[Archived] Sheff Utd Win Tribunal

[92er]

Plus the mildly contentious issue of the ball never crossing the line. I recall none of the ball got to the level of the line, never mind all of it being across the line.

Strangely enough, in reference to the Reading dodgy goal at the week end, nobody has mentioned the Tevez goal against us.

[philipl]

West Ham are going to try to appeal to the International Court of Sports Arbitration in Lausanne and argue that getting relegated from the Prem doesn't cost £30m- both seem long shots to me. They have engaged Maurice Watkins, the Man U ex-Director and solicitor who helped untangle the Tevez mess for Man U but that might not help them over much.

What does seem to have happened is that the West Ham PR machine has gone into overdrive engaging every West Ham-sympathetic journo to write pieces attacking Lord Griffiths personally and the arbitration panel they signed up to and made an appointment on.

[AussieinUk]

West Ham are going to try to appeal to the International Court of Sports Arbitration in Lausanne and argue that getting relegated from the Prem doesn't cost £30m- both seem long shots to me. They have engaged Maurice Watkins, the Man U ex-Director and solicitor who helped untangle the Tevez mess for Man U but that might not help them over much.

Agree with you philip, seems quite futile to me.

WHAM, should take it on the chin and accept the decision. IMO - The compo will be somewhere in the region of GBP15-20m. (Personally the buggers should pay the whole whack).

[philipl]

For what its worth, a vote in the Guardian on the outcome of the Arbitration

Going to Lausanne, if allowed is going to delay the settlement by over a year- a simple cynical move by the most cynical club in football.

Amongst all the yaboo sucks over the Arbitrators ruling that Tevez playing had a material impact on where WHam finished up, the astonishing revelation has come out that West Ham told the world they were ripping up the Tevez contract at the same time their CEO privately told Joorabchian they would honour it.

It seems the CEO personally is going to be nailed for that one but in my view if the CEO is empowered by the club to represent the club then the club carries the rap.

The Premier League SHOULD re-open the case against West Ham if that is indeed in the content of the arbitration document. No wonder Charlton, Fulham and Wigan are up in arms and are demanding to receive copies of the report as well- they all suffered actual losses in West Ham winning placement money they might have won.

[philipl]

Sheff U players to sue West Ham for loss of earnings?

[only2garners]

Going to Lausanne, if allowed is going to delay the settlement by over a year- a simple cynical move by the most cynical club in football.

Independent reporting this morning that it's unlikely that the CAS will accept West Ham's referral. As the FA does not have the option of a referral to CAS in its rules referrals can only be made if both parties agree and presumably there's not much chance of Sheff Utd agreeing when they already have a decision in their favour.

I keep seeing articles though saying how confident West Ham are that they have a great case to take to Lausanne. I can't see how - is it just an avalanche of spin?

[thenodrog]

What does seem to have happened is that the West Ham PR machine has gone into overdrive engaging every West Ham-sympathetic journo to write pieces attacking Lord Griffiths personally and the arbitration panel they signed up to and made an appointment on.

With that fat git Martin Samuel leading the charge.

Basically there are two ways to go about most things. There is the right way and there is the wrong way.... and WHU openly and blatantly followed the latter.

[CAPT KAYOS]

There is the right way and there is the wrong way.... and WHU openly and blatantly followed the latter.

And so did the P/L theno

And its them that has turned this into the complete bollux it has become, by not doing what they should have done in the first place

[philipl]

Daily Mail has what they claim is the full judgement by the Arbitration Panel. Plus how Sheff U get to £30m+

[philipl]

If you want to take a view on whether other parties now have a claim against West Ham read paras 52-63

If you want confirmation that West Ham were being VERY naughty boys AFTER they were fined by the Prem read paras 39-46, then read paras 68-70.

If you have any doubt that West Ham themselves think Tevez saved them from relegation, read paras 71-80 and the way the Arbitrators effectively AVOID saying that Tevez alone saved West Ham- merely being part of the saving is enough to decide the case. Two old Rovers' names- Lucas Neill and Dario Marcolin put in an appearance.

The nub of the issue is that-

West Ham lied to the Premier League when Tevez and Mascherano joined but the killer which will cost them is the fact that at the same time seven days' after receiving the £5.5m fine whilst the Chairman and CEO of the Premier League were writing publicly to all the Prem clubs assuring them that the third party agreement on Tevez was indeed non-existant and had been ripped up;

- West Ham offered Joorabchian £4.7m to buy Tevez' contract for the last two games of the season

- West Ham verbally reassured Joorabchian in the presence of lawyers that they would still honour the agreement they told the Prem they had ripped up, and

- West Ham reimbursed Joorabchian for the player injury insurance he had to take out as West Ham's own injury insurance had in effect been made invalid by the Premier League's ruling and West Ham "ripping up" Tevez's contract

It gets even better- when the Prem intervened and forced Man U to buy the Tevez registration off West Ham for £2m, in reality West Ham were obliged by the original agreement they "ripped up" to immediately pay that fee back to Joorabchian. They didn't do so and now West Ham are forced by an out-of-court settlement to pay Joorabchian £2m for unspecified agency services.

Finally, go to the last page and read all the 24 headings a club loses money under if it suffers relegation from the Premier League. It is absolutely frightening.

[OscarRaven]

So now it is clear that a 2nd transgression has occured and as such should have been investigated and charges brought.

By not acting the premier league are compounding thier guilt further. How dodgey does all this have to get before the FA intervene.

Football is in the dock, the premier league are to involved to be fair judges - The FA must act.

[philipl]

The Court for Arbitration in Sport have confirmed to the BBC that it would need West Ham, the FA and Sheff U to refer the case for them to hear it and that the FA would be breaking its own rules to make such a reference.

That article also quotes a West Ham pr moan that Tevez was only part of a team that won survival which is a complete own goal in the light of paragraph 80 of the arbitration which says:

Ultimately, however, we have not found it necessary to come to a conclusion whether the cause of Sheffield United’s relegation was (a) the number of points achieved by West Ham with Mr Tevez’s assistance or ( Sheffield United’s poor performance. On any showing the former was an effective cause. At most Sheffield United’s own poor performance was an equally effective cause. This is insufficient to displace the causation of another effective cause. The law is summarised in Chitty on Contracts (29th ed), Vol 1, paragraph 26-038 under the heading “Two Causes”:

If a breach of contract is one of two causes, both co-operating and both of equal efficacy in causing loss to the claimant, the party responsible for the breach is liable to the claimant for that loss. The contract-breaker is liable so long as his breach was “an” effective cause of his loss; the court need not choose which cause was the more effective.

The West Ham statement starts: "we do not accept that one player's contribution can be placed over that of the team as a whole nor used as the basis for judging the results of a 38-game season." They should have asserted that Tevez made no contribution to avoid the hook of paragraph 80.

It also completely invalidates Martin Samuel's rant against the judgement.

[OJRovers]

It seems to me that this ruling might open up a whole host of claims against West Ham.

From breaking the rules etc it has cost Sheffield Utd £30m which they might get back.

How about every other club in the Premier League? Everyone was affected in some way by their rule breaking and lies. Rovers in particular were hit badly because Tevez was instrumental in beating us.

Yes, WHam have paid the £5.5m fine, but that is to the PL/FA not to every other club who competed that year.

Why should Shef Utd be reimbursed not the rest of us?

Maybe West Ham's TV money for that year should be split out between everyone else.

[philipl]

It seems to me that this ruling might open up a whole host of claims against West Ham.

From breaking the rules etc it has cost Sheffield Utd £30m which they might get back.

How about every other club in the Premier League? Everyone was affected in some way by their rule breaking and lies. Rovers in particular were hit badly because Tevez was instrumental in beating us.

Yes, WHam have paid the £5.5m fine, but that is to the PL/FA not to every other club who competed that year.

Why should Shef Utd be reimbursed not the rest of us?

Maybe West Ham's TV money for that year should be split out between everyone else.

Being practical, the following are realistic:

1) The Premier League gained the silence of the gang of four (Fulham, Charlton, Wigan and Sheff U) at the start of May 2007 by sending the Dave Richards/Richard Scudamore letter giving their (Richards/Scudamore) personal assurance that the Joorbachian contract ceased to exist. Fulham and Wigan are now free to kick up whatever fuss they want as the Richards/Scudamore letter is now shown to be a load of ######.

2) In terms of direct loss, Wigan and Charlton are bound to now press for payment of the £500K placement money West Ham won by overtaking them oin the last day of the 2006/7 season.

3) The Premier League can be forced into opening a new disciplinary case against West Ham for what happened AFTER the first fine was adjudicated- in fact by all rights they should do so. BUT, it comes down to whether the EPL mananagement and theother 19 clubs want to go for it.

4) This is a wild card but I wonder if Man U might feel they would not have paid so much for Tevez but for West Ham having been naughty boys? That could be decisive.

5) The Sheff U players could have a case for consequential loss but I would have thought their claim should be added onto the Sheff U claim- Sheff U were/are their employers, not West Ham.

I cannot see anyone else having a sustainable claim as it is the job of the league to punish inilegible players, not individual clubs. Any sense of grievance from the Rovers over Tevez playing a blinder at Ewood is a Premier League matter surely?

[M-K]

This whole thing is nonsense. West Ham are getting their arses kicked because of some technicality regarding a player's contract - when everyone accepts that contracts mean very little - and some fans are jumping around in delight because it's horrible West Ham and not their club that's been done over.

If Sheffield Utd want to sue anyone it should be Neil Warnock for being an utterly crap manager, their players for not being as good as Tevez, or their own fans for being too tame to lift the team's home performances.

[philipl]

This whole thing is nonsense. West Ham are getting their arses kicked because of some technicality regarding a player's contract - when everyone accepts that contracts mean very little - and some fans are jumping around in delight because it's horrible West Ham and not their club that's been done over.

If Sheffield Utd want to sue anyone it should be Neil Warnock for being an utterly crap manager, their players for not being as good as Tevez, or their own fans for being too tame to lift the team's home performances.

Sorry but that is one of the most ridiculous posts ever.

[gumboots]

This whole thing is nonsense. West Ham are getting their arses kicked because of some technicality regarding a player's contract - when everyone accepts that contracts mean very little - and some fans are jumping around in delight because it's horrible West Ham and not their club that's been done over.

If Sheffield Utd want to sue anyone it should be Neil Warnock for being an utterly crap manager, their players for not being as good as Tevez, or their own fans for being too tame to lift the team's home performances.

everyone thought at the time that West Ham got away with it when they didn't get points docked and the excuses coming out for the non- deduction were the most ridiculous ever heard. the West Ham fans didn't deserve it so we can't do it. did the Luton town fans deserve the deductions they got through no fault of their own. West Ham deserve what they've got and they should just put up and shut up.

[Tris]

If you want to take a view on whether other parties now have a claim against West Ham read paras 52-63

If you want confirmation that West Ham were being VERY naughty boys AFTER they were fined by the Prem read paras 39-46, then read paras 68-70.

If you have any doubt that West Ham themselves think Tevez saved them from relegation, read paras 71-80 and the way the Arbitrators effectively AVOID saying that Tevez alone saved West Ham- merely being part of the saving is enough to decide the case. Two old Rovers' names- Lucas Neill and Dario Marcolin put in an appearance.

The nub of the issue is that-

West Ham lied to the Premier League when Tevez and Mascherano joined but the killer which will cost them is the fact that at the same time seven days' after receiving the £5.5m fine whilst the Chairman and CEO of the Premier League were writing publicly to all the Prem clubs assuring them that the third party agreement on Tevez was indeed non-existant and had been ripped up;

- West Ham offered Joorabchian £4.7m to buy Tevez' contract for the last two games of the season

- West Ham verbally reassured Joorabchian in the presence of lawyers that they would still honour the agreement they told the Prem they had ripped up, and

- West Ham reimbursed Joorabchian for the player injury insurance he had to take out as West Ham's own injury insurance had in effect been made invalid by the Premier League's ruling and West Ham "ripping up" Tevez's contract

It gets even better- when the Prem intervened and forced Man U to buy the Tevez registration off West Ham for £2m, in reality West Ham were obliged by the original agreement they "ripped up" to immediately pay that fee back to Joorabchian. They didn't do so and now West Ham are forced by an out-of-court settlement to pay Joorabchian £2m for unspecified agency services.

