01/05/2007 09:00
With our relegation rivals struggling to stay afloat, five fantastic wins
from the last seven outings have bolstered West Ham United's chances of
Premiership survival. But while the lifeboat may be on the horizon, with
three crucial hours of football still to play - and Hammers still
languishing in the bottom three - Alan Curbishley insists the rescue
operation is far from over. And following the emphatic 3-0 victory over
Wigan Athletic, the Hammers boss knows that there is no room for complacency
when Bolton Wanderers trot into Upton Park on Saturday. "We're still alive
but now we must go and get something from our next game," warns Curbs
looking ahead to the weekend visit of Sammy Lee's fifth-placed side. "People
talk about our momentum - and I'd much rather have the points on the board
already - but we still go into the Bolton match with a chance of getting out
of this. "When I first took over and we had that terrible run of results,
I'd have taken this position with two games remaining. "Ever since we played
Spurs - a game in which we showed a lot of positives and shouldn't have got
beaten - we've been saying that it ain't over but, obviously, we've still
needed to get the points. "Even if we get to my target of 38 points, we're
still relying on other things but given our momentum and the way we're
playing at the moment, there's no reason why can't we get more than that.
After all, Middlesbrough went to Manchester United, where they got a draw
and could've got even more."
Certainly Curbs could not have asked for more at the sold-out, silenced JJB
Stadium where goals from Luis Boa Morte, Yossi Benayoun and Marlon Harewood
ensured that woeful Wigan were simply blown away by the pace and power of
his hearty Hammers, who were roared on by 5,500 ecstatic East Enders. "We
stressed to the players that we needed to make sure that the right team
turned up - was it going to be the one that played ever so well against
Everton or the side that lost at Sheffield United?" he reveals clearly
hoping that the players and supporters can combine once more to produce
another cocktail of success in that penultimate game against Bolton.
"Thankfully it was the Everton one! "As we drove into the ground, all we
could see was claret and blue all over the place and although there had been
offers to help the fans get up to Wigan, they would've come here anyway.
"Ever since I've been at this club, the fans have been the constant thing.
We also took 6,000 supporters to Fulham, Villa and Arsenal and they're just
fantastic. Whenever we give them something like we did against Everton and
Wigan they get behind us but when we don't give them anything they certainly
let us know! We accept that. "It's vital to score the first goal in these
games and once we did that, we looked quite strong and might even have got a
few more. Luis Boa Morte can create a goal and he can pinch a goal, too, and
he's shown that. Long may it continue. "We wanted to grab our chance against
Wigan and have some positive stuff coming out in the papers about us,"
continues Curbs after finally seeing the presses roll-out some good news
following recent events down West Ham way. "Ever since I've been here we've
had so much negative publicity both on and off the pitch and that's been par
for the course. "There's even one article that has just had a go at our
January signings. Lucas Neill came in and got injured twice but he's now
showing what he's all about, while Luis Boa Morte came into the club on the
back of an injury. Calum Davenport has only just got back to fitness, while
Matthew Upson and Nigel Quashie are both out, too. "For one reason or
another, the new signings haven't been given a chance but they're all good
players and that holds us in good stead for whatever happens to us at the
end of the season. "In January, I tried to bring some experience to all the
young talent that was already here at the club and, although it never
materialised because none of them have managed to stay fit, we're still
seeing the talent. "Lucas Neill was our only new signing in the side that
beat Everton but the players have still shown that there's a lot of ability
here and now we've got to go out there and do ourselves justice in our final
two games. "We've given ourselves a chance, it's certainly not over, and
we've proved that at Wigan."
by Steve Blowers
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Woody looking forward to testimonial match - WHUFC
01/05/2007 12:10
Andy Woodman is already gearing up for the final game of the Hammers'
season: his testimonial match at the Sixfields Stadium in Northampton on
Tuesday the 15th of May. "I'm getting a bit of a ribbing from the lads - I
think they're looking forward to smashing as many goals past me as
possible," he joked. "Other than that, I'm looking forward to it!
"Northampton Town were promoted in 1997 in the Wembley play-off final and
we've got all those guys together, along with a couple of other players,
Gareth Southgate being one of them. "Curbs has also promised me a full
eleven from the squad that finishes the season against Man United, so it'll
be a good night. Hopefully it could be a celebration for all of us,
providing we get the results that keep us in the Premiership, first and
foremost."
Woody has been enjoying his time as goalkeeping coach for the youth team at
West Ham United since hanging up his gloves as a professional keeper and
joining the Club last July. "It's a great Club," he said. "I've really taken
to the place. It's a top place to be at. Anyone on the outside who doesn't
know what it's like: it is a real family Club. Over the years listening to
people say that and being on the outside, I always wondered if that was the
case but it is. "It's a top club and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I'm just
hoping and praying, like all of us, that we can stay up and keep ourselves
in the Premiership because it will be great for everyone concerned."
Woody will hopefully be calling on his best mate, Gareth Southgate, to do
the Hammers a favour and lead Middlesbrough to victory in their final
matches of the season against Wigan Athletic and Fulham. "It's amazing,
about eight of the coaching staff have said to me: 'get on the phone to your
mate!' and I can assure you I have spoken to him on numerous occasions,"
Woody said. "Knowing him as I do, even if they get a result they won't take
their feet off the pedals. It's just not the way he operates. "He will
definitely be trying double hard, especially if he knows he's going to be
playing against this West Ham lot in the testimonial! That could be an added
incentive."
Tickets for the testimonial match are now on sale, and Woody added: "It
would be nice to get a really good turn-out of West Ham fans, not just for
Northampton, but for our boys, for the effort and work rate they've been
putting in."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Reserves suffer defeat in final game - WHUFC
01/05/2007 21:00
The reserves suffered a 4-0 defeat against Reading on Tuesday night in their
final match of the season. Steve Brown's men saw their superb five-match
winning run come to an end against his former club, who made sure of the FA
Premier Reserve League South title with the victory. It was a dramatic night
for Hammers, who ended the game with nine men. All three substitutes had
been used when young defender James Tomkins was forced off with a recurrence
of his shoulder injury, before goalkeeper Roy Carroll was stretchered off
after sustaining a deep gash to his leg. Ghanaian defender John Pantsil took
over between the sticks and managed to prevent the visitors from adding to
their tally.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Aldridge angered by Hammers fine - BBC
Former West Ham chief executive Paul Aldridge could take legal action
following the club's £5.5m fine for breaching transfer regulations. Aldridge
says his reputation has been "besmirched" by the inquiry into the transfers
of Argentine stars Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. Aldridge was chief
executive when the pair were signed. He says he was not called as a witness,
invited to give a statement or notified in advance of allegations against
him. Aldridge said: "Naturally, my sympathies lie with the club I was chief
executive of for 10 years in respect of what seems a very harsh sanction.
