West Ham are complete failures! Let's all laugh at 'em!

cowdrill · Post by **cowdrill** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:29 pm

well if theyve pleaded guilty that means they cant appeal

tossers

officer_dibble · Post by **officer_dibble** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:46 pm

mmmmmm wonder if this thread will get a few hits this week.....

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:42 pm

officer_dibble wrote:mmmmmm wonder if this thread will get a few hits this week.....

Be ironic after 75 pages of it if we lost to them. We'd never hear the last of it.

officer_dibble · Post by **officer_dibble** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:25 am

To be fair TD we'd probably deserve it as well!

Henrik's fan club · Post by **Henrik's fan club** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:05 am

They'd still have finished more than ten places (at least) below us!

So we could still laugh at them

cowdrill · Post by **cowdrill** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:39 pm

Former West Ham chief executive Paul Aldridge could take legal action following the club's £5.5m fine for breaching transfer regulations.
Aldridge says his reputation has been "besmirched" by the inquiry into the transfers of Argentine stars Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.

Aldridge was chief executive when the pair were signed.

He says he was not called as a witness, invited to give a statement or notified in advance of allegations against him.

Aldridge said: "Naturally, my sympathies lie with the club I was chief executive of for 10 years in respect of what seems a very harsh sanction.

"However, my own personal and professional reputations have been besmirched. The findings accuse me of acting dishonestly and lying.

"This is hardly natural justice in my view. Until the publication of these findings, my integrity has never been questioned during my career.

"Accordingly, I have placed the matter in the hands of my lawyer who will be taking the matter further on my behalf."

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:54 pm

cowdrill wrote:Former West Ham chief executive Paul Aldridge could take legal action following the club's £5.5m fine for breaching transfer regulations.

That's interesting - I read that the present board were about to sue the previous regime for the £5.5m. Might end up in one of those legal cases you hope both sides lose, like Mohammed Al Fayed vs Neil Hamilton. Whom would the T-W legal eagles side with in the West Ham infighting?

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:16 pm

cowdrill wrote:well if theyve pleaded guilty that means they cant appeal

tossers

They would be appealing the sentence not the verdict.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Tue May 01, 2007 9:22 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
cowdrill wrote:Former West Ham chief executive Paul Aldridge could take legal action following the club's £5.5m fine for breaching transfer regulations.
That's interesting - I read that the present board were about to sue the previous regime for the £5.5m. Might end up in one of those legal cases you hope both sides lose, like Mohammed Al Fayed vs Neil Hamilton. Whom would the T-W legal eagles side with in the West Ham infighting?

I'm not absolutely clear whom Aldridge plans to sue. The inquiry found him guilty of lying to the Premier League's Scudamore and said so. However, the truth is a defense in a libel action - if he lied he lied and cannot claim damages. Did he lie verbally and was it taped? The Egg said he would never have ratified the contracts in those circumstances - not sure how he could be sued for that. Presumably he plans to sue the Club for not supporting his actions as a executive and copping a plea instead. Well, good luck in that one. Could the Club collect monies from Aldridge et al for their actions in costing the Club money. That might depend to some extent on the articles under which they operated and the extent to which they may be personally liable for malfeasance. We'd have to ask Mummy on that one. Personally I think all parties would be wise not to sue anyone.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Tue May 01, 2007 11:25 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
cowdrill wrote:Former West Ham chief executive Paul Aldridge could take legal action following the club's £5.5m fine for breaching transfer regulations.
That's interesting - I read that the present board were about to sue the previous regime for the £5.5m. Might end up in one of those legal cases you hope both sides lose, like Mohammed Al Fayed vs Neil Hamilton. Whom would the T-W legal eagles side with in the West Ham infighting?
I'm not absolutely clear whom Aldridge plans to sue. The inquiry found him guilty of lying to the Premier League's Scudamore and said so. However, the truth is a defense in a libel action - if he lied he lied and cannot claim damages. Did he lie verbally and was it taped? The Egg said he would never have ratified the contracts in those circumstances - not sure how he could be sued for that. Presumably he plans to sue the Club for not supporting his actions as a executive and copping a plea instead. Well, good luck in that one. Could the Club collect monies from Aldridge et al for their actions in costing the Club money. That might depend to some extent on the articles under which they operated and the extent to which they may be personally liable for malfeasance. We'd have to ask Mummy on that one. Personally I think all parties would be wise not to sue anyone.

