1. We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. Learn More.

Should West Ham be relegated?

Discussion in 'Football' started by marukomu, 15 May 2007.

Should West Ham be relegated?

Poll closed 14 June 2007.
  1. Yes

    15 vote(s)
    34.9%
  2. No

    20 vote(s)
    46.5%
  3. Don't care

    8 vote(s)
    18.6%
  1. marukomu

    marukomu Ecchi otoko

    26 November 2005
    Okayama, Japan
    Man Utd, Stockport County
    It looks like it could go on all summer. Do you think West Ham cheated, or broke the rules, and they should be docked points which would effectively relegate them?
     
  2. RuneEdge

    RuneEdge Silent Assassin

    1 October 2003
    Turn around, I'm right behind you...
    Manchester United
    Do they deserve it? Probably not. But I'm totally against teams who succeed or fail for reasons that have nothing to do with whats happening on the pitch.
    At the end of the day, West Ham still went out there every week to play and got the results.
     
  3. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies At least, I think I am Staff

    14 May 2003
    Tranmere Rovers
    To repeat what I said in the West Ham thread:

    The FA has already confirmed that it's sent out 20 letters to all of the (current) Premiership clubs saying that any court action would be, quote, "futile". They gave them a record fine, and if the other clubs want more (i.e. a points reduction) then it's not in the vein of "sportsmanlike behaviour" as the team has stayed up on merit (i.e. I totally agree with RuneEdge above, West Ham did enough to stay up, end of story). West Ham were even, apparently, the ones who first approached the FA about the rules being broken, so it's not like they were trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
     
  4. marukomu

    marukomu Ecchi otoko

    26 November 2005
    Okayama, Japan
    Man Utd, Stockport County
    They played players that helped them stay up that should not have been playing. They broke the rules. When this kind of thing has happened in the past, it has meant a points reduction. Why not this time? Maybe because West Ham are a big team. They should stick to the rules.
     
  5. djdoc

    djdoc Guest

    I remember Middlesborough having ill players and were unable to play against Blackburn Rovers one season... the FA handed out a points deduction to them and it finished them off!! West Ham fielded inelligable players on the field during matches which I think is worse. The punishment doesnt fit the crime in this case.

    Im sure if Man United had fielded inelligable players we would have had points docked for sure! to make the Premiership Title race more interesting!

    Dj
     
  6. RuneEdge

    RuneEdge Silent Assassin

    1 October 2003
    Turn around, I'm right behind you...
    Manchester United
    If it was such a big issue, it should have been dealt with at the start of the season. Doing something now just shows they're just being picky.
     
  7. djdoc

    djdoc Guest

    Same as us having Scholes and Rooney suspended in the Premiership for being sent off in the Amsterdam Tournament!

    And yet a certain Mr Stevie G got sent off in that same tourney and DIDNT get suspended in the premiership.... Again FA not being consistant in punishment.

    Back to Middlesborough they couldnt do anything about having players ill with a Virus and yet they got hammered for it!

    Dj
     
  8. fd1972uk

    fd1972uk ---------------------

    9 January 2002
    Glasgow
    Celtic
    Voted 'Don't care', however it must be worse to think how much of an impact Tevez has had in the relegation battle.

    Sure there was an incident with Bury playing a non-registered player (a loan player I think) and they where booted from the FA Cup.

    Going by that, they should be relegated.


    FD
     
  9. JayM

    JayM International

    17 April 2004
    North Yorkshire
    Celtic
    Personally I only care about what goes on on the pitch and based on performances I think they should stay up.

    I think the fine is fair enough.
     
  10. fishcake

    fishcake Premiership

    1 January 2003
    L4
    nothing to do with the fa, gerrard was sent off for 2 yellows and according to fa regulations didn't have to face a suspension, neil mellor was sent off for violent conduct in the same game but the referee (dutch i think?) didn't report it

    when rooney was sent off for violent conduct the referee reported it and it was passed on to the disciplinary board


    tevez and mascherano were registered with west ham, as far as i know there is no problem with the actual transfer and fifa have said the paperwork was in order, the problem is to do with third party interests

    the exact rule that was broken is rule U18
    there was a contract between west ham and the company that owns tevez and mascherano stating that they had the right to terminate the players contracts and pay west ham £2m for tevez and around £150k for masch during the january transfer window

    it's probably nowhere near as bad as manchester united telling everton they couldn't play tim howard in their game if united were still in the title race even though the move had been made permanent, the premier league chief exec peter scudamore knew of the agreement and asked united to remove it from the contract as it's illegal but gave consent for a gentleman's agreement which to me is just as illegal as a written contract

    at the end of the day it's just sour grapes from the teams involved in the relegation fight, wigan got dragged into it because they've been shit, sheffield united were 10 points clear at one bit but threw it away and then failed to get a draw against a shite wigan side but instead they just blame everyone else but themselves
     
  11. marukomu

    marukomu Ecchi otoko

    26 November 2005
    Okayama, Japan
    Man Utd, Stockport County
    The permanent move was agreed in February after the transfer window was closed so he couldn't complete the signing until it re-opened in June. As such, he is technically still on loan at Everton and by FA rules, is not allowed to play against his 'present' team.
     