"However, my own personal and professional reputations have been besmirched.
The findings accuse me of acting dishonestly and lying. "This is hardly
natural justice in my view. Until the publication of these findings, my
integrity has never been questioned during my career. "Accordingly, I have
placed the matter in the hands of my lawyer who will be taking the matter
further on my behalf."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paul the other one - KUMB
Filed: Wednesday, 2nd May 2007
By: Matthew O'Greel
Former United MD Paul Aldridge is threatening to sue the Premier League
after they accused him of lying over the Tevez/Mascherano transfers. Last
week's enquiry found Aldridge - along with former boss Terry Brown - guilty
of concealing vital details regarding third-party agreements. The club were
fined a massive £5.5m as a result. Yet the enquiry failed to summons
Aldridge to the two-day hearing - a situation that he finds baffling, and
unacceptable given the verdict. "Naturally, my sympathies lie with the club
I was chief executive of for 10 years in respect of what seems a very harsh
sanction," he said. "However my own personal and professional reputations
have been besmirched. The findings accuse me of acting dishonestly and
lying. "This is hardly natural justice in my view. Until the publication of
these findings my integrity had never been questioned during my career.
"Accordingly, I have placed the matter in the hands of my lawyer who will be
taking the matter further on my behalf."
A press statement released by the enquiry panel after the hearing ended
stated: "Mr Aldridge was not a witness to be called by either party. He has
not made a statement. "We do not know what he may have said ... he has thus
not been here to answer for himself, and we can only proceed upon such
evidence as we have." Yet despite failing to offer Aldridge the opportunity
to offer his version of events, the enquiry found that "Aldridge ... told a
direct lie, namely there was no documentation of whatever kind in respect of
these players which the FAPL had not seen."
The former MD has initially expressed his surprise at not having been asked
to attend the hearing last week, when he told the Guardian that "I made
myself available [to attend] - but no one's asked me."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Riley to take charge - KUMB
Filed: Tuesday, 1st May 2007
By: Matthew O'Greel
Mike Riley will referee West Ham United's clash with Bolton this weekend.
Yorkshire-based Riley will officiate over a Hammers game for only the second
time this season, having previously overseen the 1-0 home win over Sheffield
United last November. The Hammers remain unbeaten in their last three games
in which Riley has refereed; prior to that Sheffield game Riley oversaw a
2-2 draw with Everton in March 2006 and the 2-1 FA Cup third round win over
Norwich two months prior to that. In the three above games the Hammers have
had just one player booked (Hayden Mullins against Sheffield United)
although Riley booked SIX Hammers when losing 3-2 at Blackburn in our first
season back in the Premiership (December 2005). More famously perhaps
43-year-old Riley was the referee for West Ham's 1-0 win over Preston in the
2004/05 play-off Final at Cardiff's Millennium Stadium. New Bolton boss
Sammy Lee is set to take charge of his team for the first time following Sam
Allardyce's resignation last weekend.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers: Tevez still eligible - Sky
By Robin Hackett - Created on 1 May 2007
Carlos Tevez will be eligible for West Ham's final two games of the season
despite the lack of an agreement with MSI, according to a club spokesman.
Following an FA hearing, West Ham were fined £5.5m and forced to terminate
any third-party agreements with investment group MSI, which owned the
Argentina striker. However, although the player now belongs to West Ham, the
club are yet to come to a financial agreement with MSI. Yet Tevez played for
the club against Wigan on Saturday, and a West Ham spokesman has insisted
that he will be able to continue playing despite the lack of a resolution.
"New arrangements are in place with the Premier League and dialogue is
taking place in terms of Carlos Tevez's future beyond the end of the season.
"He is a registered player with West Ham and nothing has changed since he
played against Wigan on Saturday."
Meanwhile, Alan Curbishley remains upbeat about West Ham's chances of
beating the drop despite facing Bolton and Manchester United in their last
two games. The Hammers have won five of their last seven games since losing
4-3 to Spurs at the beginning of March and, although he acknowledges there
is still much to do, Curbishley believes they have every chance. "When I
first took over and we had that terrible run of results, I would have taken
this position with two games remaining," he told the club's official
website. "Ever since we played Spurs - a game in which we showed a lot of
positives and shouldn't have got beaten - we've been saying that it ain't
over but, obviously, we've still needed to get the points. "Even if we get
to my target of 38 points, we're still relying on other things, but given
our momentum and the way we're playing at the moment, there's no reason we
can't get more than that. After all, Middlesbrough went to Manchester
United, where they got a draw and could've got even more. "We're still
alive, but now we must go and get something from our next game. "People talk
about our momentum - and I'd much rather have the points on the board
already - but we still go into the Bolton match with a chance of getting out
of this."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Collins' relief at points boost - Sky
By Peter ORourke - Created on 1 May 2007
West Ham defender James Collins admits escaping a points deduction has given
them an extra boost in their bid to avoid relegation. The Hammers were
handed a £5.5million fine for breaking transfer regulations last week
regarding the signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. The Upton Park
outfit feared they could have been docked points for the offence, but they
managed to avoid such a punishment. Collins admitted it was a relief to all
the players and he is now confident they can win their battle to avoid the
drop. "It was hanging above our heads for all the time we have been down
there," Collins told the Daily Star. "To have it cleared up and have no
points deduction is a big boost. "Now we have to worry about keeping West
Ham in the Premiership. "I believe we can stay up. We are full of
confidence, and results breed that. "We have had a good team spirit all
season."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Aldridge slams transfer criticism - TeamTalk
Former chief executive Paul Aldridge thinks West Ham's fine for transfer
irregularities is "very harsh". The Hammers were fined £5.5million by an
independent commission last week following an inquiry into the signings of
Argentina internationals Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. Aldridge was
chief executive when the South Americans were signed, and he said in a
statement: "Naturally, my sympathies lie with the club I was chief executive
of for 10 years in respect of what seems a very harsh sanction. "However, my
own personal and professional reputations have been besmirched. The findings
accuse me of acting dishonestly and lying."
Aldridge said the fact the findings were released to the media and published
on the Premier League's website meant accusations against him had been
repeated "far and wide". He claims he was not called as a witness, invited
to provide a statement or notified in advance of the allegations against
him. Aldridge added: "This is hardly natural justice in my view. Until the
publication of these findings, my integrity has never been questioned during
my career. "Accordingly, I have placed the matter in the hands of my lawyer
who will be taking the matter further on my behalf."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers face new Tev blow - the Sun
By SHAUN CUSTIS
May 02, 2007
CARLOS TEVEZ was only allowed to play in West Ham's relegation clash at
Wigan on Saturday due to a goodwill gesture from his owners, MSI. However
Tevez, who starred in the 3-0 win at the JJB Stadium, will be pulled from
the Hammers' last two games if the club do not come to an arrangement with
the sports investment company. There are a number of legal and financial
matters to sort out, not least concerning who would be liable if Tevez
suffered a serious injury. The Hammers claimed yesterday that Argentinian
striker Tevez, 23, would still be able to play in their final two crucial
games after SunSport revealed there was no agreement in place. But it is
understood West Ham are not in a position to dictate terms — and that they
had promised to sort out terms regarding his continued employment at Upton
Park. Reports that Tevez is now owned by West Ham and not MSI are incorrect.
Kia Joorabchian, founder of MSI, who failed in a bid to buy the club, still
owns Tevez and the Hammers do not have any hold on the Argie star. A source
told SunSport: "Unless West Ham get round the table with Kia Joorabchian and
sort this out, Tevez will not play. "He wants to play and Kia wants him to,
but it is very complicated."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Screamer ... It's the talk of football - This Is London
02.05.07
Five clubs are set to mount a legal challenge against the Premier League's
decision to fine West Ham £5.5million for fielding ineligible players.
Fulham, Sheffield United, Charlton, Wigan and Middlesbrough are angry that
relegation threatened West Ham have not lost points for playing Carlos Tevez
and Javier Mascherano. Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore met
Wigan chairman Dave Whelan yesterday to try to smooth over the row but a
senior official at one of the clubs said: "It is within the Premier League
rules to challenge the decision and we will be looking at it. They said it
was a serious breach of rule U18 and, according to the rules, that should
carry a points deduction."
West Ham's hopes of using Tevez in the last two games of the season have
been dealt a blow. Tevez was allowed to play in the 3-0 win at Wigan last
weekend only after the Premier League were satisfied they had cancelled
their third party agreement with his owner' MSI. But a source close to MSI
boss Kia Joorabchian said: "West Ham United can't just tear up a contract
any more than anyone else can. It is legally binding on both sides
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Forget Tévez - loan system leaves game open to abuse - the Times
Martin Samuel
The first thing any follower of West Ham United should admit is that it was
not fair. There will be no glee and no gloating here, so supporters of Wigan
Athletic, Sheffield United and Fulham can read on without risk of
hypertension.
The club's representatives lied and no mitigation outweighs that. Carlos
Tévez, the West Ham player of the year, brought the club points that should
have been taken away. Paul Jewell, the Wigan manager, Dave Whelan, the
chairman, and Neil Warnock, the Sheffield United manager, insist that, in
the same circumstances, their clubs would have been docked points in double
figures, but that is unproven and unlikely.
At this stage in the season, it would appear that the FA Premier League
would rather incinerate its rulebook than have relegation issues decided in
the High Court, as would surely have happened. The shrewdest move by Eggert
Magnússon, the West Ham chairman, was not withdrawing the threat of legal
appeal if a points deduction was imposed, even when admitting guilt. On
moral grounds, this should not have placed the Premier League in a difficult
position, but in reality it did.
While West Ham's case was heard by an independent commission, it is
unthinkable that those involved in the decision were not made aware of the
organisational meltdown that would result from one particular form of
punishment.
No one should use this to justify the decision. West Ham's penalty should
have been the same whether applied in October or April, sitting in tenth
place or eighteenth. It is also worthless to assess Tévez's impact in terms
of goals or points gained; he galvanised West Ham's season, pure and simple.
If the Premier League had demanded retribution equivalent to Tévez's impact
at Upton Park, points would not suffice; the only conclusion would have been
summary relegation.
So mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, confiteor Deo omnipotenti. But.
On Saturday, when Manchester United played at Goodison Park in a match that
is looked upon as definitive in the running of the title race, Tim Howard,
the Everton goalkeeper, could not play because of an agreement between the
clubs. And if that is not a third party influencing the policies and
performance of a team, what is?
That was the root of West Ham's rule infringement, remember. The systematic
lying was the worst of it, but the reason that former directors were so keen
to cover up the truth of the Tévez and Javier Mascherano transfers was to
avoid a breach of Premier League rule U18, which governs third parties
having a material influence on club policies and performance.
Mascherano's career was controlled by two outside companies, Global Soccer
Agencies and Mystere Services. Tévez was owned by Media Sports International
and Just Sports. But when the Everton goalkeeper is removed from a match
against Manchester United by Manchester United, how is that so different?
Howard was on loan from United to Everton this season, but on February 14
his move became permanent. At that moment, all aspects of his loan
arrangement were discontinued, bar one. As a condition of the deal, United
insisted that Howard could not play against them when the teams met on April
28. Everton had no choice but to acquiesce because David Moyes, the manager,
wanted the player signed as soon as possible to ward off interest from other
clubs (Howard has had an excellent season).
Had Everton not consented to the April 28 clause, United would not have
allowed the loan to become permanent until the summer, running the risk of a
rival bid, and Howard would still not have been able to play against United
last weekend. Over a barrel, Everton agreed, which on Saturday meant that a
third party (Manchester United) materially influenced the selection of a
player who contractually belongs to Everton.
There is more. The April 28 agreement became active only if the title had
not been decided. So there can be no suggestion that this is standard
practice. United insisted on an arrangement that would be of benefit to them
if the match was significant; if not, Everton could have played Howard. And
did it influence Everton's performance? You bet.
In the 61st minute, Everton were leading 2-0 and were comfortable. At that
moment, Iain Turner, the goalkeeper standing in for Howard, dropped a
harmless corner by Ryan Giggs at the feet of John O'Shea, who scored. This
was the turning point. Sir Alex Ferguson had kept Cristiano Ronaldo on the
bench, behaving as if he felt the game beyond recovery. When O'Shea got his
goal, Ferguson swiftly introduced the Player of the Year and United went on
to win 4-2.
Turner was very weak for the second goal, too, which was put through his own
net by Phil Neville, the Everton midfield player and brother of Gary, the
United captain. And, despite these bizarre coincidences, there is no
suggestion of nefarious activity at Goodison Park; but no thanks to the
Premier League for that.
The governing body that took £5.5 million from West Ham for concealing
third-party influence at their club has allowed a system to foster
domestically that has far greater potential for abuse. There have been three
United goalkeepers active in the Barclays Premiership this season – and only
one of them for Manchester United.
As well as Edwin van der Sar, the first-choice, Ben Foster plays for Watford
and Howard for Everton. So in four of 38 matches, United have guaranteed
facing an understudy in goal. They are not alone in farming out talent
(Tomasz Kuszczak, Van der Sar's deputy, is on loan from West Bromwich
Albion), but considering Turner's hapless hand in the destiny of the title,
they are the system's greatest beneficiaries this season.
Taken to its practical conclusion, United could legally, according to
Premier League rules, assemble a squad of ten talented goalkeepers to be
loaned throughout the division, ensuring that they alone would play half of
their matches against inexperienced understudies. On a smaller scale, this
has happened. Howard, not Turner, will play in goal for Everton against
Chelsea on the final day of this season, while Foster was desperately
unfortunate to be on the losing side against Chelsea on March 31, beaten
deep in injury time by Salomon Kalou after an heroic display.
In three matches against United this season (including an FA Cup
semi-final), Watford have fielded Richard Lee, the second choice to Foster,
and he has conceded ten goals.
While obsessing over the role of foreign agents, which is negligible, the
Premier League has given the green light to a far more dangerous loan and
transfer system that allows third parties (who are also rivals) to dictate
team selection and frequently compromises the competition through complex
financial arrangements. If United win the treble this season, Everton will
be £1.7 million better off as part of bonus clauses included in the Wayne
Rooney transfer. Is that healthy? Is that not open to greater manipulation
than any of the arrangements between Tévez and Mascherano's owners and West
Ham?
On the final day of the season, Everton visit Chelsea for a match that could
decide the title. For argument's sake, say that fixture involved a trip to
Old Trafford instead. The terms of Rooney's transfer could dictate that by
losing to United, Everton gain £1.7 million; by winning, the club forfeit
the same sum. If the manager or chairman were unscrupulous, might that fact
not influence policy and performance? Might that not equate to a
half-strength, experimental team, or a lack of ambition? It says something
that English football is not corrupt because it sure as hell is given the
chance to be.
The loan system has had a dubious influence on the Premier League for many
years, which is why, although West Ham supporters know that the club have
got away extraordinarily lightly, few will be lying awake at night racked
with guilt.
In 2003, when West Ham were last relegated, Bolton Wanderers survived in
part because of Sam Allardyce's astute use of the loan system. Players such
as Iván Campo, Salva Ballesta, Bernard Mendy and Florent Laville kept Bolton
up, home-grown English players such as Joe Cole went down and were lost to
West Ham soon after. No one cared about a rogue system then. Allardyce,
because he is a fine manager, built a club and made Bolton a success story
with permanent players, but the foundation on which that success was laid is
propping up a tower of contradictions over third-party control and interest.
Something has to give. Either the Premier League has to grow up and
acknowledge that the business of football is changing and third-party
arrangements that are commonplace in South America have to be accommodated
within the rulebook, or it has to look beyond Tévez and Mascherano to a
system that allows the opposition to pick players for Everton and could make
Saturday's result at Goodison Park a nice little earner for everyone.
In the end, who would you rather have influencing policy and performance at
Everton: Moyes, Pini Zahavi or Ferguson?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham scramble to find new Tevez agreement with Kia
tribalfooball.com - May 01, 2007
West Ham must agree a new contract for Carlos Tevez or risk losing him for
the final two games of the season. The Times says Tevez was cleared to play
for the rest of the season because the club told the FA Premier League that
they had "unilaterally" cancelled their contract with Kia Joorabchian, who
owns the rights to the player and could stop him playing for them. West Ham
had been requested to do so after being fined £5.5 million at a Premier
League hearing on Friday, in part for their agreement with Joorabchian that
potentially allowed him to affect club policy.
However, Joorabchian has denied that he has given permission for the
contract to be annulled because he would then have no guarantee that Tevez
would return to his control at the end of the season.
"West Ham United can't just tear up a contract more than anyone else can. It
is legally binding on both sides," a source close to Joorabchian said. "Kia
is frustrated because this is not of his doing. The position has been forced
upon him by the Premier League ruling, even though he has done nothing
wrong. "He has great affection for the people at West Ham and has absolutely
no gripe with the club, the directors or the chairman. He wants them to do
well and he is, of course, very close to Carlos and wants the best for him.
He has made himself available to West Ham this week [for talks] and hopes
they can come to an amicable settlement before the game on Saturday."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SCU'S BID TO HALT REVOLT - The Mirror
EXCLUSIVE
By Alan Nixon 02/05/2007
PREMIER LEAGUE boss Richard Scudamore is making a whirlwind tour of clubs
after a revolt over the failure to dock West Ham points for their
"dishonesty and deceit". Scudamore was at Wigan yesterday for a meeting
with owner Dave Whelan and manager Paul Jewell as clubs rapped the decision
to only fine the Hammers a record £5.5million for the signings of Carlos
Tevez and Javier Mascherano. Relegation battlers Charlton, Fulham, Wigan
and Sheffield United are all at the heart of the fight, but insiders reveal
there may be as many as six in support of action and threatening court
action. Scudamore is frantically trying to appease the rebels whose anger is
fuelled by West Ham's admission they were guilty of breaking a rule and
lying to cover it up.