Buck-passing countered by sabre-rattling. Fine club.

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:11 pm

I'm beginning to get a little worried about the possible humiliation of them beating us to stay up after all the talk about us sending them down. Especially if we subsequently miss UEFA. They have won five of seven or something and I wish we had. Still, nil desperandum as Pencilbiter might say.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:00 pm

Apparently Dave Whelan may sue West Ham...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 620393.stm

"This is a very serious offence West Ham committed," said Whelan. "They broke the law, told blatant lies and should have got a 10-point penalty.

The guy's a knob.

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Thu May 03, 2007 4:11 pm

al Fayed is after doing too, and as the article said he will sue on principal - forget the cost

what are these so-called lies Whelan is on about? he should wind his neck in, heard enough from him last year or so

fozzy · Post by **fozzy** » Thu May 03, 2007 5:25 pm

Dear Mr Whelan,

I'm no lawyer, but f*ck me, you've got no chance.

All the best,

Fozzy
Bobby Moore Lower
The Boleyn

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Thu May 03, 2007 8:58 pm

Wankshaft Whelan wrote:"This is a very serious offence West Ham committed," said Whelan. "They broke the law, told blatant lies and should have got a 10-point penalty.

Oh, so you're judge, jury and executioner now are you, Dave? You and you alone decide what punishment's suitable, do you?
The sooner that football, commerce, the planet is rid of this self-important, odious little nice person, the better.

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Thu May 03, 2007 9:20 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
cowdrill wrote:Former West Ham chief executive Paul Aldridge could take legal action following the club's £5.5m fine for breaching transfer regulations.
That's interesting - I read that the present board were about to sue the previous regime for the £5.5m. Might end up in one of those legal cases you hope both sides lose, like Mohammed Al Fayed vs Neil Hamilton. Whom would the T-W legal eagles side with in the West Ham infighting?
I'm not absolutely clear whom Aldridge plans to sue. The inquiry found him guilty of lying to the Premier League's Scudamore and said so. However, the truth is a defense in a libel action - if he lied he lied and cannot claim damages. Did he lie verbally and was it taped? The Egg said he would never have ratified the contracts in those circumstances - not sure how he could be sued for that. Presumably he plans to sue the Club for not supporting his actions as a executive and copping a plea instead. Well, good luck in that one. Could the Club collect monies from Aldridge et al for their actions in costing the Club money. That might depend to some extent on the articles under which they operated and the extent to which they may be personally liable for malfeasance. We'd have to ask Mummy on that one. Personally I think all parties would be wise not to sue anyone.

Not sure I can help.

Firstly, I have no idea what Aldridge thinks might be the basis for his legal action.

Secondly, I suppose West Ham's owners could sue the previous owners if the contract of sale had a provision saying that the previous owners guaranteed that they weren't passing on any undisclosed financial liabilities.

The entire series events raises interesting questions about what punishment it is appropriate to hand out to the current owners of a business for the wrongdoing of previous owners.

InsaneApache · Post by **InsaneApache** » Thu May 03, 2007 11:51 pm

Surely it was an invitation to treat?

mummywhycantieatcrayons · Post by **mummywhycantieatcrayons** » Fri May 04, 2007 12:57 am

InsaneApache wrote:Surely it was an invitation to treat?

What was?

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Fri May 04, 2007 8:22 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Wankshaft Whelan wrote:"This is a very serious offence West Ham committed," said Whelan. "They broke the law, told blatant lies and should have got a 10-point penalty.
Oh, so you're judge, jury and executioner now are you, Dave? You and you alone decide what punishment's suitable, do you?
The sooner that football, commerce, the planet is rid of this self-important, odious little tw*t, the better.

me gaffer got a text off her mate saying does she wanna go watch wigan on sat.
boss replied "i don't wanna pay £20 to end up slitting my wrists"
mate replied "it's only £15"

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Fri May 04, 2007 9:08 am

Matthew Upson has given West Ham a massive boost by agreeing to stay even if they are relegated. (The Sun)

That's good of him. He's decided he's happy to take THEIR sick pay, whilst constantly injured, rather than try & find some other mug to pick up his pay.

Bless.

Connect with your social network account

West Ham are complete failures! Let's all laugh at 'em!

Who is online