West Ham United 06/07: The Great Escape!

[Miqu]

Soap Opera Final Version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4DdR2-F7hI&mode=related&search=

Lutuuria

Aletaanahan keskittymään ensi kauteen

[Elmslie Ender]

FIFA on puuttunut peliin ja aikoo tutkia, olisiko pisteitä pitänyt vähentää.

[jjs]

FIFA on puuttunut peliin ja aikoo tutkia, olisiko pisteitä pitänyt vähentää.

 

Fifa will investigate Tevez saga 
Fifa is to investigate whether West Ham should have been docked points for breaching rules over the signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.
An independent commission fined West Ham £5.5m, but several clubs felt they were let off lightly.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter said: "We will look at this. We will ask for the file once it has been decided how and why the decision was made.

"If we feel something was wrong then we have to open our file."

Sheffield United, who went down on the final day of the season as West Ham survived, are leading the fight against the decision not to punish the Hammers with a points deduction.

The Blades, who are being supported by the likes of Wigan, Fulham and Middlesbrough, are also concerned that Tevez may not have been eligible to play after the Premier League's ruling on 27 April.

The Argentine striker played a key role in West Ham's escape from relegation - scoring seven goals in the club's last 10 games.
 

[Miqu]

 : Saadaanpa pelleille hyvä mieli :

Alkaa mennä naurettavaksi

E: et sitten viittinyt postata tätä kohtaa uutisesta:

"According to our files the transfer of Tevez was done correctly according to the international transfer of players."

[Elmslie Ender]

Minulla ei ainakaan ole mitään West Hamia vastaan - sympaattinen seura, jonka näen mielelläni Valioliigassa. Sheffield Unitedkin olisi saanut säilyä ja Wigan pudota.

Mutta oikeustajuuni tämä tapaus ei sovi. FA on säännöllisesti rankaissut pienempiä seuroja jopa todella kovilla pistemenetyksillä vahingossakin tapahtuneista edustusoikeusrikkomuksista. Oman ymmärrykseni mukaan tässäkin on sellaisesta pohjimmiiltaan kyse. West Ham itse pahensi asiaa tietoisesti salailemalla, jolloin ei voi edes vedota vahinkoon. Tuntuu siltä, että West Hamilta jätettiin vähentämättä pisteitä vain, koska se on iso valioliigaseura ja sitä on ikävämpi rankaista mahdollisten oikeusjuttujen ja yleisen bisneksen kärsimisen vuoksi. Sakkorangaistuksen perustelutkin viittasivat tähän.

Jos FIFA tutkimuksissaan näkee, että West Hamilta ei kuulu vähentää pisteitä ja tähän on kunnolliset perusteet, niin hyvä. Oikeus on tapahtunut. Hieno seura säilyy ja valitukset epärehellisestä pelistä tai ison seuran lempeästä kohtelusta voidaan unohtaa.

Jos FIFA tutkimuksissaan näkee, että West Hamilta kuuluu vähentää pisteitä ja West Ham putoaa, niin hyvä. Oikeus on tapahtunut. Harmi West Hamin kannattajille ja joukkueelle, mutta tehtyjä rikkomuksia ei voi paeta vetoamalla edelliseen seurajohtoon.

[Elmslie Ender]

E: et sitten viittinyt postata tätä kohtaa uutisesta:

Ei kai tuossa ole ollut koskaan mitään epäselvää? Blatter vain varmisti asian.

[Miqu]

West Ham itse pahensi asiaa tietoisesti salailemalla, jolloin ei voi edes vedota vahinkoon. Tuntuu siltä, että West Hamilta jätettiin vähentämättä pisteitä vain, koska se on iso valioliigaseura ja sitä on ikävämpi rankaista mahdollisten oikeusjuttujen ja yleisen bisneksen kärsimisen vuoksi. Sakkorangaistuksen perustelutkin viittasivat tähän.

Harmi West Hamin kannattajille ja joukkueelle, mutta tehtyjä rikkomuksia ei voi paeta vetoamalla edelliseen seurajohtoon.

Itse asiassa West Ham toi itse asian esille, kun Magnussonille selvisi asian oikea laita. Brown oli yrittänyt hyötyä henkilökohtaisesti seuran myynnistä ja siksi tehnyt nämä sopimukset, siltä varalta, että seuran myynti ei MSI:lle olisi onnistunut. Koska näin kävi, Mr. Igoe vei asian FAPL:n käsiin, jotta pelaajien edustusoikeus säilyisi seuralla, kun omistajuus siirtyi Magnussonin konsrtiolle. Tämä katsottiin lieväntäväksi asianhaaraksi päätöstä tehtäessa. Samoin Eggs antoi potkut Brownille Hammerssin kunniapuheenjohtajan pallilta, otti tältä pois aition ja keskeytti tältä maksut (n. £4,5m), jotka olisivat kuuluneet tälle. Myös plussaa Hammerssille päätöksessä.

Kun Mascherano siirtyi Pooliin, katsottiin, että West Ham olisi voinut tehdä alkujaankin samanlaisen paperin kuin Mascheranon tapauksessa, mutta Brown oli omalla ahneudellaan estänyt sen. Kun kuitenkaan ko. sopimuksista ei kenellekään ollut hallaa, muille kuin Hammerssille, katsottiin sakot sopiviksi.

Ihmetyttääkin nyt, kun Hammers pelaamalla säilytti sarjapaikan, niin miksi tämä on kaikkia niin paljon kiinnostava asia? Jos Olisi pudottu, niin ketään ei olisi kiinnostanut. Hammers halusi kaksi hyvää pelaaja ja olisi saanut ne oikeinlaisillakin papereilla, mutta entisen puheenjohtajan ahneuden takia tehtiin vääränlaiset paperit. Onko West Ham, seura joka työllistää n. 90 työntekijää ja jolla on yksi Englannin suurimmista kannattajakunnista vastuussa yksilön tekemistä raktaisuista? Pitääkö Hammerssia rankaista, kun ex-puheenjohtajaa ei voida? Miettikää nyt ihmiset vähän tämänkin asian laajuutta ihan oikeasti. Kyse on muotoseikasta, siitä, että paperilla on annettu mahdollisuus johonkin, sopimuksen irtisanomiseen, jota ei edes ikinä toteutunut. Wiganilla, SheffieldU:lla ja Charltonilla oli kaikilla mahdollsiuus ratkaista asia kentällä, mutta kukaan ei pystynyt. West Ham teki teon jota moni epäili (allekirjoittanut mukaan lukien) mahdottomaksi ja nyt se halutaan häväistä.

Uskon kuitenkin vakaasti, että järki voittaa tässäkin jutussa lopulta ja kun kaikki perehtyvät saagaan riittävästi, asia jää entiselleen. 

[Blanchflower]

Onko West Ham, seura joka työllistää n. 90 työntekijää ja jolla on yksi Englannin suurimmista kannattajakunnista vastuussa yksilön tekemistä raktaisuista?

On - mikä siinä on niin vaikeaa ymmärtää.

Kyse on muotoseikasta, siitä, että paperilla on annettu mahdollisuus johonkin, sopimuksen irtisanomiseen, jota ei edes ikinä toteutunut.

Kyse on sääntörikkomuksesta, josta asianmukainen sanktio olisi ollut pisteiden menetys.

[Elmslie Ender]

Jos Olisi pudottu, niin ketään ei olisi kiinnostanut. Hammers halusi kaksi hyvää pelaaja ja olisi saanut ne oikeinlaisillakin papereilla, mutta entisen puheenjohtajan ahneuden takia tehtiin vääränlaiset paperit. Onko West Ham, seura joka työllistää n. 90 työntekijää ja jolla on yksi Englannin suurimmista kannattajakunnista vastuussa yksilön tekemistä raktaisuista? Pitääkö Hammerssia rankaista, kun ex-puheenjohtajaa ei voida? Miettikää nyt ihmiset vähän tämänkin asian laajuutta ihan oikeasti. Kyse on muotoseikasta, siitä, että paperilla on annettu mahdollisuus johonkin, sopimuksen irtisanomiseen, jota ei edes ikinä toteutunut.

Tehtiin vääränlaiset paperit. West Ham on seurana vastuussa tekemisistään. Siitä ei pääse seurajohtoa vaihtamalla. Brown on tapaus erikseen ja West Ham voi yrittää hakea häneltä korvauksia seuralle aiheutetusta haitasta. Valioliigaan ja FA:han päin vastuussa on kuitenkin West Ham.

Usein pisterangaistukset ovat tulleet vahingossa tehdyistä muotovirheistä, jonka vuoksi pelaajien edustusoikeus ei ole ollut kunnossa. Tässä tapauksessa pelaajien sopimukset eivät olleet kunnossa, eivätkä he olisi saaneet pelata, ellei West Ham olisi pimittänyt asiaa.

Lisäksi vetoat juuri asiaan, joka henkilökohtaisesti ärsyttää. Iso seura, ei saisi rankaista. Fanien tai työntekijöiden määrällä tai liikevaihdolla ei pitäisi olla mitään väliä. Seuroille yhtenäinen kohtelu.

[Miqu]

EE, olet osittain oikeassa, nimittäin samanlainen kohtelu kaikille. Historian suurimmat sakot, olivathan nekin jotain. Eiköhän tämä asia ole kuitenkin taputeltu. FIFA on ilmoittanut, ettei tutki asiaa, joten that's it.

Fifa chief wades into Tevez saga 
 
The West Ham saga has prompted concern from Fifa
Fifa president Sepp Blatter says he will look into how the Premier League handled West Ham's breach of rules.
West Ham were fined £5.5m for irregularities over the signing of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano but they escaped a points deduction.

Blatter said he is "monitoring the situation very carefully".

But Fifa has told BBC Five Live Sport that it is not re-examining the evidence with the aim of testing the Premier League's ruling.

West Ham broke two Premier League rules by entering into a private agreement with a third-party company when they signed Argentine pair Tevez and Mascherano in August last year.

 

Lähde: BBC

[Kanoute]

Meneekö hallusinaatioiden puolelle vai muistanko oikein, että jossain vastaavantyyppisessä tilanteessa Spurs on selvinnyt sakoilla / sanktioitta juuri siksi, että seurajohto oli ehtinyt vaihtua tekohetken ja sanktioiden voimaanastumisen välillä. Jos meni oikein, niin eikö tuo kelpaa ennakkotapaukseksi?

[Blanchflower]

Meneekö hallusinaatioiden puolelle vai muistanko oikein, että jossain vastaavantyyppisessä tilanteessa Spurs on selvinnyt sakoilla / sanktioitta juuri siksi, että seurajohto oli ehtinyt vaihtua tekohetken ja sanktioiden voimaanastumisen välillä. Jos meni oikein, niin eikö tuo kelpaa ennakkotapaukseksi?

Menee ja ei mene - vuosi oli 1994 ja laittommiin pelaajamaksuihin liittyneet rikkeet olivat tapahtuneet aikaisemman omistuksen alaisuudessa muistaakseni vuosina 1985-1989. Sugar kyllä vetosi omistajanvaihdokseen, mutta lopullisessa välimiestuomioistuimen päätöksessä poistaa kaikki pistemenetykset tuolla ei tainnut painoarvoa olla, vaan syytteiden katsottiin pohjautuvan osittain väärinkäsityksiin ja pistevähennyksien ei katsottu olevan sen hetkisten sääntöjen mukaisia.

Eli tapaus tuo lähinnä toivoa Bladesille ja kumppaneille - mikäli komission tuomion ei katsota olevan tämän hetkisten sääntöjen mukainen, asiaa voi hyvin viedä eteenpäin toisaalla.

[jjs]

Sheffield United järjestää tänään lehdistötilaisuuden, jossa saatetaan mainita jotain mahdollisista toimista argentiinalaisasiassa. Pääasia on kuitenkin Warnockin jatkosta tiedottaminen, joten voi olla että täytyy odotella vielä muutama päivä.

[Miqu]

Sheffield United järjestää tänään lehdistötilaisuuden, jossa saatetaan mainita jotain mahdollisista toimista argentiinalaisasiassa. Pääasia on kuitenkin Warnockin jatkosta tiedottaminen, joten voi olla että täytyy odotella vielä muutama päivä.

Roskasakin topicissa Nämä

[Miqu]

Tevez on antanut pari sanaa toimittajajlle Buenos Airesissa:

We deserved to stay up
 
May 16, 2007
 
CARLOS TEVEZ insists West Ham beat the drop on the pitch and not off it.

FIFA are probing the Argy striker’s transfer last summer. But Tevez said: “We avoided relegation on the pitch and not in offices.

“We achieved it thanks to the players and fans. It was a miraculous salvation — one of the most emotional moments of my career.”

Hammers’ hero Tevez, 23, arrived back in Buenos Aires yesterday after his goal at Manchester United made sure West Ham stayed up.

He added: “I found it difficult to adapt to England but the fans were magnificent.

“They gave me strength and, luckily, I was able to pay back their affection with goals.”

Voisi tuosta sopeutumisvaikeudesta päätellä, että menee sitten Madridiin tms.

[Bimbo d'Oro]

No eikös tuo lause ole imperfektissä, eli "tunsin sopeutumisen Englantiin vaikeaksi". Ei se tarkoita etteikö Tevez olisi sopeutunut jo, kuten pelillisistä asioista voisi päätellä. Tosin kovat ajat silti on West Hamilla edessä jos yrittävät Tevezistä taistella.

[Miqu]

Mielenkiintoinen artikkeli The Guardianissa:

West Ham in line for huge Tevez windfall

Matt Scott
Wednesday May 16, 2007
The Guardian


West Ham United are set to pick up a multi-million-pound windfall if they sell Carlos Tevez this summer, a situation which is bound to infuriate the "gang of four" clubs who continue to contest the striker's right to play in the Premiership.

On a day when the Tevez affair took on an international angle with the presidents of both Fifa and Uefa stepping into the dispute, it emerged that, under the terms of his four-year playing contract, only West Ham will benefit from the forward's sale. Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini would doubtless be dismayed that the prospect of yet another legal wrangle has now been raised, this time between the club and the offshore companies that brought Tevez to Upton Park.

This is because the only document relating to West Ham that remains legally enforceable from the complicated sheaf of paperw*rk that dictated the terms of Tevez's arrival in London last August is his playing contract. That means he is West Ham's player and that the club alone would be due any fee from his sale.

The offshore companies are understood to retain commercial contracts with the Argentinian player. These would permit the companies to sue for damages in a commercial court if West Ham refused to pay them a consideration for any transfer fee they received - and with Real Madrid linked with a £30m bid for Tevez, that could be considerable.

Such contracts between the player and third-party companies are perfectly legal under the Premier League rule U18 that led to £3m of the £5.5m fines imposed on West Ham last month. This is because the rule governs the conduct of clubs, not of players.

In any case, third-party contracts governing players' image rights and so-called "escape clauses" allowing certain bids to trigger a player's release are commonplace in the Premiership. Beyond national borders, the involvement of third-party companies in player ownership is widespread.

Blatter yesterday announced Fifa's intention to scrutinise the verdict of the independent commission that found the Hammers guilty of having breached Premier League rules over their signing of Tevez. The Fifa president appeared willing to listen to the complaints of the "gang of four" clubs - Sheffield United, Charlton Athletic, Fulham and Wigan Athletic - who are aggrieved that West Ham were not docked points, which might have condemned them to relegation.

"We will look at this - and not only if we are asked, we will do it anyway," said Blatter. "We will ask for the file once it has been decided how and why the decision was made. If we feel something was wrong in this decision then we have to open our file. The matter is linked with a club in Brazil - Corinthians - and with the ownership of this club and the ownership of the two players [Tevez and Javier Mascherano]. According to our files the transfer of Tevez was done correctly according to the international transfer of players. We have the right and the responsibility to see how such cases are dealt with."

The Premier League responded in a statement: "We have implemented our rulebook and processes to the letter in this matter and we are more than happy to give Fifa any assurances or explanations they need."

Blatter's Uefa counterpart, Platini, said that although Fifa is the international arbiter of player transfers, there are no regulations governing third-party ownership of players. "When you go to pick players from South America, they are not from the same system, mentality or morality," said Platini. "In many countries all over the world, players belong to companies or agents rather than clubs.

"The Fifa congress has to put laws in place so that when a club is buying a player they have to buy that player from one club and not from companies or individuals."

The Premier League took the lead on the issue with its introduction of rule U18, which was the result of "months" of debate according to one Premiership chief executive, and the football world has only latterly woken up to what the league considers a "disturbing development". The Football Association and the Football League will also introduce a similar rule before their international counterparts at their close-season AGMs.

Tarkoittanee, totta ollessaan, siis sitä, että Hammers saa ainakin jonkin osuuden, jos Tevez siirtyy, mutta muutoin on seuran omaisuutta vuoteen 2009 saakka. Toisaalta antaa Eggsille neuvotteluvoimaa Kian vastaan, kun voidaan ostaa sopparin kaupallisetkin osuudet pois ja pitää mies itsellä. Siis, mikäli Carlos niin haluaa ja Eggsillä löytyy riittävästi paalua.

[Super Iron]

Otsikkoa voisi vähän kaunistella:
"the greatest of great escapes"

[jjs]

Blades begin Tevez legal battle 
 
Sheffield United have launched a legal challenge to the Premier League's decision not to dock West Ham points in the Carlos Tevez case.

The Blades' lawyers are challenging the decision to fine West Ham rather than dock them points and cancel the Argentine's registration.

United are calling for that decision to be set aside and for a new tribunal to make its decision "within four weeks".

Until then, they want all preparations for next season to be "set aside".

A spokesman for the Premier League confirmed they had received United's request for arbitration and said they were "considering it at the moment".

He also confirmed that only Sheffield United had made a legal challenge.

Were the Premier League to consent to arbitration, they and United would nominate one member each of the tribunal.

These two members would then choose a chairman. The tribunal would effectively have the powers of a court and the parties would agree in advance to abide by any decision reached.

United have called for the tribunal to be establised by the end of this week.

The club is also challenging the Premier League's "conduct in failing to conduct an adequate investigation into the continued fielding of Tevez after the 27 April decision, despite serious questions over his eligibility
 

[Miqu]

Perusta jo sille roskasakille oma topic :keskari:

Tänne vain asiaa...

[jjs]

Whelan demands league chiefs quit 
 
Wigan chairman Dave Whelan says Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore should consider quitting in the wake of the West Ham controversy.

Whelan believes the league should have cancelled Carlos Tevez's registration after the Hammers were found guilty of breaking rules over his signing.

In a letter to the League, Whelan accused Scudamore and chairman Dave Richards of a "dereliction of duties".

He added: "The pair of you should consider resigning."

West Ham were found guilty of breaching two Premier League rules when they signed Tevez and fellow Argentine Javier Mascherano - who moved to Liverpool in January.

 I am appalled the chairman would allow such an important decision to be made on the telephone

An independent commission fined the club £5.5m and told the Premier League it could terminate Tevez's registration.

But West Ham assured the Premier League they had ripped up the offending contract with third-party company MSI/JSI and Tevez was allowed to play the following day - in a 3-0 win over Wigan.

Whelan, who has also sent his letter to the 19 other Premier League clubs, claims the decision to allow Tevez to play on was taken in a telephone conversation.

He said: "I would like to once again ask the question in my email of 11 May, did you actually receive a copy of the documentation from West Ham which showed that the original agreement between West Ham and MSI/JSI had been cancelled?

"The judgment given by the independent panel ordered that the registration of Tevez could be terminated by the Premier League.

"You then proceeded to hold a board meeting by telephone between yourself, the chairman and the secretary.

"I am appalled that the chairman would allow such an important decision to be made on the basis of a telephone call.

"Surely a decision of this magnitude required an open and full discussion.

"You had been ordered by the chairman of the commission to seriously consider the termination of this contract.

"Your failure to do so in my mind is a dereliction of duties of both the chairman and yourself and you should consider resigning."

 

[jjs]

Tässä BBC:n kasaama FAQ-tyyppinen yhteenveto tilanteesta.

The Premier League's decision not to dock West Ham points after the club breached regulations in the signing of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano prompted surprise and anger from their relegation rivals.

Tevez's goal at Manchester United safeguarded the Hammers' Premiership status on the final day of the season, but relegated Sheffield United have threatened legal action over the Premier League's ruling.

BBC Sport looks at the ins and outs of a complicated case and how likely any appeal against the decision would be to succeed.


WHAT EXACTLY DID WEST HAM DO WRONG?

It is not explicitly against Premier League rules for a club to sign a player whose economic rights are owned by a third party - as in the case of Tevez and Mascherano.

However, rule U18 states: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its team."

When signing Tevez and Mascherano, West Ham entered into a private agreement with the companies which owned their economic rights.

The contract stated, among other things, that those companies had the right to terminate the players' contracts upon payment to West Ham of £2m (in Tevez's case) or £150,000 (for Mascherano) in any transfer window.

By entering into that agreement, West Ham clearly broke rule U18.

Premier League rule B13 states: "In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith."

When Tevez and Mascherano were registered as players, West Ham failed to disclose that they had entered into an agreement with third-party companies.

In its judgement, the Premier League's independent commission said: "This was not only an obvious and deliberate breach of the rules, but a grave breach of trust as to the Premier League and its constituent members.

"In our finding the club has been responsible for dishonesty and deceit."

West Ham pleaded guilty to both breaches of Premier League rules.


WAS CARLOS TEVEZ ELIGIBLE AFTER THE RULING?
There was never a problem with Carlos Tevez's, or indeed Javier Mascherano's, registration as a player.

 
Tevez scored some crucial goals as West Ham escaped the drop
West Ham's mistake was in not disclosing to the Premier League that they had entered into an agreement with the companies that own the pair's economic rights.

In its conclusion, the commission said: "We order the registration of Carlos Tevez can be terminated by the Premier League."

However, West Ham immediately ripped up the agreement they had with the third-party company and the Premier League has since said it is satisfied the club "acted in a manner that is consistent with them having terminated the offensive third-party agreement".

Wigan and Sheffield United argue that for a contract to be properly terminated, all parties involved must agree.

Kia Joorabchian, who owns one of the third-party companies and was influential in Tevez and Mascherano's arrival at West Ham, has told the Daily Mail newspaper West Ham "unilaterally terminated the agreement and I have left it in the hands of my lawyer".

However, BBC Sport understands that the Premier League can only ask for evidence that the club has terminated the agreement as the third-party company does not fall under its jurisdiction.

The only possible action that can come of West Ham's termination of the agreement is that Joorabchian could consider proceedings against the club.


WHY CAN MASCHERANO PLAY FOR LIVERPOOL?
West Ham's mistake was not in entering into an agreement with a third party - but in the detail of the agreement and in their failure to disclose it to the Premier League.

Mel Goldberg, a lawyer for Max Bitel Greene who specialises in sport, explains: "Mascherano subsequently signed for Liverpool pursuant to a contract entirely different in form to that agreed by West Ham and which has been approved by the Premier League."


WHY WEREN'T WEST HAM DOCKED POINTS?
The commission concluded that a deduction of points "would normally follow from such a breach of rules".

However, it went on to say that docking points would "not be proportionate". It gave seven reasons for that decision, including the club's guilty plea, and also:


A points deduction so late in the season might have consigned the club to relegation

The players and fans of West Ham are in no way to blame for the situation and therefore should not suffer
Goldberg admits he found those reasons for the penalty baffling from a legal standpoint.

"They could have been harder on West Ham," he told BBC Sport.

"In law, the fans have no bearing on the case. It's no good saying 'we don't want to upset the fans'. What about the Wigan fans? The timing of the case being presented is also irrelevant.

"The Commission shot themselves in the foot. It comes down to whether the rules have been broken or not and they should have been penalised appropriately.

"In my opinion, there is no question about it. West Ham received favourable treatment."


COULD OTHER CLUBS SUE THE PREMIER LEAGUE?
 
Sheffield United went down - prompting boss Neil Warnock to leave
On Friday 4 May, West Ham's relegation rivals Charlton, Fulham, Sheffield United and Wigan sent a letter to the Premier League warning that they were considering what steps to take in regards to the Independent Commission's judgement.

In response, the Premier League sent a letter to all 20 Premiership clubs telling them that any legal action would be "bound to fail".

Goldberg agrees. He told BBC Sport: "The clubs have agreed to accept the decision of the Premier League in these matters. Whether they like the decision or not, they are stuck with it.

"Everyone has to accept that West Ham will not be docked points and the three clubs at the bottom of the table at the end of the season will go down."

Sheffield United, who were relegated on the last day of the season, maintain that they want a new disciplinary hearing and if one is not forthcoming, they will pursue legal action.


COULD OTHER CLUBS SUE WEST HAM?
Another option open to any or all of the other 19 Premier League clubs could be to take legal action against West Ham for deliberately breaking Premier League rules.

Goldberg says: "I do think that it is a possibility. It could be a costly move - but not necessarily - and they could argue that West Ham have not acted in good faith."

Yhtenä mahdollisuutena on heitetty, että Valioliigassa pelaisi ensi kaudella 21 joukkuetta (mukaanlukien West Ham ja Sheffield United) ja siitä putoaisi ensi keväänä neljä ryhmää. Tämä ei kuitenkaan poista alkuperäistä ongelmaa eli sitä, että rangaistusten pitäisi olla samat sekä suurille että pienille.

[Elmslie Ender]

Yhtenä mahdollisuutena on heitetty, että Valioliigassa pelaisi ensi kaudella 21 joukkuetta (mukaanlukien West Ham ja Sheffield United) ja siitä putoaisi ensi keväänä neljä ryhmää.

En ikinä usko tähän vaihtoehtoon. Miksi muut seurat lisäisivät vapaaehtosesti putoamisriskiään antamalla jommalle kummalle (WH/SU) uuden mahdollisuuden? Ei onnistu.

[Miqu]

Angry Sheffield Utd chairman Kevin McCabe called on the Premiership to dock Chelsea 'At least 60 points,' after it was revealed that Jose Mourinho had been arrested by police, following allegations that his Yorkshire Terrier lacked correct documentation.

'That dog was never properly registered,' fumed McCabe, 'And t'Premier League's doing nowt about it. My lads are sitting round t'dressing room, devastated by t'loss of their beloved Premiership place. It were bad enough when t'Premier League refused to dock points off those soft Southern b*****ds at Upton Park, for t'crime of having properly- registered foreign players who were much better than any that we could afford. But now they've gone and done it again. That dog were never properly registered, yet t'Premiership allowed Senyor Mooooriniyooh to continue managing 'is cloob. And to make matters worse that dog were a bloody Yorkie an' all! The sooner Chelsea are docked 60 points and relegated, the sooner we can get back to playing crap, negative football in t'Premiership, where we believe we belong.'

McCabe's stance has been backed by Wigan chairman 'Honest' Dave Whe*an. 'It's about time t'London-based mafia of poncey Sooouthern cloobs showed some consideration to us 'umble Northern lads, who've w*rked our way oop from t'bottom wi' nowt but graft, more graft and the odd spot o' price-fixing to help us on us way. You Cockneys don't oonderstand what it's like oop here, living on t'diet of black pudding, roast whippet, mushy peas an' chips. Now that all t'pits and t'mills and t'factories have closed, there's nowt to do but race pigeons and bash P***s an' we need our football clubs as t'only source of pride and hope. Football is t'heart of community here, which is proved by t'fact that we soomtimes get crowds of up to 14 people at my wonderful JJB combination football stadium and shopping centre on t'fashionable outskirts of Wigan.'

As a brass band struck up the plaintive tones of the old Rod Stewart hit, 'We are whining, We are whining, All the way, Down t'League,'
Mccabe and Whe*an got down on their knees and begged for one last chance. 'If Premier League could see its way clear to docking points from every ooother team in t'Premiership, we might actually finish in t'top half o't'table. It's our right. It's our demand. It's t'only fooking chance we've ever got.'

[jjs]

En ikinä usko tähän vaihtoehtoon. Miksi muut seurat lisäisivät vapaaehtosesti putoamisriskiään antamalla jommalle kummalle (WH/SU) uuden mahdollisuuden? Ei onnistu.

Vaihtoehto on todella huono kompromissi, jonka mainitsin kun sitä useassa lähteessä on mainostettu.

Valioliiga 21:llä joukkueella (neljä alas) ja Championship 23:lla (1+1 ylös) - ei mitään järkeä.