West Hams Chances Gone?

[Winrew]

Another good win for the Hammers today , Tevez looked brilliant , scored two goals..

With regards to the legal action , its sad that it will end up in the hands of the lawyers.
Rightly or wrongly , they were fined , case closed


Should they be able to sue Liverpool for fielding a weak side ? . Where will it all end ?

[all_funkt_up]

I can see West Ham losing at United at the weekend.

Wouldnt it be unfortunate if Sheff United were to lose the game 1-0 to Wigan. Thus keeping Wigan and Sheff U both in the prem and relegating West Ham.

Unfortunate indeed.

[Hippy Dave]

Yeah, wonderful afu if we have to endure another season watching eg Emile Heskey rather than Carlos Tevez.

Granted, Tevez will most likely end up in the Premiership for a different club whatever happens, but of those 3 teams I know which ones are more likely to attract quality players, and not play dull football.

[all_funkt_up]

And I know which one of those 3 teams cheated.

[Hippy Dave]

Sadly, I couldn't give a fcuk about that, they've got the number of points they've got, and that's that. If the Premier League doesn't spot rule breaches early on that's their own fault.

[all_funkt_up]

The Premier League wasnt able to identify a rule breach as they were lied to. West Ham witheld documents that would have prevented the sale going through in the first place. They didnt inform the Premier League of the full situation surrounding the transfers and in such a situation, the Premier League isnt to blame.

Without Tevez, they would be behind even Watford. Their season would be nothing without him.

[Hippy Dave]

I know technically your argument is correct, but that doesn't change the probability that most neutrals (and I mean neutrals as in people who don't support Premier League teams) would prefer West Ham to be in the league than Wigan or Sheff Utd.

They've been given a huge fine and I don't really care about some little technincality - if they win more points than 3 other teams they deserve to stay up.

[Wittmann 44]

I know technically your argument is correct, but that doesn't change the probability that most neutrals (and I mean neutrals as in people who don't support Premier League teams) would prefer West Ham to be in the league than Wigan or Sheff Utd.

Speaking as a neutral what I want or what any other neutral wants is of no importance. I’d prefer to see West Ham ahead of either of the other teams as well but if this breach is allowed then where will it end? English soccer is in terms of corruption as clean as it gets in Europe. I see little difference in terms of end result between what West Ham have done and fixing a match. If English soccer wants to go down the route of the Italian League where the little clubs get routinely shafted by the more fashionable clubs well and good but no-one should be too surprised when gates fall to Italian levels and there’s always a whiff of something dodgy about all those end of seasons draws.

When incidentally does a technicality become important? If you ignore all the technicalities very soon the game is gutted.

Like AFU I’d love to see Sheffield United and Wigan stitch up the hammers and United send them down. English soccer being what it is, the chances of that happening through an Italian style arrangement is 0.

[Hippy Dave]

Originally Posted by Wittmann 44

Speaking as a neutral what I want or what any other neutral wants is of no importance.

The neutral's view is of extreme importance, because if the Premier League can't get neutrals interested, it won't be able to sell TV rights at such huge prices - the reason football has exploded is because people who didn't care now do, not because of any change in the behaviour of the people who were always customers (and in this money driven league, they are customers, not fans).

Lose the neutrals and/or casual fans, and suddenly the football boom stops booming.

[Napoleon Solo]

Originally Posted by all_funkt_up

I can see West Ham losing at United at the weekend.

Wouldnt it be unfortunate if Sheff United were to lose the game 1-0 to Wigan. Thus keeping Wigan and Sheff U both in the prem and relegating West Ham.

Unfortunate indeed.

I've had a bit of a soft spot for the Hammers since watching them against Preston at the start of the 2003/04 season. Personally I'd like them to stay up as they play more attractive football than Sheffield United, Wigan et al, however, I do believe they should have had points docked for the deception employed when signing Tevez and Mascherano, but the Premier League bottled it.

As far as the last game of the season goes, are Man Utd really going to want to go "all out" for the win when they have a chance to resign Chelsea to a woeful trophy haul just six days later? I'm not implying that Man Utd are going to "throw" the match, but I can't see them putting in as much effort as they usually would at the risk of injury or suspension (should they count for the Cup Final???).

[rcgills]

In what way exactly have West Ham cheated? I mean that as a genuine question, by the way, not as a "no way, you can't prove they cheated" type way. Tevez is still playing for them now - if it was some kind of illegal transfer, then presumably he would've been sent back to where he came from? As it is, West Ham have just done whatever paperwork it was that they didn't do at the time, and now made the transfer above board.

So what was it that they didn't do at the time which made it dodgy? Presumably there was something? Something to do with the transfer window maybe?

As for Sheffield United and Wigan fixing their last match to send West Ham down, I'd be absolutely amazed if Sheffield United were stupid enough to go along with that, unless they got news through that Manchester Utd were 4 up at HT or something similar against West Ham. West Ham won at Arsenal, you can't 100% rule out the chance they might get something against a Manchester Utd side that now has nothing to play for now that the title's settled. Sheffield United will have to go out and play for the draw they need to secure their own safety, and if they're going to support Wigan then do it through the courts.

I should specify that I am not a neutral in this, as I backed Wigan pre-season to get relegated. I just hope if they do go down this weekend that the bookies pay up regardless, rather than basing it on the eventual outcome of any possible court action afterwards.

[Wittmann 44]

The neutral's view is of extreme importance, because if the Premier League can't get neutrals interested,

You’re overestimating wildly the effect of West Ham going down or staying up if you really think that the absence or presence of West Ham will make that significant difference to viewing figures or crowds next year. Sky is contractually obliged to show a certain number of games for each team every season and after that they can cherrypick the plum ties. I can’t imagine that if there hadn’t been the relegation drama that West Ham would have warranted too many.

At the end of the day West Ham staying up or not staying up next year will make little difference to Sky Sports bottom line or to the casual / neutral viewer. I cannot really imagine too many people going “oh yeah the Hammers are gone. I’d better cancel my Sky Sports subscription”. Lets face it they’ve been s@@t most of the season and bar Tevez is there any player there you’d really miss next season?

They stay up great. If not I guarantee they will show lots of their Championship games.

Very similar registration issues have happened in a number of leagues worldwide in the last few years, most notably in Ireland. The issue was fudged there a number of years ago (like it has been fudged here with West Ham) and surprise, surprise the same thing happened again and the clubs offending later were able to use the defence from earlier. Legal action was mooted but owing to the costs never carried through. I cannot imagine this being an issue for Wigan or Sheffield United given the stakes.

My educated guess is that Wigan / Sheffield United would have a good legal case in the event they went down instead of West Ham. They have lower English league precedence on their side from this season and recent precedence from Ireland.

[GaNgStA kEeKs]

This whole thing is pissing me off.

Sheff Utd, Wigan etc all using this as a perfect excuse. The truth of the matter is if they had bothered to do the business on the park they wouldnt be in this situation and wouldve been clear of relegation.

I thought the signings were perfectly legitimate too?

Was it not something to do with who owned the players that was incorrect which caused this whole inquiry?

Andy Gray mentioned it on Sunday that the two signings went through fine and everyones making the deal of them being dodgy signings when really they werent?

Wigan deserve to go down for me. Their record recently has been absolutely embarrassing.

Sheff Utd deserve another chance for the fight they have put into each week and The Hammers have played good football so i hope its Wigan that go down.

[Wittmann 44]

I forgot to add that while I think ffice:smarttags" />Wigan / Sheffield United might win a case that Spurs 12 point deduction back in the 90s for bung payments was subsequently rescinded for being carried out by a different administration.fficeffice" />

I am incidentally amazed that this was not spotted by the auditors doing due diligence for the Magnusson (sp?) prior to the takeover. It was a controversial transfer at the time so you’d think that everyone involved would have being doubly careful with the paperwork.

There are actually two separate offences at issue as well. Firstly there is the paperwork issue and one which most people could probably live with. West Ham have lawyers, accountants and agents yet managed to fcuk this up – something they have been doing fine for decades but I suppose an argument could be made re time pressure and the unusual contracts the two Argies were one. The major issue is third party ownership of the plaers contacts.West Ham bought players owned by a third party which is expressly prohibited by the Premier Leagues own rules. This rule is designed to that “no club should enter into a contract enabling another party to influence its policies or performances”. Tevez and MAscerano were not free agents as there contracts were held by them but by an outside sports agency.

Finally to rub salt in the wounds of the other clubs in the basement one of the conditions imposed on West Ham was that Tevez’s contarct be terminated. Terminate it they did and less than a week later it had been renewed, something which they were funnily enough unable to do previously. Surely a fairer option would have been to have Tevez sit out the rest of the season?

I completely agree incidentally that on the field of play such as it was that Wigan should go down. However would West Ham have dug themselves out without Tevez? Very very unlikely.

[Wittmann 44]

Mihir Bose the sports writer and journalist has an interesting piece on the BBC website about the logic behind the judgement (allegedly).fficeffice" />

The row has largely been about whether it was fair not to deduct points in the context of the fight against relegation – but I can reveal that the commission was also concerned about the potential effect of any decision on the top of the league.

When the decision was taken on what punishment to apply over the two Argentine World Cup stars being owned by a third party, the title race was still in the balance.
And the Premier League commission feared a possible backlash from ffice:smarttags" />Chelsea had West Ham entered the final fixture at Old Trafford already relegated because of a points deduction.
There were worries that last season’s champions may have claimed that the commission had interfered with the destination of the Premiership.

This has the ring of truth for me. I can imagine the PL taking on West Ham but Chelsea?