  12. fishcake

    fishcake Premiership

    1 January 2003
    L4
    loan deals can be made permanent at any time during the loan period whether it's in the transfer window or not, tim howard is officially an everton player

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/05/11/sfnfro11.xml

    another good article on it here
     
    Last edited: 15 May 2007
  13. Stan

    Stan Allez les Lionceaux !!!

    12 September 2002
    West Ham should stay up, to me all that counts (here) is what happened on the pitch...besides that they already have had an enormous fine...one punishment is enough.
     
  14. blades2008

    blades2008 Non-League

    10 May 2007
    im a big blade west ham cheated fair and square its happened to other clubs before the premier league to me panicked and realised that west ham would go down and they cant to that to sir trevor brooking its a farce . a question i would like answering is why the msi group can sell tevez and west ham not get a penny if the agreement was torn up face it premier dont want teams like sheffield united in premier just the southern teams .
     
  15. blades2008

    blades2008 Non-League

    10 May 2007
    even the footbal pundits have backed the blades on this one to say its not as bad as man telling howard means you dont know football at all its cheating
     
  16. Ad16

    Ad16 Premiership

    13 November 2006
    West Ham stayed up because they did the business on the pitch, while Sheffield Utd didn't. It's fair that they stay up in my opinion.

    The players, fans and new owner don't deserve anymore punishment for something they had nothing to do with.
     
  17. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies At least, I think I am Staff

    14 May 2003
    Tranmere Rovers
    100% correct. I wanted Sheffield United to stay up, watching Match of the Day this season has been worth it for Warnock alone, and it'll be a shame that there's one less genuine manager in the Premiership next year; I'd have much preferred if Paul "I nearly get clubs relegated and everybody loves me" Jewell and his Wigan side had gone down, but they, like West Ham, didn't deserve it, and Sheffield United did.
     
  18. marukomu

    marukomu Ecchi otoko

    26 November 2005
    Okayama, Japan
    Man Utd, Stockport County
    They did it on the pitch. What if Sheff Utd had signed Zidane and Ronaldinho in the same way? They would have done it on the pitch too. If West Ham hadn't have had Tevez, they would have gone down.
     
  19. steevio_uk

    steevio_uk Premiership

    7 October 2003
    West Ham
    What you have to realise is that Tevez was and always has been registered perfectly legally.
    So the punishment we recieved was nothing to do with Carlos Tevez influence on the pitch, or his transfer nor his registration.

    His registration was fine as was his eligibility to play in every game that he has.
    This is including the games AFTER the decision was made.
    West Ham and MSI tore up the previous agreement and arranged a new contract which then removed the issues which caused the original breach of rules.

    Those original rules that were broken were simply that West Ham never provided the necassary information on how MSI could control where the player(s) could be transfered to at any time.
    Certainly not a points deductable offence.

    At no point was Tevez (or Mascherano) ineligable to play for West Ham and the fine was not based on footballing matters.
    Another thing to consider is that for most decisions made by such panels; often a breach of rules 'MAY' be punishable by a points deduction rather than 'MUST' be punishable by a points deduction.
    To have a 3rd party (Wigan, Sheff Utd et al) questioning the said decision and challenging the Premier League is a massive insult to the governing body and also something that is frowned upon by Fifa.
    Also it is something that could ultimately lead to massive punishment for these appealing clubs, including ironically, a points deduction.

    In regards to 'Fifa stepping in'...well they have to be seen to be taking an 'official interest' in the matter.
    So with this new information regarding Fifa, you have to apply a bit of common sense in all this.
    National bodies (Premier League the FA etc) make decisions regarding internal matters, trying to make an international connection (Blatter) is clutching at straws and nonsense. If an international body had the right to veto ALL decisions made by national bodies as Blatter implies, there would be no point in having national bodies due to the fact that the national bodies would be ultimately powerless.

    The Premier League have made their decision.
    IF the Premier League do give in to all this pressure, then there will be far worse consequences and it will become farcical.
    Something which Fifa have already stated they have warned will not happen.
    This is why the Premier League have to hold firm.

    Let us hope that this will soon pass and we can all get back to a bit of normality!!

    At the end of the day, Sheff Utd and the others in the (now dissolving) 'gang of four' including Wigan, are jumping on a relatively insignificant piece of small print which is an internal matter between West Ham Utd and the Premier League that has already been dealt with; a matter which resulted in a record fine and has never at one point breached playing rules or influenced anything on the pitch.

    West Ham have the right to appeal the matter, but a 'non-member' of the said case has no say in the matter.
    Whilst I sympathise with Sheff Utd for 'feeling' hard done by, it really is a case of clutching at straws and I will be amazed if this turns into anything than some hot air and some hard feelings.

    If it is overturned, then the ramifications will be even greater....which is why it shouldn't be and is why I don't think it will.

    (I have obviously followed all this closely, so anyone feel free to ask me details of anything)
     
    Last edited: 16 May 2007
  20. marukomu

    marukomu Ecchi otoko

    26 November 2005
    Okayama, Japan
    Man Utd, Stockport County
    Good post. You've changed my view.
     
  21. fishcake

    fishcake Premiership

    1 January 2003
    L4
    hence my post saying it's probably nowhere near as bad as a team influencing another team's selection on the pitch ;)

    all west ham have done (and remember it was the outgoing board not the new owners) is have a dodgy contract with a company where the 2 players involved could be moved on to bigger clubs and west ham would have no control over it and only get a fraction of their value in compensation

    the contract wasn't even in west ham's best interests anyway, what if someone had come in for him in january and msi moved him on against west ham's wishes and they ended up getting relegated, do you think the likes of wigan and sheffield united would be complaining? like fuck they would
     
  22. IceMan_Bergkamp

    IceMan_Bergkamp Total Football

    9 December 2002
    London, Toronto
    Arsenal
    If memory serves me correct, i think this happened to Tottenham in the past, and they were docked points, but it also happened to another team (Swindon?) and they were relegated 2 divisions.

    The Premier League are as spineless as the FA in this country. There is no consistency in anything they do. When this first came to light, they should nailed this on the head, but yet, let this snowball into something greater.

    The board at West Ham (pre Magnusson) also need to be looked at. They saw easy money with Kia Joorabchian and MSI. This is how two £20mill plus players were 'bought' by West Ham. The whole notion of not initially disclosing their contracts should have also have made people look in. When Joorabchian failed, for whatever reason, his two key assets were left in the Boleyn Ground.

    West Ham must have known what ground they walked on, as they intially refrained from using the players. However, i guess when their backs were to the wall, and relegation are forgone conclusion, it was 'ok' to play inelgible players, and if it came to it, and they stayed up, they would fight tooth and nail to prove their innocence.

    However, in retrospect, the Premier League have come in as the saviour whilst fining some multi millionaires £5.5m, whilst a points deduction is what really would have hit them in the 'pocket'.

    Don't just blame West Ham in this matter, as the Premier League is just as culpable.
     
  23. Rochemback10

    Rochemback10 All aboard the Mogganaut

    30 November 2005
    Middlesbrough
    I remember we actually complied with the F.A. about this, before they decided we were in the wrong and sent us down unjustly.

    The club were informed that if they could supply just cause to the F.A. then the game with Blackburn would be postponed. The F.A. were then sent a list of no fewer than 23 players who couldn't make the game through injury or suspension. Despite following what the club were told to do by the authorities, we were still eventually deducted the 3 points that ultimately sent us down.

    Whether or not you think West Ham should be deducted points is irrelevant, a precedent was set back in '97, and why they shouldn't face similar sanctions is beyond me. The 5.5 million pound fine might be a record, but staying up guarantees them a 30 million pound windfall from the new TV deal, which obviously dwarfs what they have to pay.

    Maybe it's an obvious bias towards London-based teams, maybe it's the spinelessness of the authorities, maybe it has something to do with Trevor Brooking having friends in high places. Whichever way you look at it, the whole situation stinks - West Ham have knowingly cheated every other club in the Premiership and (for now) gotten away with it.
     
  24. fishcake

    fishcake Premiership

    1 January 2003
    L4
    but they didn't field inelgible players, there never was and never has been a problem with the player registrations

    the rule they breached is U18 which is mainly used for stopping investors having interests in more than 1 club, in this case it was a contract between west ham and msi which allowed them to move the players on at anytime without the consent of west ham

    when swindon were relegated 2 divisions is was down to illegal payments but they'd been involved in some other shite as well just before with their chairman (i think?) and manager at the time lou macari involved in putting money on swindon to lose a game, also iirc it was reduced to being relegated 1 division after an appeal, spurs were also docked points and banned from the fa cup for 1 season for making illegal payments, both completely different scenarios

    in my mind west ham have done very little wrong, the actual transfers might sound dodgy with the fact the players were owned by msi but all the paperwork and player registrations were in order and the way they obtained the players was perfectly legal, the only problem was the agreement between the club and msi
     
  25. Stan

    Stan Allez les Lionceaux !!!

    12 September 2002
    I still think West Ham should stay up...
    What surprises me a litle bit is that some pople here think that FIFA should not step in this argument (i don't think their intervention is correct, but that's another matter...).
    Last year in the Calciopoli scandal when there was a big chance that Juventus and the other clubs would get away with it, UEFA or FIFA did intervene and everybody was perfectly happy with it (same in Greece if i'm not mistaken....)....what's the difference????
    What if UEFA threatens to play CL next season without English teams (which would be ridiculous, but it was ridiculous in the Italian case too...)??? I bet the fans of Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool...would change their view and think that after all West Ham should relegate....
     
  26. johnking

    johnking Premiership

    15 November 2003
    Sheffield
    Sheffield United
    nice post iceman and correct in my view.
    why did the commission who gave out the sentence say that
    if it had been looked at earlier in the season then in all probability they would have been a points deduction (fact)
    but because it was left so late in the season they did not give points as they would have been in effect relegating them. and it would have been unfair to there supporters and players.
    you cannot have a law in which 19 premier league teams stick too and 1 does not!
    they signed the players on 31st of august just before the transfer window closed then lied to the premier league about the signing and withheld the paper work which proved they had entered into a illegal agreement. the paperwork agreement was not torn up till apr 27th almost 8 mths later.
    the pl left it so late because the form west ham were in at the time they charged them they thought they would probably have been already down by the time the panel sat in on the case.
    i agree the pl is as much at fault in this matter it should have been dealt with much earlier.
     
  27. steevio_uk

    steevio_uk Premiership

    7 October 2003
    West Ham
    The FA and Premier League are 2 completely different bodies and the cases are 2 completely different cases.
    Yours was regarding an actual fixture and was 100% related to an on the field issue about not fielding a team for a fixture (right or wrong, it isn't the point here).
    West Ham's is a Premier League issue regarding a clause in the contract between MSI and West Ham which has nothing to do with players' registration or anything that would effect the proceedings on the field of play.

    That's the thing that baffles me too mate.
    Why would the independant panel say such a thing? They are only shooting themselves in the foot.

    If you are to give a decision, like they did, then they don't give such a peculiar reason.
    I personally think they were never going to deduct points, but instead said they would have, to deflect some blame from the Premier League's fuck up and to make an excuse, when they should have just passed the decision and just let it be.


    Just before I typed this, Sheff Utd have started abitration proceedings against the Premier League.
    As I have said, I am sympathetic as Sheff Utd would have felt hard done by, but when you hear the chairman Kevin McCabe say: 'we have been relegated by what went on off the pitch as opposed to what happened on the pitch'... it really smacks of sour grapes and sheer desperation because he is completely wrong.
    The reason his club went down is because they were the 18th best team in the premier league this season and 18th isn't good enough.
    Same goes for all this 'Trevor Brooking, big club, london club' bias.... as it saddens me and strikes me as just sheer bitterness.
    You sit in our position and read about the shit we have had to deal with this season; it's been a joke.

    For 90% of the year we are a small time club (which we are far from) and now we have the favour because we are a much bigger club.
     
    Last edited: 16 May 2007
  28. IceMan_Bergkamp

    IceMan_Bergkamp Total Football

    9 December 2002
    London, Toronto
    Arsenal

    Is that you Joorabchian? ;)
     
  29. steevio_uk

    steevio_uk Premiership

    7 October 2003
    West Ham
    McCabe now realises he has no chance of us being relegated and instead want financial compensation or a 21 team Premier League!! :shock:
    He is slowly starting to embarrass himself and his club.

    Interesting how Dave Whelan has been predictably quiet over the past day or so.
    Probably because Blatter has brought up the Webster issue which could well have nearly broke rule U18 itself and Whelan is in potential danger of breaking rule U13 himself;)
     
  30. bebo

    bebo Looking for a Manager

    25 July 2005
    Arsenal Thread
    The Arsenal FC
    They should stay up let`s not Tevez goals go in vain.
     

Share This Page

Welcome to Evo-Web! As a guest you can browse some of our forums. If you want to join in the discussions and get full access please sign up here.