Something rotten in the state of Iceland - West Ham United, Sheffield United
The Premier League has tried to head off action from Sheffield United and possibly FIFA by sending out a letter to all 20 current Premiership clubs. Its main points have been widely circulated, but in summary they are:
- “At no point were West Ham United charged with playing an ineligible player - both (Carlos) Tevez and (Javier) Mascherano were registered on August 31. All the required documentation was received by the Premier League and the usual confirmations received and sent. Registration is definitive as to the status of the player. At no time has Mr Tevez’s registration been revoked or terminated and at all times he has been eligible to play for West Ham.”
- “The Independent Commission was…convened strictly in accordance with the rules as agreed by all member clubs. Its chair, Simon Bourne-Arton QC, acted very promptly and properly, laying out directions for the hearing in the shortest possible timescale.”
- “The Independent Commission carried its work out fully in accordance with our rules, having adopted practices entirely consistent with formal judicial proceedings. In reaching their decision the Independent Commission clearly considered the matter very carefully and did not deliver an irrational or extreme judgement and delivered the sanction that only they (having considered the matter fully and in light of copious evidence) deemed to be proportionate and appropriate.”
- “The media, and of course those aggrieved by the decision, have analysed the seven reasons given by the Independent Commission for not deducting points and concentrated on those that to them seem the least convincing. However, there are others that have a less convenient truth, particularly the one that says ‘had the club in time made disclosure of the third party contracts to the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into which would not have offended the rules’.”
- “The League could not function if other clubs could effectively intervene in an attempt to overturn decisions not to their liking.”
- “Given the complexities around this, we would ask you to step back from the detail and consider the matter in more general terms:
- 1. Tevez has been properly registered to play for West Ham United since 31 August 2006. The Board, under our Rules, is charged with the authority to determine this.
- 2. He continues to be registered with West Ham United.
- 3. This is a case without precedent and certainly cannot be compared with Clubs who have played unregistered players or players ineligible through suspension.
- 4. “On 26 April West Ham United admitted to breaches of Rules B13 and U18 - for which they have been fined in accordance with our Rules.
- 5. “The offending third party agreement has been terminated by West Ham United and therefore they are not continuing to be in breach.”
All fine and dandy then… but hang on, if West Ham did nothing wrong why were they hit with a record breaking £5.5m fine?
To be honest, my view is that West Ham deserve to stay up. They performed better than Sheffield United and therefore their league position should be enough. Tevez wasn’t an inelligible player, it was just his ownership that was always the contention.
However if, as is stated, the club had ”….made disclosure of the third party contracts to the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into which would not have offended the rules’, then why have the club been so heavily fined for what the Premier League is infering is an administrative oversight?
Whatever really went on in determining the punishment for West Ham, the one thing that is certain, is that the Premiership have not handled the affair credibly, nor in a timely manner….
…and talking of timely, I wonder when the delayed results of the Lord Steven’s inquiry will be out…
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Uncategorized
15 opinions for Something rotten in the state of Iceland - West Ham United, Sheffield United
Ivor Kemp
May 16, 2007 at 7:42 pm
You pose a very good question here and the answer is, I think, in hindsight, West Ham would and should not have pleaded guilty. They are, as you correctly state guilty of nothing more than an administrative oversight (although that might be a conveinient way way of putting it) but the media, MPs and certain football people who should know better have absolutely no right to accuse the club of cheating. The Premier League have only themselves to blame by the very poor summing up by the judicial enquiry team which intimated that a points deduction could have been implemented. As the case is unique and without precedent they were in garve error at stating this. However, this has fuelled an almighty fire which has been sickening to the sport of football.
chris ormond
May 16, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Good point West Ham ended up with more points due to their last win.However they got to that position with illegal players without Tevez scoring 7 goals in his last ten matches the Hammers would have finished last.
I am sure the other clubs at the bottom would have gained more points if they had signed Beckham illegally.
richard
May 16, 2007 at 8:25 pm
its pretty obvious why they were fined, for not telling the truth about the side agreement that existed relating to his commercial ownership. they deemed this not serious enough for points deduction (for the reasons given) but worthy of a financial penalty
i agree with you though, they deserve to stay up. the media / mccabe et al are just refusing to listen to the facts and coming out with rubbish like ‘tevez was ineligible to play’, which clearly he was
its destined to fail and i just hope they spend their parachute money on legal aid, so we dont see them for a long time
Cloutty
May 16, 2007 at 8:33 pm
chris ormond:
Please read the statement again “# 1. Tevez has been properly registered to play for West Ham United since 31 August 2006. The Board, under our Rules, is charged with the authority to determine this.
# 2. He continues to be registered with West Ham United.” it is because of people like you buying gutter papers that this has been misreported and blown up the way it has.
Get over it mate !!
Antony
May 16, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Chris, you clearly failed to read the article in its entirety, it clearly states “At no point were West Ham United charged with playing an ineligible player - both (Carlos) Tevez and (Javier) Mascherano were registered on August 31. All the required documentation was received by the Premier League and the usual confirmations received and sent. Registration is definitive as to the status of the player. At no time has Mr Tevez’s registration been revoked or terminated and at all times he has been eligible to play for West Ham.” so he was not an ‘Illegal player’! I personally feel that this weeks managerial leavings say a lot about why other teams struggled when West Ham just got stuck in and won 7 out of their last 9 games. Both Jewell and Warnock have resigned from there respected clubs and i think this is because they both know that the focus was taken off of the remaining games and placed on West Ham’s ‘issues’. Point being both FIFA and the Premier league have come out and stated Tevez was not playing illigally and his registration was above bored. I think everyone should forget about Teves’ registration and realise it was West ham, the players, staff and fans that kept them up, not just Tevez, Zamora scored important goals Noble made a big difference and Green was amazing in goal for which he receivedan award for, also the ‘Bentley Boys’ pulled there finger out.
Sack the Juggler
May 16, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Richard - its clear they were fined for not telling the truth, but my point was that their latest statment infers that it wasn’t such a big deal, as it could have been rectified easily if they’d come out about it cleanly - if thats the case then why were they fined so heavily if it was deemed such a minor offence, and if it wasn’t such a minor offence then why not use the sanction of deducting points?
One reason given for mitigation was that it was the club who came forward and “confessed” its lie, but because they have used such subjective methods of assessing what sanctions to use then its left the door open for Sheffield United to question the actual decision.
The trouble is that its no longer a sporting body, but a business regulator, and their decisions affect other businesses, so it all starts getting messy and emotional
David
May 16, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The simple way to sum this up is that Shef Utd do not have any legal leg to stand on. He was always registered properly which is there main arugument which thus means they have no arugment. They are wasting the leagues time and there own money even Sheff Utd fans belive its a waste of time so why not shut up and live with the decesion.
Mark
May 16, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Chris Ormond…Can you not read? Or do you simply not understand anything more technical than a sun crossword? AT NO POINT WAS TEVEZ AN ILLEGIBLE PLAYER.
The only other reason i can think that you simply decide to ignore the facts is if you are the illegitimate son of Kevin McCabe!
Whats with this McCabe twat anyway? He even blames West Ham for Warnock leaving. Obviously the 38 games that they plaed this season had nothing to do with there demise. Perhaps if Warnock had played a full strength team at OT he would have shocked the world and got the point they needed. Or if he had played a full strength team in the cup he would have got through..but alas no..its ok for that snivelling little man to complain about every other club playing weakened teams but its fine when he does it? Warnock and McCabe are a disgrace to football and i hope that they never darken the door of the Premiership again. With a bit of luck they will follow relegation with another next year!
For all you Sheffield United fans i have this to say…your team was shit…you were relegated because you were shit…If Warnock had spent enough time on the training pitch instead of whinging throughout the season then maybe they might have survived.
I have read a few comments about Warnock growing on people as the season progressed..yes he did LIKE A CANCER!
andy
May 16, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I agree with Richard and Ivor. Chris: please try and actually read what is written otherwise I’ll have to assume you’re a hack for one of the gutter papers intent on beating up the story for ever more.
The previous administration at West Ham were obviously very dodgy and hid the fact of the side agreement but no way should the current administration, players and fans be punished for their sins. In fact I reckon Eggy should sue T. Brown and cronies for the 5.5 million for bringing this on in the first place.
David
May 17, 2007 at 8:57 am
When will you people writing articles get the facts correct???????????????
>>>>”……it was just his ownership that was always the contention”.
No, his ownership was NEVER the contention. It’s perfectly legal for him to have been owned by a thrid party. The problem was that there was a clause in his contract that theoretically allowed his owners to move him from West Ham whenever they wanted to (same for Mascherano). That was deemed to be against the PL rules.
>>>>”However if, as is stated, the club had ”….made disclosure of the third party contracts to the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into which would not have offended the rules’, then why have the club been so heavily fined for what the Premier League is infering is an administrative oversight”?
The PL have not inferred that it was an administrative oversight! The fine is made up of:
- 2.5m for entering into a contract with clauses that were against the PL rules (as I’ve mentioned above) and
- 3m for acting in bad faith towards the PL and it’s member clubs by hiding the fact. West Ham’s ex-MD Paul Aldridge is alleged to have lied when asked if such illegal clauses existed in any contract, by saying no there were none.
So, where are you getting this “administrative oversight” nonsense from?
The thing is I agree with you that West Ham should not have been deducted points but journalists and website posters keep getting the facts wrong. Like that twat Whelan who keeps on asking how we were allowed to re-register Tevez when we never re-registered him at all as there was no need!
Jesus wept!
Sack the Juggler
May 17, 2007 at 9:25 am
David, you are quite correct; it wasn’t the ownership that was the problem, it was what the ownerships rights… apologies for not making that distinction clear enough.
As regards the “administrative oversight”, I was trying to say that the tone of the wording used in the Premier League’s letter seemed to “infer” it was an “administrative oversight”, i.e. a minor offence, my apologies if you took the word “infer” to mean that this was what they actually said.
Apologies if my summarising has lost some of the detail, however, the point of the article was not to focus on the minutie, but on the thrust of the Premier Leagues letter, which seems to “infer” that West Ham were not really that naughty afterall, and a points deduction wouldn’t have been appropriate - which kind of flies in the face of the size of the fines.
There appears to be a disconnect between the thrust of the Premier league’s defence of their actions, and the actual actions themselves, and as we all know, actions speak louder than words… ;)
Mark Hobbs
May 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Noone can get away from the fact that West Ham entered into an agreement with a third party to sign the players, an agreement that they knew was against Premier League rules. Not only did they know this, but they deliberately lied and withheld information to cover this up.
You could argue that if they had submitted all of the agreements to the Premier League, then the league would have rejected them and forced them into drawing up acceptable agreements similar to the agreement between Mascherano and Liverpool. You could also argue however that that the Liverpool agreement was only agreed to by the third party because it was in the interests of both them and Mascherano as his stock (and value) was falling so dramatically due to his no-shows for West Ham.
All in all, West Ham knowingly broke the rules and should have paid the price with a points deduction. The independent commission is almost apologetic in it’s reasons for not deducting points. David’s point about Whelan moaning about re-registering the player is farcical because the fact of the matter is that West Ham cancelled the agreement with the third party and supposedly entered into a new acceptable agreement, while it has been reported that the third party disputes this. Surely Whelan is entitled to know the truth surrounding this (even if the terminology he uses may not be appropriate)?
While the manner of the escape was admirable and it would be great to ’settle things on the pitch’ in an ideal world, the day the decision not to penalise the club who pleaded guilty to breaking the rules and lying about it, is the day the Premier League lost all respect.
Bimingham should sign a team full of South American superstars owned by third parties, not pay a bean for them, agree to whatever clauses the third parties ask for, don’t tell the premier league, end up winning the title and then pay the resulting 5.5m fine. The precident has now been set.
andy
May 22, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I quote MArk Hobbs…
“Noone can get away from the fact that West Ham entered into an agreement with a third party to sign the players, an agreement that they knew was against Premier League rules”
You areSTILL not reading what was written by the independent commission. This statement is still totally inaccurate and perpetuates the same old rubbish that the gutter press have been bandying about for weeks.
There is NO problem with Third Party ownership as the rules stand. The problem is that there was a clause allowing the third party to, in theory, sell the player on at any time without the club’s consent.
Again. Get your facts right.
Sack the Juggler
May 23, 2007 at 9:51 am
Andy, thanks for clarifying that for Mark, and for the artistic use of capital letters whilst doing so.
You beleive that its important to clarify that it was the contents of the agreement rather than the agreement itself that was wrong…
Well thats the important facts cleared up, so going on to the lesser issue of whether West Ham should be docked points and relegated… what are your thought on that?
Mark Hobbs
May 23, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Andy - you should read my post properly before telling me to read what was written by the independent commission.
I didn’t say that there was a problem with third party ownership. I said there was a problem with the agreement that West Ham entered into with the third party.
Muppet.
May I suggest that you read the report from the independent commission so you can see that not only did West Ham enter into an agreement with a third party that they knew was against Premier League rules, but they also ADMITTED it (see I can use capitals too):
http://www.premierleague.com/public/downloads/publications/PL270407final.txt
Maybe after you’ve done that you will be able to tell me why you shouldn’t have been docked points and stop hiding behind the excuse of ‘its the gutter press’s fault’.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: