blades or hammers, who will win the pointless arbitration of doom?
- Thread starter bluestreak
- Start date
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Makes no difference - it's Watford in the wrong, not us!
And they seem to have decided to take an awful long time for something the Premier League (and West Ham and their merry bunch of supporters) said would be thrown out, and that Sheff Utd didn't have a leg to stand on...
If the arbitration panel decided in our favour, and the Premier League decided to relegate West Ham (they couldn't just deduct two points because everybody would know why and it would make a complete mockery out of the Premier League)...would you accept that it was fair?
And they seem to have decided to take an awful long time for something the Premier League (and West Ham and their merry bunch of supporters) said would be thrown out, and that Sheff Utd didn't have a leg to stand on...
If the arbitration panel decided in our favour, and the Premier League decided to relegate West Ham (they couldn't just deduct two points because everybody would know why and it would make a complete mockery out of the Premier League)...would you accept that it was fair?
mattie
missing in inaction
CyberRose said:
Nope, because from my perspective McCabe is trying all ways and means of dodging the drop, hoping that something will stick, and canvassing popular opinion with deliberate misrepresentations. Threatening to go to the European court before the verdict of the second arbitration is given is an attempt to pressure the verdict, and it's pretty scummy - the only reason this has dragged on is that McCabe has refused to abide by an arbitration process he had already agreed to.
If he'd have kicked up this level of stink at the time of the original verdict, registering a single, well-balanced complaint, it might not seem that he's being opportunistic.
If, for some bizarre reason, the verdict does go his way, expect West Ham to hammer him over the Kabba affair- there are two sides to every contract, as our dear friend Dave Whelan was so keen to point out. Please also note that West Ham were fined for misleading the league about the possibility of outside interference, not outside interference itself. Sheff Utd and Watford are being investigated for actual outside interference.
CyberRose said:
Uh... the longer time they take, the less likely it means that you bunch of ferret-molesting bastards will get any chance of being resintated.
Let's not forget, this arbitration panel can only decide if the original process was done correctly. They CANNOT, as I keep outlining, reissue penalties.
So, that being, hopefully, at last settling into the thick exteriors of the brains of many people posting on this thread, let's look into the possibilities.
IF you were somehow to get the arbitration panel to decide that the *process8 was wrong, *then* you could demand a re-commission.
That would take a few weeks longer. That would see us into late july.
Nah.
They won't let it carry on that long. The season's fixtures have been decided. Pre-season friendlies are getting underway.
If they were going to rule "against" (and I say against in inverted commas as this particular hearing has notihing to do with us) us, even from now, they would need a good month to sort everything out, so they would be trying to rush it through as soon as possible.
All this 'end of the month' stuff makes me even mroe confident than I already was tjat you lot will be playing in the championship next saeason.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
CyberRose said:
How is it just Watford in the wrong?
Sheff and Watford were both party to an illegal contract allowing third party influence in selection. The only difference between that and the Tevez affair is that in the case of Watford and The blunt blades the 3rd party influence actuall took place!
Apparently in our instance, kia would have been punished too, only he happens not to be an English football club. So Sheffield United's excuse doesn't hold water.
mattie said:
Benni was interviewed months ago by Sky, and he talked then about how much he had enjoyed working with Mourinho in Porto. They have a little mutual admiration society going apparently. This isn't the same thing as a contract. At present it's just rehashing of old news.
kained&able
Here for the football.
dave
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Oh no!
http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.u...y_did_kabba_not_make_cut_for_blades_clash.php
Now what you gonna do when you're relegated?!
http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.u...y_did_kabba_not_make_cut_for_blades_clash.php
Watford FC said:
Now what you gonna do when you're relegated?!
Of course
they will win it, dirty cheating bastards they are....
blah blah blah Brooking.....blah blah blah Academy..blah blah blah 1969 blar fuckin blah.....they are all scum without exception.
if a bomb dropped on upton park............
they will win it, dirty cheating bastards they are....
blah blah blah Brooking.....blah blah blah Academy..blah blah blah 1969 blar fuckin blah.....they are all scum without exception.
if a bomb dropped on upton park............
Pickles said:
charming
kained&able
Here for the football.
CyberRose said:
so why are the premiership investigating it then?
and from that article.
so they lied in april and then when the investigation started they started telling th truth that thier was no clause really it was all a big joke and misunderstanding. Bollocks.
dave
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
What's on the websites are irrelevant - what is is what's actually in the contracts. If there is no agreement in there, and it's just a gentlemen's agreement then the Premier League have already decided that's fine.
Oh yea...OH NO pt 2!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...article_id=463825&in_page_id=1779&ito=newsnow
Oh yea...OH NO pt 2!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...article_id=463825&in_page_id=1779&ito=newsnow
kained&able
Here for the football.
what do you mean oh no. WE ADMITTED TO THERE BEING THIRD PARTY INFLUENCE IN THE CONTRACTS!!! what does this proove. West ham and kia jacobson had written contracts and were doing the dishoinesty on the level??
what?
so why oh would your boys and watfprd both say there were clauses in the contract prohibiting him play if it was just a gentlemens agreement. Oh and a gentlemsn agreement with stuff on an official website surely constutes a verbal contract which is subject to the same laws as a written contract. Its just normally a bit harder to proove. But not in this case yay to your reporters.
dave
what?
so why oh would your boys and watfprd both say there were clauses in the contract prohibiting him play if it was just a gentlemens agreement. Oh and a gentlemsn agreement with stuff on an official website surely constutes a verbal contract which is subject to the same laws as a written contract. Its just normally a bit harder to proove. But not in this case yay to your reporters.
dave
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
In this whole sorry affair everyone including the PL seem to have overlooked one thing.
By the inclusion of the clause which enabled ZK to remove Tevez and Mascareno from WHU, the third party influence which we have been fpound guilty of, what possible advantage did WHU gain? conversely what possible detrement could any other PL side have suffered?
If we did not gain an advantage and no other team was at a disadvantage who excatly was the victim of the crime we committed, because from where I am sitting the clause in question could only possible have been a disadvantage to us!!!
By the inclusion of the clause which enabled ZK to remove Tevez and Mascareno from WHU, the third party influence which we have been fpound guilty of, what possible advantage did WHU gain? conversely what possible detrement could any other PL side have suffered?
If we did not gain an advantage and no other team was at a disadvantage who excatly was the victim of the crime we committed, because from where I am sitting the clause in question could only possible have been a disadvantage to us!!!
kained&able
Here for the football.
but thats not the point mr 27. The point is that sheffield united blew an 11 point advantage over us and bottled the last game of he season entirely and are looking for excuses to remian in the premiership lieing repeatedly in the process.
Also beacuse they know we wont be sent down they are asking every team to play an extra two games next season right before a european championship no less.
dave
Also beacuse they know we wont be sent down they are asking every team to play an extra two games next season right before a european championship no less.
dave
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
The issue is not over the original contract, but the one West Ham claimed to have terminated, thereby making Teves eligible to play for you after the original disciplinary panel...kained&able said:
The Official Websites quite often don't know their arse from their elbow when it comes to things to do with their teams! Either way, according to Rule U18 which fat that cunt Samuel is trying to pin on us, it would be Watford in the wrong, not us! And no, it wouldn't be a verbal contract as the websites referred to something they believed was written in the contract, not an informal agreement, therefore, it would constitute a mistake in the reporting of the story, nothing more!
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Yes we bottled the last game, but our results were fairly good towards the end of the season, it would be more accurate to say West Ham came on extremely strong towards the end of the season, thanks solely to Carlos Tevez who would not be at West Ham had they not lied about his contract at the beginning of the season, and would also not have been allowed to continue to play for West Ham following their disciplinary had they not lied AGAIN about terminating the third party contract...kained&able said:
tommers
Currently in investor / advisor mode.
CyberRose said:
christ. I made a resolution not to talk about this shit any more but when you come out with so much inaccurate shit then I guess I have to.
1. our resurgence wasn't "solely" due to tevez. green, noble, neill, collins and ferdinand may have a bit of something to say about that.
2. The original inquiry and the premier league themselves said that if they had known about the offending contract at the start of the whole thing then they would have worked with us in order to solve the problem. In fact that was given as one of the reasons why they DIDN'T deduct points!
3. We didn't lie about terminating the contract. The PL league were entirely satisfied that we did, and the original inquiry and our own lawyers said that the offending contract was probably illegal and unenforceable anyway.
Now, that said, you carry on just making stuff up, seems to be the way forward.
tommers
Currently in investor / advisor mode.
CyberRose said:
Look. This is another bit of spin that winds me up.
Relegation from the premier league is not determined by who has or hasn't broken the rules.
Ok?
Sheff Utd may not have broken the rules (cos they possibly did or didn't write anything down) but they DID only get 38 points.
and that's why they got relegated.
maybe nobody should ever be relegated unless they break the rules?
fuck's sake.
The dam has burst, I look forward to eggy's comments once you get told (again) that you're down.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Oh I know we're relegated and will be playing Championship football next season, but winding West Ham fans up is just too much fun especially when you know, and everyone else in football knows, you're in the Premier League through being lying cheats, and even more fun is how you're shitting yourselves because, even though it probably won't happen (with the Premier League being the corrupt money grabbing incompetent bastards that they are) you know that there is a possibility of you still being relegated (and you know that in the unlikely event justice will prevail, that is what should happen!)
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Of course! And the arbitration panel should rule the original decision flawed as the Premier League says Tevez was eligible to play, then later on in their decision, say West Ham needed to terminate the contract in order to make him eligible to play (suggesting he wasn't in fact eligible to play)tommers said:
