The sheffield report.

[claret50]

Just to make everyone's day, this is now being reported.:mad:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1059998/EXCLUSIVE-Hammered-West-Ham-facing-30m-payout-Sheffield-United-win-legal-battle.html

[Hawaiian Hammer]

Considering it's The Daily Mail, would you expect anything different?

[hammer_scout51]

There's a lot of mute points made. Typical hypocrisy, Sheff U should have beaten Wigan. They didn't, and Tevez scored our winner at Untd. Hence all this rubbish going on and on.

Sean Bean is a woooofter.

[claret50]

Same story from the Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/west_ham/article4807760.ece

[west_ham]

Sean Bean is a thug. He not only verbally abused Warnock after that last match in front of Warnock's kids but he was also accused of assaulting his own wife (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Actor-Sean-Bean-held-by-police-for-allegation-of-assault-on-wife/Article/200807415057043) in July this year.

Most of what should be said has been posted on that article already. The only obvious thing to add is how the judgement has missed the point. Before considering whether Tevez had a decisive influence on our survival they needed to have identified whether he was elligible to play. The PL always stated that he was elligible at all times. This tribunal can't just ignore this fact and continue to assess Tevez's performances. Even if they did their judgement should have come back inconclusive.

All Sheff Utd have done is conduct another farcical hearing. How this adds 'integrity' to the game only McCabe knows.

[ballard45]

This entire episode is a waste of time and a complete joke. How can a panel determine that 1 player can be responsible for the team's entire performance and result? Equally is it not logical to suggest that if SU were good enough for EPL then the following year they should have automatically gained promotion....they couldn't even make the play-offs!

I fail to understand how this claim can have any legs. Can we not make a claim that in the FA Cup final, Liverpool failed to put the ball into touch when they should have done so and as a result Gerrard scored the equaliser. This cost WHU a fortune...we must have a claim of millions!!

If this claim actually does succeed then the EPL will have opened themselves up to being targeted by more stupid claims.

Regardless of whether WHU agreed to this panel or not, I ask does anyone know does it have any legal standing given that the claim was dismissed in the high court. If there is none then I would simply say "get stuffed".

[Birminghammer]

Here is the write up from the Beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7630777.stm

The Football Association has moved quickly to clarify its position on the matter.

"The dispute has been heard by a private independent arbitration tribunal set up under the FA's rules," said a spokesman.

"The arbitration tribunal is comprised of one member nominated by each club, plus an independent member agreed upon by the two parties.

"All aspects of the arbitration, including publicity, are then a matter for the arbitration tribunal and the two parties concerned.

"For clarity, the FA did not sit in judgement on this case, did not have any influence on the decision and did not appoint any of the tribunal members."

There is no further right of appeal under FA rules.


so.....

.BBC Sport understands that the Hammers are considering an appeal and could decide to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland.

[Footstomper]

So we win every battle and lose the friggin war? Roll on bloody Phyrrus! Christ this is bollocks!

[blainehammer]

Would we not have a claim against the FA as they approved the deal or at least did not do anything to condone it at the time?

[Frieslander]

The judgment reads: 'On the totality of the evidence, we have no doubt that West Ham would have secured at least three fewer points over the 2006-07 season if Carlos Tevez had not been playing for the club.

That's some serious horseshit. If the result of certain players being on the field was without doubt why do they bother playing the match? How do we know someone in Tevez's place doesn't play outta their boots and score a hat trick?

[blainehammer]

The FA said: "there is no right of appeal under FA rules".

FA rules do not apply as this case has been to court which is outside of FA rules. The FA has already found us guilty and fined us accordingly.

I think that the panel will award SU a nominal amount, no where near 30 mil.

[15woodcroft]

Being an arbitration panel they only have to decide on a balance of probabilities. If the reported decision is true they have obviously believed that it more probable WHU don't win a particular game (prob ManU) without Tevez. As Frieslander points out it's a ludicrous assumption, which I believe speaks more to the poor legal representation that WHU must have had.

The fact that the FA have gone on record as saying he was not "ineligible" to play would give me leave to go after the FA, as they then allowed a process to judge WHU based on an issue that according to their official records doesn't exist.

I work in a building which also houses a group of sports agents who are also all lawyers. We often talk footy over our coffee in the morning and they were to a person astounded at the decision today. They asked me under what specific FA rule were WHU being held to account? I said I didn't know but the 5 mil fine was for actions unfair to the other memebers of the PL and not for fielding an ineligible player as many seem to think, so I do not know how they could sanction such a tribunal. They couldn't understand it either, with one opining, "If you take into account the recent Watford non-goal decision the FA seems to be a poorly run and not very transparent organization"

How I laughed. Yes, it's called the old boys network, and WHU just got screwed by them.

[west_ham]

Interesting:
http://westhamfc.blogspot.com/2008/09/tevez-six-goals-in-season.html

I am quite confused about the FA's involvement in this tribunal. The statement does not explicitly say that this hearing is inside or outside the world of football. Do the FA have juristiction over this tribunal or are West Ham and Sheff Utd now in a legal court of law?

The FA may only mean that we have no route of appeal through FA rules. That doesn't necessarily mean there is no other route.

[west_ham]

I am sick of hearing about this already. It's been everywhere today. I have visited various sites with visitor posts on containing mostly support for West Ham but also the occasional clueless drivel from Sheff Utd fans.

But now I have the SSN on the TV and BBC Radio London and it's all over those too.

I just wish it could be finished with. My fear is that the only way to end it is to pay Sheff Utd off which would look like an admission of guilt.

[hammer_scout51]

From kumb
This is a more sensible view. Although i read everywhere that 1 man Tevez beat Man U. No wonder Fergie tapped him up.



http://www.kumb.com/article.php?id=2490

Never mind the facts – here’s the b*llocks

Filed: Wednesday, 24th September 2008
By: Legal Beagle

So the arbitration panel has sat in judgement and, in a decision that defies logic, common sense and about a thousand years of English Law, have decided that compensation should be paid by West Ham to a club for fielding a player that they were always legally entitled to play.

***MOD NOTE***
Please don't post complete articles.
The author may need the hits depending on the situation.
Thanks.
***MOD NOTE***

[west_ham]

Good post Scout.

[Hammerette 1]

I don't think anyone with any credibility is able to say that a team playing X player would result in X result, only this ignorant appeal panel. The only certainties are to look at what actually did take place when Tevez played for West Ham over the course of the season and guess what, we did better without him in the team!

West Ham without Tevez:
P12 W4 D3 L5 Points per game: 1.25
West Ham with Tevez:
P26 W8 D2 L16 Points per game: 1

There is also an interesting article from well known Hammers detractor Mick Dennis and even he sees this latest ruling as a load of cobblers.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/62970/Football-loses-in-sorry-saga

[blainehammer]

Statement on the official site saying that the club will go to CAS.

[claret50]

Statement on the official site saying that the club will go to CAS.
Are you saying that Cass Pennant will be sorting this out for us, Howard? job done then, we're in the clear!;)

[TonyHarrison]

Find it hilarious that the argument is 'well we can't appeal to a court because of the FA rules but we CAN appeal to a tribunal (which is what the CAS is apparently despite me thinking the C stands for Court ? ) '

that said this is a f'in nonsense rubbish - a lot of people have posted about the consequences of someone determining X player did Y - i agree with the official WHU site - it's demeaning to the other players and everyone else involved with the club !