Sheff Utds bit arbiatritititition...

Nozza · Post by **Nozza** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:37 pm

Hearing is June 18th, fixtures are out June 14th. So:

1. What will happen if the unthinkable happens and the Premier League say either; a. West Ham down, Sheff Utd up or b. 21 team Premiership?
2. Will all hell kick off?
3. How many teams will go down?
4. Will West Ham appeal - if they go down - thus prolonging the process?

(FWIW, I don't think anything will happen, just thought I'd open the floor. And no Commie, I won't jump in it.

)

bobby5 · Post by **bobby5** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:39 pm

It's all gone quiet regarding this. It needs to be sorted soon. From what I've read in the papers, Sheffield Utd are confident they will be reinstated. But why only them. what about Watford and Charlton?

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:43 pm

well assuming the tribunal says Spam down, then Sheff U would just slot in to the fixtures spam would have played. Though we can be sure lots of lawyers will be getting much richer before this is concluded.

chris · Post by **chris** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:46 pm

I do not think West Ham will be relegated now. If Sheffield have any success, I think we would end up with a 21 team league, with four teams being relegated next season.

mullayo · Post by **mullayo** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:08 am

I can't see it happening. Other teams are letting the Blades go it alone. Nothing in it for them. Don't blame the Blades though big money on the line.

Though it could be diferent if it was the other way around with West Ham relegated from Sheffield getting some superstar...no wait, that's just silly.

A 21 team Prem is a shite solution. I expect a dozen or so meetings and nothing coming of it just like any business.

FaninOz · Post by **FaninOz** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:32 am

Another option is that Sheff Utd are paid 50mil compensation to keep quiet and enjoy their relegation.

BUT, FIFA may yet step in and insist that Spam are relegated just to show who is really in charge of football. (Big Brother and all that!)

perfan · Post by **perfan** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:48 pm

I think solution A is the more likely of the two (although I don't think either will happen).
What's the betting that the fixtures people will make sure West Ham are at home when Sheff Wed are away just in case?

Daxter · Post by **Daxter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:24 pm

Sheffield United are delusional. They really should just give up and retain what little dignity they have left. I am no fan of West Ham, in fact I pretty much detest them but Sheff U would have comfortably stayed up if they had just got a few points from the last five games. They went down because they weren't good enough, regardless of Tevez playing for West Ham or not.

CrazyHorse · Post by **CrazyHorse** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:46 pm

Daxter wrote:Sheffield United are delusional. They really should just give up and retain what little dignity they have left. I am no fan of West Ham, in fact I pretty much detest them but Sheff U would have comfortably stayed up if they had just got a few points from the last five games. They went down because they weren't good enough, regardless of Tevez playing for West Ham or not.

But that's the crux of the whole thing dax!
West Ham cheated. They took points illegally which meant they had more than they should have. Ok, Sheff Utd stand to lose out a lot from this but I'm surprised that all the relegated clubs (and Wigan too) aren't pushing for them to lose all points they gained while he played; because they effectively were cheated out of prize money.

Dr.Karl · Post by **Dr.Karl** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:50 pm

Daxter wrote:Sheffield United are delusional. They really should just give up and retain what little dignity they have left. I am no fan of West Ham, in fact I pretty much detest them but Sheff U would have comfortably stayed up if they had just got a few points from the last five games. They went down because they weren't good enough, regardless of Tevez playing for West Ham or not.

If Tevez weren't playing they wouldn't have won those games, that is almost given. The fine received was paltry too, £5.5 million is a quarter of his worth alone, nevermind Mascherano. West Ham have got a very good deal out of it all. I really have an issue with the lack of fairness in the rulings, Bury kicked out of FA up and AFC Wimbledon docked 18 points(later reduced) for similar breaches of the rules. West Ham get away with a relative small fine......

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:26 pm

CrazyHorse wrote:
Daxter wrote:Sheffield United are delusional. They really should just give up and retain what little dignity they have left. I am no fan of West Ham, in fact I pretty much detest them but Sheff U would have comfortably stayed up if they had just got a few points from the last five games. They went down because they weren't good enough, regardless of Tevez playing for West Ham or not.
But that's the crux of the whole thing dax!
West Ham cheated. They took points illegally which meant they had more than they should have. Ok, Sheff Utd stand to lose out a lot from this but I'm surprised that all the relegated clubs (and Wigan too) aren't pushing for them to lose all points they gained while he played; because they effectively were cheated out of prize money.

