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

[bobo the clown]

Or in this case those rpicks who own WHU. Will 1966 form part of their defence?

It did in the Sheffield Utd occasion.

[LeverEnd]

Or in this case those rpicks who own WHU. Will 1966 form part of their defence?

It did in the Sheffield Utd occasion.

Really? (sorry Bruce)
That stuff upsets me enough still without knowing stuff like that.

[bobo the clown]

Or in this case those rpicks who own WHU. Will 1966 form part of their defence?

It did in the Sheffield Utd occasion.

Really? (sorry Bruce)
That stuff upsets me enough still without knowing stuff like that.

Yep. You'll find it on-line no doubt.

In their defence (probably mentioned on the early pages of this thread) their defence included that they wete West Ham and had done so much for English football and so deserved a break, shiley. I mean we sort of won the World cup was certainly one element of their attempt to avoid punishment.

[LeverEnd]

That saga made me really hate the corrupt money-obsessed beast that is the Premier League.
Also, what happens if the Carroll suspension is delayed because of their legal action, then he is instrumental in beating their relegation rivals in games he should have been banned for. Then they lose, he gets banned later on in games against top teams they'd have lost to anyway. I think that's what they are trying to engineer with this. They have no chance of winning and I think they know it, it's wrong and cynical and they deserve to be relegated for it. Wankers.

[bobo the clown]

I read about it today & all the assumptions are that he'll miss the next 3 games. But I guess a court order tomorrow could impact on that and, frankly, the whole nature of football will change.

It's always been a given that the law is kept out of stuff like this.

The bllx David Gold was spouting today nearly made my eyes bleed, it was such garbage..

[LeverEnd]

They agreed pre-season to the principle of a 3 person independent appeals panel, so I think that puts them on shaky ground. They'll back down.

[bobo the clown]

It's been agreed to go to Sports Arbitration today. Even that is shocking and opens doors for many precedents. If they win you may as well have one for every sending off.

[LeverEnd]

It's been agreed to go to Spirts Arbitration today. Even that is shocking and opens doors for many precedents. If they win you may as well have one for every sending off.

Andy Carroll: FA to reconsider West Ham striker's red card
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26081791

Appalling. Further proof that the FA is run by gutless idiots. They should have called their bluff.
If they get away with this it will be open season and rightly so. What do West ham have over the FA?

[BWFC_Insane]

If the FA had any guts they would up the ban to 6 games for frivolous appeals and fine West Ham points too.....

[Prufrock]

Still think k it was an appalling decision and West Ham are 100% right to be fuming.

That said, it's a red card, you've had you appeal. Get on with it.

[bobo the clown]

Still think k it was an appalling decision and West Ham are 100% right to be fuming.

That said, it's a red card, you've had you appeal. Get on with it.

It was a decision which was maybe harsh. Carroll did let his arm swing, little contact was made, the guy faked a reaction and Carroll gets sent off. The referee saw the incident and made a judgement. He may well have been wrong but the decision was rational and not a gross error. So the appeal, using the rules as they stand ... and the rules as agreed on entry into the competition ... was rejected.

It's a shitter, but the Spam reaction is an awful precedent and if it succeeds it'll be open season.

[Prufrock]

The standard for appeal isn't actually that high. The FA decision said it wasn't an 'obvious error', which i think it was bit hey ho, game of opinions and all that. Still think they should be getting on with it.

Now, that said, a BBC article I read said that rules do allow them to take it to arbitration and the court of arbitration for sport.

If that is the case, whilst we can still knock them for being cry babies who should get on with it, we can't really knock them saying its the rules they signed up to, because those same rules appear to provide for this as daft as that may be!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Sam's just getting the seige mentality going. Good on him - we miss him very badly.

[LeverEnd]

It seems they are not going to the High Court as was suggested but arbitration which is allowed for in the rules.
Still think the decision should stand on the 'obvious error' point, but that Carroll has a right to feel very unlucky and Flores should be kicked all over the pitch by every team he plays against. Give him something to really whine about.

[boltonboris]

Well it's being re-reviewed, but the authorities have to be careful if they shit it and overturn the ban... Opening up a can of worms for everybody to start threatening legal action

[bobo the clown]

If they do overturn it .... Shirley not .... then that have to charge Flores. He may well deserve that but tht'll be a whole new can of worms opened.

Y'now, sometimes you just have to get on with stuff.

Or maybe we should sue for the Taggart header which crossed the line in the first ever Reebok game. We went down on goal difference (to the very Everton team who benefitted from that decision iirc).

I know it's a while ago, but Bill Roache and all that .....

[Enoch]

Y'now, sometimes you just have to get on with stuff.

Can I quote you on that?

In the future I mean, as I've obviously just done so, without your permission. Though I guess your posting on this forum with it's quote facility is tacit agreement.

Anyhow, can I?

[Prufrock]

Yeah would be tricky. On Flores, surely it's irrelevant whether or not Carroll meant it? He's a massive cock either way because contact was minimal. Is being a big girl's blouse a chargeable offence? I hope so. Do him anyway.

[Athers]

It's just nominative determinism for poor old Boy Flowers.

[bobo the clown]

Y'now, sometimes you just have to get on with stuff.

Can I quote you on that?

In the future I mean, as I've obviously just done so, without your permission. Though I guess your posting on this forum with it's quote facility is tacit agreement.

Anyhow, can I?

Of course you can.

You may get told to feck off, but yes, you may quote me.