Tribunal findings today - West Ham to pay Sheff Utd £30m?

[Wycombe Royal]

THe media seem to think the clubs will agree on somewhere around £15m compensation.

[Silver Fox]

I think because "they stole our manager" once there are people on here who would say yes to that question Dirk, sad isn't it.

I actually don't think this is a just penalty at all, considering Sheffield United didn't do the best they could to stay up you can't possibly say that the presence of Tevez was the one factor that relegated them.

[Dirk Gently]

They seem to have somehow forgotten that one factor that relegated them was their failure to beat Fulham in the final match.

[Huntley & Palmer]

You mean Wigan shirley?

[Southbank Old Boy]

If this level of compensation is awarded in full then it's not a question of relegation. West Ham will suffer financial oblivion - certainly adminstration and possibly worse.

Do people really want to see a club possibly go out of existence because of this?

Well perhaps they should've been a little less "bent" about the whole thing at the time then!

Relegation from the Premiership could've been the start of the road to financial oblivian for any of the relegated clubs at the time, I don't think they cared one iaota about that as they cheated themselves to safety

[papereyes]

I think because "they stole our manager" once there are people on here who would say yes to that question Dirk, sad isn't it.

I actually don't think this is a just penalty at all, considering Sheffield United didn't do the best they could to stay up you can't possibly say that the presence of Tevez was the one factor that relegated them.

Well, they just have done.

[papereyes]

If this level of compensation is awarded in full then it's not a question of relegation. West Ham will suffer financial oblivion - certainly adminstration and possibly worse.

Do people really want to see a club possibly go out of existence because of this?

Well perhaps they should've been a little less "bent" about the whole thing at the time then!

Relegation from the Premiership could've been the start of the road to financial oblivian for any of the relegated clubs at the time, I don't think they cared one iaota about that as they cheated themselves to safety

^^^

I like this, but could you remove a bit of the froth from your mouth please?

[Southbank Old Boy]

They seem to have somehow forgotten that one factor that relegated them was their failure to beat Fulham in the final match.

But they wouldn't have had to win that match if Tevez hadn't dragged the sorry state of a team West Ham had become up to the points tally that got them to safety

[Southbank Old Boy]

My post has nothing to do with the Pardew affair

West Ham, and the other larger clubs are walking all over the FA and the Premiership and the game is worse off for it. A little bit of suffering the consequences of your actions might just bring them all down a peg or two and level out the playing field a little bit

[Woodcote Royal]

If this level of compensation is awarded in full then it's not a question of relegation. West Ham will suffer financial oblivion - certainly adminstration and possibly worse.

Do people really want to see a club possibly go out of existence because of this?

Funnily enough, what most fair minded people want is the justice that Sheff U were denied in the first place.

It's not about what the Yorkshire club did in their final game but the unfair advantage gained by West Ham over much of the season, by fielding a player who would not have played had they abided by the same rules as their rivals.

Frankly, the Pardew affair is too far in the past to care about anymore but most of the bad feeling at the time only came about because the same club seemed to think that the rules were there for them to break and others to adhere to.

In an ideal world, I would like to see Sheff U and West Ham swap places with their finances returned to where they were by way of compensation..................which is probably impossible.

However, at the very least Sheff U deserve to be fully compensated for their huge financial losses and West Ham should expect to pay for it.

At the other end of the spectrum, lower league clubs are being hit with 30 point penalties, which almost guarantees relegation, for going into administration. Are the do-gooders amongst this games supporters as concerned about the potential demise of such footballing minos?

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

To be fair to West Ham they did nothing the PL didn't allow them to do. That's the point though.

The only punishment I want to see is the PL being forced to admit what they did.

[Silver Fox]

To be fair to West Ham they did nothing the PL didn't allow them to do. That's the point though.

Spot on, no matter how dodgy everyone thinks West Ham might have been in this affair if someone from the Premier league had actually said to them "Tevez isn't eligible to play in the remaining games and we're fining you for the fact he's played up until now" then he wouldn't have played.

I think because "they stole our manager" once there are people on here who would say yes to that question Dirk, sad isn't it.

I actually don't think this is a just penalty at all, considering Sheffield United didn't do the best they could to stay up you can't possibly say that the presence of Tevez was the one factor that relegated them.

Well, they just have done.

Well, that's their opinion While I don't want to agree with Tony Gayle too much (or at all) there were 10 other players in each of West Ham's games at the end of that season who also contributed to them staying up, are the tribunal saying that the only relevant factor in their survival was Tevez and without him they'd have gone down? If so can the other players sue for defamation of character?

I do believe that West Ham broke the rules, albeit with premier league permission but don't think this penalty in any way fits the crime. They should have had points deducted at the time if relegation was such a certainty without the Tevez factor

[6ft Kerplunk]

Didn't Sheff United field a weakened team at least once during the season? Maybe if they'd put out a full strength team they'd have gained enough points to stay up anyway. The panel can't really say what would have happened if Tevez hadn't played. Banning him part of the way through the season may well have created a siege mentality and greater team spirit within the West Ham squad that would've given them enough momentum to have pulled themselves clear earlier. As SKDD says in his post above West Ham only did what the PL allowed them to do. If Sheff U want compensation they should be getting it from the PL.

[sheshnu]

Well, that's their opinion While I don't want to agree with Tony Gayle too much (or at all) there were 10 other players in each of West Ham's games at the end of that season who also contributed to them staying up, are the tribunal saying that the only relevant factor in their survival was Tevez and without him they'd have gone down? If so can the other players sue for defamation of character?

Would West ham have stayed up without Tevez? Would Sheffield United have been relegated if Tevez had been playing for them?

I think the answer to both those questions is 'no', so it might be fair to say that the fielding of this particular player was a key factor in both teams' seasons.

Don't know why West Ham should have to cough up though, they were only breaking the rules they were allowed to break; surely the Premier League are the guilty party here?

[Platypuss]

I think West ham's deliberations over the verdict will focus squarely upon how much they can pin on the PL. Hopefully a lot - they are wholly culpable for their travesty of a mockery of a sham of a decision.

And of course the panel can't say for sure that things would have been different had Tevez not played in the final games of the season. That's why they work on the balance of probabilities.

[papereyes]

And of course the panel can't say for sure that things would have been different had Tevez not played in the final games of the season. That's why they work on the balance of probabilities.

I was trying to find their quote and use it to illustrate just that point.

[readingbedding]

If this level of compensation is awarded in full then it's not a question of relegation. West Ham will suffer financial oblivion - certainly adminstration and possibly worse.

Do people really want to see a club possibly go out of existence because of this?

What's the largest team, and in what division were they in when they went out of existence?

[Franchise FC]

To be fair to West Ham they did nothing the PL didn't allow them to do. That's the point though.

The only punishment I want to see is the PL being forced to admit what they did.

Except that the PL allowed them to do what they did on the basis of what we now know to be FALSE evidence. That is the point

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

To be fair to West Ham they did nothing the PL didn't allow them to do. That's the point though.

The only punishment I want to see is the PL being forced to admit what they did.

Except that the PL allowed them to do what they did on the basis of what we now know to be FALSE evidence. That is the point

False evidence that anyone with half a brain could see straight through? Oh I see your point.

Gotta love the media reaction, anyone would think Martin Samuels was a West Ham fan!!

[earleyroyal]

If this level of compensation is awarded in full then it's not a question of relegation. West Ham will suffer financial oblivion - certainly adminstration and possibly worse.

Do people really want to see a club possibly go out of existence because of this?

Certainly administration? They have a backer who injected £30 million recently and has a fortune of over £800 million according to some papers, would it be a done deal?

In answer to the question I wouldn't like to see any club go out of existence but any punishment short of that would suffice for West Ham. Acted with total and utter disregard for the rules, got away with it then called Sheff U 'desperate' for pursuing the case in a court of law. As for 'Tevez wasn't the only factor' etc., surely law resides on proving something beyond reasonable doubt. Anyone claiming that West Ham staying up was not positively affected by Tevez, and that they would have stayed up without him, is just wrong. Proving beyond reasonable doubt is what the panel have done.

Part of my feeling is driven by a dislike for West Ham (nothing to do with Pardew) but if we were all rational then we wouldn't be interested in 22 men kicking a ball about would we?