Are Sheffield United no longer confident of receiving big money from West Ham?

Club statement suggests a bleak financial future awaits the Blades

Carlos Tevez playing in West Ham’s 3-0 loss to Sheffield United two years ago

Last week’s announcement that there will be a new inquiry into whether Carlos Tevez should have received Premier League permission to play in the final three games of the 2006-07 season sounded like bad news for West Ham.

However, the silence of Sheffield United chairman Kevin McCabe, who was so vocal when the Lord Griffiths-chaired tribunal ruled in their favour last September, suggests that perhaps they aren’t happy with recent developments.

The Blades already got the verdict they wanted and blocked West Ham’s right to appeal so, given the unlikelyhood of them being reinstalled in the Premier League, this new inquiry is unlikely to further benefit them. It can only serve either to further punish West Ham or alternatively it could find no evidence to suggest that Tevez shouldn’t have been allowed to participate in the final three games and leave Sheffield United’s compensation claim in ruins.

McCabe’s intriguing silence on the latest twist to the Tevez affair was yesterday followed by the sale of top-scorer James Beattie for less money than the Yorkshire club paid for him seventeen months ago. This afternoon they released a statement confirming that the decision to sell Beattie to Stoke was made because of a need to cut costs, which doesn’t sound like the actions a club confident of landing £30-50 million in compensation would make.

107 responses so far
  • Rob Wilson // January 13, 2009 at 4:44 pm

    But McCabe was talking about it on Saturday – live on Radio Sheffield

  • steve // January 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    In fairness SUFC wont expect 30-50m regardless…A more realistic figure would be 15/20m

  • Cloutty // January 13, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    West ham were given permission as part of the high court injunction that prevented them going to arbitration to employ forensic accountants to go through the Blades books. It appears that the two parachute payments of £12m and £6m were not taken into account and there were also other bits of “creative accountancy” included in the original claim. I think Sheff Utd may get something but, it won’t be anything like the figures that have been banded around previously. I have heard the Premier league want this sorted out and quickly and have even told Sheff Utd that they risk being barred from promotion, should they get anywhere near it, if it is not. My guess would be a token payment of £1-£5M at the most.

  • Lee // January 13, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    Spongeing blades! one rule for them a whole set of rules for everyone else… if they were’nt so s**t they never would have went down, they never had a problem with tevez when they done us 3-0 up there… it was only their pure poorness after that when it became a problem! the fact of the matter is theyve broke rule after rule in the past, but when the shoe is on the other foot its a whole different story! come uppance i say!

  • WESTHAMWAYNE // January 13, 2009 at 5:03 pm


  • RoyNaldo // January 13, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    Personally I feel aggrieved that the FA and the Premier League have sat on their hands while West Ham have been vilified in the media over the ‘Tevez Affair’. We were tried, found guilty, and punished with a £5.5 Million fine. The rules make no allowance for any kind of points deduction for the minor administrative ommission of which were guilty. Tevez’s registration was sanctioned retrospectively by the powers that be and he was allowed to play the remainder of the season for us. At no point was Tevez EVER ineligible to play for West Ham. Most in the media choose to ignore this simple fact and continue use it as a stick to beat us with. That should have been the end of it, but certain aggrieved parties wouldn’t/won’t let the matter drop. In a subsequent hearing a judge with no knowledge of the game took the advice of a journalist (Henry Winter) and ruled that Tevez had been worth at least 3 points to West Ham in that season and therefore we owed a debt to Sheffield United. His ruling did not take into account the first 19 games of the season when Tevez didn’t play for West Ham and the fact that his presence, and that of Xavier Mascerano, disrupted the team and had an adverse effect on performances. It also did not take into account that a season is 38 games, not a select handful of games that suit the aggrieved parties case to highlight. Sheffield United beat West Ham 3-0 when Tevez WAS PLAYING! It does not take into account either that Sheffield United had their fate in their own hands as they went to Wigan on the last day. They only needed one point and they would have stayed up. They choked, and they got relegated having already thrown away a 10 point gap between them and the drop zone. Sheffield United got relegated because they were not good enough to stay in the Premier League. How many of their players were snapped up by PL clubs and are playing regularly in the PL right now? They simply were not good enough. Sheffield United are clutching at straws. I don’t blame them for initially trying to get reinstated but the length of time this has gone on without action or comment from the games supposed governing bodies is ridiculous and is making a mockery of their ability to properly manage football. Sheffield United broke EXACTLY the same rule as West Ham in respect of a 3rd Party ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ over the transfer of Steve Kabba when there was a verbal agreement (allegedly admitted by Neil Warnock) that he was not allowed to play against his former club. That is a 3rd party agreement influencing team selection, it goes on all the time at various clubs but in those cases the rule is not enforced. It breaks the same FA and PL rule that we were fined £5.5 Million for breaching. £30 Million compensation is the figure being thrown around. The actual losses suffered by Sheffield United have been proven to be a lot less than that. Their accounts appear to show that they actually achieved more of an operating profit in the Championship than they did in the PL. When calculating their losses they apparently ‘forgot’ to allow for the £15 Million in parachute payments. The compensation figure being stated is having a direct negative effect on our owners efforts to sell the club and allow West Ham United to move forward…… Perhaps we should sue Sheffield United? Do I, as a life-long West Ham fan, feel aggrieved? You bet your life I do.

  • Gavin // January 13, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Sorry to upset you Cloutty but the parachute payments have nothing to do with the West Ham claim as we would have got them at some point anyway.

  • WESTHAMWAYNE // January 13, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Forgot to mention also i think the premier league should look into the last game of the season between the muppets and wigan!!

    Trying to instigate a result so they both stay up and we went down because the whole footballing world didnt expect West Ham to beat Man Utd twice in the same season!!

    Oh blatant handball in the box to get a penalty! the game was just to much of a coinsidence if you ask me!! A wigan team that got played of the park by west ham 3 weeks earlier!! Somehow managed to beat a team who were brilliant at home! VERY VERY SUSS IF YOU ASK ME!!

  • Carlton Goal // January 13, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    Brilliant comment RoyNaldo but I think you should have paragraphed it out a bit more because otherwise people won’t read it.

    The funniest part of Sheff Utd’s compensation claim for their “losses” is the extra money for Jagielka’s release fee. How can you claim a loss when you MADE £4 million for selling him whereas if they kept him they would have made no money and would still be paying him wages!

  • Gavin // January 13, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    RoyNaldo – what utter tripe.

    West Ham were found guilty of breaking a rule and were fined for it but not deducted points because it would have been unfair to the fans.

    Then on top of that West Ham lied again and cheated again and this is what is now been investigated.

    Look at Crawley Town and Oxford this week, both played players registed incorrectly and were deducted 4 points by the FA, why one rule for the small boys and one rule for the southern press loving, PL sucking up West Ham boys?

    You’d done the crime (twice), now do the time.

  • Carlton Goal // January 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    Gavin, Crawley and Oxford were fined for fielding ineligible players, something that West Ham NEVER did. Go read Scudamore’s letter.

    The feelings of the fans was one of seven (I think, maybe more) reasons listed as to why West Ham didn’t deserve to be deducted points. Of course you choose to ignore all the legitimate ones as they don’t suit your agenda.

  • RoyNaldo // January 13, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    No Gavin,

    We were not deducted points because:

    Tevez was always eligible and registered to play, but WHUFC (wrongly) did not disclose the (probable) third party influence…..hence the fine.

    And secondly, the exposed a grey area that the EPL had not come across before (common practice in Sth America)

    Don’t let your Northern bias inferiority complex get in the way of the facts.

    McCabe’s theory: keep saying something over and over again, and gullible people begin to believe you.

    Any view on Mr Kabba then Gav?

