Money Matter$

Which Premier League club are about to become £30m lighter?

West Ham lose out in Carlos Tevez appeal

Carlos Tevez
Photo: PA

Sheffield Utd chairman Kevin McCabe has confirmed that an independent tribunal ruled in favour of his club over the Carlos Tevez saga. Lord Griffiths was overseeing proceedings, and decided that West Ham would have earned at least three fewer points in 2006/07season if Carlos Tevez had not been playing for the club. Accordingly, a hefty sum has been demanded by Sheffield Utd:

The compensation figure has yet to be set but United are reported to be demanding £30,396,897. Of that amount, £21,788,795 is for lost television and marketing money, along with lost bonus payments for league positions. Also included is a claim of a loss of £4m on the sale of Phil Jagielka to Everton.

This compensation ruling will come as a huge blow to the Hammers, who already forked out £5.5m in 2007 for ‘transfer irregularities’ over Tevez’s and javier Mascherano’s registrations. Still, it’s a lot better than getting relegated, right Blades fans?


5 responses so far
  • Upminster Iron // September 23, 2008 at 8:42 am

    What a joke decision. We’ll lose Ashton and co in January because the club who (while no weaker besides losing Jags) are 15th in the Championship should be in the Premier League. Never mind that they beat us 3-0 in a game where Tevez played 90 minutes a month before they went down. They were eleven points above us with nine games to play and Tevez or no Tevez, there’s no excuse for blowing that advantage.

  • Hammertime // September 23, 2008 at 8:47 am

    How can they say tht we would’ve got three less points if tevez wasn’t playing?? If we hadn’t got tevez we may have gone on and finished high in the table, anything could’ve happened. 10 points out of the relegation zone sheff u were in Feb and they still got relegated. Ah well we will just need 2 get tht money bak quickly by doing well in the cups and performing well in the league for a few years. At least we are sitting comfortably in the EPL and we don’t need 2 fight to get back up. We now know why Ferdy and Co were sold now.

  • Upminster Iron // September 23, 2008 at 8:53 am

    Thing is, if Duxbury had come out and said ‘we have no choice but to sell Ferdinand and McCartney because we will need money to pay Sheff Utd off’ then he would have got far less stick and received far more understanding than spreading rumours of transfer requests and contract offers being rejected that the players have denied.

  • Honest Abe // September 23, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    1.
    West Ham broke the rules over third party ownership. They were informed that they were not allowed to play Tevez untill he’s contract was sorted out, and they refused.
    2.
    The original judge from the first case said he didn’t dock West Ham points because “it would be unfair to their supporters”. That’s clearly bias because relegation is unfair to Sheffield Utd.

    BUT, the main people at fault here, are the FA. They should pay the fine, not West Ham. If there was more people with a little backbone at Soho sq, this would have been sorted over a year ago.

  • Five football courtcases waiting to happen | The Spoiler // January 12, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    [...] United’s successful tribunal ruling against West Ham could cost the Hammers £30m in compensation, and it also sets a dangerous precedent for results on the pitch being overruled by men in suits. [...]

Leave a comment
  1. View comments in RSS feed