The Premier League's reasons for letting them off the usual punishment of a
points deduction - the time it took to hold the inquiry, the change of
ownership and the size of their support - has only angered rivals even
further. Whelan is calling for a 10-point penalty while Jewell (above)
claimed the Premier League had 'bottled it' and would have penalised West
Ham with a points deduction if they were already relegated. Sheffield United
boss Neil Warnock has also savaged the decision.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Curbs: I'd have settled for this - TeamTalk
West Ham manager Alan Curbishley insists he would be happy to be in this
position now had someone offered it to him at the start of March. The
Hammers are behind fourth-from-bottom Wigan on goal difference - with two
matches to go. On March 4, the Hammers lost a thriller at Upton Park 4-3 to
Tottenham to make it five consecutive defeats in the Premiership. Since then
there has been an amazing recovery and, although the two remaining games are
at home to Bolton and away to Manchester United, Curbishley believes there
is a real chance of survival.
He told the club's official website: "When I first took over and we had that
terrible run of results, I would have taken this position with two games
remaining. "Ever since we played Spurs - a game in which we showed a lot of
positives and shouldn't have got beaten - we've been saying that it ain't
over but, obviously, we've still needed to get the points. "Even if we get
to my target of 38 points, we're still relying on other things but given our
momentum and the way we're playing at the moment, there's no reason why
can't we get more than that. After all, Middlesbrough went to Manchester
United, where they got a draw and could've got even more." He added: "We're
still alive but now we must go and get something from our next game. "People
talk about our momentum - and I'd much rather have the points on the board
already - but we still go into the Bolton match with a chance of getting out
of this."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers: Tevez free to play on - TeamTalk
West Ham have insisted Carlos Tevez will be able to play his part in the
club's last-ditch attempts to avoid relegation. The club have still yet to
reach an arrangement with MSI, the company that owned the Argentinian, over
his future but the Hammers say Tevez is eligible to play their remaining two
matches of the season. West Ham were forced to end their third-party
agreements with MSI following the £5.5million fine imposed by the Premier
League and although the striker has been cleared to continue playing, the
amount of money the club will pay the company has yet to be agreed. A West
Ham spokesman said: "New arrangements are in place with the Premier League
and dialogue is taking place in terms of Carlos Tevez's future beyond the
end of the season. "He is a registered player with West Ham and nothing has
changed since he played against Wigan on Saturday."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Sour Grapes About West Ham What A Surprise - WestHamFans.org
Submitted by Neville Nixon on 1 May, 2007 - 10:30.
As soon as West Ham escaped a points deduction for the irregularities in the
transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano that there would be an
outcry, and it was pretty obvious that Hammers fellow relegation strugglers
Wigan would be leading the clamour and espousing conspiracy theories.
If they hadn't been tonked by Alan Curbishley's team, neither Dave Wheelan
nor Paul Jewell would have got on to their soap boxes. The fact is a
precedent was set years ago when Alan Sugar successfully appealed against a
points deduction on the basis that the previous owners were responsible, as
was the case with West Ham following the take over by Eggert Magnusson and
his backer Björgólfur Gudmundsson from Terry 'crooked boy' Brown.
Doubtless Fulham will join in if their position remains precarious and
Charlton will probably feel compelled to 'have a pop' given the actions of
the other clubs. Neil Warnock will of course put his two penneth in to
anyone who will listen and the great and the good at various TV stations
will tut tut and say it shouldn't have been allowed, did those same people
kick up such a stink when Sugar 'got away' with it?
There is however one sanction that may be put in place retrospectively and
that could be a possible exclusion from next season's FA Cup on account of
the fact that Hammers fielded an ineligible player in the 3rd round, but if
this does happen it will be a knee jerk reaction and one that Hammers would
doubtless appeal against- Ed
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers escape would be an insult to justice - Daily Mail
22:50pm 30th April 2007
Des Kelly
You know something stinks when a governing body shirk a decision and then
announce they did it "for the good of the people". Well, for the good of
the people, I hope natural justice is done and West Ham are relegated this
season. It is the only way to atone for the Premier League's dereliction of
duty and laughable attempts at self-justification after the Hammers escaped
a points deduction for fielding two international stars they did not own.
Their statement announced: "The players and fans have been fighting
relegation against the ever-present threat of a deduction of points. Those
efforts and that loyalty would be to no avail were we now to deduct points."
Have you ever heard anything like it? What on earth has that kind of
expedient claptrap got to do with anything? The Premier League are
effectively telling us they might have punished West Ham properly had they
been in mid-table where the sanction would have had no real impact.
But because the Hammers happened to be stuck near the foot of the table at a
crucial stage of the season, it was decided it would be right to let them
off with a fine. What about the '"fforts and loyalty" of the players and
fans of every other club caught in the relegation zone?
Why should they bear the burden of West Ham's guilt and perhaps even lose
their Premiership place as a result? West Ham are a strong club with fine
traditions, but they should not be a special case. Hands up all of those who
think Watford would have escaped with just a fine if they had fielded an
ineligible player? No, it would never have happened. How about Sheffield
United, Wigan, Reading or Fulham? Even West Ham supporters know the truth of
it. Each and every one of these other teams would have been docked points
and fined without sentiment in similar circumstances. If the resulting
punishment left any of them standing on the relegation trapdoor, the Premier
League would have pulled the lever and dispatched them without so much as a
backward glance. Yet that didn't happen to West Ham. The league decided to
give them a reprieve, despite the catalogue of lies and deceit that had
allowed them to employ Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. All they had to
do was write out a cheque for £5.5million for the chance to retain their
£30m-plus per year place in the top flight. Wigan boss Paul Jewell pointed
out: "If [against West Ham] I had played Antonio Valencia, who was
suspended, what would have happened? "If we could have got away with a
half-million pound fine for that I would have done it, because the game was
worth more than £5.5m."
Quite right. If your club can flout the rules and then buy themselves out of
trouble, it is open season. Do you think for a moment they would hesitate to
turn up for a disciplinary hearing via the bank?
Neil Warnock hit the nail on the head when he said: "The football
authorities have made a rod for their own backs. "You can do what you want
now. I can't see anyone having points deducted."
So why were West Ham given this let-off? The suggestion is that the league
wanted to avoid a long legal battle, but if that's the basis for their
backtracking then the Premier League are more craven than I thought. They
can certainly afford a good lawyer. The real reason is because they are part
of the clique. The Hammers are regarded as the kind of big club who
"deserve" to be in the Premiership. Their presence makes for better
television returns, more enticing fixture lists, better pay-per-view
rewards. In short, they sell. The likes of Wigan, Sheffield United, Fulham
and Reading are tolerated, but they don't help sell those global television
packages. "I seriously believe we'd have been deducted 10 points if it had
been us breaking the rules as West Ham did," said Wigan owner Dave Whelan.
Sheffield United boss Warnock agreed: 'If it had been us, or Wigan or
Watford they would have deducted points. Everyone knows that."
That's the unwritten rule. If you are a little club like Bury, for instance,
you get hit around the back of the head with the rulebook when you play an
ineligible player and find yourself booted out of the FA Cup. If you are AFC
Wimbledon, points are deducted and your promotion bid is jeopardised. But if
you are considered part of the Premier League clique, different laws apply.
Remember, West Ham lied and covered up the fact that two of their players
were under foreign ownership. The Premier League also dithered on dealing
with the issue for nine months, despite press revelations casting doubt on
the deals from day one. And now they are using the timing as a reason not to
deduct points? It's ridiculous. As for this excuse that it happened under
the previous board of directors and the new owners weren't to know what went
on, this suggests Eggert Magnusson's team are either incompetent, or
economic with the truth. The Icelander spent £85m on this football club.
Before completing that deal, he would have had full disclosure of all the
financial dealings. He should also have been well aware of the cloud of
suspicion and controversy hanging over the deals. It certainly seems odd to
agree such a huge purchase without knowing the full facts about two of your
biggest assets. It's like buying a house and not checking if you own the
garage and the garden.
Yet Tevez still remains in a West Ham shirt and integral to their success in
these climatic last few days. So, sad though it would be for the committed,
as a bystander in this squabble I would not weep if West Ham went down. It
doesn't matter that they've had a topsy-turvy season. It doesn't matter that
they boast a proud past or devoted fans. They broke the rules and I'd hate
to see another club suffer because they wriggled free. It would be injustice
heaped upon injustice.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Brown adds to flawed Hammers legacy . - all3points.co.uk
1st May 2007
By Dan Halton
The Premier League's decision to fine West Ham instead of dock points is a
relief but just when we'd thought we'd seen the back of him Terence Brown
and his old regime's failings hover over Upton Park like a dark cloud.
West Ham chairman Eggert Magnusson may have made his money in the crumbly
world of biscuits but in running a football club he is having to learn to be
a tough cookie. Ex-chief executive Paul Aldridge and Brown, as chairman at
the time and ultimately responsible, were said by the Premier League's
investigations to have bent the rules in illegally signing Argentine duo
Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano and then covering up vital paperwork.
They rushed through the players' registration in time for the transfer
deadline last August and - more importantly for them - in conjunction with a
potentially lucrative takeover from a representative of MSI, the players'
principal owners.
At the time it was heralded as a transfer coup. Both players were genuinely
world-class and it looked like West Ham would emerge as a serious contender
in English football. But after the MSI takeover failed and new Icelandic
owners took over instead things looked a lot different. Like moving into a
new house only to find the previous owner has left a time-bomb under the
stairs, the £85m Magnusson and his consortium eventually paid for the club
looks more and more of a gamble with each passing day. But is it really
surprising given the previous board's chequered record?
Despite announcing to the world that the club wouldn't sell its crown
jewels, one by one the likes of Ferdinand, Lampard, Defoe, Cole and Carrick
left Upton Park under Brown's stewardship. Over £45m was profited from their
sales between 2000 and 2004. In that time West Ham got relegated, narrowly
avoided going into administration and have been spending the last few years
recovering from the whole experience. With the exception of Defoe who was
initially pinched from Charlton, all five of these players were nurtured by
the club, all went on to represent England at international level and all
have reached the potential that was obvious in them from an early age.
Defoe is rumoured to be interesting Sir Alex Ferguson and if the move goes
ahead then it would mean all five ex-Hammers would be plying their trade at
Chelsea and Manchester United - the top two clubs in the country and
arguably Europe. No amount of money can compensate for the loss of these
players and the damage it has done to West Ham's potential and reputation.
Mr Brown though, who came away from the club's sale last year with more than
£30m, would beg to differ.
Harry Redknapp constructed a young and exciting outfit on a shoestring in
the late 90s that went on to achieve a few top ten finishes in the league
and, briefly, European football. Once the sale of Rio Ferdinand was agreed
in 2000 it was the beginning of the end of an era. Within six months
Redknapp was replaced with the cheap, tried and untrusted Glenn Roeder.
Unsurprisingly to everyone except Brown the team went into decline and, even
though West Ham lay at the foot of the table for most of the 2002-03 season
with the hapless Roeder clearly out of his depth, Brown refused to fire him
to save on any compensation money.
That pay-out figure though paled into insignificance when relegation from
the Premiership hit the club hard. Having been treated for a brain tumour
over the summer Roeder was given a chance to get the club back into the top
flight only to find himself sacked after a mere three games back in charge.
Well at least Brown didn't give him his cards in hospital… Alan Pardew took
over and the club sneaked back into the big-time through the lottery of the
play-offs. The blundering and plundering at board level though continued.
Just as West Ham had re-established itself in the Premier League after a
terrific first season back Pardew was not given the funds over the summer to
improve what was in hindsight an over-achieving Championship squad. Brown
was keener than usual to tighten the purse strings with the prospect of a
takeover looming.
And that's where the Argentines fit in. Partly owned by MSI, the company
headed by Kia Jaroobchian who was discussing a takeover, Tevez and
Mascherano were the sweeteners in a deal that would have made Brown and his
shareholders many millions. The fact that the signings were illegal and
important documentation was covered up didn't matter as Brown seemingly
sought to take the money and run.
Despite the failure of the MSI bid he did cash in when, very fortuitously,
the Icelanders came knocking. With the new owners facing a hefty £5.5m fine
for the previous regime's wrongdoings, I wonder if Mr Brown wouldn't mind
dipping into some of his £30m and contributing to the payment? Something in
the form of an Icelandic legal team tells me he may have no choice.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham Should Not Have Lost Points. Get Over It. - all3points.co.uk
Posted on Tuesday, May 1st, 2007
Effra can see why Sheffield United and Wigan are moaning but, you know,
they're wrong.
This was the weekend when we stopped flirting with hope at West Ham and let
ourselves dream. If hanging on to our points, keeping Tevez in our team,
outclassing Wigan, and Adebayor proving that Arsenal can find the net when
required weren't enough to fuel our belief this weekend, Big Sam goes and
plunges our next opponents into chaos.
Here we are with no right to have any kind of shout at all, and we're within
touching distance of remaining a Premiership club. Of course, Paul Jewell
and the prize-big-gob Neil Warnock think that we have no right to be here at
all and that we only are because the Premier League went soft on us since
we're from London, we're a supposed big club, Trevor Brooking used to play
for us, or our fans make a lot of noise and the media overdose on it– take
your pick from whatever it is about West Ham that winds you up.
Let's get something straight though. Everyone who loves West Ham should be
ashamed of the shocking mendacity and incompetence of those responsible for
bringing Tevez and Mascherano to the club. We deserve severe punishment. But
even those whose self-interest would have been served by an immediate points
deduction for West Ham should be able to see that at this stage of the
season, when there were quite simply not enough games left for us to
recover, that docking points would have been a disproportionate punishment
especially when one remembers that the chairman and managing director who
were the sinners in all this, and the manager who failed to ask the
necessary questions, are all gone. There would have been no justice in
imposing relegation on Magnusson, the players, and the fans for something
that the Premier League could have dealt with it at any time since last
September.
I can just imagine what the Sheffield United boss would have said if his
club had spent the last four months playing under the threat of points
deduction because the Premier League couldn't get its act together. That
would have been an anti-northern, anti-small club conspiracy, deliberately
set up to torture his greasy chip-butty obsessed fans and honest-pro
players. I understand why clubs like Rotherham, Wrexham and Altrincham might
feel aggrieved when they have suffered point reductions but since
multi-million pound fines would have sent these clubs out of business, the
Premier League had options in West Ham's case that the Football League does
not. Those who want to get on their high horse might also remember that if
West Ham do get relegated, a £5.5 million fine is going to be no laughing
matter.
And if you really do hate us for what's happened, think about this. If the
footballing gods have just smiled on West Ham over the past 72 hours to make
the final reckoning for our season of folly that much more shattering then
they have found the perfect way to do it because our bubbles have well and
truly reached the sky.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Reds chief slams Jewell - This Is Lancashire By Suzanne Geldard
ACCRINGTON chairman Eric Whalley insists Paul Jewell "does not know what he
is talking about" following the Wigan manager's claims that a punishment
handed to Stanley played a part in West Ham escaping a points deduction. The
relegation-threatened Hammers were fined £5.5m by Premier League bosses
after being found guilty over the transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier
Mascherano. But Jewell, whose struggling Latics were thumped 3-0 by West Ham
last Saturday, claimed he "smelled a rat" when Stanley avoided a points
deduction in March for fielding ineligible players. "I've read what Paul
Jewell has said and it's absolutely ridiculous," said Whalley. "The West Ham
decision was done by a body that has nothing to do with the Football League.
It is something separate. "He does not know what he is talking about. "If I
was him, I would concentrate on keeping Wigan in the Premiership rather than
criticise other clubs." Stanley were fined £12,000 by the Football League,
with half of that sum suspended, for fielding young Preston striker Chris
McGrail and goalkeeper Martin Fearon.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Contract row threatens to keep Tévez out of fight against drop - The Times
Gary Jacob
West Ham United have until Friday to agree a new contract for Carlos Tévez
or risk the Argentina forward being refused permission to play against
Bolton Wanderers at Upton Park the next day.
Tévez was cleared to play for the rest of the season because the club told
the FA Premier League that they had "unilaterally" cancelled their contract
with Kia Joorabchian, who owns the rights to the player and could stop him
playing for them. West Ham had been requested to do so after being fined
£5.5 million at a Premier League hearing on Friday, in part for their
agreement with Joorabchian that potentially allowed him to affect club
policy.
However, Joorabchian has denied that he has given permission for the
contract to be annulled because he would then have no guarantee that Tévez
would return to his control at the end of the season.
The Iranian-born businessman says he is willing to make necessary amendments
to the contract that would satisfy the Premier League, but he has been
unable to meet West Ham officials this week. Unless an agreement is reached,
he is unlikely to allow Tévez to play against Bolton on Saturday and
Manchester United eight days later. The Premier League has said that is a
matter between the club and Joorabchian.
"West Ham United can't just tear up a contract more than anyone else can. It
is legally binding on both sides," a source close to Joorabchian said. "Kia
is frustrated because this is not of his doing. The position has been forced
upon him by the Premier League ruling, even though he has done nothing
wrong.
"He has great affection for the people at West Ham and has absolutely no
gripe with the club, the directors or the chairman. He wants them to do well
and he is, of course, very close to Carlos and wants the best for him. He
has made himself available to West Ham this week [for talks] and hopes they
can come to an amicable settlement before the game on Saturday."
West Ham have told the Premier League that they have cancelled the agreement
with Joorabchian because it was not "enforceable by law", although that has
not been tested by a court. But they also told the Premier League that they
would have a new agreement with Joorabchian in place by Monday this week.
"New arrangements are in place with the Premier League and dialogue is
taking place in terms of Carlos Tévez's future beyond the end of the
season," a West Ham spokesman said. "He is a registered player with West Ham
and nothing has changed since he played against Wigan on Saturday."
West Ham are considering whether to appeal against the fine and take legal
action against the former board, including Paul Aldridge, the former
managing director. Aldridge has defended himself after being criticised by
the three-man independent panel that presided over the Premier League
hearing and is considering legal action.
"Naturally, my sympathies lie with the club in respect of what seems a very
harsh sanction," Aldridge said. "However, my own personal and professional
reputations have been besmirched. The findings accuse me of acting
dishonestly and lying. Those findings were then published to the media at
large and posted to the FA Premier League's website, with the natural
consequence that the accusations against me would be repeated far and wide.
"At no stage was I called as a witness, even though I volunteered to provide
evidence to my former club, or invited to provide a statement, or notified
in advance of publication of the serious allegations to be made."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
After the verdict, recrimination: furious clubs may sue if West Ham stay in
Premiership Premier League chief visits Wigan to explain why Hammers were
only fined despite 'serious breaches'
David Conn
Wednesday May 2, 2007
The Guardian
The independent commission which fined West Ham United a record £5.5m over
the signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano, but decided not to
deduct points from the club, has managed the rare feat of uniting football.
Nobody seems to like it. West Ham achieved their aim of avoiding a points
deduction after belatedly pleading guilty to the Premier League's two
charges but the chairman, Eggert Magnusson, is said to be shocked at the
record fine and considering a legal challenge. The Premier League declared
last Friday that, "We fully respect the decision", but other Premiership
clubs threatened with relegation are incensed that West Ham were not docked
points despite admitting "extremely serious breaches" of the rules including
lying to the league. An insider at one club said yesterday the judgment is
"extremely likely to be challenged legally".
The Premier League's chief executive, Richard Scudamore, was at Wigan
Athletic yesterday, attempting to explain the decision and justify the
process with the manager, Paul Jewell, and owner, Dave Whelan. They accused
the league of "bottling it" and argued West Ham should have been docked
points.
Paul Aldridge, West Ham's former chief executive, who was found by the
commission to have "told Mr Scudamore a direct lie" when he said West Ham
had supplied the Premier League with "all documentation in respect of these
players", announced yesterday that he had instructed libel lawyers to
contest that finding. The commission itself accepted that Aldridge had not
been called as a witness, nor made a statement and "has thus not been here
to answer for himself". Aldridge reacted to that by arguing in a statement
that "This is hardly natural justice."
He complained that he had written a "detailed letter" to the commission, but
they did not respond to it or refer to it in the judgment. "My own personal
and professional reputations have been besmirched," Aldridge added, saying
he had been given no opportunity to respond to the "serious allegations".
The Premier League had accused West Ham of breaching rule U18, which
prohibits a club from allowing outside parties "materially to influence its
policies or the performance of its team", when they signed Tevez and
Mascherano from the offshore companies which "owned" the players. The club
was also charged with the arguably more serious offence of failing to act in
good faith when Aldridge and the club's legal director, Scott Duxbury, a
solicitor, did not show Scudamore the club's agreements with those
companies. The Premier League maintains it followed its procedures
flawlessly, bringing the charges, which are both unprecedented in the
league's history, then passing the hearing of them to an independent
commission chaired by a barrister, Simon Bourne-Arton QC.
West Ham had promised throughout to "defend the charges vigorously" but late
last week they changed their plea to guilty. Instead, they concentrated on
arguing there were circumstances which should mitigate against a points
deduction. The £5.5m fine might look huge, but given the Premier League's
£2.7bn TV deal starting next season, relegation would cost at least £30m
from TV alone.
On West Ham's conduct, the commission's judgment thumped crushingly hard. It
found that two offshore companies, whose investors were not named, owned
"exclusively and absolutely" the "economic rights" of the players. Tevez's
destiny was controlled by MSI and Just Sports Inc, Mascherano's by Global
Soccer Agencies and Mystere Services. West Ham signed the Argentinians from
these companies for no transfer fee, paying just "a considerable sum" to an
agent. Sources close to the deal told me West Ham had an option to buy both
players from the companies outright at any time, for a pre-agreed fee, but
the commission did not mention this. It said instead that the companies had
"the sole, exclusive and unilateral right" to move the players in any
transfer window, and pay West Ham £2m for Tevez and only £150,000 for
Mascherano.
The commission ruled that these contracts gave the companies the right to
materially influence the club's policies or team performance - even though
they never did wield that influence - and so rule U18 was breached.
The commission was scathing about Duxbury and Aldridge's decision not to
show Scudamore the contracts. It ruled that "Mr Duxbury misled Jane Purdon"
[the Premier League's company secretary] when he told her that he had
provided her with all the documents required to register the players.
Duxbury had come to that view because he believed the contracts with the
offshore companies were not needed to register the players, and so when
Aldridge met Scudamore on September 8 last year, he said, according to
Scudamore, that there was "no documentation of any sort in respect of these
players which the Premier League had not seen". That, the commission
decided, was "a direct lie".
Yet having been so damning in their judgment of the player ownership
arrangements and Duxbury and Aldridge's conduct, the commission seems to
have come over all woolly when deciding that deducting points would not be a
"proportionate" penalty.
It acknowledged that other clubs believed points should be docked, but took
into account seven factors to reach that fateful decision. The first, that
West Ham pleaded guilty, looks reasonable enough, but this was not a
criminal court and in football it seems a little tricky to argue there
should be a lighter sentence simply for changing a plea at the 11th hour.
The commission also showed sympathy because the club is under new ownership
following Magnusson and Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson's £85m takeover last
December. Perhaps most oddly, the commission argued that the "fans and
players have been fighting relegation" and are "in no way to blame for this
situation". "Those efforts and that loyalty," it continued, "would be to no
avail were we to now deduct points."
That reasoning, that football penalties unfairly hit players and fans, is
never applied to commute 10-point penalties when troubled clubs go into
administration. The FA and leagues customarily deduct points, without mercy,
when clubs fail to complete the required paperwork to register players. Bury
were thrown out of the FA Cup earlier this season for cocking up the
administrative procedure when playing Stephen Turnbull - on loan from
Hartlepool, who were happy for him to play.
The problem here, partially acknowledged by the Premier League, is that its
independent commissions are not ruling on the basis of established law or
precedent. However eminent the QC in the chair, the panel is essentially
coming to its own opinion. In this judgment, they said more than once that
West Ham's breaches of the rules were "extremely serious". That makes it
difficult to see why West Ham's belated admission of guilt, the fact they
were taken over by new investors and the players' efforts should commute the
sentence to cash, not relegation. If Tevez continues to rampage the Hammers
to safety, it is difficult to imagine that the clubs relegated instead will
accept their fate quietly.
Why the commission did not deduct points
Seven mitigating factors were taken into account - other clubs may challenge
their validity:
The plea
West Ham United changed their plea to guilty at the 11th hour
The owners
West Ham have new owners, the Icelandic investors who took over the club for
£85m last December, four months after Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano
were signed
The contracts
Had West Ham disclosed the Argentinian players' contracts when they signed,
the club could have amended the arrangements in ways which would have been
acceptable to the Premier League. Liverpool did so when they signed
Mascherano in January
The timing
Because the hearing took place this late in the season the commission
decided that a points deduction "would have consigned the club to certain
relegation"
The player
Tevez featured in further West Ham games after the charges were brought on
January 24. The Premier League had the power to stop him playing but did not
The fans
West Ham's players and fans "are in no way to blame for this situation"
The admission
After the change of ownership the club itself brought the breaches of the
rules to the attention of the Premier League
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment