Liverpool backing Sheff Utd

[TheMobyDick]

I used to hate their fans,now i hate the club.

[Footstomper]

Why???? In the name of God, WHY???????

[west_ham]

Masher's deal with Liverpool is not far different from Tevez's with West Ham. Also they owe us one for bringing him to their door step and suffering for it too.

Why do Liverpool have no sense of justice about them, on and off the pitch?

[norwaytips]

I used to hate their fans,now i hate the club.

Don't hate their fans. They were screaming for him to resign and join Sheffield today:mad:

[lesliemoss]

I don't understand why anyone from Liverpool has any standing at all in this hearing; the question only involves West Ham, the Premier League disciplinary committee, and Sheff.Utd as a result of that action. Even though, had Sheff.Utd won one more game they would have stayed up.
Allowing outside influences to interfere or participate
like this is why I said last week; 'I'm still worried'!
I have very little faith in this arbitration process, and nothing would surprise me when they give their decision tomorrow.

[claret50]

The last paragraph gives me hope.

Premiership - Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry has been called to give evidence in favour of Sheffield United as an arbitration tribunal begins a two-day hearing.

The tribunal is examining the decision of an independent commission set up by the Premier League not to dock West Ham points for their part in the Carlos Tevez affair.

Former Premier League chief executive Parry been called to the stand to speak for the Blades as the fight for their reinstatement to the top flight continues.

Relegated Sheffield United are calling for West Ham to drop to the Championship in their place as they believe the London club should not have fielded Tevez in the run-in to the end of the season due to irregularities over his transfer.

The Argentinian striker was signed by the Hammers last summer amid a shroud of secrecy over who actually owned him. The club's failure to disclose the fact that a third party - in this case Iranian businessman Kia Joorabchian - held a stake in Tevez breached rules concerning the ownership of players.

But the independent commission set up by the Premier League adjudged there to have been no wrongdoing, and West Ham were allowed to continue playing Tevez until the end of the season, during which time he scored several crucial goals to help the Hammers avoid relegation.

Sheffield United, with the support of fellow Premiership strugglers Charlton, Wigan and Fulham, felt aggrieved enough to lobby for a new tribunal to be held in an attempt to reclaim their Premiership status.

Parry is thought to be in a position to be able to speak in United's favour, but he also has a personal interest in the case after signing Tevez' compatriot Javier Mascherano - also owned by Joorabchian - from West Ham in January.

The tribunal will sit for two days, although it is thought to be highly unlikely that the independent commission's verdict on the affair will be overturned.

[hammermolder]

I think what is making this much harder for us hammers is the fact that we only ever hear one side of this in the press,that prick is always in the paper saying something,where as our "Eggy'' is showing a lot of class and not saying anything until we hear the verdict

[Hammerette 1]

Perhaps Parry was explaining why Liverpool fielded a reserve side against Fulham, thus contravening Premiership rules.

[hammer_scout51]

Parry will have had to attend as he first discovered what he believed to be a flaw in the contract. This happened when they went to sign Mascherano.

[west_ham]

I think what is making this much harder for us hammers is the fact that we only ever hear one side of this in the press,that prick is always in the paper saying something,where as our "Eggy'' is showing a lot of class and not saying anything until we hear the verdict
Spot on there Hammermolder. The disappointing outcome from this is that neutral fans are walking round saying that we should have had points deducted, because the only source of information they have are the lying newspapers. I never thought I would recommend the NOTW to anyone!!

When we consider the actual punishment though, I believe it is fitting for the nature of the crime. Our Independent Commission made the right decision on the punishment, they just gave some really soft reasons for it when some more convincing reasons were available.

If we consider some other examples of breaking the rules where a points deduction was awarded and the impact that the crime had on the outcome of a match or matches:

Boro - Although I agree that their punishment was a bit harsh, their actions of postponing a game meant that they could field a full strength side later on instead of a reserve side on the original fixture date. This affects the result of the game and therefore a points deduction is fitting for this crime. Had the surrounding circumstances been taken into consideration during Boro's hearing then some leniency should have been applied IMV and a fine imposed instead.

Fielding an inelligle player - If a player is not registered correctly or his registration has been refused for some reason then he is not allowed to play. If he does the club have illegally influenced the result of the games that he plays in. A points deduction is fitting.

Howard/Kabba - If a club sell a player and and then tell his new club how to play him, that's illegal third party influence (rule U18) and by the player being fielded or being prevented from playing the third party have affected the results of the relevant matches. A points deduction is fitting.

West Ham - Documents have not been disclosed on time and certain clauses in them are not allowed. In such cases these clauses are ironed out by all solicitors involved and we carry on as normal. The players registration is not affected so his elligibility to play is not affected. Therefore the results of no matches have been influenced. A points deduction is NOT fitting.

This just seems like common sense to me.

[west_ham]

A great post on KUMB:

http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=89481&sid=f8c430301f90189f4bce19a3b6571b44