West Ham to Pay United £30m for Tevez

[hisroyalgingerness]

Sheff Utd that is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008 ... ieldunited

[fozzy]

Bugger.

Love this though:

"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. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence we heard that even over the final two games of the season West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins West Ham secured in those last two games."

Ridiculous.

[Puskas]

Bugger.

Love this though:

"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. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence we heard that even over the final two games of the season West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins West Ham secured in those last two games."

Ridiculous.

I dunno. When we got stuffed down in East London, Tevez looked like the only footballer on the pitch. You certainly wouldn't have scored three without him...

[fozzy]

Bugger.

Love this though:

"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. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence we heard that even over the final two games of the season West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins West Ham secured in those last two games."

Ridiculous.

I dunno. When we got stuffed down in East London, Tevez looked like the only footballer on the pitch. You certainly wouldn't have scored three without him...

But that's it though, isn't it? It's an opinion. Not something that should be used in an arbitration.

Remember, we only drew in Mr Tevez's first game against Villa.

[Worthy4England]

Bugger.

Love this though:

"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. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence we heard that even over the final two games of the season West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins West Ham secured in those last two games."

Ridiculous.

I dunno. When we got stuffed down in East London, Tevez looked like the only footballer on the pitch. You certainly wouldn't have scored three without him...

But that's it though, isn't it? It's an opinion. Not something that should be used in an arbitration.

Remember, we only drew in Mr Tevez's first game against Villa.

Not true. If it was rules that were still being talked about, then West Ham broke them and the Authorities spinelessly bottled out of doing anything substantive about it. Arbitration is about balance of probabilities too not just adherence to rules per se.

[NWhiteley]

Everyone knows that WHU should have had points deducted and been relegated because of it, but the gimps at the FA bottled it.

If i were SUtd, i would want alot more than £30million, £100million would just about cover the loss in earnings since their relegation. This would take in to account the loss of TV revenue, lower gate receipts, lower value of playing staff, less merchandising sold etc.

[Lord Kangana]

Feck 'em.

All I want to know is can we sue Everton for the non-goal?

[CrazyHorse]

Bugger.

Love this though:

"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. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence we heard that even over the final two games of the season West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins West Ham secured in those last two games."

Ridiculous.

While clearly hilarious from my point of view, I kind of agree that it is ridiculous to try and pin point a figure on the points difference you'd have got without Tevez playing in the games he played. Who's to say you wouldn't have actually got more points without him; we'll never know either way.

At the end of the day I guess they felt you needed to be punished and made an example of.

[Tombwfc]

Aye, totally impartially, i think West Ham have already been punished as far as i can see, and the fact that Scudamore and his mates bottled it is neither here nor there in the end.

Unimpartially, it's fecking hilarious. Though i doubt you'll give them £30mil.

[Raven]

This just proves really what a bunch of bottlers the FA are and what a pathetic state the game is in.

[Athers]

All very odd but this has all come about from the initial judgement being incorrect.

How many games did Trevor Brooking play for Sheffield United?

[hisroyalgingerness]

The question that stings for me, is why when there was any doubt was Tevez allowed to continue to play? Even when I think it was generally understood that he shouldn't be there, when it came out that he was part owned by a 3rd party against Prem rules, why was he allowed to line up?

[Lord Kangana]

Perhaps the FA bottled it because of it being "good old West aam" and probably because when egghead first arrived it looked like he could afford better liars/lawyers than the FA (just for you Mummy ).

[fozzy]

Bugger.

Love this though:

"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. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence we heard that even over the final two games of the season West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins West Ham secured in those last two games."

Ridiculous.

I dunno. When we got stuffed down in East London, Tevez looked like the only footballer on the pitch. You certainly wouldn't have scored three without him...

But that's it though, isn't it? It's an opinion. Not something that should be used in an arbitration.

Remember, we only drew in Mr Tevez's first game against Villa.

Not true. If it was rules that were still being talked about, then West Ham broke them and the Authorities spinelessly bottled out of doing anything substantive about it. Arbitration is about balance of probabilities too not just adherence to rules per se.

But what about the games that Mr Tevez played in, and we didn't win? Such as the 3-0 defeat to Sheffield Utd.

[Worthy4England]

Bugger.

Love this though:

"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. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence we heard that even over the final two games of the season West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins West Ham secured in those last two games."

Ridiculous.

I dunno. When we got stuffed down in East London, Tevez looked like the only footballer on the pitch. You certainly wouldn't have scored three without him...

But that's it though, isn't it? It's an opinion. Not something that should be used in an arbitration.

Remember, we only drew in Mr Tevez's first game against Villa.

Not true. If it was rules that were still being talked about, then West Ham broke them and the Authorities spinelessly bottled out of doing anything substantive about it. Arbitration is about balance of probabilities too not just adherence to rules per se.

But what about the games that Mr Tevez played in, and we didn't win? Such as the 3-0 defeat to Sheffield Utd.

The quote says...

"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. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence we heard that even over the final two games of the season West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins West Ham secured in those last two games."

It seems to indicate that "over the season" (as opposed to specific games) that West Ham would have been down by three points. It doesn't actually mention the win against the rags or losses against anyone. However, they do mention thr last two games in which Mr Tevez played outstandingly well. Like I say it's arbitration not litigation. It's dealing with balance of probability not fact. Had he been a defensive player, then I assume they would have had to address the losses as being a significant factor - i.e. did he contibute to West Ham not losing points that they otherwise might have - as he's not a defensive player, they've looked at the wins he's contributed too.

Either way, I think you guys got off lightly and I have no particular axe to grind against West Ham. I don't think you could have complained much if you'd been docked points. The rules around "ownership" are available to West Ham as a club

[BWFC_Insane]

West Ham should pay the money Sheff Utd lost last season and this by being denied their premiership status.

Then pay further punitive damages.

Anything less than £150m and they've got off very lightly!

[H. Pedersen]

Doesn't really matter how well or poorly West Ham played when Tevez was in the team. I was under the impression that fielding an inelligible player automatically leads to a forfeit. I seem to recall a case recently where a team in the UEFA Cup forefeited a game after fielding a player who was suspended due to a red card that he had received in European competition something like eight years ago.

[communistworkethic]

west ham have had a forfeit by way of £5million.

while I hate the cnuts, this is setting a reet old precedent. So now if Shittu breaks a player's leg and the team that that player represents is relegated, said player having been prolific in front of goal all season until his injury- keeping them above the relegation zone, they could in theory sue Bolton for £30m.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The question that stings for me, is why when there was any doubt was Tevez allowed to continue to play? Even when I think it was generally understood that he shouldn't be there, when it came out that he was part owned by a 3rd party against Prem rules, why was he allowed to line up?

IIRC there was a quick deal hammered (ho ho!) out between WHUFC and Joorabchian, so they owned enough of him to crawl under the rules that had already been bent to buggery.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

west ham have had a forfeit by way of £5million.

while I hate the cnuts, this is setting a reet old precedent. So now if Shittu breaks a player's leg and the team that that player represents is relegated, said player having been prolific in front of goal all season until his injury- keeping them above the relegation zone, they could in theory sue Bolton for £30m.

Do you think? Is it not that the plaintiff has been let down by the governing body? Arguably could be the FA (or FAPL) who have to pay SUFC....