Poor Sheffield United

[joniebee]

The reason i "spit venom" is because individuals like you pop up and start preaching bullshit. ok some facts for the hard of thinking

1, It is NOT illegal for a 3rd party to OWN a player. "you moron" check the rule book. The loan system would not work if it was:rolleyes:
2, At NO point did i say West Ham did nothing wrong. The previous administration did plenty wrong. But having read the full documents of the inquiry i know WHAT they did wrong.

Look forward to the hammering we give you on the first day of the season.

What are you on about loan deals for,If a club loans out a player to another club,Where is there a third party involved,You can argue about this forever but will you ever accept that your club acted illegally and therefore were punished for this,Although the punishment was far to lenient,If it was the start of the season or you were already safe then points would have been taken.Therefore your league position clearly influenced the decision,Which is wrong,Finally i would much rather be a Man City fan than a West Ham fan,We will forever be superior to you,Fact.

[ATL_Iron]

What are you on about loan deals for,If a club loans out a player to another club,Where is there a third party involved,You can argue about this forever but will you ever accept that your club acted illegally and therefore were punished for this,Although the punishment was far to lenient,If it was the start of the season or you were already safe then points would have been taken.Therefore your league position clearly influenced the decision,Which is wrong,Finally i would much rather be a Man City fan than a West Ham fan,We will forever be superior to you,Fact.

If i (Town FC) own a player, i will call him Bob. He is on a 4 season deal. I then loan him to City FC for a season. Bob plays with City for a whole season. I then become a "3rd party" to Bob and City FC.

This is the problem with the Kappa and Tim Howard deals. Because the original team (Town FC in this example) said that Bob could not play against them. This would be breaking the rule U18 as it would be a 3rd Party (in this case Town FC) dictating what the team selection for City FC should be. This was the case with Tim Howard, however it was a gentleman's agreement and not written down, so their was no proof.

Lets continue with our example with Bob. Lets say that Bob was owned by an individual (we will call him Kia) Kia sold Bob for a small amount of money, with 2 contingencies. That when Bob was sold he would pocket 95% of the money and he could decide when he wanted to sell him on. Town FC snap him up and now have Bob as a player.
However the league get involved, and although there is nothing wrong with Kia being the owner of Bob and getting the money once he is sold, their is a problem with the ability with him being able to sell the player when he seems fit. As this breaks the same rule U18 as Tim Howard and Kappa. because Kia (a 3rd Party) can have an influence on the team, due to the fact he could stop him playing by selling him.

Town FC stupidly writes this down and then tries to hide it, for which they get fined a bucket load of cash.

I do wonder is Man U had been found guilty of the same offense (Tim Howard) there would have been the same uproar?

[narduch]

Looks like the people who run the EPL might get caught in their own mess:

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2123412,00.html

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2124230,00.html

This situation is becoming more and more laughable.

If they just properly punished West Ham in the first place, this mess never would have happened.

Kudos to ManU if they end up helping to expose both West Ham and the EPL, which it seems like they are doing.

[bsas]

If i (Town FC) own a player, i will call him Bob. He is on a 4 season deal. I then loan him to City FC for a season. Bob plays with City for a whole season. I then become a "3rd party" to Bob and City FC.

This is the problem with the Kappa and Tim Howard deals. Because the original team (Town FC in this example) said that Bob could not play against them. This would be breaking the rule U18 as it would be a 3rd Party (in this case Town FC) dictating what the team selection for City FC should be. This was the case with Tim Howard, however it was a gentleman's agreement and not written down, so their was no proof.

Lets continue with our example with Bob. Lets say that Bob was owned by an individual (we will call him Kia) Kia sold Bob for a small amount of money, with 2 contingencies. That when Bob was sold he would pocket 95% of the money and he could decide when he wanted to sell him on. Town FC snap him up and now have Bob as a player.
However the league get involved, and although there is nothing wrong with Kia being the owner of Bob and getting the money once he is sold, their is a problem with the ability with him being able to sell the player when he seems fit. As this breaks the same rule U18 as Tim Howard and Kappa. because Kia (a 3rd Party) can have an influence on the team, due to the fact he could stop him playing by selling him.