It cost us half a million when they beat us - we would have been sixth with a win. Sheffield would have been good enough to stay up if WHam hadn't cheated (though I hate to agree with deranged equines. The League table could have been quite different if WHam's points, with the illegal players in the lineup, were taken away. Over here you lose ALL points gained when fielding an ineligible player, not just ten, and the teams cheated against are awarded those points as if they had won.

James B · Post by **James B** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:35 pm

Dr.Karl wrote:If Tevez weren't playing they wouldn't have won those games, that is almost given.

it could quite easily be argued that had they never signed the argies in the first place there wouldn't have been the dressing room unrest that followed, they had started the season quite well before then

football's not that simple

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:08 pm

James B wrote:
Dr.Karl wrote:If Tevez weren't playing they wouldn't have won those games, that is almost given.
it could quite easily be argued that had they never signed the argies in the first place there wouldn't have been the dressing room unrest that followed, they had started the season quite well before then

football's not that simple

It could be argued, and I'm sure some would, but it is not a good argument. West Ham broke the rules and so gained an unfair advantage (or at least what they perceived to be one). The question is whether the punishment was suitable, whether it was fair to Sheffield United (and others) who may have been disadvantaged. United clearly stand to lose millions because of the ludicrously light penalty. They could have a case.

Dujon · Post by **Dujon** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:51 am

While I have no personal grievance with West Ham it does appear that it has been treated extraordinarily well given the circumstance. Perhaps it's time that the F.A. put in place more rigid rules governing the use of players, payments and penalties.

We had a case just a few years ago where a local club exceeded the salary cap. The club apparently tried to cover up the excess payments, rather than acknowledging that it had made a major error. Those actions resulted in the club losing ALL points to that stage of the tournament. If memory serves that meant 34 or 37 points down the gurgler.

Surely, where a club deliberately manipulates (or attempts to manipulate) the system to its advantage then that club should be heavily penalised. How much did West Ham gain by its machinations? What affect would such a paltry fine have on the club - relative to the advantage it has gained?

This was a club that was teetering in the brink of relegation and through allegedly nefarious deeds has managed to avoid that fate. For that impropriety it has earned millions of pounds more than it might well have done otherwise and it remains in the top tier of English football. From my perspective there's no justice in the outcome.

I feel mightily sorry for the club that was relegated as a result of this dreadful situation.

Athers · Post by **Athers** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:17 am

I think the biggest point worth highlighting is that within the reasons given for not deducting points from West Ham was that they would almost certainly be relegated were it to happen. Obviously this is not the point regardless of league position and a it's a shambles that this should come into it.

jetsetwilly · Post by **jetsetwilly** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:01 am

I am pretty confident that West Ham will be demoted.

The paperwork has still not been produced which means that it does not exist.

FIFA will step in as the FA clearly have not got the balls to stand up to any of the 'big' clubs

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:37 am

Dujon wrote:
Surely, where a club deliberately manipulates (or attempts to manipulate) the system to its advantage then that club should be heavily penalised. How much did West Ham gain by its machinations? What affect would such a paltry fine have on the club - relative to the advantage it has gained?

I'll link this bit back to the Bury incident. Bury got turfed out of the FA Cup on an administrative error. West Ham blatantly went against Prem rules and have got away with it. I know the FA and the Prem are different entities which is why the punishment was different... i understand all that. I just don't understand why one club accidently fills in a form wrong and is booted out a competition and the other continues to play a player when they know they're in the wrong and only gets a fine.

Nozza · Post by **Nozza** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:09 am

More commonly known as "Massive club syndrome" HRG.

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:55 am

Nozza wrote:More commonly known as "Massive club syndrome" HRG.

on that basis you can buy who you want next season

Soldier_Of_The_White_Army · Post by **Soldier_Of_The_White_Army** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:56 am

hisroyalgingerness wrote:
Nozza wrote:More commonly known as "Massive club syndrome" HRG.
on that basis you can buy who you want next season

Doesn't Keane already believe that?

Connect with your social network account

Sheff Utds bit arbiatritititition...

Sheff Utds bit arbiatritititition...

Who is online