  • candy // January 13, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    a very suspicious jagielka handball against wigan… it backfired didn’t it… trying to get a game abandoned, actually breaking rule U.18 (as opposed to technically breaking it, as West Ham did to their cost)… and they have the nerve to call West Ham cheats.

    I have no time for hypocrites, the whole world of sport should see sheffield united as that, for that is what they are… cheating hypocrites

  • Champagneblade // January 13, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    How can you claim a loss when you MADE £4 million for selling him whereas if they kept him they would have made no money and would still be paying him wages!

    If you have an asset you value at between 6-8m, then you are forced to sell it for no more than 4m due to certain circumstances, would you laud that as a success? He was player of the year and picked in the international squad before the Wigan game. Had SUFC stayed up, ie WH quite rightly disqualified from the competition whose rules they refused to follow, unlike 19 other clubs, then his clause would not have been activated and SUFC could have sold him, if they had wanted to, on their terms, for 6-8m.

    The parachute payments not been taken into account was on one website I think; and it was total nonsense.

  • jimbo // January 13, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    must agree with roynaldo over taking the greedy chumps to court ourselves not only that but if we do have to pay anything to them we shou;d also take the pl to court to claim back any money being they passed judgment and fined us end of i rest my case mlud

  • Champagneblade // January 13, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    Oh and Kabba? Martin Samuel’s sole crusade. Absolute nonsense, he was not picked because he was a. injured and b. Marlon King, Watford’s best player was fit again.

    Still don’t let facts get in the way. Kabba didn’t play again that season either.

  • Carlton Goal // January 13, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    “If you have an asset you value at between 6-8m, then you are forced to sell it for no more than 4m due to certain circumstances, would you laud that as a success? He was player of the year and picked in the international squad before the Wigan game. Had SUFC stayed up…”

    But Sheffield United WOULD have stayed were it not for your super player of the year Jagielka’s handball? You then would have had the chance to see if someone would pay £8 million (which I’m fairly sure they wouldn’t have!) for him?

    Anyway, just because you value someone at £8 million doesn’t mean anyone will pay that. I may value Luis Boa Morte at £20 million but I’m fairly sure Hull will only be paying one or two!

    Explain how us having Carlos Tevez stopped you from scoring forty points that season anyway? You lost 1-0 to us with him playing in a game where he threw a strop after being subbed and was ridiculed by the newspapers and beat us 3-0 at yours with him again being useless. In the other games you played (including the ones when you were eleven points ahead of us) how did he stop you reaching the 40 points needed to survive?

  • Carlton Goal // January 13, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    Both your website, Watford’s and a local paper reported that Kabba would miss the game because of an agreement between the two clubs and there was a quote from Warnock stating this. The evidence is still knocking around somewhere on a West Ham fan site so it was very much NOT a Martin Samuel invention.

  • Gavin // January 13, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Poor Charlton, singing to the same tune as the other deluded Shammers, cheated the system twice but still can’t admit your fate.

    Upton Park would make a great location for a Supermarket.

    Goodbye Bellamy, Upson and anyone else who can get a bit of money in for the Blades :)

  • McBabe // January 13, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Gavin you’re a c**t.

  • paulv // January 13, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    The only leverage SU have, is the second offence argument that Gavin mentions.
    However, the fundamentals of this whole case are poor. The proportion given to this case in exception to all else borders on the paranoid. The issues for me as a west ham and football fan are fairness and balance. Tevez vs. Kabba or Tim Howard? little difference.
    Ironically the lack of a written contract between man united and everton did not stop howard being omitted from the two club’s meeting that season, which is similar to the alleged ex gratia agreement between duxbury and kia referred to by the latter’s lawyers in the debacle that was the griffith’s arbitration.
    The common thread here is almost everything the self regulating football authorities touch, ends in disappointment for the majority. Overpriced, under-capacitied national stadium; the ridiculous appointment of mcclaren and now this double indemnity busting total review of the tevez case because perhaps football clubs sueing each other may not be good for the game. Someone should have given griffith’s the idiots guide to judicial precedent for christmas.
    The point that sticks in the craw is the blatant acceptance of players being hawked around by owner agents like slaves and clubs being sold to overseas predators with little or no moral credentials or understanding of our traditions. West Ham have a previously prosecuted chairman, man city have an ex owner who cannot return to his homeland without prosecution and have replaced him with fabulously wealthy owners from a country with dubious human rights issues, to name just two.
    Lets hope the review results in fairness to all where west ham are exonerated from further prosecution and mccabe, warnock and their player’s performances are squarely blamed and held responsible for their club’s relegation.

  • Rob Smith // January 13, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Roynaldo has hit the nail on the head. I would suggest that anyone who still thinks West Ham fielded an ‘ineligible’ should have a read of his post.

    The single fact of the matter is that Sheff Utd were not good enough to stay in the Prem and anything else is complete and utter nonsense. The fact that they are poncing for damages has nothing to do with sportsmanship and everything to do with money.

    I honestly hope that the sale of James Beattie is indicative of the financial problems they face. Sheff Utd are scoundrels and the fact that the ignorance of the press and the general public has helped them keep this sham alive is sad beyond belief.

    Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see those poncing scumbags wound up.

  • Gavin // January 13, 2009 at 6:42 pm

    Rob – no financial problems, its called keeping your house in order. With a £3m debt due to be paid off at the end of the season we’re financial sound just need to trim the wage bill to make sure we’re not spending money we haven’t got.

    Its a shame the Shammers couldn’t follow suit!!

    PS – mums gone to Iceland, just like all the Shammers money :)

  • Rob Smith // January 13, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    Gav, in that case – why not pay the money due at the end of the season – when you make it back into the Prem?

    Selling your biggest assest in January? Smacks of desperation to me. Perhaps you should take your red and white blinkers off, not only do they make you look like a c*nt, but they seem to be making you talk sh*t as well.

    Mums gone to Iceland? Looks like The Blunts will be shopping in Lidl.

  • paulv // January 13, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Sheffield United’s claim for loss is as problematic as their legal right to claim itself.
    Valuing loss will result in a small notional award in their favour. This may however never happen in my opinion if the FA and PL get involved.
    This will be a big disappointment for their plucky fans led by the talented napoleon hunting tv heartthrob shaun bean. These are the real victims, who have been manipulated into believing that the blame lie outside of their own club’s management.
    It is also ill fated to lead them to believe that sheffield’s second club can operate successfully at premiership level.
    Let us not be too harsh and spare a thought for them in all this.

  • JackHammer // January 13, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    And their only contribution to world soccer will remain .
    Trevor Hockey

  • ian davis // January 13, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    Sorry gavin, but the parachute payments have everything to do with this affair, and if you can´t see that i´m surprised.

    I´m not saying they weren´t included in SU´s accounts just omitted on the claim form. When SU are saying they have only this amount of money coming in and have had this amount of money lost or going out, the loss due to relegation, of course they have to include the parachute payments ( money coming in.). It´s all very well to say you would have received the PP´s anyway, but if you want to receive premiership money payments (paid by West Ham) you must return the PP´S which is to subsidise for this loss. You can´t have it both ways.

  • Gandolf // January 13, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    Gavin you really are a bit thick. Read all the posts and don’t twist the fact that Tevez was always legally registered.
    It is also a fact that McCabe and Whelan met the week prior to the Sheff U V Wigan match. Yes their plan was to send West Ham down. Why do you think Warnock resigned. He has admitted in private that McCabe and Whelan had both asked their managers to help each other in this match.
    Of course you probably believe Manchester United didn’t try. Their 34 shots on goal to West Hams 3 proves this to silly chaps like you.

  • JockHammer // January 13, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    ‘ere Gav, who’s your best ever player then apart from Trevor Hockey?
    Trevor Hockey or a World Cup
    Trevor Hockey or the FA Cup
    Trevor Hockey or Trevor Brooking
    Trevor Hockey or Joe Cole, Frank Lampard, Rio Ferdinand, Michael Carrick
    Sean Bean or Ray Winstone
    Colin Wanker or Ron Greenwood.

    No contest all round really! So long suckers!

  • HAMMER // January 13, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    Roynaldo sums it all it, Sheffield United are just clutching at straws to get money as they know they wont be back in the premiership a long time

  • Chops // January 13, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Hopefully this inquiry will settle the arguments.

    If WHU continued to lie, then on their head be it (although I don’t know if there has been a precedent set for a points deduction?).

    If not then Lord Griffith’s judgement should be void.

    Either way, I don’t see what it has to do with Sheffield United.

  • Ironsssssss // January 13, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    Sheff Utd going to the wall that would be funny. Selling Beatie for 3 mil whilst we turn down a 10 mil offer from man city for bellers. So long mugs rot in the championship and lower 4ever

  • Scooter // January 13, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    Sorry. I’ve been reading this and laughing at most of it. Sheff Utd are a poor team, always have been, always will be. West Ham may be not much better, but over 38 games they earned more points than Sheff Utd. The governing body did not deduct points. Sheff Utd went down. Sheff Utd lost to more teams than in the bottom eight than mist teams………but they clutch at straws. Everybody (and I mean everybody) is laughing at your futile attempts to allow legal team to run sport (I lost but my dad reckons he’s bigger than yours…whooa, whoooooa) because you were simply inadequate. Our admin team facked up, and they should be sacked (internal). We were punished. Our players didn’t fack up. Kabba, 3-4 sendings off to get game abandoned, losing to Wigan, SUFC YOU ARE A DISGRACE………….the halo has slipped.
    What makes it worse is that most (and as websites go, there are only a few in support of you – remember the Daily Mail are jokes) Sheff Utd fans are absolutely, and totally embarrassed by McCabe, Mr. Bean, Warnock …… Humiliating to say the the least. My Sheff Utd mates, those that understand FOOTBALL (that is the word that has been forgotten about here) accept and move on…………………………not “but Sir, he pulled a funny face, don’t punish me!”.

  • Mike // January 14, 2009 at 12:04 am

    Gavin – the Sheffield Utd supporter a hypocrite just like the McCabe and the rest of the idiots trying to bring a case for compensation.

    Quote from Gavin’s comment above:
    “Gavin // Jan 13, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Sorry to upset you Cloutty but the parachute payments have nothing to do with the West Ham claim as we would have got them at some point anyway.”

    So basically what Gavin is so unwittingly admitting to is that regardless of the begging bowl they are getting out for compensation he expected them to be relegated at some point or another anyway? …. hang on, wasnt you all supposed to think that you got relegated because of us playing Tevez??!!


  • hammeredmax // January 14, 2009 at 12:12 am

    The sad thing is this admin argument has damaged the game!! http://WWW.blame some fucker else.com. seems to be heavily envolved, did they get the number whilst watching J Kyle ?? I hope S U go up !! Really !! Then lets see ….

  • Englandsnumber6 // January 14, 2009 at 9:32 am

    SCOOTER, i too have been reading and laughing at all the banter being thrown between both sets of supporters.
    But the main point is being missed here, there is a second investigation for a reason.
    West ham will not have to pay Sheff utd a single penny, cant happen never was going to happen, shame on the toilet press and crap journalists in rags like the Mail/Mirror/Sun, i will publish my email so that when it is ruled you wont be getting a payout you can mail me and appologise for being wrong and CLUTCHING AT STRAWS.


  • Gavin // January 14, 2009 at 9:35 am

    Poor deluded Shammers, in the words of Jerry Maguire “Show me the MONEY!!!”

    Just for you Jock – “A quality goal, by a quality player” – TC pisses over any player ever to pull on a Shammers Shirt – the original academy my arse, as soon as you lot produce a half decent player they bugger off to a better club.

  • Gavin // January 14, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Poor old Scooter, your mum not been giving you those pills again – Oops sorry i forgot ALL REAL Sheffield United fans back West Ham’s claim.

    You lot are a disgrace, you cheated twice now spot behaving like bitches and pay up.

  • Carlton Goal // January 14, 2009 at 10:00 am

    The word “cheated” is so misleading. To cheat is to play twelve players on the pitch or to dive for a penalty. Adding a clause into a contract which allows an external party to take one of your players away without notice is only cheating yourself, nobody else. Unlike your third party influence over Kabba which actually positively aided your team.

    Some might even say that affecting the title race by fielding a weakened team against Manchester United and then having the audacity to complain when Liverpool play a weakened team against Fulham is not only hypocritical but also cheating your wonderful fans of putting up a real fight in the biggest match of their season.

  • Gavin // January 14, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Carlton – if its against the PL rules its cheating, hence me calling the Shammers cheats.

    What was the third party influence over Kabba again? He missed the match v us at the Lane when King came back from injury and didn’t play for Watford again that season, seems like more of a choice by Watford than one of the many made up stories by fatty Samuels and the Shammers – you lot are just so desperate to believe aren’t you, poor little Shammers.

    As for a weakened side v Man U, what on earth are you on about? We put out the same side we did a few days before and was only denied getting back into the game when the ref bottled giving us a clear penalty when Henze bought down Shelton in the area.

    Anyway, stop your delaying tactics and pay up, this second investigation has nothing to do with us, we just want our money that you lot seem to have claimed as your own during you ‘fake’ season in the PL. The second investigation to about deducting you points which is of no interest to us, the horse has bolted on that one, we just want out CASH!!!

  • Englandsnumber6 // January 14, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Gavin… your a cock.

    i bet when you are typing (with your thumbs no doubt) you are snotting and stamping your feet.

    you just dont get the irony do you. (no not what your carer uses to iron you bib) the subtle points us hammers are making at your expense.

  • Fight for Hypocrisy in Football // January 14, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Check out your website Gavin and then tell me how squeaky clean your club are…


    Maybe Watford’s says differently…


    Surely the “Fairness in Football” supporting Sheffield Star weren’t aware of this third party influence though. Oh wait…


    At least we owned up to our wrongdoing and took the punishment, you and Watford instead looked out for one another to make sure you got off the hook which is far worse.

    So what if he didn’t play in the final two league games. Maybe Watford realised what they’d done and thought they better keep him out longer to sell an injury, maybe he genuinely got injured after that game or maybe they decided they didn’t care about playing him as they were already relegated but the fact is that we played Watford with Kabba and lost, you played them without and won and the reason both clubs gave for him not facing you was that he was ineligible.

  • Gavin // January 14, 2009 at 10:37 am

    Poor little Shammers, all singing from the same hymn sheets.

    So West Ham admitted doing wrong did they, only after investigation with no way out, then they went to and continued to cheat.

    You lads can continue to defend your cheating disgrace of a club, bring up the Kabba thing time and time again which was a non story dug up by a very fat and bitter Martin Samuels. You’re clutching at straws and looking very silly Shammers.

    Its time to pay the riddler, now stop your bitching and PAY UP!!!!

  • Gavin // January 14, 2009 at 10:43 am

    PS – Kabba was initially signed on loan by Watford when the clause was inserted into the move which is perfectly legal, when Watford made the deal permanant it was presumed by both managers the clause still stood, which it didn’t.

    The point is both managers made the mistake, hardly comparable to some legal eagles trying their damned hardest to hide third party interference…….you poor Shammers have been blinded by the truth, come on, pay up our money thats wrongfully in your bank account and we’ll all move on.

    I’m a fan of you cockneys, used to live in Loughton for 5yrs (slightly nicer than the s**thole that is Upton Pk), i know you lot are a bit inbred and not the brightest bunch but come on my chavvy little friends pay up and we can all get on with life.

    You got your ‘fake’ season in the PL at our expense, now just give us our money and we can all move on.

  • Stuart // January 14, 2009 at 10:47 am

    I’m looking for justice from this second investigation – for West Ham.

    Hopefully the evidence presented to the Griffiths enquiry will be fully reviewed. Hearsay from Shear that Duxbury orally confirmed that MSI could still take Tevez away from West Ham, is not evidence. Duxbury denies this – one man’s word against another. Lets hope that for the sake of football this second enquiry straightens this all out. It would of course also end the Sheffield United compo claim as it would confirm that Tevez was fully cleared to play. Lets hope this second enquiry ends all the nonsense and we can all be allowed to get on with the beautiful game.

  • Carlton Goal // January 14, 2009 at 10:47 am

    No, the Icelanders told the Premier League about the dodgy clauses as soon as they found out and weren’t involved in any wrongdoing which was one of the PL’s reasons why they didn’t feel a points deduction was fair, although obviously you only focus on the stupid one about feelings of the fans.

    Hey Gavin, what do you do if you have no comeback in a debate but don’t want to look stupid? Say Shammers a lot and hope nobody notices the fact you have no argument!

    It’s funny you call Martin Samuel bitter because you’re the ones who have spent nearly two years trying to bleed us for every penny we have just because you threw away an eleven point advantage and need a scapegoat. Even Sean Bean blamed Neil Warnock before he starting toeing the party line while your assistant Stuart McCall went on radio the week of the game and said Carlos Tevez could not be blamed for your relegation! You’re the bitter ones.

  • Gavin // January 14, 2009 at 10:52 am

    Cheats shouldn’t be allowed the prosper, what sort of message does this send out to the like of Luton, Rotherham, Chester City, Oxford, Leeds etc who have all been docked points for one reason or another?

    Come on Shammers, be big enough to admit you got caught cheating the system twice.

    My only worry is this new enquiry will find you guilty of more charges, you’ll be deducted points by the PL, you’ll get relegated, go into administration get deducted even more points in the Champ and potentially go out of business – it would be a nice consolation prize but this is the reality, look where your cheating and lies have got you…….was it really worth all this for an Argentinian wolfboy who was staight out of the door at the first opportunity to join a proper club. Its becoming all too real this, the original academy reputation tarnished forever :)

  • Impartial Observer // January 14, 2009 at 10:53 am

    The offence that West Ham committed was to let MSI include a clause in the Tevez contract which allowed MSI to transfer the player at ant time they wanted. This is third party influence and illegal.

    West Ham were fined £5.5m – there had never been a precedence of such a charge so a point deduction would have been totally inappropriate.

    The fuss didn’t make sense as the clause was meaningless. Why? because you cannot sell or sign a player outside of the transfer window. MSI couldn’t have moved Tevez if they had wanted to.

    West Ham were instructed to remove this third party influence – which they did. However, Mr Duxbury told MSI that the agreement would remain in place ie a verbal agreement. This is the point that Sheffield United were told that they had the right to copensation. This is also the point of the latest FA/PL inquiry. This is more commonly known as the Duxbury lies and the basis of the ‘cheat’ slurs.

    West Ham’s new lawyers, borrowed from Manchester United, are the reason for the new inquiry after pointing out that the decision in favour of Sheffield United is flawed and therefore incorrect.

    They pointed out that it makes no difference if Duxbury lied and privately verbally agreed to honour the third party agreement. What it boils down to is one mans word against another, there is no actual written proof at all.

    Remember the Premier League have already said, (in the case of Tim Howards non-appearance for Everton against Manchester United), that no charges could be made where agreements are made verbally, with nothing in writing.

    The new inquiry will agree with this and the previous ruling that Sheffield United should receive compensation will be reversed.

    West Ham United and Sheffield United have been advised, hence the deafening silence form both camps.

    The lack of compensation is also the reason for the sale of Kevin Beattie.

  • Gavin // January 14, 2009 at 10:57 am

    Impartial – West Ham’s new lawyers borrowed from Man U, hahaha – what Tevez’ current employees and the team the Shammer beat on the last day of the season to stay up – OH THE IRONY!!! – why would Man U ‘lend’ the Shammers their own lawyers? The Saga continues……….!!

    Whose Kevin Beattie?

  • Carlton Goal // January 14, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Obviously because it’s in their own interests to get this saga ended if they want to sign Tevez permanently in the summer. There’s nothing shady about that. We’re paying Watkins and his team and I’m sure he’s done work for other clubs in the past as well.

    If you believe they let us win on the final day of the season then I suppose they must have had 25 shots just to make it look more convincing. And Arsenal must have let us do the double over them that season just because they love us so much.

    I suppose you ignore the fact we also beat Man Utd in December 2006 and 2007 without Tevez. All eleven players that ended on the pitch in both games were part of the 2006-07 squad who were supposedly a one man team.

    Benefit from Tevez:
    2005-06: 9th
    Tevez Year: 15th
    2007-08: 10th


  • Impartial Observer // January 14, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Apologies for all of the typo’s in my previous post.

    Gavin – I am a Manchester united supporter so I’m impartial to the two clubs involved in this.

    West Ham sacked their previous legal team and hired Manchester United’s legal team back in September – they are regarded as the best. see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1061730/West-Ham-hire-legal-whizz-brokered-Tevez-United-fight-30m-demand.html

    This is my last post on the matter. I have only told you what I have heard from my Manchester United sources.

    Review my posts after the final decision of this new inquiry and hope that Sheffield United gain promotion this season and avoid financial problems associated with this case.

  • Mike // January 14, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    Sheffield United are shit, were shit and are in the shit in terms of their finance.

    They are so desparate for money it is pathetic, nothing to do with justice whatsoever and that is blatantly obvious and no-one can say otherwise.

    They failed to play football to help their club’s status on their own terms and as a West Ham fan I am confident the governing bodies etc. will see sense and realise that their claim (sorry, beg) for money is not realistic.

    Sheff Utd have disgraced themselves and made their supporters look stupid in many regards, just look at Gavin on here as an example.

    Football is not a business, remember that – it is a sport, which Sheff Utd, quite frankly are not as good as West Ham are at the moment.

    As regards to some comments about which teams players are better and have been more illustrous. Please bear in mind that we had the great Bobby Moore the ONLY England captain to have won the World Cup.

    Respect is due to WHUFC, and a lot lost to SUFC – shame on you.

  • Jockhammer // January 14, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Oi Gav, WTF is TC – Trevor Cockey?

    There is only one TC – Tony Cottee.

    Don’t you feel like the last man standing …. in an empty stadium shouting, ‘ DON’T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?’ .

    Face up, build a bridge, and jog on ….

  • Ferris // January 14, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Gavin you are inept your opinion is invalid please stop wasting everyone’s time

  • Stelios J // January 14, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    OK Gavin, for the sake of argument and your ego, let’s say West Ham deserved a points deduction. How would two points do you? Would you be happy with that?

    If so, West Ham would would retrospectively end that season on 39 points. They would, of course, have to pay Wigan and Fulham approximately half a million quid each, due to league placement, but would be able to reclaim some five and a half million from the FA, which was their punishment.

    This would leave West Ham four and a half million better off, and one place above the relegation zone for that season. Would that be justice? Or could it be you and your “chairman” want West Ham to be deducted the very number of points which would have seen your team stay up?

    An interesting thought and I’d be interested to know to where your moral high ground would sink if this were the case.

  • Andy // January 14, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    Ridiculous I know, but it’s worth a laugh.

    Could West Ham make a profit re: The Tevez affair, currently taking place? It’s at least worth a giggle?

    Assume SU claim is for £30m, which has been the most popular figure touted about.

    Deduct £18m parachute payments not disclosed.

    Selling of fringe players, currently taking place, say, £11m.

    Various savings in salaries, insurances, costs, make up your own figure, I hav’nt got a clue.
    I’ll use £1m.

    Say, a further £3m, (probably more), found by the forensic accountants, currently going through SU’s books, on our behalf. They have already said that they have found alot of discrepency’s in our favour.

    To make it more spicy, what if the clubs agree to an out of court settlement for £7m or less, something that could happen.

    Get this headache out of the way and the boss can hopefully, sell the club.

  • rameses III // January 14, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    TC is Tony Currie – the best player the hypocrites from Yorkshire ever had. He would find it difficult to get into the top 15 West Ham players – even lord griffiths would find it difficult to dispute that.

  • OBAMAISAHAMA // January 14, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    Sheff Utd got spanked 6-0 by a bunch of 16yr olds, they shouldn’t be alllowed in the prem, they are f****** S***, end of.

  • AC // January 14, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    ha ha hope gav writes on here after su get nothing. maybe find for bringing the game into disrepute(sorry if spelt wrong). up the hammers currently 10th best team in all the land ha ha

  • jockhammer // January 14, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    Ha ha ha ha – ah that ‘TC’ – ah yes the Edgware (thats LONDON Gav) born, QPR youth team player who went on to find fame with Leeds United and back to QPR but couldn’t find the net against the clown Tomaszewski in the most mindnumbingly devastatingly bad display by England players in 1974.

    Thanks Gav – we win the World Cup, Sir Trev gets us in single handedly and your best player participated in a game that got Alf the sack.

    Spot on Gav!

    Whilst ‘TC’ – the cockney bas-tard – was stylish, Trevor Hockey was more your style – no skill, no pace, just a mad, mud covered, Manson lookalikey gorilla who scored 1 goal on MOTD. Marvelous!

    Didn’t you discover Batty as well or is that just part of this nightmare world u live in and have dragged us all into.

  • Chops // January 14, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    Gav, do you actually have an argument or do you think that saying “shammers” repeatedly somehow wins your case?

    If we were giving ‘oral cuddles’ to Kia etc, then it’s none of your business, or the FA/PL for that matter. In practice, we ripped up the contract with MSI and demanded £2m for CT’s registration. So we lied to KJ, it’s his problem.

    That’s assuming Shear’s telling the truth.

  • Gavin // January 15, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Well said that man;


    Poor Shammers, still won’t believe they’ve done anything wrong, us honest clubs and fans just want justice, no hard feelings towards Wet Sham, the lies could easily of come from Arsenal, Man U or Chelsea – its a shame Scudamore is such a prat, otherwise you lot wouldnt be forced to sell your better players.

  • MancBlade // January 15, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    What West Ham fans are conveniently forgetting here:

    SUFC were not good enought to stay up. Fair enough, but had we been good enough you would be having this argument with Wigan.

    West Ham were given the opportunity to cancel the 3rd party agreement and play Tevez in the final 6 games, or not canvel it and not play him.

    What they actually did was pretend to cancel the agreement and play him anyway. There is a sworn testement of a respected lawyer to that effect, and if you think he’s going to risk his reputation and career by retracting that statement then you are either mad or stupid.

    It is this final act of dishonesty which the FA will now investigate, as you have not been punished for it. Personally I hope they take you to the cleaners, your conduct in this case has been apalling throughout.

  • Jockhammer // January 15, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Yawn … still here then. Sad loser leads lonely life in Sheffield. Take a look in the mirror for the madness.

    That’s an old piece written by a moron. Nothing new there.

    Your players and your little village has always been devoid of any worth. Even Tony Currie was from down here.

    Time to get back in the cage and take your medecine.

  • MancBlade // January 15, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    Brilliant…nothing new there. That’s because there is nothing new to tell you thick tvvat, all the evidence is out, now lube up, bend over and wait for the FA to take a big run up and fcuk you into the middle of next year.

    And as for our village….give me the greenest city in Europe over the utter hell hole which passes for our capital city any day of the week, especially your horrible particular corner of it.

  • David // January 15, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Shammers played a player they shudn’t have. Any other case ever this has meant points deduction. Points deduction would have meant relegation for the sham. All other points are meaningless

    Oh yeh and wednesday have a gentlemans agreement with charlton not to play burton on sat maybe they shud get done. Or not because its completely different!!!!

  • Martin Samuel's dietician // January 15, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    Evening all – a couple of quick points:

    1) The fact that Sheffield United were, as Garth Crooks is so fond of saying, “NGE” is totally irrelevant. Had Sheffield United beaten or drawn with Wigan, Wigan (or whoever else got relegated) would surely have pursued a similar claim.

    2.) Interesting to see Luis Boa Morte potentially on the move. My understanding is:

    - There was allegedly a gentleman’s agreement between West Ham and Fulham that Boa Morte would not play when the teams met.

    - Boa Morte was selected. Fulham have publicly expressed disappointment at West Ham’s conduct in this. This strongly insinuates that third party influence did exist.

    -Contrast this to neither Sheff U or Watford publicly confirming that such an agreement existed. Surely this puts West Ham (and potentially Fulham) in a worse position than Sheff U and Watford?

    -Conversely, West Ham could argue that their selection of Boa Morte demonstrates that a gentleman’s agreement cannot constitute third party influence. Which in turn means that any arguments re the Kabba transfer are also null and void.

  • Cheats never prosper! // January 15, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    SUFC are going to make a mint. Our chairman remains confident so you Shammers, keep believing the southern media – I trust our chairman to tell us how it is which he does on a regular basis. We will finish your club and it will be so sweet.

    You keep making the same comments, over and over but there is one fact that remains: In an INDEPENDENT arbitration, SUFC convinced impartial judges (for want of a better word) that Tevez playing was responsible for our relegation.

    They convinced them of a fact that we had no concrete evidence for: who can say what would have happened without the ugly little fcukwit? Nobody. So think about it – how convincing and strong must the SUFC case against WHUFC be if they convinced them of that without concrete evidence?

    You all want to bleat on about how innocent your club is: you cheated, lied, pleaded for mercy from the FA, then cheated and lied again. Your club is the lowest of the low and your board is as crooked as a shepherds crook.

    If our compensation claim is so far off, why on earth are the Championship clubs so desperate to get in the PL? Why is it called the 50m match when the play off final happens?

    The parachute payments are rubbish. We’re entitled to them whenever we go down. So they become irrelevant – if we haven’t included them in the claim, it’s because we’d have gotten them in the future anyway wouldn’t we? Every club that is relegated (as most are at some point) gets them so they are irrelevant.

    Our result against Wigan was irrelevant too. Over 38 games, we got enough points to stay up had your lot not cheated. Without Tevez, you’d have been down long before Old Trafford. The Wigan result is just one of thirty eight games we played, no more and no less. And as has been pointed out, if we’d won/drawn, then Wigan would be suing you now as well.

    Our club has been honest throughout and is claiming what it is owed from you cheating bar stewards. Face that fact and shove your fcuking bubbles up your arsses!

  • Chops // January 15, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    How are you all so sure that WHU didn’t rip up the contract?

    It’s hearsay.

    WHU demanded money from MSI for the contract of Carlos Tevez. The transfer of Tevez to Man U didn’t happen til WHU got the money.

    But no, apparently we were at the mercy of MSI.

    And I’ve not EVER heard any reason why WHU’s alleged actions have ANYTHING to do with Sheff U.

  • MancBlade // January 16, 2009 at 9:26 am

    #69. If you class a statement by a hugely respected lawyer during an official investigation as heresay then you are as deluded as the rest of your shandy drinking tribe. I’m not sure what you know about law, but a lawyer’s statement is about as watertight a declaration as you can get. If that statement turns out to be false he risks his reputation and career….unlikely.

  • Carlton Goal // January 16, 2009 at 9:47 am

    “hugely respected lawyer” – just because you call him hugely respected doesn’t mean he is. Just like how Kyel Reid was described as a “West Ham star” when he joined Wolves yesterday.

    “Oral cuddles” count for nothing in a court of law and that’s why loads of legal experts have claimed that West Ham’s legal team should have been able to drive a truck through the ruling. They failed which is why we have better lawyers now.

    At the end of the day the Premier League required three pieces of evidence before they granted us permission to play Tevez in the last three games and we provided it all. We gave the Premier League bonafide evidence so any worthless assurances given to Kia, especially ones that have no evidence to prove they even took place, count for nothing.

    There’s still no explanation as to what any of this has to do with you Blunts!

  • ChingfordHammer // January 16, 2009 at 9:57 am

    Hahahahahaha, “A lawyer’s statement is about as watertight a declaration as you can get”. Don’t make me laugh, oh no, lawyer’s never lie. My arse they don’t. Most of the time they will say whatever it takes to get a win for their clients.
    How can you prove someone said something, without witnesses, All hearsay i’m afraid(well not that afaid)

    I think you lot need to look at your finances, removed from the stock exchange, sold your top asset for 3mil less than you paid for him 17 months ago. This does’nt seem like a club who are about to get 30 to 50 mil.

    Anyway, why do you think we’ve kept Duxbury around. Because if push comes to shove, he can fall on his sword and say yes he did say it, but the club knew nothing about him doing it. He get’s a nice payout and we’re off scott free.

    Remember, once this little blip is ironed out and it turns out Tevez was eligible, you claim is all over.

    Now for me the two best outcomes could be is that, what with all the legal fee’s SU will have to pay out, they’ll go bust and get deducted 15 points(oh the irony).
    Or this drags on, SU win promotion, but get blocked from joining the PL as you have taken legal action against another PL team.
    As we all know, that would be breaking the rules.

    Either of those would be good.
    Saying that, just to see your grasping little team not get a bean(well maybe Sean) from us would still be pretty sweet.

    I do love your unfounded confidence though

  • Gavin // January 16, 2009 at 10:06 am

    Chingford mi owd, hows life on the Mount, you lot still loving your mums and the Queen? Ronnie and Reggie Krays funeral was the highlight for life on the Mount, tells you all you need to know about Chingford.

    A few points of yours are flawed;

    1. BT bought for £4m, sold for £3.5m

    2. Removed from the stock exchanged by choice, why shell out £1m a year to be part of the stock exchange when we don’t need to?

    The rest of your post is more hopeful tripe than actual facts, now run along you’re dads market stall won’t look after itself :)

  • Carlton Goal // January 16, 2009 at 10:14 am

    A fee rising to £3.5, probably if Stoke stay up, which judging on how they played at our manor is unlikely…

  • Gavin // January 16, 2009 at 10:18 am

    Not the £3m less than Chingy was talking about.

    “which judging on how they played at our manor is unlikely…” – you cockney numb skull….

    Oh yer, this is my faackkkking manor you ffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacking norven mannnkey!!

  • jockhammer // January 16, 2009 at 10:34 am

    Mancblade – now there’s a suitable case for treatment. Clearly not content with the best club in Europe or the richest club in the world, you plump for the worst club over the Pennines. Now that really is a clear example of schizophrenia.

    And if you really love Yorkshire so much why are you in Manchester?

    Anyway, to quote again your fellow Mancunion,
    “They pointed out that it makes no difference if Duxbury lied and privately verbally agreed to honour the third party agreement. What it boils down to is one mans word against another, there is no actual written proof at all.

    Remember the Premier League have already said, (in the case of Tim Howards non-appearance for Everton against Manchester United), that no charges could be made where agreements are made verbally, with nothing in writing.

    The new inquiry will agree with this and the previous ruling that Sheffield United should receive compensation will be reversed.”

    That is about as logical as this gets, and all your huff and poof about ‘gentlemens’ agreements simply supports the above.

    You’ll get nothing, you weren’t good enough and still aren’t, Sheffield is almost as miserable a place as Hull or Luton, and ultimately McCabe and Colin have led you lot up a blind alley.

    And the final reason and ultimately why you will lose is that if Tevez status is in any doubt Man U will be embroiled in this crap, so they have told the FA/PL (as the richest and most powerful club) to sort it. Its not nice, leaves a sour taste in the mouth but the PL is a rich clubs club and you all sign up to it when you come up. The so called ‘offences’ that WH have committed have all previously been done by the top clubs but the PL is run by their rules. This is why you lot are so sad, you’d rather take pot shots at us than see it as it is perhaps because you really do think that you can join Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. Now that is deluded.

  • ChingfordHammer // January 16, 2009 at 10:35 am

    Gav, you keep telling yourself that. Your starting to sound like a Spud’s fan, they’re completely deluded as well.
    Next you’ll be going on about top 4 finishes and the like, except your not in the PL.

    Hahahaha of course you not silly, because you were and are, still very, very, very crap.

    Mr Warnock(complete tosser) even fecked off and you and him were made for each other.
    Both shouty and crap

  • Midlandblade // January 16, 2009 at 11:51 am

    I will attempt to be the voice of reason here. As a life long Sheffield United Fan, i have respect for all teams and people that run the teams in a fair a transparent way. Unfortunately, as always happends, with the influx of vast amounts of money come corruption and deception. West Ham and Sheffield United have a rich and varied history. West Ham supporters should not be venting there anger on Sheffield United, but on the people who run West Ham. These people have dropped West Ham right in it and placed your club in a extremely difficult position. As a Blades fan, I have no wish to see West Ham forced out of business, football would be a poorer place without you. All West Ham fans should be asking serious questions of the people that put your football club in this position, afterall, how much compensation will they personnally pay? Nothing I guess, leaving you loyal Hammers to foot the bill for their corruption and dis honesty

  • Chops // January 16, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Gavin, still you dish out the abuse and refuse to give any arguments.

    I’ll make it easy for you.

    1.Why are you so sure WHU continued to deceive?

    2.When has a points deduction ever been mentioned by anyone except the media and McCabe?

    3.How does WHU’s dealings with the PL have anything to do with SU?

    The bottom line is Tevez was always eligible, just like any other player WHU or SU fielded throughout the season. Now, without any real evidence to show that WHU had agreements with MSI there’s no way you can question Tevez’s eligibility.

    I’ll say it again – we demanded £2m for Tevez’s registration and were paid it. Why would that be the case if MSI were pulling the strings?

    Even if Shear is telling the truth and we DID have agreements with MSI, I doubt that the PL/FA will give a shit, cause at the end of the day we didn’t let MSI exert 3rd party influence, therefore complying with everything the PL told us to do.

  • ChingfordHammer // January 16, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    But SU are using this as a very sad way of first, trying to get re-instated to the PL and now going after loads of money.

    Yeah, maybe our board messed up(but not for most of the reasons that the press and SU claim), and were fined a record fee.

    Now you’re grasping to a hope that you can prove hearsay as fact.

    As most have said here, you were’nt good enough to stay up and then threw all your toy’s out of your pram, in a desperate attempt to stop yourselves from going down.

    It now looks as if the PL and FA have strung SU along(with mounting legal fee’s), and have orchestrated it all, so it’s hanging on the word of someone who did’nt even hear the supposed “oral cuddle”.
    Because it’s not in the PL’s or FA’s interest’s to let this ruling stand, as it will bring on claim after claim, at the end of season.

    I mean, all you’ve got to do is look at the title of this thread, pretty much say’s it all.

    Why don’t you concentrate on getting yourselves back up instead of throwing money down the drain.
    But then that’s taken a bit longer than you’d probably hoped.

  • SteelCityBlade // January 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    ChingfordHammer etal

    I don’t really think there is much chance of SU getting anything from the process, maybe a bit of cash but reinstatement to the PL will never happen.

    However, I feel McCabe and SU have every right to draw attention to the foul stench around the whole affair. Clearly something was crooked in the process and the fact that WHU continue to lie and deceive just makes the matter harder to forgive. The fact that one of WHU’s ‘greats’ (Brooking) was involved in the original ruling (I think he said punishing WHU would be unfair on the fans?? lol) just makes it worse.

    Personally, I would prefer to move on and forget about it; we have a decent squad and could be challenging for a play off this season (even if we do sell our best players… bye Beattie!), rather than carrying on trying to get a bunch of liars to own up… it ain’t gonna happen!

  • HD // January 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    A few facts:

    - Tevez was eligible to play. Scudamore said so in his letter to clubs in May 2007

    - SU appealed the findings 3 times, despite the fact that the only club eligible to appeal the initial hearing was West Ham. SU finally cried loud enough for someone to be fooled at the fourth hearing, though it took a senile cricket man to accept SU whinging.

    - The new investigation is weighted hugely in West Hams favour. SU have already secured compensation (for the moment) and this new inquiry will not benefit SU in any way. West Ham, however, could and should be found not guilty as the evidence supplied of “oral cuddles” was not done in writing, so is hearsay and no matter how respected a lawyer is, he knows it won’t stand up in a court of law. If West Ham are found not guilty, the result will be enough for West Ham to ask for the SU winning arbitration panel result be overturned, and it will be as the crux of the decision was that Tevez was inelligible for the last 3 games based on the “oral cuddles” evidence.

    - As afr as Kabba is concerned, the Watford site said “Ex-Sheffield United striker Steve Kabba is ruled out of the game – it was a feature in his contract when he signed for the ‘Orns in the January transfer window.” You can find the page here: http://www.watfordfc.com/page/NewsDetail/0,,10400~1017098,00.html

  • Midlandblade // January 16, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    Chingford, you need to stop setting yourself up for a fall, West Ham have been found to be in breach of the rules, West Ham have lost the right of appeal and there is a big bill coming to West Ham as a result. If Scudamore and his sidekicks had have docked you points as they should have done, West Ham would have had one season in the Championship, would now be back in the PL with a clean slate. West Ham would had had this problem with any team that finished 3rd bottom. The PL’s incompetance has coused the prelongation of this saga. The new invetsigation is not aimed at helping West Ham, it’s aimed at covering the arses of the muppets that caused this mess in the first place. Unfortunately they will look to make an example out of The Hammers to cover their tracks

  • HD // January 16, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    Chingford, you need to stop setting yourself up for a fall, West Ham have been found to be in breach of the rules, [An administrative rule]West Ham have lost the right of appeal [West Ham were the only ones who were allowed to appeal the original decision] and there is a big bill coming to West Ham as a result [Maybe...]. If Scudamore and his sidekicks had have docked you points as they should have done {Precendence? There isn’t any and the rule West Ham ‘broke’ wasn’t intended for how they used it to punish West Ham], West Ham would have had one season in the Championship [utter crap. Noone knows how long any team will be promoted or relegated for], would now be back in the PL with a clean slate. West Ham would had had this problem with any team that finished 3rd bottom. The PL’s incompetance has coused the prelongation of this saga[Finally, something I agree with]. The new invetsigation is not aimed at helping West Ham [It will though....], it’s aimed at covering the arses of the muppets that caused this mess in the first place. Unfortunately they will look to make an example out of The Hammers to cover their tracks

    My thoughts in [..]

  • ChingfordHammer // January 16, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    Yes, and we we’re fined 5.5mil for it.
    Read HD’s post above(and many others on here) to see that it look’s like SU are the one’s heading for a fall.
    As i said above, it’s not in the interest of the PL and FA to let SU set a legal precedent, which will lead to long and messy legal battles each season.

    What you are now harping on about is something that can’t be proved and will render you initial claim worthless, as the PL were satisfied that Tevez WAS eligible.

    McCabe has bleated on about this for so long, that you lot are convinced he is right(say it again and again and all will believe you). Plus bad and inacurrate reporting on this have given everyone the wrong en of the stick.
    I’m sure McCabe got the letter from Scudamore, but still goes on and on.

    It’s is nice that you think we would have gone straight back up though.

  • Midlandblade // January 16, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    My thoughts inserted

    Chingford, you need to stop setting yourself up for a fall, West Ham have been found to be in breach of the rules, [An administrative rule]{That was broken}West Ham have lost the right of appeal [West Ham were the only ones who were allowed to appeal the original decision]{Apparently not as they lost the right to appeal, now a fact} and there is a big bill coming to West Ham as a result [Maybe…]{Agreed}. If Scudamore and his sidekicks had have docked you points as they should have done {Precendence? There isn’t any and the rule West Ham ‘broke’ wasn’t intended for how they used it to punish West Ham]{Swindon Town Relegated}, West Ham would have had one season in the Championship [utter crap. Noone knows how long any team will be promoted or relegated for]{Seems I have more confidence than you in your team}, would now be back in the PL with a clean slate. West Ham would had had this problem with any team that finished 3rd bottom. The PL’s incompetance has coused the prelongation of this saga[Finally, something I agree with]. The new invetsigation is not aimed at helping West Ham [It will though….]{It won’t be, Scudamore is looking to save his arse and new television rights are being negotiated West Ham will suffer}, it’s aimed at covering the arses of the muppets that caused this mess in the first place. Unfortunately they will look to make an example out of The Hammers to cover their tracks

  • Midlandblade // January 16, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Chingford. I realise West Ham where fined 5.5 mill, you where found guilty. Sheffield United are suing West Ham for loss of earning resulting from that guilty verdict, hence the claim for 30 to 50 mill. Lets get the facts right!

  • Chops // January 16, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    MidlandBlade, thanks for not slinging mud like most people on here (from both sides) and giving it a go.

    But what I still want to know is why do SU fans think that WHU’s dealings with the PL mean that WHU owe SU £30-£50m?

  • Carlton Goal // January 16, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Midland, you think West Ham would have been promoted out of the Championship at the first attempt (even though it took us two years before with the ‘best team ever to be relegated’) whereas it has taken you at least two years. Surely that is an acceptance on your behalf that we were the better team?

  • HD // January 16, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Midland Blade

    Did Swindon Town have a thrid party clause in a players contract? Were they relegated for that clause? I’m sure you’re not going to say they were relegated for fielding an inelligible player because we have established that Tevez was NEVER ineligible….

    I did say West Ham were the only team allowed to appeal the ORIGINAL decision (i.e. the fine)

    Not that you have more confidence, just that it took a bit longer than one season the last time we were relegated. However, we could ask Lord Griffiths as he seem s to have a crystal ball…!

    I would suggest that Scudamore would prefer it to be in favour of West Ham as if it stands, every team relegated or hard done by in any way will be able to sue for compensation which will end up ruining football both here and possibly worldwide too.

  • jockhammer // January 16, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    Midland – good and reasoned contribution. At last …

    Swindon, Luton, Leeds, etc, etc were not PL.

    SteelCityBlade – another good one.
    The ‘foul stench’ is the fact that the richest PL clubs have always done as they will and sod the rest. This is the whole issue. I don’t have the energy or will to go over it all again here, but if you take a look at any of Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea (not so much Arsenal) dealings in transfers/loans you will find all sorts of stuff that has broken the rules, and not just PL/FA rules but Uefa and Fifa. The rules are for the other clubs to follow or at least only bend slightly. The PL/FA will do as they are told by these clubs and the one at the top is Ferguson. That is why this is going to happen as Impartial said many moons earlier.

    I don’t like it, you don’t like it, but that is where the corruption lay.

  • ChingfordHammer // January 16, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    But Midland, it was’nt his eligibilty that was in doubt, it was third party influences.
    This was sorted in a new contract and we were fined.
    Now how did a third party influence clause, cause your downfall…….please tell me, as this is the whole basis for your claim.

    How did a clause in a contract, saying that MSI can remove Tevez at anytime, affect his registration. Which is what you argument is based on. How many more times, HE WAS ELIGIBLE, hence the letter from the Chairman of the PL to all other PL teams.

