Well done The Hammers

[Oily]

Got to say well done,great win at United to stay up and thats coming from a United fan!!

Have a bit of a soft spot for West Ham

 

[rolfw]

I thought that United's performance was dismal, perhaps they should have put the first team on to start with, not bring on three key players two thirds of the way through the game and expect them to turn it around.

Westham did play well, but the matter as to whether they should still be in the Premiership next season will run and run.

 

[mhku]

Not a Hammers fan but Teves has done a good job raising team spirits and performance. Hope he stays in the Premiership next season.

 

[Licinius]

As a neutral I feel sorry for Sheff Utd because in my opinion the Hammers should've been deducted points. A precedent has been set in that any club going into administration automatically loses 10pts. This is deemed the most effective punishment for a club (even though Leeds effectively managed to dodge it).

All that aside, if after 38 games you're in the relegation zone then you deserve to go down.

 

[jimbo]

All that aside, if after 38 games you're in the relegation zone then you deserve to go down.

AFAIK Sheffield U were clear of the last 3 places for the last six months. If that's true then they were unlucky but you have to say Wigan did well to win there especially after going down to 10 men. Emily Heskey did something for a change.

I agree with Rolf about West Ham. The decision on a fine was made by the Premiership, not the FA. It's a dangerous precedent and the PL bosses may find it will come back one day and bite them on the ass.

 

[jimbo]

I agree with Rolf about West Ham. The decision on a fine was made by the Premiership, not the FA. It's a dangerous precedent and the PL bosses may find it will come back one day and bite them on the ass.

Now sooner than they hoped. Re-examination of the tribunal is in the offing. I must admit I didn't realise the extent of the fiddle. It wasn't a mistake, it was deceit of the highest order. Unfortunately for West Ham, Tevez had a direct effect on the results that kept them in the Premiership.

 

[marok]

The PL had a range of punishment options available to them.
There was no precedent to draw from regarding this offence (nobody had previously committed it), hence a fine was a reasonable punishment.
The nearest precedent that could be applied, was with Spurs (a few years back), who successfully argued that their offence was committed under previous ownership, as is the case with West Ham. Spurs were fined for an offence that would normally carry a points deduction.

 

[rolfw]

Would Spurs have been relegated had the points been deducted, I can't remember the circumstances?

£5M was no punishment, as it meant that they stayed up in the Premiership with all of the cash that being in the top league brings.

If you look at it logically, Teves was the reason they stayed up and he shouldn't have been there, so failure to deduct points was a travesty. It'll be worth any potentially relegated team doing the same thing, as it means that they still earn a bundle more than if they'd not done it and gone down. Also, the new owner of the club continued to benefit from the services of the illegal player, so the argument that it happened before he took over is invalid.

There was no precedent to draw from regarding this offence (nobody had previously committed it), hence a fine was a reasonable punishment.

Can't see you logic there, why does the fact that there was no precedent to draw from, make the punishment of only a fine reasonable?

 

[marok]

O.K, I'll reword my initial statement:-
The PL had a range of punishment options available to them.
There was no precedent to draw from regarding this offence (nobody had previously committed it), hence a fine was not an unreasonable punishment.
People keep talking about West Ham playing an illegal player. This is not true. Tevez was, at all times, legally registered with the PL (confirmed by the PL in their earlier statement).
Another misconception with some people is that West Ham were guilty of playing a player who was owned by a 3rd party. This of course is nonsense, as it is totally legal for players to be owned by a 3rd party.
The problem with the original Tevez contract was that it contained a clause that allowed the said 3rd party to sell the player without West Ham's permission. How anyone can construe that as an advantage gained by West Ham is beyond me.
The PL have already stated that if the original clause had been disclosed at the time of the signing, the registration would still have gone ahead, but they would then have insisted that it be removed (which was what happened later).
The rule that West Ham broke was originally designed to stop anyone owning more than one football club, hence having a potentially damaging 3rd party influence, so it had never been applied to potential 3rd party influence on a player before. So, sources close to the club say that they weren't even aware that they had broken any rule. The PL accepted that the wording of the rule was confusing (they are going to reword it before the new season starts), and hence of all of the punishment options available to them, they chose a fine.
Common sense ruled (in my opinion).
Sorry about the long rant, but I have read just about every word available on this over the last few months, and thought I'd share the info.

 

[rolfw]

I know it is all new territory, but a £5m fine is a huge punishment and does not reflect a decision against a club merely being caught out by confusing wording.

The fact is that they got a cut price deal on a player illegitimately and because of the key role of that player in fending off demotion, a more applicable penalty would have been points deduction.

I feel that Sheffield have a legitimate gripe.

Having said that, it is unlikely that anything will now be changed, but it will leave the door open for further abuse of the system.

 

[waverider]

Yep.......yet again the FA slip up once more!

 

[waverider]

Further more I think the gripe was amplified becuase the quality of Teves!

 

[marok]

The fact is that they got a cut price deal on a player illegitimately and because of the key role of that player in fending off demotion, a more applicable penalty would have been points deduction.

You can't base the level of punishment on how effective the player was.
Sheff Utd supremo McCabe keeps saying that there should have been a points deduction. So, would he have been happy if the hammers had been deducted 2 points (one of the options available to the PL). Of course not. He will only be happy if the punishment suits Sheff Utd (3 points or more).
I'm afraid the world doesn't work like that.
One thing I do agree with you about: West Ham will be in the PL next season.

 

[rolfw]

You can't base the level of punishment on how effective the player was.

Who says you can't?

Sheff Utd supremo McCabe keeps saying that there should have been a points deduction. So, would he have been happy if the hammers had been deducted 2 points (one of the options available to the PL). Of course not. He will only be happy if the punishment suits Sheff Utd (3 points or more).

Are you saying that the only alternative to the fine was 2 points deduction?

The idea of a points deduction is that the deduction actually affects the club's league standing, if at the end of the season they were in the frame for European qualification, it would have to put them out of it, if they were out of the frame for demotion, then for the points deduction to be a punishment, it would have to put them in the demotion frame.

I'm afraid the world doesn't work like that.
One thing I do agree with you about: West Ham will be in the PL next season.

In which case you don't agree with me, as I didn't say that West ham will be in the Premiership, merely that it is unlikely they won't. ;)

 

[marok]

Are you saying that the only alternative to the fine was 2 points deduction?

er..no, which is why I said "one of the options available to the PL"

The idea of a points deduction is that the deduction actually affects the club's league standing

The PL have already admitted that they should have levied the punishment as soon as this came to light. So there is no way they could have known then which of the punishment options (if any) would send West Ham down.
Don't forget, the point of the latest arbitration panel was to see if the original hearing was conducted within PL guidelines, and as they chose one of the punishment options within their remit, there can be no case to answer. FIFA have already said that they are satisfied with the original decision.

 

[rolfw]

er..no, which is why I said "one of the options available to the PL"

The reason I picked that up, was that the way you posted, tended to infer that it if it hadn't been the fine, it probably would have been only 2 points.

So what are the complete range of options and surely the absolute minimum points deducted for this type of infringement would be the equivalent to a won game, which would be 3 points.

For example Wrexham were docked 10 points for insolvency, which would give them a competitive advantage by ridding them of debt.

AFC Wimbledon have had their points deduction reduced from 18 to three by an FA appeal board. In February the Ryman League appeals committee had handed out the more severe sanction for fielding a player without international clearance.

The Dons had already been expelled from the FA Trophy for utilising midfielder Jermaine Darlington.

Originally they had points taken off for the 11 games in which the former Cardiff player featured for them.

Bury were thrown out of the FA Cup for playing a non-registered player


When Altrincham brought in a player, James Robinson, last season from Accrington Stanley, they did so in good faith that he had been properly registered.

It later emerged that the relevant international clearance had not, in fact, been obtained for him after he had spent a short spell in Iceland.
advertisement

Altrincham were slapped with an 18-point deduction and a £1,000 fine for fielding an ineligible player according to league rules and when they appealed to the FA claiming mitigating circumstances it was turned down because, they were told, rules are rules.


What I'm saying is, that the fine though large, is not a punishment, as it merely means that they will earn slightly less next season from their mammoth Premiership payments, still a vast amount more than had they gone down.

 

[T_G]

Yeah, I got to agree with Rolf. It seems that they should have been deducted some points, even just to make sure nobody ever tries such a thing again. AS it looks like WH did not act inocently at the time, I can't understand the 5 mill fine. It is really peanuts for a club to pay if it means PL survival. I am 100 % sure if you asked any relegated team (or team that just missed on promotion) if they would pay 5 mill for being in the PL they would bite your hand off.