Finally, go to the last page and read all the 24 headings a club loses money under if it suffers relegation from the Premier League. It is absolutely frightening.

Cheers for the summing up.

No doubt the 4 MB critics who were slagging philipl off the other day are about to give us their own considered analysis of the 50 page legal document any time now ...

[T4E]

I'm sure they'll be on to do just that as soon as they've woken up from their latest Philipl induced coma.....

[M-K]

Sorry but that is one of the most ridiculous posts ever.

Fair enough, back to the spreadsheets and legalese then.

[den]

It is an argument that gets a lot of backing though - Sheff Utd deserved to go down because they were poor.

Sheff Utd didn't cheat though - and didn't continue cheating and lying even after they were found out.

[CrazyIvan]

The thing that gets me about this whole thing is the part Joorabchian plays in it. He is an absolute shark and a man you don't really your club to do business with if they can help it. West Ham lied, were found out and lied again and should be punished accordingly. £30 million isn't an excessive sum when you calculate how much it costs to go down. Having read the paragraphs and the point that Tevez was ruled to have made a 3 point difference in the last 2 games of the season I can see where West Ham would want to have an appeal. They waived that right when they agreed to this whole process though and that strikes me as another attempt to avoid paying the piper.

The ruling could have massive implications for other clubs (and players) in the future and if it clears up the game of some of its corrupting influences all well and good. Maybe it'll make the Premier League start being more dilligent in their dealings with clubs in the matter of transfers and other activities. Everyone has heard the rumours regarding dodgy transfer dealings, it's time that was stopped for good but somehow I doubt the Premier League really gives much of a toss as long as 'the product' doesn't suffer.

[philipl]

I really don't understand why and how people think this arbitration decided by three people- one from Sheff U, one from West Ham and a neutral Chairman- sets a precedent that changes the game.

Sure, if a club breaks the rules, gets clobbered by the League/FA, then instantly lies and carries on breaking the rules, clubs are now on notice that any other club which directly gets damaged by what they've done can come and get those damages paid by the wrong doer. But in the 121 years of league football, how many times has anything quite like this happened?

The precedent it sets is that the football authorities should be far less cavalier the next time a club has been found to have illegally employed a player and knowingly and premeditatedly concealed it telling plenty of lies in the process.

This West Ham situation is a million miles removed from a myopic linesman making a wrong call and all the other examples people are trotting out as examples of this setting a worrying precedent.

[CrazyIvan]

I hope that isn't aimed at my post philipl. If it is then you need to read it again. I agree, it doesn't set a precedent but it does have implications for any club who is found guilty of breaking Premier League rules regarding transfers at any time including post season. The fines imposed would be impressive and should be. If it gets rid of dodgy dealings that, for example, Harry Redknapp has allegedly been involved in then that can only be a good thing.

[joey_big_nose]

I completely agree with the Sheffield Utd's position. They did suffer due to West Ham's cheating. It was a bit brutal. It was shameful the way West Ham got away with it for so long.

It does open a family pack of cans of worms though. Theoretically every decision in a game can now be challenged in legal terms - the Reading goal against Wolves being a prime example. Judges are going to be asked to work out what might have happened on the field if things had gone differently. And this can happen at every level where significant money is involved - promotion, relegation, qualifying for the CL, winning the FA cup.

It sets a precedent that clubs and players (look at the Sheff Utd's players now) could exploit and turn into legal mayhem, and could potentially spread to other sports.

I can see why the FA is getting twitchy. They should have had the balls to nip this in the bud by docking points the moment that Tevez and Mascerano's registration was found to be clearly illegal.