Tevez's Contract Submitted to Press By West Ham

[steevio_uk]

Thanks for the kind words and understanding mate.

To shorten this dramatically and I would hope your answer is short and concise also, I will just mention a couple of things:

Firstly, I think there is a bit of misunderstanding in terms of this argument based on what effect Tevez had on our survival.
I am not saying he didn't have a massive effect after January, because he did and without him, to all intents and purposes we would have got relegated in our run in.
But my point is that the entire argument of how effective he was or wasn't is just complete folly because it is not a legal argument, but one of sementics in which I would argue that Sheff Utd throwing away a 10 point lead and losing at home to a dreadful Wigan team were as much to blame for their relegation.

I am not arguing over what meant more, I am simply saying the argument is void because it is full of stipulations and is ultimately pointless anyway given that Carlos Tevez was eligible to play for West Ham at all times anyway.
All I am doing is going into detail on how daft the argument is and how it is being used by Sheff Utd solely for the purpose of sympathy and public interest to help their cause.

Secondly in terms of the punishment.
How many points would you have deducted West Ham then?
(Obviously given that this was a case without precedent and you would have not had the benefit of hindsight.)

If we had been fined £2.5m and deducted 2 points, nobody would have batted an eyelid. That is until we stayed up by 3 points at which point Sheff Utd would have STILL demanded a more severe punishment.
Indeed Sheff Utd never once spoke of their disgust in the matter until as the weeks went on and their own form dropped severely, it became apparent that they were in deep trouble so was natural to look for a way out.
We have been found guilty and punished. There is nothing more that can happen.
Even their own arbitration with one of their own elected members on it ruled the original arbitration followed exact procedures in coming to the decision.
Now they want to sue West Ham... it is becoming farcical.

There is no precedent for this case and therefore no obligation for a points deduction. People have become obsessed with saying the punishment should have been the minimum that sent us down.
Sheff Utd want whatever punishment keeps them in the league and if we had stayed up by 5 points, people would be saying we should have been deducted 6 etc etc, ad infinitum.

It really does come down to a moral argument of convenience saying that we should have been deducted points when all the legal procedures conclude that we shouldn't have been.


I am most upset that our name has been tarnished through all this with some of the noises coming from Wigan, Sheff Utd and the press being nothing short of slanderous.

I know it will be difficult to reply in short, but as you say this would go round in circles over a few matters of moral disagreement that have no general bearing on the legalities of the case.

 

[vanzandt]

Thanks for the kind words and understanding mate.
.

It’s ok, I’m just trying to look at it in as reasonable a way as possible.

Firstly, I think there is a bit of misunderstanding in terms of this argument based on what effect Tevez had on our survival.
I am not saying he didn't have a massive effect after January, because he did and without him, to all intents and purposes we would have got relegated in our run in.
.

That is what I believe to be the case.

But my point is that the entire argument of how effective he was or wasn't is just complete folly because it is not a legal argument, but one of sementics
.

I’m not sure that is true. I think it depends on the reasoning of any argument. I think I have presented a reasoned position as to why I think West Ham should or should not have been deducted points.

That is not to say that Sheffield United have not tried to use semantics to try and empower their legal position in legal setting and in the court of public opinion via the media. It seems a sad fact of life that semantic, spin and old fashioned propaganda are used in all legal and political situations these days with PR being the name of the game. Likewise I would imagine that West Ham football club have also used the tools of PR in this case.

I would argue that Sheff Utd throwing away a 10 point lead and losing at home to a dreadful Wigan team were as much to blame for their relegation.
.

I agree entirely, I couldn’t agree more. A key injury- a broken leg to their leading scorer also contributed along with a whole host of factors that cannot be laid at the door of West Ham. But even with all these factors taken into account a points deduction would still have resulted in West Ham being relegated and not Sheffield United, which would have made all such arguments irrelevant and academic.

The key is whether or not West Ham should have been deducted point.

If they should have been then they would have gone down, If they shouldn’t have been then they would not have gone down.

It is the key issue.

Like I said my feeling on the matter is that IF the matter was as serious as a 5 million plus fine and the breach of rules that serious then I think a points deduction would have been more appropriate.

IF West Ham were harshly dealt with and did not deserve such a heavy fine and IF the infringement was not as serious as has been pushed by the premier league then West Ham should not received such a fine or points deduction.

This is just my honest opinion and how I feel about it, nothing more than that.

I am not arguing over what meant more, I am simply saying the argument is void because it is full of stipulations and is ultimately pointless anyway given that Carlos Tevez was eligible to play for West Ham at all times anyway.
.

I understand where you are coming from on this even if my take is somewhat different.

All I am doing is going into detail on how daft the argument is and how it is being used by Sheff Utd solely for the purpose of sympathy and public interest to help their cause.
.

Again I am not sure that the heart of the argument is daft, but like I said I feel personally that I would have to be privy to all the ins and outs to know myself for sure one way or the other. As it stands I am not honestly sure whether points should have been deducted at all. I just know what would be the basis of my reasoning and logic for having or not having a points deduction if you understand me. I would not be surprised in the slightest if Sheffield United were not doing their utmost to win a PR war on this issue. But then again I would expect West Ham to be waging the same war in the reverse polarity.

Secondly in terms of the punishment.
How many points would you have deducted West Ham then?
(Obviously given that this was a case without precedent and you would have not had the benefit of hindsight.)
.

Perfectly correct. If the breach of the premiership rules was serious for a fine of that magnitude to have been made- then a points deduction that was deemed appropriate at the time should have been made. Again, I know I am hammering this point, but if the breach of the rules was not as serious as the premier league have implied then- there should have been no points deduction.

If we had been fined £2.5m and deducted 2 points, nobody would have batted an eyelid. That is until we stayed up by 3 points at which point Sheff Utd would have STILL demanded a more severe punishment.
.

I totally agree with you. This is the kind of elastic logic that many people operate by. I however do not operate on such and in fact detest such logic and the inappropriate application of hindsight. The points deduction IF appropriate should have been relative to the extent of the breach of the rules and applied AT the time of the offence- not something add hock after the event that led to the end of the league and the final standings.

IF a points deduction was enforced it would have had to have been based on the logic at the time and if that meant that West Ham still stayed in the premier league then there is nothing wrong with that.

Even if West Ham were guilty of a serious offence that warranted a points deduction the points deduction should not have been such to automatically relegate West Ham as that would have been inappropriate in any event. Any points deduction would have had to have been proportionate to the offence. Then the course of the premier league would have continued on its natural course after that fact. If that resulted in Sheffield United still getting relegated then that would have been there own problem.

My feeling is that the appropriate action should have been undertaken for the breach, not that this breach was in any way an IOU for Sheffield United to cash in. Again my thoughts are, if the breach was serious enough to have warranted such a fine, then in my view it should instead have been an appropriate points deduction at the time that was proportionate to the offence. If the offence was not as serious as has been suggested by the premier league then no points should have been deducted.

Indeed Sheff Utd never once spoke of their disgust in the matter until as the weeks went on and their own form dropped severely, it became apparent that they were in deep trouble so was natural to look for a way out.
.

I would regard Sheffield United’s feelings on the matter as irrelevant and my concern rests with upholding the integrity of the game where it is possible to do so by appropriate responses to given infringements. My concern was/is with appropriate action for offences- whatever that turns out to be and however that end up affecting the clubs concerned.

We have been found guilty and punished. There is nothing more that can happen.
.

Almost certainly true.

Even their own arbitration with one of their own elected members on it ruled the original arbitration followed exact procedures in coming to the decision.
Now they want to sue West Ham... it is becoming farcical.
.

The situation was a farce prior to Sheffield United doing much at all. You cannot pin all this at the door of Sheffield United.

The fact of the matter is West Ham’s handeling of the matter initially and then afterwards by covering up the breach was farcical and a disgrace, MSI and the attempted take over was farcical and a disgrace, the premier leagues action has been farcical and a disgrace and finally, yes Sheffield United have to some degree been farcical.

What you should acknowledge is that sometimes rightly or wrongly when mistakes are made, no one wants to own up to them and cover ups abound. Take one look at the number of independent enquires into the Blair government as an example of that (albeit much more serious issues). The fact is if Sheffield United’s case was water tight and West Ham were bang to rights…..there is no way that they would get a ruling in their favour post the events that have occurred. I am not saying that Sheffield United are right, though at this stage I do not know who is necessarily right or wrong. But there is no way that they would get a ruling here….about as likely as the prior Blair administatration being found at fault in enquires. People know what side their bread is buttered, the premier league is the governing body and it is always harder to have decisions overturned whether it si a court of law, arbitration etc- no matter whether it is sport, criminal law, contract law, the law of tort etc and no matter what country you are referring to.

There is no precedent for this case and therefore no obligation for a points deduction.
.

I think you can argue your case strongly and legitimately on the basis of your feelings of justice. To try and hide under legal technicalities- where justice and the law are distant cousins and sometimes not on good speaking terms in cheap and not worthy of you, honestly you really do loose credence if you start going down that route and you have that in spades staying away from such talk.

People have become obsessed with saying the punishment should have been the minimum that sent us down.
.

I don’t agree with a minimum to take you down, I do not believe in hindsight or elastic logic. You sentence a criminal for a crime, you set the punishment based upon the rational of proportionality.

Any judgment that involved a points deduction would have had to have been based on such rationale.

Even in my original post where I said West Ham should have been relegated (as I said I am not so sure now), I meant that an appropriate deduction of point should have been made and that as a result it would have resulted in relegation. I did not and never would mean that any punishment would have been elastic and changed based on whatever would have been enough at the time to relegate West Ham. That is idiotic and anyone who advocates such is being idiotic.

Sheff Utd want whatever punishment keeps them in the league and if we had stayed up by 5 points, people would be saying we should have been deducted 6 etc etc, ad infinitum.
.

A) Of course United would want a deduction that would keep them in the premier league- you would expect as much rightly or wrongly and West Ham would be looking for the same in the reverse position whether you believe that or not.
B) I do not think that many people are saying what you are suggesting on a flexible points deduction. I think you are feeling hard done by and think this feeling is more common than it actually is.

It really does come down to a moral argument of convenience saying that we should have been deducted points when all the legal procedures conclude that we shouldn't have been.
.

I think that you have in posting this time fired off a few comments that are semantics and spin yourself, possibly just because you are passionate about the matter. I think the position can be argued both way with very rational arguments and positions, equally it can be argued semantically with lots of spin both ways. I have a rationale in my mind, a position that I see as very reasoned that I would base a judgment on if it were all up to me that does not fit in with the description of the above.

I am most upset that our name has been tarnished through all this with some of the noises coming from Wigan, Sheff Utd and the press being nothing short of slanderous.
.

The problem is when you break the rules and then get caught lying or covering up what happened, it is only a small leap to think that you are at fault on all matters and lying all the way along the line.

That is something that is said in criminal cases. If the defendant is ever caught out lying under oath, it does not take much for a jury to them believe that the person concerned will lie about other matters.

Rightly or wrongly you can see the logic involved in that. Also lying/covering things and being caught doing so is often seen as being worse than any original offence rightly or wrongly. Nixon was sunk by Watergate, not because of what he did or did not do but because he was caught lying/covering matters up.

The fact is this whole affair will be finished soon irrespective of whether the right or wrong decision was made. People will forget it in time, it will become the chip paper instead of the headlines. You have a new board and a new chairman, a manager who did not bring the players to the club and you have a long and proud tradition of being a good, well supported family club with good honest fans……….

Despite our long and convoluted discussion it will soon fade.

I know it will be difficult to reply in short, but as you say this would go round in circles over a few matters of moral disagreement that have no general bearing on the legalities of the case.

(IF YOU SKIP READING FOR A QUICK SCOUT TO SEE THE SUMMATION OF MY FEELINGS)

My reply hasn’t been short this time, but I don’t really think we have much to disagree about. I mean we see a lot of things the same way and you have educated me on a lot of the detail and you have altered my position quite considerably really.

I have a rational that would mean I could ultimately disagree with you, could or potentially being the operative word(s). IF I had the information that resulted in me disagreeing with you (I'll never know) then at least you can see the basic rational and logic.

I can see lots and lots of sense in what you have said, agree with a lot, have been corrected on quite a lot and might agree with you depending.

But like I say its now going to be tomorrows chippy paper.

I hope you have a good season.