    Plus you say, that it’s been agreed a big bill is coming West Hams way. Where have you got this gem of information from, please divulge it, as i’ve seen nothing.
    Or is it McCabe mouthing off again(oh no, he’s been very quiet of late) to anyone who will listen.

  • SteelCityBlade // January 16, 2009 at 4:17 pm


    Will you please stop going on about the letter from the PL? It means nothing… I suppose you still believe there were WMDs in Iraq cos Bush handed in a report to the UN?
    Your criticism of McCabe, that if he keeps saying it people start believing it, holds true for Scudamore’s letter… if the whole system is corrupt, what difference does a letter from one of the top brass mean?
    As JockHammer said, the top teams decide the rules for themselves… WHU’s problem is they tried to do the same but found out that they are not a member of the ‘untouchable elite’ (although I sense many of you still think you are one of the big teams in the PL, lol).

  • ChingfordHammer // January 16, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    CityBlade, i can go on about the letter all day long, as it came from the chairman of the PL.
    Correct me if i’m wrong, i thought they were in charge of this little elite club we call the PL.
    So it kind of means alot, as they make the rules.
    What McCabe say’s does’nt mean a thing, as he does’nt sit as chair on the PL.
    He just own’s the second team in Sheffield.

    You should give up on football all together. Your obviously disgruntled with the whole game, as it’s corrupt. I don’t know why you’d even want to be back in the PL if you feel that way.

    But it still does’nt change the fact, you were’nt good enough to stay up, or come straight back up.
    How can you be, what was it, 10 or 11 points clear of us and still nause it up. That is shameful.
    You should be blaming your team and manager for that.
    SU’s demise had nothing to do with us, get over it

  • Chops // January 16, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    So, close scrutiny from the PL to allow Tevez to play is void because McCabe reckons that Scudamore’s bent? Riiiight……

    I guess we’ll see. If it turns out that we carried on lying then I’ll eat my words, and be ashamed of the club. But I still don’t know what it would have to do with SU.

    If it turns out we that we actually acted in good faith, would you Blades be able to accept that it was not our fault you went down?

  • Gavin // January 16, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    What you West Ham fans don’t get is 3rd party ownership is illegall in the PL, hence Tevez been inelligable.

    West Ham were found guilty of this 3 matches before the end of the season, confirmed to the PL they’d ripped up any third party agreements (which they hadn’t) meaning Tevex was inelligable for the last 3 matches of the season.

    What part of this don’t you West Ham fans understand?

  • ChingfordHammer // January 16, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    But you can’t prove it, how many more times. How do you know it was’nt ripped up. Because a lawyer said so. That lawyer could come forward and say he lied.
    Seeing as he did’nt hear the (alleged)conversation, between Jorbachian and Duxbury. How can he state it as fact.

    Gav you are talking as if this is all written down, which it ain’t.

    Now prove or back up what your claiming.

  • SteelCityBlade // January 16, 2009 at 5:08 pm


    Actually, I agree with you… if we had managed to stay above you then this problem would have gone away. But, that doesn’t change the fact that something in the whole saga was dodgy as hell.

    My view isn’t that Scudamore is bent, Chops, but that the PL is ruled by powers way above SU and WHU (sorry). This will lead to dodgy deals that suit the big clubs, but when smaller clubs play up (take a bow WHU) then suddenly it becomes an issue.

    Whats funny about this discussion is that WHU and SU fans are slating each other when actually the problems lie with the PL having different rules for different table positions.

    Its unfortunate that WHU and SU are having to continue this drawn out process, and we all know that nothing will come of it now. But, I give McCabe some credit for not letting it lie… if the boot was on the other foot, wouldn’t you want to find out what exactly went on?

    The fact that some are clinging to this as a way of returning to the PL is unfortunate… we simply weren’t good enough during the season, end of. And our squad sure doesn’t look any better now!

    The fact that something in the Tevez transfer was dodgy is a different issue, but still should be dealt with for the good of the game. WHU can take it personal if they wish, but doesn’t change the fact that the PL has a mess on its hands that needs cleaning up. Personally, I wouldn’t particularly want to return to the PL in any other way than playing football and winning matches… exacly what we didn’t do when we were last there!

  • Gavin // January 16, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    I’m with you Steel City, if we would have beaten Wigan then it would have been them making the claim.

    The PL rules state 3rd Party ownership is illegal, however no clear guidelines were set for the punishment of any club breaking the rules.

    I suppose its done on a adhoc basis based on the size of the club.

  • Chops // January 16, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    3rd party ownership is not illegal and Tevez was never ineligible. Gav, sorry mate, but if you really think Tevez was ever ineligible then you’re way behind the rest of us.

    MSI are allowed to have economic rights over Tevez (like they do now with Man U), but it becomes illegal when they have any influence over him.

    Now, it is fact that there never was any 3rd party influence, because Tevez ended up playing. The problem is that Shear says that WHU were allowing MSI to have a final say over Tevez, which is illegal. WHU are saying that MSI weren’t allowed to have any influence over him.

    If you look at the facts – WHU were paid for Tevez’s registration, therefore it was not down to MSI what happened to Tevez.

    If there were ‘oral cuddles’ (which is disputed) then I don’t see what problem the FA/PL will have with it, because at the end of the day NO 3rd PARTY INFLUENCE WAS EXERTED.

    And still, what has it got to do with SU? They only come into this if you presuppose that WHU should have been deducted points. As has been stated, there has been no precedent set for the PL ever deducting points for something like this.

  • Gavin // January 16, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Is your brain hurting Chops?

    3rd Party ownership IS illegal in the UK and not allowed in British football.

    If Tevez wasn’t owned by a third party does this mean West Ham will recieve £32m when his transfer to Man U is complete?

  • Chops // January 16, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    As previously stated Gav, MSI are allowed to own Tevez’s economic rights, hence him being allowed to play for Man U.

  • Gavin // January 16, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    So West Ham own his registration but MSI own the economic rights???

    So how much will West Ham get when he signs for Man U as he must still be a West Ham player if he’s on loan to Man U?

  • Chops // January 16, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    Nearly there…
    We did own his playing rights when he played for us, but were paid £2m by MSI for those rights so he could move to Man U.

    That’s why MSI could not have had any 3rd party influence over Tevez, cause we owned his playing rights.

  • Ant // January 16, 2009 at 7:28 pm


    3rd party ownership is legal. Its legal in the Championship, and its legal in the premiership. Tevez is still owned by Kia/MSI

  • Chops // January 17, 2009 at 11:53 pm


    Maybe inconclusive but definitely something worth throwing in the mix…

  • jockhammer // January 18, 2009 at 12:51 am

    This is the only thread I’ve been on where we’re finally getting to the crux of it all.

    Steel – I know you’re only joking but we are nowhere near the ‘big’ 4. No one else is including at the moment Man City.

    I preferred the FL, there was still an elite but every club had a chance including those that came up.

    “if the boot was on the other foot, wouldn’t you want to find out what exactly went on?”
    No we wouldn’t have, we would have been annoyed but maybe we’re just a bit too used to this treatment to be that bothered. We would have definitely blamed our board and our chairman, and our manager and probably some of our players for losing that 10 point advantage.

    This is the thing that has most annoyed me – we definitely would not have gone on to other clubs websites mouthing abuse and harassing their fans. A bit of banter is ok, but what we’ve had is your fans coming to us blaming us for our board and the PL. That was out of order. And the whole ‘southern media’ bs – if you look at any headlines for the past year or so, I’d say at least 95 % are against us, and its because its a Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal media.

    At the end of the day, we would have preferred to get our own back on the pitch and in the stands (singing I might add). After all the dice are loaded, the game is going one way, but we can win a few skirmishes and bloody a few noses along the way.

Leave a comment
  1. View comments in RSS feed