Town FC stupidly writes this down and then tries to hide it, for which they get fined a bucket load of cash.

I do wonder is Man U had been found guilty of the same offense (Tim Howard) there would have been the same uproar?

Nice post. Would nicely fit in an "EPL for dummies" book... With an additional paragraph to all big-club wannabies: "if you want to keep control over a player you sell/loan, do it as a gentlemen agreement; never on paper!.."

[joniebee]

When West Ham signed the Argentinian internationals from Brazilian club Corinthians last summer, the players were contracted to four offshore companies - a fact that, according to the commission, Hammers bosses deliberately concealed from league authorities. "[West Ham] knew that the only means by which they could acquire [the players] would be by entering into the third party contracts," said the commission. "Equally, they were aware that the FAPL, at the very least, may not - and in all probability would not - have approved of such contracts. They determined to keep their existence from the FAPL."

It is believed the contracts only came to light when Mascherano subsequently left West Ham to join Liverpool on loan last January. West Ham has itself changed hands in that time, of course, and it is probable that the punishment would have been more severe if the people responsible for the signings were still at the helm - the new owners cooperated fully with the inquiry and pleaded guilty to the charges. The hearing report also warned West Ham that "the registration of Tevez can be terminated." Accordingly, Tevez will not be allowed to play again for the club until it proves that a new, legitimate arrangement has been made that prohibits any influence by third parties.
Currently,Man Utd are desperately trying to sign Tevez,The transfer seems likely to take weeks and weeks,Theres also a good chance of it going to court cos of the total lack of clarity of the players situation and who owns him,therefore who gets the money,West Ham should have been docked points just for creating a huge dent in the premier leagues image,They are dragging this league through the mud,Repeatedly.What a total mess,West Ham have brought mountains of shame to the premier leagues doorstep,Tevez now cant join Man Utd as of the dodgy mess that took him there to upton park in the first place,I always knew there was something underhand about the deal,As if players of that calibre would want to play for West Ham.
Some years ago Middlesbrough were docked three points cos they failed to turn up for a game at Blackburn as most of their squad was very ill with a bug,They didnt have enough players,So they lost the three points and those points eventually sent the team down,And West Ham only get a poxy fine for this,The whole thing is an absolute disgrace,Three points should have been taken at the very least,The fact that none were taken stinks of injustice,It was simply a terrible decision,Total lack of backbone.You should be banished to the championship at least,Personally id have you in the second division.

[J'can]

WHU won it on the field USING AN ILLEGAL PLAYER.

It's one thing if Hammers fans want to argue that the fine is enough punishment, that docking points is too harsh or out of the norm.

The fact that Hammers keep glossing over that Tevez was an illegal player makes them seem like the worst of political spinners. It's not just that they're bullshitting us, but they know that we know that they're bullshitting just puts it all at a whole 'nother level. It's just insulting. "We're deceiving you, and we think either you're too stupid or we don't respect you enough to make an honest argument."

******** the Hammers. Before now, I liked the club. And if their fans would just make reasonable arguments, I'd still like them. But they're like a kid who kills his parents and pleads for leniency because he's an orphan. The argument is so transparently weak that it'd be better not to make it at all.

Get it, guys? Saying "we won it on the field" is so transparently a pile of shit that it makes me disbelieve everything you write about the situation.

I try not to read all the legal crap about ownership and all that garbage. In my own world tevex was an illegal player I do not disagree. I am not buying the b.s. that tehy are spewing. I just dont like the idea of going back and docking points. Having said that it is now a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. And i beleive that the integrity of the league (the little if any that is left) should be maintained. i dont want administrators deciding who lives or dies and like you i liked WHU, but during the whole mess I did actually wish they would go down over this garbage that they brought on themselves. I beleive they broke the rules without a doubt.

(WHU also should not be allowed however to beneift financially from this and they money they get for staying in the league should go to SHU)

But the fact is, with an illegal player or not they got the results. they won the games. this is not like an U-12 team using a 23 year old player. all the players iunvolved are professionals that play soccer for a living. and the WHU professionals got some wins whereas the SHU professionals didnt... SHU has no one to blame for relegation except thems (and Manu).

Hopefully that explains my thougths on the matter...............

[narduch]

But the fact is, with an illegal player or not they got the results. they won the games.

This same line of thinking would have absolved Juventus from the crap that they pulled.

Using an illegal players to win matches doesn't make you better than the team that lost playing by the rules.

The recent Tevez drama is simply exposing the EPL and West Ham for being wrong all along.

[joniebee]

Its just that Tevez was by far West Hams best player and thurthermore his goals certainly played a massive part in them staying up,Then it appears that his deal to West Ham was dodgy to say the least,It just isnt right,It stinks and if i was a Sheff Utd fan i would feel cheated.

[ATL_Iron]

Let me ask all the people stuck on this Illegal player thing. Lets say for an example here that Sheffield United and Man U (Tim Howard and Kappa)were stupid enough to put in the clause about not playing against them in writing and therefore broke rule U18.

So when the 2 clubs that the loaned the players too met that player did not play. Both teams broke rule U18 with the same 3rd party influence issues as Tevez. should...

1, Is the player Illegal for all games that season?
2, Should the team be docked points? If so how many as no team has ever been docked points for such an infraction?

[J'can]

This same line of thinking would have absolved Juventus from the crap that they pulled.

Using an illegal players to win matches doesn't make you better than the team that lost playing by the rules.

The recent Tevez drama is simply exposing the EPL and West Ham for being wrong all along.

Excellent point to which I have no retort. I suppose if Juventus were stripped after the fact then Sheffield could be reinstated.

(My bias is here: SHU had chances to win and stay up. I would love to see WHU punished. But relegating WHU for a team that could not beat Wigan when it mattered the most is just beyond me. Like I said it is a personal bias) Your point on the Juve thing is well taken though..............

Although....... wasnt Juve guilty of match fixing which would make this slighlty different case?

[act smiley]

Let me ask all the people stuck on this Illegal player thing. Lets say for an example here that Sheffield United and Man U (Tim Howard and Kappa)were stupid enough to put in the clause about not playing against them in writing and therefore broke rule U18.

So when the 2 clubs that the loaned the players too met that player did not play. Both teams broke rule U18 with the same 3rd party influence issues as Tevez. should...

1, Is the player Illegal for all games that season?
2, Should the team be docked points? If so how many as no team has ever been docked points for such an infraction?

1. No, but this is not comparable as despite the fact it comes under the same rule, the third party influence is only over the single match, not over the player's very signing which obviously impacts on the all their appearances that season.
2. Yes, the teams should be deducted any points earned from the fixture which is affected - in those cases, one match. In Tevez's case, many.




Although....... wasnt Juve guilty of match fixing which would make this slighlty different case?

Indeed. Which is why a relegation, plus points deduction for the future season is too excessive for this case. What's needed is a mere three point deduction for last season.

[ATL_Iron]

1. No, but this is not comparable as despite the fact it comes under the same rule, the third party influence is only over the single match, not over the player's very signing which obviously impacts on the all their appearances that season.
2. Yes, the teams should be deducted any points earned from the fixture which is affected - in those cases, one match. In Tevez's case, many.



Indeed. Which is why a relegation, plus points deduction for the future season is too excessive for this case. What's needed is a mere three point deduction for last season.

Thats all well and good, but your thinking there is flawed.
So you are saying that if the offending breach is found before the 2 teams meet and therefore not implemented, the teams should not be punished?
Also if your punishment is based around the offending games, then the offending clause was never used. (Like in the Tevez instance) so there was NO games in which it should recieve punishment on?

[act smiley]

Thats all well and good, but your thinking there is flawed.
So you are saying that if the offending breach is found before the 2 teams meet and therefore not implemented, the teams should not be punished?
Also if your punishment is based around the offending games, then the offending clause was never used. (Like in the Tevez instance) so there was NO games in which it should recieve punishment on?

Actually, I'll admit I hadn't thought that first point through - I suppose in that case you could say -3pts. The clause in the Tevez contract was a different type of clause which affected his signing rather than his use in matches so the points deduction would either have to be at a fixed level (for example, -3 or -6pts) or a fixed range (in a similar way to the set range for invalid registrations). As far as the Kabba case, I can't remember seeing anything that confirmed there was actually anything in the contract just that it was being looked at? I'd have thought if the league had found anything they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops and slapping a 3pt deduction on both clubs and feeling very relieved.

It really irritates me the way that if a club gets into financial problems like Rotherham or Scarborough, they get points but if they out and out cheat they don't.

[ATL_Iron]

Actually, I'll admit I hadn't thought that first point through - I suppose in that case you could say -3pts. The clause in the Tevez contract was a different type of clause which affected his signing rather than his use in matches so the points deduction would either have to be at a fixed level (for example, -3 or -6pts) or a fixed range (in a similar way to the set range for invalid registrations). As far as the Kabba case, I can't remember seeing anything that confirmed there was actually anything in the contract just that it was being looked at? I'd have thought if the league had found anything they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops and slapping a 3pt deduction on both clubs and feeling very relieved.

It really irritates me the way that if a club gets into financial problems like Rotherham or Scarborough, they get points but if they out and out cheat they don't.

I don't see how the 2 are different, Clearly they are from a physical prospective, one deals with selling and another with letting someone play. But when looked at solely from the view of what has broken the rules they are exactly the same. Both allow for a 3rd part to tamper with a team decision.

Both the Kappa one and Howard were not written down, and so no documented proof.

It was also not to cheat. Cheat at what exactly, they could have got Tevez to play by other avenues. Kia and Brown could have done the same thing legally with a loan, just like Masch did at 'pool. But they did not want a loan because Kia wanted to own the player again through buying the club with these additional "free" assets. Problem was he did not buy the club and ********ed us all

[act smiley]

Both allow for a 3rd part to tamper with a team decision.

But the decision which the third party influences is much larger in the Tevez case, hence it deserves a larger punishment.


Both the Kappa one and Howard were not written down, and so no documented proof.

Uhm, its Kabba, not Kappa, unless he's turned into a tracksuit recently. So if they're not written down in the contract, there's not really that much that you can do to prove there was a deal there is there? After all, it could just as easily have been a tactical decision to not play Kabba as the Sheffield Utd. players would have known too much about how he plays for all you know if there's nothing to prove it. Obviously it has to be investigated, but if they've not got anything solid to prove it, then you can't do much, can you?

And thats the issue you have really, isn't it - your team have been found guilty of something and there's nothing to prove that what might be dodgy by Sheffield United is.
As suprising as it may sound I don't have some kind of crusade against West Ham going on, I don't like cheating wherever it is. If next season it turns out that Leicester have done a similar thing, I'd be saying there should be points.


It was also not to cheat. Cheat at what exactly, they could have got Tevez to play by other avenues

Maybe not explicit cheating like Juve did, which is obviously far worse, but they deliberately broke the rules to gain an advantage, which in this case was to win the signatures of two world-class players, one of whom ultimately kept the team up. I also fail to see how they could have "ripped up" their deal without the consent of MSI.

If the big 4 had been offered the proper deal rather than the dodgy one, they'd have taken it and they'd have never gone to West Ham - I remember at the time that Manchester United claimed they'd turned the offer down due to problems with the deal, what makes you think they'd have done the same if it was adjusted to be within the rules?

Face it, your team did something that was out and out cheating and profited from it. I dunno, I think I might as well give up trying to think of new ways to explain this, cause you obviously don't want to listen.

[ATL_Iron]

But the decision which the third party influences is much larger in the Tevez case, hence it deserves a larger punishment.

How can the 3rd part influence be larger in the Tevez case. It was never implemented, as in reality he was not sold during the Jan transfer window.




but they deliberately broke the rules to gain an advantage, which in this case was to win the signatures of two world-class players, one of whom ultimately kept the team up.

I think you mean helped keep the team up. But you also seem to be forgetting the circumstances in which they came to UP. It was not a case as you imply of Pards going out and finding these two guys and thinking if only they were playing for us we will win. How can we cheat to get them to play.

Kia dumped them on West Ham as part of the deal to buy the club. The "cheating" as you keep calling it, was Brown and Kia "cheating" the system to make money. Money and greed are the root causes here not winning games.

You also seem to imply that i somehow think that West Ham did nothing wrong or are not guilty. Nothing is further from the truth. Kia and our old Chairman are both crooks, we have got rid of one and hopefully soon the other. They deceived and broke the rules to try to make more money. Unfortunately it is the new chairman and ultimately the fans, that get fined and punished for it.
Lets not forget it was Eggy after all that brought the dodgy clause to the PL attention.

Kia seems to be getting his come upance and his dealings are catching up with him, In Brazil with his arrest warrant, and the fact that he now seems to be finding hard to offload Tevez, unfortunatly it looks like Brown and Aldridge are getting away scot free:mad:

[ATL_Iron]

Finally an accurately written piece, not surprisingly it's not by a Journalist
From The Independent. Enjoy.

***************************

Hammers are in tight spot - but there may be a way out
Legally West Ham have made life very difficult for themselves over Carlos Tevez, writes Ian Felstead, but there may be a solution to their predicament

Published: 14 July 2007
The key stumbling block in the protracted saga involving Carlos Tevez and his transfer from West Ham United to Manchester United is the apparent insistence by Premier League that the bulk of the proceeds of the transfer remain with West Ham and not be passed on to the businessman, Kia Joorabchian, who is said to own the "economic rights" in Tevez.

In some ways this is surprising, since the passing of proceeds of a transfer to a third party - or even an agreement to this effect - in itself is unlikely to be contrary to the rules of the Premier League.

At the centre of the problems concerning the transfer of Tevez is Rule U18 of the Premier League, which states that no club may enter into a contract which enables any third party "to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams".

West Ham have long accepted that there was an agreement between them, Tevez and Joorabchian's companies which enabled Joorabchian to procure the termination of Tevez's playing contract during any transfer window and to compel West Ham and Tevez to transfer Tevez to another team. This clause was clearly a breach of Rule U18.

When this came to light, West Ham were disciplined by the Premier League for their breach and also for their failure to disclose the agreement when questioned about it. The disciplinary panel fined West Ham a record £5.5m. However, crucially the panel neither deducted any points from West Ham nor cancelled Tevez's registration, leaving his registration as a matter for the Premier League.

The Premier League decided it would allow Tevez's registration to stand - and to allow him to play - if West Ham could confirm that the agreement with Joorabchian's companies had been satisfactorily amended (so that it no longer breached Rule U18) or was no longer in force. West Ham responded by stating that they had unilaterally served notice of termination of the agreement on Joorabchian.

To lawyers, this was somewhat curious. One cannot usually terminate a contract unilaterally without good reason. It requires the other party to agree - otherwise it remains in force. In the event, Joorabchian did not agree and expressly reserved his position to sue on the contract. He, at least, thought it was still in force. This would mean West Ham were still in breach of Rule U18.

West Ham said that in any case they did not consider the agreement with Joorabchian was enforceable - since it constituted an unlawful restraint of trade - and assured the Premier League that they would continue to argue that the agreement was invalid and terminated (even if sued by Joorabchian) and that they would not perform their obligations under it.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Premier League thought that satisfactory and allowed Tevez's registration to stand and for him to play. He then inspired West Ham to win all three remaining games, scoring three times, including at Old Trafford, which meant the club avoided relegation.

Now there is a transfer to United in the offing and speculation that the proceeds of the sale will be passed on to Joorabchian. The Premier League assumes this is not out of charity, but because West Ham are honouring a contract with Joorabchian which is still in force. This would obviously put in question the assurances provided by West Ham to the Premier League that they would treat the contract as invalid, the assurances which allowed Tevez to play those last three games.

So West Ham have dug a hole for themselves. If they sell Tevez and pass the proceeds on to Joorabchian, the Premier League will want to know how this is consistent with the assurances they gave and, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, they may institute fresh disciplinary proceedings. This may yet result in the deduction of points.

On the other hand, if West Ham keep the proceeds Joorabchian will undoubtedly sue them for the money, arguing that his contract with them is still in force. If he is successful, it will mean that West Ham did have an agreement with a third party in relation to Tevez in breach of Rule U18 and, once again, they may face disciplinary proceedings.

But there may be a way out. While Rule U18 clearly prohibits any club entering into a contract with a third party which allows the third party, for example, to demand or prohibit a transfer of a player, there would appear to be nothing in the rule which prevents clubs simply agreeing to provide a share of the proceeds of a transfer to the third party. Indeed, clubs often agree to pass on a proportion of a transfer fee received to a third party, such as a player's former club in so-called "sell-on" fees.

West Ham may say that when they gave their assurance to the Premier League they had terminated their contract with Joorabchian's companies, or that they considered the contract invalid, it was only to the extent that the contract was incompatible with the Premier League's rules and did not cover the proceeds of sale (although it would have been helpful if they had actually said this at the time). They may even say that the Premier League is exceeding its authority by seeking to prevent the distribution of the proceeds of sale which would, in fact, be permissible under its rules.

This may not be foolproof. The Premier League, now under considerable pressure to take a tough line with West Ham, may say that, in any case, the club are again in breach of their obligation of good faith under its rules. But, in a tight corner, this may be West Ham's best option.

Ian Felstead is a sports lawyer at Olswang solicitors

[Spur_Forever]

Alright lads? This video might shed some light on some of the complexities you've been discussing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg5HsG7AN1Y

[*_ash_*]

Alright lads? This video might shed some light on some of the complexities you've been discussing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg5HsG7AN1Y
I had that sent to me by every Sheff Wendy fan I know. T'was funny though.

I'm glad this whole thing is just about over. I've read things on various forums, including hundreds of pages on my own citys forum. But I just found this site by accident whilst having a nosy at David Beckhams transfer business.

Obviously as a Blades fan, I think the whole thing stinks, but nothing is or was ever going to change with regards to the decision about points.

I get a little annoyed with WHU fans, and in particular I found Liverpool fans too (for some bizzare reason), who label us all as bad losers, and making ourselves look foolish. I went to the last game, and saw us lose our position in the PL by not being good enough on the field, but if I owned the club and so many millions of pounds were at stake, I would fight against the decision, only a crap businessman wouldn't fight for it.

My thoughts are that WHU got their fingers caught in the fire, and by not complaining for one minute about the 5.5mil fine, realise they got off lightly.

It's shame that both Sheff Utds relegations from the PL in my lifetime have been abundant with controversy. Although the last time it was brushed under the carpet:rolleyes: How many remember it?

Hopefully the PL have egg on their faces, and this won't happen again.

Up the Blades next year, we'll be back soon!!:)

(1st post by the way, so be gentle:cool: , hehe)

[superdave]

end of the day Sheffield Utd had a chance to solve this all on the football pitch (at home) and did not get it done...
They wouldn't have needed to if not for West Ham's cheating.