere technicality of an obsure rule. Something that is perfectly legit the world over and barely illegal over here.
Of course, that in your eyes warrants relegation. I can understand why you are all upset, given what you read in the tabloids which is used to form your views, but dragging this on like the club has, and worse still some bloody march to London (like we'll notice) is quite frankly pathetic, and only serves to sully the good name of a club that I've always had respect for.
silverfox
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #45
A reply from the PL to one of our fans......
"The board decided that in order for Mr Tevez to be eligible to play, West Ham would be required to take immediate action either to modify the offending third party contact in a manner satifactory to the board or alternatively terminate outright."
So according to the PL itself he wasn't eligible to play in the beginning. Our board has a copy of this letter as does the local press.
It was the third party agreement which was the offending article, which was duly ripped up. Tevez was never inelligible, as stated previously the issue was whether a third party could influence his performances on the pitch (they couldn't), and the panel ordered this to be address or he wouldn't be allowed to play.
There was no re-registering or re-signing outside of the window as has been suggested.
Sendo,
How can you define a rule as "barely" illegal? It either is or it is not. And SHOULD be dealt with comprehensively. The PL deemed "tapping up" Ashley cole to be worthy of a suspended points deduction, so why if a player is playing that should not be, not be deemed as a points reduction? A simple fine is not the answer for teams who have the money like WHU/chelsea/Arsenal/Man United/Villa etc. I was amazed it was ONLY a fine, and no suspended points deduction or anything. I think you are right in what you are saying that it looked like you was down anyways. But why should that determine whether you get a points deduction or not? I believe the PL may feel a bit silly now you avoided relegation and have some explaining to do. Hence the reason we have proceeded with the case.
As far as I am concerned, each game that Tevez played in, WHU should be docked points from each match. If he played in all of them, so be it and knock em down to 0 points.
Now we all know that will not happen. But it would be nice to see.
My faith in the PL has deterioated somewhat over this saga. But now I just want this all put to bed.
I will attend the march on Wednesday, not because I believe we will be re-instated, but to show my support of the club I love. IF we are deemed to have wasted our time, I will not be sad. Yes I nay be disappointed, but you should always look to the brighter things in life.
How can you define a rule as "barely" illegal? It either is or it is not. And SHOULD be dealt with comprehensively. The PL deemed "tapping up" Ashley cole to be worthy of a suspended points deduction, so why if a player is playing that should not be, not be deemed as a points reduction? A simple fine is not the answer for teams who have the money like WHU/chelsea/Arsenal/Man United/Villa etc. I was amazed it was ONLY a fine, and no suspended points deduction or anything. I think you are right in what you are saying that it looked like you was down anyways. But why should that determine whether you get a points deduction or not? I believe the PL may feel a bit silly now you avoided relegation and have some explaining to do. Hence the reason we have proceeded with the case.
As far as I am concerned, each game that Tevez played in, WHU should be docked points from each match. If he played in all of them, so be it and knock em down to 0 points.
Now we all know that will not happen. But it would be nice to see.
My faith in the PL has deterioated somewhat over this saga. But now I just want this all put to bed.
I will attend the march on Wednesday, not because I believe we will be re-instated, but to show my support of the club I love. IF we are deemed to have wasted our time, I will not be sad. Yes I nay be disappointed, but you should always look to the brighter things in life.
Exactly SF, and now MSI are wanting £40 million for him to sign to another club. Which to me sounds strange. If his contract was terminated, why oh why would he re-sign with MSI? He could get a big fat pay cheque.
- Admin
- #49
The parachute payments would have more than covered it, before dipping into Magnussons very deep pockets. How sad that would have been, your club being far worse off after cheating and lying! Our club has lost out on potentially £60million without cheating, have some perspective.
The word cheat is used, because your club have broken the rules and repeatedly lied about the situation, this is confirmed by the fact you were found guilty. Should we have signed Ronaldinho on a "technicality" and the situation reversed, what would you think?
I never said West Ham should have gone down, but should have recieved a points deduction. Mr Tevez who was gained illegally and whom the Premier League themselves said wasn't eligable to play (see email from Premier League) virtually kept you in the league single handedly. Therefore you directly gained an advantage over the relegated teams via illegal means.
The panels report mentioned taking into consideration the "loyal fans of West Ham" and the fact that a points deduction at that stage of the season would have too much of an effect. Do you think this is a fair assesment in terms of overall fairness?
None of my opinion is based upon that of the tabloids, its come from reading official documentation/correspondance. It has been "dragged on" because it needs to be dragged on, rubbish like this needs kicking out of the game.
The "March to London" as you call it is actually a delegation of Blades fans, raising the issue of fairness in football in front of people who can make a difference/stand.
If you think a quest for fairness is pathetic, then that says more about you than it does about the people attending.
You speak of this serving to sully our name.... Interesting that, that our name can be, brought on by another clubs cheating.
For what it's worth, I agree with your principles. It was "barely" illegal as you put it because it was a vague rule that didn't really cover what West Ham did.
The PL gave Chelsea a 'suspended' points deduction, which really is just a let off isn't it?
The fact that West Ham are perceived to have money shouldn't be the issue. What you're saying is rich teams should be docked points, but poorer teams should be fined?
I agree with you that the PL are probably gutted that West Ham have stayed up. If we'd have gone down then all their problems would have been solved.
Not for me it wouldn't!
If you tally up all the games he played in that we lost, against the ones we won, you'll see that we barely gained any advantage. We were shite with him in the team for 2/3 of the season.
As for him single handedly keeping us up, purlease. Just another sensationalist tabloid line to stir up a story.
Teams who go down always struggle with money even with parachute payments. We'd have been £5.5m worse off.
Eggy doesn't have the money, it's Gudmunsson. We only have his money so long as he wants to invest it.
Yeah, that's what you should have done. Signed Ronaldinho.Maybe they should come to a comprimise then. A 2 point deduction for West Ham?
Mr Tevez who was gained via a loan deal from a third party and whom the Premier League themselves said was eligable to play but the third party deal that said they (MSI) could sell move Tevez on in January without West Ham's permission was the illegal part (see email from Premier League) helped keep West Ham in the league with the help of the other 10 players on the pitch with him. Therefore we directly gained an advantage over the relegated teams by picking up more points than them using players that were fully registered.
Yes.
Oh how noble of you. How clever are you to disguise Sheff Utd's last gasp effort to cling on to your place in the premiership as some cause for the greater good, and to turn the whole thing on me because I look upon your act of desperation with distain?
I've pretty much had enough now. I came on here to have a reasoned debate about why you all feel the need to drag this on rather than accept what has happened with good grace.
For the most part you have all been accomodating and debated much better than I could expect of the stereotypical yorkshireman. For that I thank you all. Unfortunately you all seem quite bitter over the whole experience and still feel the need to shout anything West Ham down with cries of "cheats".
It is a shame that the club I love will probably be viewed this way by yourselves for some time to come because of the ineptitude of our former chairman and the PL. So I'll just wish you all the best, and hope we can draw each other in a cup next year. The atmosphere would be electric to say the least.
No, I'm stating it should be defined more firmly what punishmemt will be giving for said offences. Points should have been docked (in my opinion) regardless of team/finances.
But on the same note, fines hurt some teams a lot more than they do others. Ie you give a fine to say Boston and they would be er...... fucked. Give a fine to Chelsea and they will just cut a cheque. In this instance though, a fine was very much worthwhile for WHU because staying up earns them a lot more than the fine was for.
I know you're a WHU fan, but surely even you can't say a points deduction should not have been implemented? I think if the boot was on the other foot, yes I'd be sticking up for the blades, but deep down I would know what should have occured.
Obviously, no single person can keep a team up on his own. BUT I firmly believe had you not had Tevez in your final run in, you would not have stayed up. He scored many a winning goal. And he ripped Wigan to pieces on his own. he was also an integral part in the Blackburn debacle, which I'm sure you need no reminding of. He also scored the all important goal against Man United (although yes I do realise a point would have been enough to stay up)
During the season though, WHU have had a lot of decisions go their way. The goal against Arsenal in your 1-0 win was offside (by a country mile). The goal we had disallowed at Upton Park was perfectly Legitimate. Man United had a penalty denied if I remember rightly. Blackburn game as a whole (although my opinion is that it was a penalty for your first goal). There is probably more but I'm still drunk and can't think at this time.
SouthEssexBlade
...for wit and sage wisdom
The problem here doesn't lie principally with the West Ham, but with the PL. Everyone who has followed football closely and heard that those two had signed for West Ham were staggered at the time. Transfer coups do happen but this was way off the radar, and then it came to light that the players were owned by Kia Joorabchian (sp), the very person trying to buy a controlling interest in the club. People were smelling a rat and possibly dodgy dealings and the whole thing should have been investigated by the PL at that point. They fudged and tried to turn a blind eye (I still sniff the Sir Trevor influence in that) and when they were forced into action, West Ham did the dirty on them and turned in title winning form to avoid the drop.
How much were the previous regime aware that the transfer were dubious to say the least? I would suggest fully aware.
Should relegation be decided off the pitch?? Of course not, provided that what is happening on the pitch is within the rules and regulations of the game (whether they were crap or not is of no issue) and unfair advantage is not being gained by one above those who have played by those rules. The danger in the PL ruling is that it gives a green light to dodgy transfer dealings with little or no consequences (£5m is peanuts cmopared to the gain).
How much were the previous regime aware that the transfer were dubious to say the least? I would suggest fully aware.
Should relegation be decided off the pitch?? Of course not, provided that what is happening on the pitch is within the rules and regulations of the game (whether they were crap or not is of no issue) and unfair advantage is not being gained by one above those who have played by those rules. The danger in the PL ruling is that it gives a green light to dodgy transfer dealings with little or no consequences (£5m is peanuts cmopared to the gain).
Bladesman
The Great Grumbleduke
The arguement is with the PL and not with West Ham.
Although the only reason West Ham fans are coming on here is because they are actually slightly worried that there is like a 5% chance we may get the decision overturned. So they feel the need to justify what there club and the PL have done.
West Ham fans can think what they like really and butter it up to make it look like they barely did anything wrong. I mean you dont get found guilty and fined £5.5mil for a small admin error as some hammers fans claim.
Ahhh its going round in bloody circles this arguement.
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?