by Ian Royal » 24 Sep 2008 21:35
by Dirk Gently » 25 Sep 2008 07:43
Ian Royal West Ham knowingly went into a dodgy deal and broke the rules in the first place.
Ian Royal 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.
by TFF » 25 Sep 2008 09:14
Dirk Gently Yes in principle, but a couple of points on the above.....Ian Royal 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.Ian Royal 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.
by papereyes » 25 Sep 2008 09:28
Dirk Gently Yes in principle, but a couple of points on the above.....Ian Royal 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.Ian Royal 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.
by Gordons Cumming » 25 Sep 2008 10:35
by Silver Fox » 25 Sep 2008 10:38
earleyroyal 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.
by Seal » 25 Sep 2008 13:14
by Dirk Gently » 25 Sep 2008 13:22
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.
by Silver Fox » 25 Sep 2008 13:41
by Thaumagurist* » 25 Sep 2008 23:25
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.
by Ian Royal » 25 Sep 2008 23:33
by Platypuss » 26 Sep 2008 07:58
Dirk GentlySeal 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.
by soggy biscuit » 26 Sep 2008 08:03
by Seal » 26 Sep 2008 09:12
PlatypussDirk GentlySeal 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.
by Dirk Gently » 26 Sep 2008 09:13
PlatypussDirk 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.
by TFF » 26 Sep 2008 09:54
soggy biscuit Sheffield Utd's players have now started individual claims against West Ham for loss of earnings.
by Skyline » 26 Sep 2008 10:04
by Silver Fox » 26 Sep 2008 10:23
soggy biscuit Sheffield Utd's players have now started individual claims against West Ham for loss of earnings.
by soggy biscuit » 26 Sep 2008 10:25
Skyline Of course this whole affair would have been avoided if Man Utd had beaten West Ham in that last game...
by Tony Le Mesmer » 26 Sep 2008 12:22
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests