Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Justice

mattie said:
Not only in the front row of the tribunal, also a fly on the wall of the contract negotiations. You get around.

Maybe, just maybe, West Ham got them as kia was trying to buy the club?
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant, they should never have been signed under those conditions, West Ham knew it, but they were so desperate to get the players they lied about it

Seemed pretty open-and-shut to me. Naughty Sheff Utd.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it didn't happen, hence no punishment for us
 
There's only one Steve Kabba, one Steve Kabba.

To be honest, being lectured about integrity and justice in football from fans of Sheffield Utd and Newcastle is a bit of a joke.
 
bluestreak said:
There's only one Steve Kabba, one Steve Kabba.

To be honest, being lectured about integrity and justice in football from fans of Sheffield Utd and Newcastle is a bit of a joke.
Click to expand...

yes, but we're cheats bluey. you know, us having that contract clause meant that sheff utd got relegated. We should have clauses in everybody's contract saying that other people can sell them - we'd get everybody relegated. There'd just be us in the league. That's the kind of power we wield.
 
CyberRose said:
That's not the point, you broke it deliberately and concealed it so you could sign two international super stars that had you not deliberately broke the rules to sign, would never have signed for West Ham at all
Click to expand...

Yes, and had they not signed at all, we most likely would have got more points than the total we ended up on.
 
CyberRose said:
That's irrelevant, they should never have been signed under those conditions, West Ham knew it, but they were so desperate to get the players they lied about it
Click to expand...

see, you've got no way to know that. You've just made that up.

But as long as you're working for justice I suppose making things up is OK.
 
OK... still not up to speed on all the goings on..... Sheff United fail within the football season to secure a place in the league and are demoted.. then claim a team above them have cheated.

But, isn't it the responsibility of the club to secure their own position regardless of what anyone else is doing. i cannot understand how the argument of the legality of the signing affects the performance of another team. If you are wining, the other team can field a team of trained shetland ponies to chase the ball.

Could it be said that the teams winning promotion did so by beating the relegated teams twice and not being fair in regard to their lowly position in the league?

How does one man, in a team of eleven, make such a difference. Surely the opposing teams can counter or mark the supposed superstar out of the game?
 
Logic has no place here, Descartes.

Thank you.

But, if relegation depends on one player in another team, are Sheffield United now vying for promotion?

Opps, too logoical. Where's my hat and coat.
 
Descartes said:
Logic has no place here, Descartes.

Thank you.

But, if relegation depends on one player in another team, are Sheffield United now vying for promotion?

Opps, too logoical. Where's my hat and coat.
Click to expand...
Seriously, either you're a West Ham fan or you're incapable of reading a newspaper or conducting a simple Google search!
 
Seriously, either you're a West Ham fan or you're incapable of reading a newspaper or conducting a simple Google search!

Nope, just trying to get the supporters views...but. obviously, to much bias and prejudices... OK no problem.
 
Descartes said:
Seriously, either you're a West Ham fan or you're incapable of reading a newspaper or conducting a simple Google search!

Nope, just trying to get the supporters views...but. obviously, to much bias and prejudices... OK no problem.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell:

West Ham signed a player who they shouldn't have because the terms of his contract broke Prem rules. In order to sign him (Tevez) they concealed the nature of his contract from the PL, but they got found out when another player (Mashcerano) signed under a similar contract moved to Liverpool. As punishment for that, West Ham were fined £5.5m and ordered to terminate the contract Tevez was on in order to allow him to continue playing for West Ham in their last three games. West Ham informed the PL that they had terminated the contract and Tevez was able to continue playing and in doing so, scored the goals that kept West Ham up. Sheff Utd were convinced that it was impossible to unilaterally terminate a contract and began all this legal action in tribunals. This recent tribunal discovered that West Ham has not terminated Tevez' contract and therefore Tevez should not have been able to play in the last three games, or score the goals that kept them up. As a result, the tribunal said Sheff Utd should be able to claim for a loss of earnings due to being relegated as they did not think West Ham would have stayed up without Tevez playing for them (presumably West Ham thought the same or they wouldn't have played him). Now West Ham want to appeal against that decision but everyone is waiting for the PL to make some kind of statement about this. The PL said if they found out the contract wasn't terminated they would take necessary steps (something West Ham fans seem to be unaware of) which should result in either further fines (going rate of £5.5m) or a massive points deduction...
 
OK, Thank you CyberRose

Only one question, what were Sheffield United doing while this was happening?

Destiny, own hands and all that.

.. I think from the legal point of view a brialliant argument to excuse a poor performance, and having googled shef UNited and read of things like the battle of Bramall Lane,,, and the manager's nickname of Colin. and his present performance with Crystal Palace.

What ever side you take, very much six of one and etc.

The rhetoric, the huff and puff does make good reading.

But, are every club in the league innocent and above reproach, the 'professional' foul is not something a player just suddenly lunges into. The shirt pulling , the elbows and knees used to influence possession seem to be just as bad but have become acceptable because eveyone does it
 
We did terminate the third party contract and subsequently got sued by kia beacuse you can't do that unilaterally and ebnded up paying him a sttlement so it didnt go to court.(i think)

we have lawyered up and our now fighting the decision by the way.

We might have stayed up without tevz that can't be known. What is known is that we had explicit permission from the Premier eague saying we could play him and he was our best striker so we played him.

Presumably fulham thuink they can stay up with zamora as a striker or they wouldn't have bought him.



dave
 
kained&able said:
we had explicit permission from the Premier eague saying we could play him and he was our best striker so we played him.
Click to expand...
But only on the condition that Tevez' contract was terminated. West Ham gave verbal and written confirmation to the PL that the contract was terminated, so the PL took their word for it and allowed Tevez to play (and score the goals that kept you up). However, this tribunal has just found out that West Ham assured Kia the contract wasn't terminated, so West Ham lied to the PL in order to continue playing Tevez after their punishment for playing him in the season up to that point. West Ham have never received any punishment for this second flaunting of the rules, even the possible compensation to us isn't classed as "punishment", as that can only come from the PL. Expect them to be MAJORLY pissed of that West Ham made them look stupid by taking their word for it that the contract had been terminated and the only way they can save face is by either resigning (yea right!) or issuing West Ham a massive points deduction (minimum 30 if you ask me)

People are saying this case opens a can of worms and sets a dangerous precedent, well I think the more dangerous precedent is telling clubs they can break the rules and get away with it, no matter what they do...
 
Were we represnted at the last tribunal or was this verdict made on the basis of kia's lawyers testimony alone?

dave
 
I guess so yea...

BBC said:
When two clubs are in dispute, then under the FA's Rule K, there is a procedure for solving disagreements through independent arbitrators.

Each club can nominate one member of a private arbitration tribunal, then together the two parties choose a third to act as chairman.

In this case, the panel was made up of Lord Griffiths, a former President of the MCC, Robert Englehart QC, and Sir Anthony Colman, a former High Court Judge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/7631557.stm
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Diogo Jota RIP
2
Replies
52
Views
1K
Humberto
Humberto
editor
Jamie Vardy - 38 years old and still scoring and winding up fans in the Premier League
Replies
29
Views
1K
Lotte
L
Lord Camomile
Spain v Georgia | 8pm, Sun 30 Jun
2 3
Replies
86
Views
2K
Lord Camomile
Lord Camomile
Maggot
Spain v Italy, Thurs 20th June 2024
Replies
22
Views
1K
Lotte
L
Steel Icarus
Germany v Scotland, 14th June, 20:00 (ITV)
2 3 4 5
Replies
139
Views
4K
Monte
Monte
Back
Top Bottom