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

[Ian Royal]

The way I see it is:

West Ham knowingly went into a dodgy deal and broke the rules in the first place.
The Premier League acted in the "bigger" club's favour like a the cowardly bunch of old boys brigade cocks they are.
West Ham wouldn't have stayed up without Tevez, because he won them the game against Utd and scored at least 4 other goals in the run in iirc.

It is impractical to relegate West Ham now so long after, but it is practical to make West Ham pay Sheffield Utd the money that the Hammers received for survival, and which should have been Sheffield Utd's.

I don't know much about the PL's finances, but I don't think it would be unfair to make West Ham foot half that cost and the PL organisation to fit the other half for allowing the whole situation and not sorting it out properly themselves. Or possibly that West Ham pay the amount, less the fee they were fined and the PL cough up the fine amount to Sheff Utd.

Much as I don't like West Ham much, I wouldn't want to see the club go out of business over it. But if they do, thats because the club isn't well run enough. If you get involved in dodgy deals and put your club's finances to the very edge then you go belly up when you're rightly punished.

[Dirk Gently]

Yes in principle, but a couple of points on the above.....

West Ham knowingly went into a dodgy deal and broke the rules in the first place.

Do you know it was "knowingly." They might just as easily have believed at first that they were within the rules. Yes they tried to cover it up later, but I suspect they were badly advised or believed they had found a loophole.

It is impractical to relegate West Ham now so long after, but it is practical to make West Ham pay Sheffield Utd the money that the Hammers received for survival, and which should have been Sheffield Utd's.

But what is impractical about that is that if Sheffield Utd get a lump sum of £30M surely that isn't fair on the other 23 clubs in the Championship who are competing against them. It distorts the competition for that season to the disadvantage of the others.

I don't pretend to know what the answer is to this one - there's just no easy solution.

[TFF]

Yes in principle, but a couple of points on the above.....

West Ham knowingly went into a dodgy deal and broke the rules in the first place.

Do you know it was "knowingly." They might just as easily have believed at first that they were within the rules. Yes they tried to cover it up later, but I suspect they were badly advised or believed they had found a loophole.

It is impractical to relegate West Ham now so long after, but it is practical to make West Ham pay Sheffield Utd the money that the Hammers received for survival, and which should have been Sheffield Utd's.

But what is impractical about that is that if Sheffield Utd get a lump sum of £30M surely that isn't fair on the other 23 clubs in the Championship who are competing against them. It distorts the competition for that season to the disadvantage of the others.

I don't pretend to know what the answer is to this one - there's just no easy solution.

It's difficult isn't it? Sheffield Utd had their parachute payments to offset the increased wage bill on relegation and have now presumably restructured their contracts/finances for Championship football. A £30million settlement would indeed be a massive advantage at this level.

Hard to argue that they shouldn't get it though.

[papereyes]

Yes in principle, but a couple of points on the above.....

West Ham knowingly went into a dodgy deal and broke the rules in the first place.

Do you know it was "knowingly." They might just as easily have believed at first that they were within the rules. Yes they tried to cover it up later, but I suspect they were badly advised or believed they had found a loophole.

It is impractical to relegate West Ham now so long after, but it is practical to make West Ham pay Sheffield Utd the money that the Hammers received for survival, and which should have been Sheffield Utd's.

But what is impractical about that is that if Sheffield Utd get a lump sum of £30M surely that isn't fair on the other 23 clubs in the Championship who are competing against them. It distorts the competition for that season to the disadvantage of the others.

I don't pretend to know what the answer is to this one - there's just no easy solution.

First bold - the act of trying to cover it up suggests some level of complicity and knowledge of what they're doing

Second bold - get it right the first time

[Gordons Cumming]

West Ham are basically arguing that if Tevez hadn't been there someone else in the team would have scored the goals to keep them up.

[Silver Fox]

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.

Are you being serious there?

[Seal]

Surely the fundamental fact is that West Ham agreed to the tribunial and agreed to respect the findings.

Now that they don't like them, they're kicking up a fuss. Tough sh1t I say.

[Dirk Gently]

Surely the fundamental fact is that West Ham agreed to the tribunial and agreed to respect the findings.

Now that they don't like them, they're kicking up a fuss. Tough sh1t I say.

Correct. And the conditions of agreement included the fact that this panel was the final arbiter and no further appeal would be allowed.

[Silver Fox]

I didn't realise that was the case, if so, best they pay up once that amount is agreed, wrong as I believe the decision to be

[Thaumagurist*]

West Ham are basically arguing that if Tevez hadn't been there someone else in the team would have scored the goals to keep them up.

Sure, including the goal at Old Trafford? If Tevez had not played in that final game, they might just have gone down as I can't imagine any other Wet Shammer scoring at Old Trafford.

[Ian Royal]

Maybe Sheffield should donate any money received to charity to solve the Championship issue. Maybe they should only use the money to clear debts.

Just because a punishment is potentially hard on fans or has complicated implications, doesn't mean a punishment shouldn't be handed out.

It's a toughie though. And one we can all agree could have been avoided if transfer deals were better regulated and more open, or the PL had dealt with the matter properly to start with.

I hate the empty phrase "Right First Time", but in this case it applies.

[Platypuss]

Surely the fundamental fact is that West Ham agreed to the tribunial and agreed to respect the findings.

Now that they don't like them, they're kicking up a fuss. Tough sh1t I say.

Correct. And the conditions of agreement included the fact that this panel was the final arbiter and no further appeal would be allowed.

Not quite. West Ham will argue that the conditions stated that no further appeal to a court of law would be allowed. The CAS (as per its name) is a court of arbitration.

[soggy biscuit]

Sheffield Utd's players have now started individual claims against West Ham for loss of earnings.

[Seal]

Surely the fundamental fact is that West Ham agreed to the tribunial and agreed to respect the findings.

Now that they don't like them, they're kicking up a fuss. Tough sh1t I say.

Correct. And the conditions of agreement included the fact that this panel was the final arbiter and no further appeal would be allowed.

Not quite. West Ham will argue that the conditions stated that no further appeal to a court of law would be allowed. The CAS (as per its name) is a court of arbitration.

God damn lawyers...

[Dirk Gently]

Correct. And the conditions of agreement included the fact that this panel was the final arbiter and no further appeal would be allowed.

Not quite. West Ham will argue that the conditions stated that no further appeal to a court of law would be allowed. The CAS (as per its name) is a court of arbitration.

Indeed - good point.

[TFF]

Sheffield Utd's players have now started individual claims against West Ham for loss of earnings.

Hmmm.

I'm puzzled by this. Doubtless the players missed out as a result of West Ham's actions but if Sheffield Utd had stayed in the prem they'd have pocketed the £30mil that they're looking to claim from West Ham and spent most of it on wages. If they now succeed in their claim shouldn't it be down to them to pay their players the lost wages?

I'm not sure West Ham should be asked to fund the wage bill twice.

[Skyline]

Of course this whole affair would have been avoided if Man Utd had beaten West Ham in that last game...

[Silver Fox]

Sheffield Utd's players have now started individual claims against West Ham for loss of earnings.

I can't remember who it was but surely the bLOLade who was clean through against Wigan and knocked it wide won't be able to take part in this?

and LOLz by the way, Sheffield United and the FA, making formula 1 look sensible

[soggy biscuit]

Of course this whole affair would have been avoided if Man Utd had beaten West Ham in that last game...

LOL @ Rio ferdinands (I think) defending for the Tevez goal.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

West Ham have been informed that they can not take their case to the court of appeal. Can see this running and running before being settled out of court.