 

[steevio_uk]

As you can understand, I won't say much more on the matter as I am not one of those people that argues for no reason on points that ultimately will remain indifferent just for the sake of getting some form of upper hand.
(Like the type you mentioned in a prior post)

I will say that on a few points that it seems as though you have gone off on a bit of a tangent which has thrown me a little bit.
I think there is a little bit of misunderstanding in terms of this argument on semantics and my possible bias. All my points on that are referring to Sheff Utd and not your arguments and if I do come across as bias then that's understandable, though I would probably say less bias and more defensive.

The one thing I will bring up is the following, which I picked out:

There is no precedent for this case and therefore no obligation for a points deduction.

I think you can argue your case strongly and legitimately on the basis of your feelings of justice. To try and hide under legal technicalities- where justice and the law are distant cousins and sometimes not on good speaking terms in cheap and not worthy of you, honestly you really do loose credence if you start going down that route and you have that in spades staying away from such talk.

I am not 100% sure what you are getting at here.
I think I am making a perfectly valid point in that it is easy to suggest a points deduction and cite previous examples of when clubs have had points deducted.

My point being that the original arbitration 'may deduct points' rather than 'must deduct points'.
I was merely highlighting this as many people seem to jump on the idea that we escaped a points deduction as if a points deduction was 'the norm' in such a case.
(Not saying you are necessarily one of those)

You mention about the seriousness of the fine and that equally a points deduction would have been an equal and fairer punishment.
Though as I said before, it is only relevant if the points deduction would have been dished out at the time.
Let's face it, a 2 points deduction would have been classed as fair, until we survived by 3 points and I do not think that is me being bias or feeling hard done by.
Another thing I will say is that throughout all of this, West Ham have been extremely tight lipped and held a lot of dignity and can certainly not be accused of any form of PR or spin on any of this as you are suggesting.
I totally refuse that idea and as I say, much of the comments made directly and indirectly at us have been both unfair and borderline slanderous.


Again, i'd like to ask you as to what points deduction you would have given us?

Given the time and patience to divulge the information, I could make a rational response and we would be all over the place about things that are of little relevance.
But any response would just be many side issues away from the main points of debate which we seemingly agree on anyway.

But like I say its now going to be tomorrows chippy paper.

Let's hope so.

I hope you have a good season.

You too mate.
I have always had a respect for yourselves and Manchester City as I see us 3 clubs being of very similar ilk.

I am off to less-than-sunny Clacton on Sea now for the weekend and won't return until Tuesday morning where I expect there to be something waiting for me

Either way, I have all the time in the world for posters and people such as yourself, even if we have occasionally gone off the rails from the main point :lol:

Arteta for £13m??:8):

 

[steevio_uk]

Eggy has said 'enough is enough' after this latest threat and lies from Sheff Utd:

http://www.whufc.com/articles/article.php?page_id=9383

West Ham United is extremely disappointed that Sheffield United has seen fit to embark on this latest desperate action. Not only does Sheffield United's claim lack legal merit, but it is also based on Sheffield United's incorrect belief that West Ham United withheld an agreement from the Premier League and the April Disciplinary Commission.

In fact, long before the disciplinary hearing, West Ham United made the Premier League fully aware of the existence and status of the agreement in question. This agreement was then included in the documentation produced for the Disciplinary Commission who were therefore also aware of its existence throughout the proceedings.

Sheffield United's latest assertions clearly demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and any proceedings brought by them will be vigorously defended by West Ham United.

In the meantime, West Ham United and its new owners will not permit these repeated slurs to go unchallenged and are in discussions with their legal advisers in relation to the action they might take.




We have kept a dignified silence throughout this (see my comment that we have not used PR or spin in any of this)
But it now seems we have had enough and are coming back fighting.

I cannot wait.....

 

[jord@n]

There should have been a two-leg play-off match, West Ham (without Tevez) versus Sheffield United. Winner is given a Premiership place, all proceeds given to charity.

We're still talking about football aren't we ?

:-k

:mrgreen:

 

[vanzandt]

As you can understand, I won't say much more on the matter as I am not one of those people that argues for no reason on points that ultimately will remain indifferent just for the sake of getting some form of upper hand.
(Like the type you mentioned in a prior post)

It’s ok mate, it is obvious your not like that and the discussion has been a good one.

I will say that on a few points that it seems as though you have gone off on a bit of a tangent which has thrown me a little bit.
I think there is a little bit of misunderstanding in terms of this argument on semantics and my possible bias. All my points on that are referring to Sheff Utd and not your arguments and if I do come across as bias then that's understandable, though I would probably say less bias and more defensive.

I can assure you that I did not go off on a tangent. My points were very relevant, but they have come at crossed purposes to your own and have been of a different nature, trying to make differing points has resulted in confusion. I wont bother trying to clear it up as the point was one of a number of side issues anyway.

When I spoke about your bias, I did not mean that you had some raving bias, I meant that you had a slight bias towards your club that came out on certain point, a natural and probably subconscious bias that could not be helped. You mentioned that was understandable and I agree. When you say at the end that it is less bias and more defensive (wouldn’t defensive represent a degree of bias in itself).

I would say that you are biased but that the degree of bias is slight because you are intelligent and aware of not wanting to be biased, and because you are logical it has only come out in that slight manner on certain points. I don’t think it has affected the salient points in your argument at all, just one or two side issues.

No tangents- just confusion and crossed purposes then and- no significant bias on your part- hopefully that is cleared up.

You mention about the seriousness of the fine and that equally a points deduction would have been an equal and fairer punishment.

Yes. If the offence was serious I think a points deduction would have been fairer, if the offence was not as serious as the premier league suggested with their fine then that would be different.

Though as I said before, it is only relevant if the points deduction would have been dished out at the time.

The decision should have been made at the time- no question about that, any retrospective action at the end of the season in terms of a points deduction is highly questionable given the lack of precedent you point out.

Let's face it, a 2 points deduction would have been classed as fair, until we survived by 3 points and I do not think that is me being bias or feeling hard done by.

No. I don’t think I would agree that a 2 point deduction would be fair or that such a deduction would become more or less fair because of events after the fact.

I think IF the offence was serious enough to warrant the 5 million plus fine then a points deduction would have been fairer and that how many points should have been deducted would have to have been assessed and that the punishment would have to be one that seemed to represent the seriousness of the offence, be that two points, three points or six points etc. Once an appropriate level of punishment was handed down- events after the fact are of no consequence. The logic can never be that the punishment becomes more or less fair on the basis of the league games after the events- that is just down to football at that point.

If the offence was not serious enough to warrant the 5 million plus fine and if the premier league got it wrong then it would be a different matter altogether, if the offence was not as serious as the premier league seem to have thought it was then a points deduction might not be appropriate at all.

I think that you are of the opinion that the offence was not as significant as the premier league would have us believe.

If you are right then I do not believe that a points deduction would have been appropriate and that you should be where you are now in the premier league.

If however the premier league are correct and the offence was a serious as they have painted it to be, something contrary to your position;

Then I believe that a points deduction should have been meted out, a points deduction at the time the offence came to light prior to the battles/game towards the end of the season, a deduction deemed equivalent to the nature of the offence.

Then football would have taken its course.

That would have meant that, West Ham might have gone down. In hindsight it probably would have meant relegation.

The logic that brings me to a position on this affair, whereby I would agree with you and see West Ham stay up or disagree with you and go down is reasonable in my eyes.

I have set out what logic would take me to either of those positions.

The only way I would know what was the correct course of events where I could make a judgment either way would be to be privy to ALL the relevant facts in the matter, those that are not made available to the public- in the same way that a member of a jury can act.


As it stands I can only say that if your positions is correct I would concur with you, but if the premier league position is correct I would not.

Hopefully you can see that this makes sense based upon my logical criteria even if you do not agree with me on the setting of that criteria.

Another thing I will say is that throughout all of this, West Ham have been extremely tight lipped and held a lot of dignity and can certainly not be accused of any form of PR or spin on any of this as you are suggesting.

Firstly lying and concealing the truth was an offence which West Ham commited in the first place, something for which they are/were guilty. That IS an offence that is much greater than anything that can be laid at the door of Sheffield Utd, so let’s keep this in perspective.

Secondly West Ham have had a PR campaign in this affair in the paper tiger gestures they have made in order to represent strength and ownership of Tevez, that is a PR campaign that they have conducted, that was not tight lipped and not dignified.

Thirdly there comments in the press and website have represented a PR battle against Sheffield United, who have themselves had their own PR campaign and battle. The comments coming out of West Ham yesterday on the latest legal situation was/is PR make no mistake.

So irrespective of what the correct action should or should not have been over the Tevez affair this has NOT been a dignified matter for West Ham or any of the people or organizations involved.

So I am sorry but I seriously disagree with your comments on this.

I totally refuse that idea and as I say, much of the comments made directly and indirectly at us have been both unfair and borderline slanderous.

I cannot comment upon what you are commenting upon as it is not in front of me.

All I can say is that yes there probably have been a lot of unfair things said by all parties in this affair.

Again, i'd like to ask you as to what points deduction you would have given us?

As you can see I have set out the rationale, the criteria for which I would act if I were up to me what punishment should have been meted out. But as I am not in a position to view everything required I am on the fence and cannot say what the relevant punishment would be, to do so would be like me saying what punishment should have been meted out to a someone guilty of a crime on the basis of what I heard in the media as opposed to at the trial.

You have altered my position and opinion.

Prior to talking to you and you detailing much of what you have, I though that this was an open and shut case and that West Ham definitely should have been deducted points and relegated. To your credit I am now in the unsure camp.

Given the time and patience to divulge the information, I could make a rational response and we would be all over the place about things that are of little relevance.
But any response would just be many side issues away from the main points of debate which we seemingly agree on anyway.

The whole discussion has been rational, logical and you have managed to shift my position/opinion and you can give yourself the credit for that.

What I do not think would be constructive would be to try and push this further because all the evidence that would be required in order for me to reach a judgment that would may or may not be the one you would like is simply not available.

So as much as you can logically push matters and as much as the information can be re-worded and re-jigged, it still isn’t going to make me completely agree with you or disagree with you for that matter, the latter is where you have advanced your argument and won me over.

So what you want, that is to win the argument entirely and win me over so that I agree with you all the way- that cannot be done.

There is a saying that is always worth remembering when discussing a position with someone of a differing view, especially in situations where a conclusive amount of evidence is not available and it is this;

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

That is to say that you can only win an argument ultimately if you can win the individual over, win them round, you cannot win the argument by verbally beating him about the head (the exception being is when you are playing to a gallery and the winning is based upon winning their favour).

You have won we over as much as it is possible to do so with the evidence available, that is to your credit.

I disagree with your take on a few side issues and I cannot totally agree with you because much of the evidence I would like to see is not available to me; given that fact I don’t think we can go much further.

Given how well you have done in convincing me of the merits of your position and how well you have done in winning me over with insightful logic, I think it would be a bit late in the day to try and pressgang me by battering me over the head verbally.

Like I said the Tevez affair is tomorrow’s chippy paper- it will fade.

I have always had a respect for yourselves and Manchester City as I see us 3 clubs being of very similar ilk.

Yea I know what you mean.

I am off to less-than-sunny Clacton on Sea now for the weekend and won't return until Tuesday morning where I expect there to be something waiting for me

Hope this as seen as a reasonable mail and mostly agreeable.

Either way, I have all the time in the world for posters and people such as yourself, even if we have occasionally gone off the rails from the main point :lol:

You too and I do not think we strayed very far from the issues at all, though I think we have differed on what we have been looking at, at times.

If throughout this discussion it has seemed like trying to persuade me, as though my opinion is worth something special, then I apologise. My opinion is not worth anything more than anyone else’s and I have no illusions of anything different. I guess it has just been a discussion where you wanted to genuinely show me why I should think something differently….you succeeded for the most part.

Arteta for £13m??:8):

I couldn’t put a price on Arteta or his worth to Everton and wouldn’t want him anywhere else, thanks all the same.

 

[steevio_uk]

No. I don’t think I would agree that a 2 point deduction would be fair or that such a deduction would become more or less fair because of events after the fact.


I think IF the offence was serious enough to warrant the 5 million plus fine then a points deduction would have been fairer and that how many points should have been deducted would have to have been assessed and that the punishment would have to be one that seemed to represent the seriousness of the offence, be that two points, three points or six points etc. Once an appropriate level of punishment was handed down- events after the fact are of no consequence. The logic can never be that the punishment becomes more or less fair on the basis of the league games after the events- that is just down to football at that point.

Again, misunderstanding here.
I am merely suggesting the pettiness of people's perceptions on this points deduction stance.
I am not for one second saying that any punishment should be changed by the developments that ensued during the remainder of the season and it seems that based on what you are saying, you agree with me.

My example was that IF we were deducted 2 points, I believe firmly that at the time of the punishment, Sheff Utd and many neutral people would have believed at the time the punishment was fair, that is until it became apparent that Sheff Utd were relegated by 3 points, then they and many others would have used the same argument that 'West Ham should have been relegated' and that the points deduction should have conveniently been the amount that kept them up.
Another example would have been if we had stayed up by 6 points, then conveniently the points deduction 'should have been 7 points'.

I think that you are of the opinion that the offence was not as significant as the premier league would have us believe.

I am not of that opinion.
We done wrong, we were punished with a record fine and I accept that and agree it was fair.

If however the premier league are correct and the offence was a serious as they have painted it to be, something contrary to your position;

Then I believe that a points deduction should have been meted out

I cannot for one second understand the basis of this opinion.
Whilst I accept it is your opinion, I feel that you using it as your main focal point of why we should have been deducted points is extremely weak indeed.

a points deduction at the time the offence came to light prior to the battles/game towards the end of the season, a deduction deemed equivalent to the nature of the offence.

I agree that it should ideally have been sorted at the time.
But again regardless of what supposed points deduction was handed out, that would have STILL been deemed as too lenient at the end of the season and would STILL have been argued that it should have been more and to the level of whatever kept Sheff Utd in the division.

Then football would have taken its course.

Please don't get sanctimonious on me.

So on the acceptance that Carlos Tevez was always legal to play for West Ham, you feel it is fair for us to be deducted points and 'relegated' based on a contractual error and a subsequent cover up? Even though we proved were were better than Sheff Utd over the season and rightly stayed up?
Football taking it's course indeed :roll:

Firstly lying and concealing the truth was an offence which West Ham commited in the first place, something for which they are/were guilty. That IS an offence that is much greater than anything that can be laid at the door of Sheffield Utd, so let’s keep this in perspective.

Of course that is understandable.
I agree and for which we were fined an punished massively.

Secondly West Ham have had a PR campaign in this affair in the paper tiger gestures they have made in order to represent strength and ownership of Tevez, that is a PR campaign that they have conducted, that was not tight lipped and not dignified.

Thirdly there comments in the press and website have represented a PR battle against Sheffield United, who have themselves had their own PR campaign and battle. The comments coming out of West Ham yesterday on the latest legal situation was/is PR make no mistake.

So irrespective of what the correct action should or should not have been over the Tevez affair this has NOT been a dignified matter for West Ham or any of the people or organizations involved.

So I am sorry but I seriously disagree with your comments on this.

I'll say it again; West Ham had to show some form of opposition to the Tevez transfer as we owned the player's registration and had to be involved in the transfer deal.
We wasn't just going to sit and let Man Utd take him from us without a penny given to us for our troubles.
Since we were punished we have our own PR campaign obviously, but we are referring to spin and almost acuscations.
West Ham have remained completely dignified since the punishment was handed out and the only time we have hit back is with Eggert Magnusson's most recent press statement which is served merely because the nonsense that has been dished our way has become farcical and to the point that we now have to be dragged in to defend our name.
We done a bad thing, we were punished.
What has happened since in terms of press angling the story against us and Sheff Utd and Wigan making statements about us, has been a disgrace I am afraid.

I cannot comment upon what you are commenting upon as it is not in front of me.

Fair enough.... so in that case, please comment and show examples of our West Ham's 'PR campaign' which you feel freely apt to use in your argument against us.

All I can say is that yes there probably have been a lot of unfair things said by all parties in this affair.

Not by us since the original decision. That is what I am unhappy about that our name has been dragged through the mud and many people have had a field day having pops when we have had to take a very tight-lipped and dignified stance on what is a very sensitive matter.

I expect a full detailed statement from our chairman at some time in the future in which many people will be criticised for words and unfair allegations made against us.

What I do not think would be constructive would be to try and push this further because all the evidence that would be required in order for me to reach a judgment that would may or may not be the one you would like is simply not available.

So as much as you can logically push matters and as much as the information can be re-worded and re-jigged, it still isn’t going to make me completely agree with you or disagree with you for that matter

So what you want, that is to win the argument entirely and win me over so that I agree with you all the way- that cannot be done.

There is a saying that is always worth remembering when discussing a position with someone of a differing view, especially in situations where a conclusive amount of evidence is not available and it is this;

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

That is to say that you can only win an argument ultimately if you can win the individual over, win them round, you cannot win the argument by verbally beating him about the head (the exception being is when you are playing to a gallery and the winning is based upon winning their favour)..


Given how well you have done in convincing me of the merits of your position and how well you have done in winning me over with insightful logic, I think it would be a bit late in the day to try and pressgang me by battering me over the head verbally.

All of the above is completely irrelevant as I have already said I am not trying to 'win' this argument, but simply putting my counter debate across on many points of the debate which seem to me to be very inaccurate.

But to be honest, what I do take great exception to is you telling me what I meant and what I am doing and with the examples and quotes of saying I find it rather condescending and quite patronising to be honest.
If we debate, then let's debate, but I don't need your running commentary on how well I am doing or what I should or shouldn't be arguing over.
It is a little hypocritical.


Overall, I understand that you don't want to suggest what points deduction we should have received because you don't have all the relevant facts of the case, but you are happy to go on a blanket opinion based on the seriousness of the fine meaning a points deduction would have been as serious.

But I think it is weak and I believe that your refusal to suggest a possible points deduction based on what you know and hiding behind this theory you have that 'if the punishment was serious enough to warrant that fine, then it is serious enough for a points deduction', it only goes some way to illustrating my point for me i'm afraid.

 

[vanzandt]

In one post you have managed to say at differing points that what I have had to say is sanctimonious, patronizing, irrelevant, hypocritical, weak, extremely weak and that you don’t need my running commentary, that you have taken great exception etc etc

Steve;

I have even agreed with you on quite a bit and am not necessarily even in disagreement with you.

On the main point or side issues I haven’t disagreed with you for the sake of disagreeing at any point and I haven’t been dogmatic at any point. I have listened to you respectfully and with attention and altered my opinion where I have found what you had to say convincing..

Above all….

I haven’t tried to be funny or awkward in any way. I have offered an honest unbiased opinion mate; irrespective of the merits of that opinion, or its worth.

I have shown integrity throughout our discourse and have treated you with the utmost courtesy because I knew this was a serious matter and discussion that was close to your heart.

I feel disappointed by your take on what I have had to say because I don’t believe that have been very fair to me.

Also I would say that if this is how you treat someone who is almost in alignment with your views and someone who has listened and be swayed by much that you have had to say;

Then what is going to be in store for people who actually disagree with you?

What ever happened to agreeing to disagree with respect?

Anyway the discussion is over, last mail aside brilliant mails from you for the most part and good information, you changed my opinion quite a bit.

P.S

There are lots of different types of discussions that involve football as we all know. I love rants and raves at innocuous football trivia for fun, I like discussing bits and bobs in the regular way most people do. I also like talking properly and more seriously about real issues, serious issues…..this was certainly in this latter category.

 

[steevio_uk]

Mate, I have been merely using those terms as a response to what I still consider to be a pretty condescending last post from yourself. I would say that you using this against me pretty much makes the tone of that post also along the same lines. But if you disagree then fine and believe me mate, I am meaning no disrespect.
I haven't thought at any point of you being awkward or doing anything untoward, just merely taking exception to the tone of some of your arguments and your views on my opinions.
Also, for what it's worth, I believe we have agreed to disagree on many of the points in a decent way and with great mutual respect.

But that is that and it is done, so no point having a petty debate about something that has been pointlessly twisted somehow already :lol:

I look forward to our next one when perhaps the subject isn't one that is too close to me and been exhausted many times prior!!

(By the way, I agree about the cock with the cow-bell

 

[vanzandt]

Forums are notoriously flat forms of communication.

Trust me when I say that there was zero tone or condescending etc on this side of the monitor; it can only be things have have come across wrong/misinterpretation whether my fault or yours.

I have been trying to be nothing but fair and decent in the discussion given how serious it has all been.

Obviously talk again mate and hopefully it will be something less problematic for your you and your club.

Genuinely wish West Ham the best...as long as you don't do us in hehe.

Glad you agree with me about the cow-bell and my absurdly draconian over the top mental rant. Nice to talk about daft unimportant stuff and just really go to town hehe....or was I being serious :lmao: