Gianfranco Zola had positive words for Freddie Sears in what proved a
difficult night away to Watford
24.09.2008
Gianfranco Zola has found positives to take from Carling Cup defeat last
night although admitted it was a disappointing night at Vicarage Road.
The manager was pleased with the form of his two debutants in goalkeeper Jan
Lastuvka and left-back Walter Lopez. Although Lastuvka was involved in the
only goal of the game when Hayden Mullins inadvertently diverted the ball
into an empty net after Lastuvka missed a clearance, Zola praised his
display. "I can't say anything to him because he made a fantastic save
before," he said. "It happens sometimes, we were unlucky there."
The manager also had encouraging words for the way his young players like
Freddie Sears, who got his first full 90 minutes at first-team level,
acquitted themselves. "Freddie has done very well," Zola said of the
18-year-old attacker who he is looking forward to working more closely with
in training. "I can't be too demanding with him but I was pleased with the
way he tried to play and he is going to get better. I am sure he has got a
future."
Reflecting overall on the "big blow" of an early cup exit, Zola added: "It
has not been a great day for us but I knew it was going to be tough. As I
said to the players, this doesn't have to change our positive attitude
towards the work we have been doing. It would have been too easy to hope
that everything would come right straight away. Sometimes to improve you
have to go through difficult moments."
Zola said: "I know but we are going to bounce back because we are going to
improve ... What can I tell [the players]? I saw them, they tried their
best. They couldn't do any more than that so it is worthless getting angry
with them. I am going to get angry when I need to. I have to be fair, they
did everything they could."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Tevez tribunal decision explained - BBC
Having already been fined a record £5.5m for breaching Premier League rules
in signing Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano, West Ham are now faced with
the prospect of paying Sheffield United millions of pounds in compensation.
Blades chairman Kevin McCabe has revealed that an independent tribunal has
ruled in his club's favour as they look to gain compensation for being
relegated to the Championship, rather than West Ham who were helped in their
survival bid by the performances of Tevez.
BBC Sport correspondent James Munro looks at how the panel arrived at their
decision and what it means for both clubs.
WHO MADE TODAY'S DECISION?
When two clubs are in dispute, then under the FA's Rule K, there is a
procedure for solving disagreements through independent arbitrators. Each
club can nominate one member of a private arbitration tribunal, then
together the two parties choose a third to act as chairman. In this case,
the panel was made up of Lord Griffiths, a former President of the MCC,
Robert Englehart QC, and Sir Anthony Colman, a former High Court Judge.
WHY GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS?
The clubs would be in breach of FA rules if they didn't. It can be faster
and more flexible in terms of procedure than the courts, and (unlike in
court) it allows the clubs to choose who will sit in judgment on their
claims. Being private, it also provides confidentiality, away from the glare
of the media spotlight.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE DECISION?
The panel has made a decision on liability (i.e. whether West Ham breached
any duty to Sheffield United, such that it should compensate Sheffield
United for the loss it suffered as a result), and notified both clubs about
the ruling, which has not been made public. But they are believed to have
ruled in favour of Sheffield United (i.e. they are believed to have ruled
that West Ham did breach a duty to Sheffield United and should pay damages
in an amount sufficient to compensate Sheffield United for the losses it
suffered as a result of that breach of duty).
HOW MUCH WILL COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO?
The panel is expected to hold another hearing now to hear evidence and
arguments as to how much Sheffield United should be awarded in damages. They
will probably not issue any decision until the beginning of next year.
CAN WEST HAM APPEAL?
That's what they will be looking at now, but it'll be very tough. Just look
at the FA's Rule K5c: By signing up to arbitration, "the parties shall be
deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any
recourse to a court of law." It appears there is no right of appeal to CAS,
and only a very limited ability to challenge the merits of the award in the
Commercial Court.
CAN THE RULING HELP GET SHEFF UTD BACK IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE?
The Sheffield United Chairman, Kevin McCabe, raises this issue on the
Sheffield United website - he certainly sounds like he hasn't given up hope.
But the Premier League's decision not to dock West Ham points in 2007 was
scrutinised and cleared by an independent panel, and the Commercial Court
rejected Sheffield United's attempt to get that award overturned. That issue
is dead. All we are talking about now is money.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham join Olympic Stadium mystery - BBC
Mihir Bose - BBC sports editor 23 Sep 08, 08:10 PM
West Ham are to hold talks with government officials in October to discuss a
possible move to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford after the 2012 Games. The
idea has been revived following much debate as to the stadium's post-Olympic
use, with a debate sparked following Boris Johnson's election as Mayor of
London and his decision to have an in-depth look at the Olympic project and
in particular its legacy uses. Insiders say the West Ham talks are at a very
preliminary stage and do not mean the club would move there and that they
are part of a wider consultation.
However the fact is West Ham's plans to move to the Parcel Force site - land
which had been earmarked for a new stadium - have run into difficulties,
with the development complicated. This, combined with the worries created by
the credit crunch, and fears of how the post Olympic use of the facilities
would be funded, has reopened the whole issue of a football club moving to
the site. That the option of a Premier League use for the stadium has
remerged at all shows how the whole question of Olympic legacy has changed
in the last few months. Previously the idea of a Premier League club using
the site had seemed dead and buried.
Several London clubs had been canvassed, with West Ham and Tottenham, both
of whom are looking for new homes, the front-runners. The use by a Premier
League side was much favoured in the government, in particular by the then
sports minister Richard Caborn. It was widely recognised only a Premier
League club would provide the revenue necessary to fund the stadium after
2012. But for various reasons the plans did not fly. Tottenham were not keen
to go to a stadium which has an athletics track and although the West Ham
option was much canvassed by Sir Robin Wales, the Newham mayor and devoted
West Ham fan, and the club's owners were receptive, it got nowhere. The
result was that it was decided to build an 80,000 stadium, which would be
scaled back to 25,000 after the Games. This would provide an athletics
stadium for London as promised when the capital bid for the Games. The
problem since then has been to find viable tenants, although many have been
canvassed, including Leyton Orient and rugby club Saracens.
With work on the stadium having already started there is need for a quick
resolution. One possibility being discussed is that after the Games the
stadium would be scaled back not to 25,000 but 50,000, which would make it
attractive for a Premier League club.
As for the running track there could be retractable seating like the Stade
de France in Paris. However all this would cost money, possibly £200m, and a
Premier League club would have to find it and in the current economic
climate that will not be easy. A club like West Ham would undoubtedly like a
type of deal similar to the one Manchester City obtained when they got the
City of Manchester Stadium built for the Commonwealth Games for a rent on
very favourable terms. How easy the government would find it do such a deal
and still fulfil its promise to have an athletics stadium for London are the
legacy questions at the forefront of the current debate.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Givet eyes winter exit - SSN
Unsettled Marseille defender keen on England
By Patrick Haond Last updated: 24th September 2008
Marseille defender Gael Givet has revealed his desire to seek a move to
England in the January transfer window. Givet is unsettled at the Stade
Velodrome and was the subject of an approach from Panathinaikos during the
summer, but a switch failed to materialise. Premier League club West Ham
United were also linked with an interest in Givet, and the 26-year-old has
confirmed he will look to leave Ligue 1 in the winter. The Frenchman told
L'Equipe: "Sporting director Jose Anigo and coach Eric Gerets have clearly
indicated that they do not rely on me anymore. "In the summer I hoped to
find a club. The only proposition I had was from Panathinaikos. I really
wanted to go there. "People believe I stayed at Marseille for money. This is
not true. But don't forget me too quickly. "I can still play football. I am
still young and I have the strength to get back to the highest level. "I
will bounce back, preferably in England in the winter."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Zola impressed by Sears - SSN
Hammers boss ready to hand youngster an opportunity to shine
By Chris Burton Last updated: 24th September 2008
Gianfranco Zola could hand Freddie Sears another shot at the Premier League
this weekend. The new West Ham boss has been impressed by the talented
teenager during his short time in the Upton Park hot-seat and is mulling
over whether or not to utilise the youngster at Fulham on Saturday. The
18-year-old was one of few Hammers stars to emerge from Tuesday's 1-0
Carling Cup defeat at Watford with their reputation enhanced and could take
advantage of the opportunity to impress with fellow forwards Dean Ashton,
Craig Bellamy and Carlton Cole still sidelined. West Ham have enjoyed a
productive start to the new Premier League season, but Zola would appear to
have no qualms about turning to an inexperienced youth product to help the
club through their striker crisis. "Freddie has done very well," he said.
"Unfortunately he missed a couple of chances against Watford but he did
well. "We can't be too demanding on him, but I am pleased with the way he
tried to play. He is going to get better and I'm sure he is going to have a
bright future." Robert Green is expected to come back into the Hammers side
at Craven Cottage following Jan Lastuvka's blunder against the Hornets,
while Uruguayan full-back Walter Lopez will be hoping to feature once again
after an impressive debut in the cup.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Dux ducks the chop - KUMB
Filed: Wednesday, 24th September 2008
By: Staff Writer
West Ham United CEO Scott Duxbury's job is safe for now - despite being
found guilty of lying to the Premier League. Chief Executive Officer Duxbury
was slammed by the arbitration panel that found in favour of Sheffield
United yesterday. It was claimed that he lied to the Premier League with
regards to the conditions of Carlos Tevez's contract, mistruths that meant
the Argentinian was allowed to feature in United's final three games of the
06/07 season. However an unnamed spokesman for West Ham has told journalist
Ken Dyer, formerly of the Evening Standard but now working at the Daily
Mail, that Duxbury's position is not under threat. "We are still digesting
the findings of the tribunal - but the position of Scott Duxbury is not
under review," said the spokesman.
Duxbury joined West Ham in 2001 and was the club's first legal director
before being promoted to CEO in the wake of Eggert Magnusson's acrimonious
departure last year. A law graduate from Manchester University, Duxbury
went on to spend five years in the late-90s honing his talents as part of
the Maurice Watkins legal academy at Manchester firm James Chapman & Co.
Talking to the Times four years ago Duxbury said: "There is no feeling quite
like it when you lose a big match but it's great to have a job that involves
that kind of feeling. You work hard all week and what you've helped to
produce is out there on the pitch. "You are judged by the results."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Proof that West Ham were WEAKER with Tevez - The Spoiler
September 24th, 2008 · No Comments
Read it and weep, Blades
Hindsight is often failures only friend, and it's important to learn from
your mistakes. In the case of Sheffield United, the lesson is to play better
when you're up against the best teams in the land - that's how you stay in
the top flight.
Here's some proof that handsome Mr Tevez really had nothing to do with it:
* Four of West Ham's seven wins at the end of the 2006-07 season were by a
one-goal margin. Of those, Bobby Zamora scored the winning goal in three,
while Carlos Tevez grabbed the decider in just one. Of course, that game was
the 1-0 win at Old Trafford on the final day.
* The Daily Telegraph's football correspondent Henry Winter was asked by the
tribunal to discuss Tevez's impact and he made the point that West Ham
wouldn't have scored in that game were it not for Tevez. However, if the
game finished goalless, West Ham would still have finished 16th.
* Sheffield United played West Ham during West Ham's run of seven wins from
nine games and despite Carlos Tevez playing every second of the game, the
Blades still won the match 3-0. Should West Ham be given these three points
back?
* With nine games remaining in the season, Sheffield United led West Ham by
eleven points, despite the fact Carlos Tevez was at the club for 26 of the
29 games played, over which period the Blades picked up fourteen more points
than West Ham.
* The fact Sheffield United blew an eleven point lead over the final nine
games, a period that even included a 3-0 victory over the Hammers, must
surely be blamed on themselves.
And revealingly:
West Ham without Tevez:
P12 W4 D3 L5 Points per game: 1.25
West Ham with Tevez:
P26 W8 D2 L16 Points per game: 1
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Zola impressed by Sears' form - TeamTAlk
West Ham boss Gianfranco Zola has been encouraged by the performances of
Freddie Sears and could turn to the youngster against Fulham. Sears, 18, put
in one of the better displays in the 1-0 Carling Cup defeat to Watford this
week, taking advantage of his opportunity while Dean Ashton, Craig Bellamy
and Carlton Cole were sidelined through injury. Next for the Hammers is
Craven Cottage on Saturday when they will look to keep up with their fellow
Premier League pacesetters, having taken nine points from their first five
games. David di Michele inspired the victory over Newcastle last weekend,
with Sears adding to the competition in attack as West Ham look for the
first away win of the season. "Freddie has done very well," said Zola.
"Unfortunately he missed a couple of chances against Watford but he did
well.
"We can't be too demanding on him, but I am pleased with the way he tried to
play. He is going to get better and I'm sure he is going to have a bright
future."
Robert Green is expected to be recalled following Jan Lastuvka's blunder at
Vicarage Road, while Walter Lopez made a promising debut at left-back. Scott
Parker is also likely to return to the starting XI.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham v Sheffield United: A definitive guide to the Carlos Tevez affair -
Telegraph
When West Ham signed Carlos Tevez two years ago they never would have
believed the transfer coup could leave them facing a potential £30m pay-out
to Sheffield United. How did the situation get to this point, where do West
Ham go from here and how much difference did Tevez really make?
By Jeremy Wilson
Last Updated: 2:29PM BST 24 Sep 2008
The arrival of Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez at West Ham just over two
years shocked football but there were quickly concerns over the deal that
had brought them to Upton Park.
In April 2007, West Ham admitted to breaching Premier League rules B13 and
U18. Rule B13 states that all Premier League clubs should act in good faith,
while U18 relates to third party influence. The commission fined West Ham
£5.5 million, but did not dock the club points.
The Premier League also allowed Carlos Tevez to continue playing. Sheffield
United were unsuccessful in appealing this decision with both a Premier
League independent commission and the High Court. They then took the matter
up through the FA's arbitration procedure last August. The ruling in
Sheffield United's favour was released to the two clubs last Friday.
What happens now?
A directions hearing will be held next week and it is expected to be several
months before the arbitration panel rules on any final compensation figure.
Sheffield United want just over £30 million. However, with West Ham now
exploring other available legal options, such as appealing to the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) or even Fifa, the already interminable fall-out
from their signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano could now easily
continue into next year.
What is CAS?
The Court of Arbitration for Sport is an international arbitration body set
up to settle disputes related to sports. Its headquarters are in Lausanne.
It was originally conceived by International Olympic Committee President
Juan Antonio Samaranch to deal with disputes arising during the Olympics. It
was established as part of the IOC in 1984. Ten years later, CAS underwent
reforms to make itself more independent of the IOC, both organisationally
and financially.
Rule K5c
Rule K is the FA procedure by which clubs can have a dispute heard by an
independent arbitration tribunal. However, even though West Ham had no
choice but to accept the arbitration process, Rule K5c would suggest that
the decision is binding.
It says that by signing up to arbitration, "the parties shall be deemed to
have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any recourse to a
court of law."
So did Tevez make a difference?
- Key games
It is clearly a subjective question, but the key period was the final 10
matches of the season, when Tevez scored seven times. Until then, he had not
scored for West Ham. His goals could be argued to have changed the results
in the 2-1 win against Blackburn, the 3-1 victory against Bolton and the 1-0
win against Manchester United.
- Henry Winter's view
Sheffield United's hopes of multi-million-pound compensation from West Ham
came down to one passage of play in the final match of the season against
Manchester United.
The start of the move was not in question. Robert Green's hefty kick was
headed by Bobby Zamora to Tevez. Zamora's flick was not the greatest, but
Tevez showed impressive strength to hold off Michael Carrick, and return the
ball to Zamora. So far, so simple.
At the arbitration tribunal, West Ham's argument that Tevez was merely a
team member, not a defining presence rested on Zamora then playing a good
'assist' pass to Tevez to score. Zamora didn't. Everyone at Old Trafford
that afternoon saw what happened. Zamora over-hit his pass to Tevez,
allowing Wes Brown a chance of snuffing out the danger.
Football always comes down to tiny margins. Who has the most hunger? Who has
the most skill? Zamora's shaky lay-off should have resulted in the collapse
of the attack, in a routine tidying-up operation for Brown. Fortunately for
Zamora, for West Ham, for their loyal fans who screamed their love for the
little Argentinian throughout, Tevez was determined and dextrous enough to
charge down Brown's clearance, elude Edwin van der Sar and score.
- Stats and analysis
Tevez scored 44 per cent of West Ham's goals in the final five games of the
season and was directly involved in 55 per cent of them.
During this period, Tevez attempted 30.4 per cent of their shots and created
16.3 per cent of their goalscoring chances.
Tevez spent every minute of West Ham's final five games on the pitch and,
while he only assisted one other goal, he completed 81 per cent of his
passes compared to the 72 per cent mark of the overall team.
Who is to blame?
West Ham admitted breaching two Premier League rules, though the offences
were committed prior to the takeover by the Icelandic consortium. The
original report of the Premier League's independent commission was critical
of Paul Aldridge, the former managing director, who, the commission said,
told a "lie" to the Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore about
the transfers.
Scudamore and the Premier League have since been heavily criticised by Wigan
and Sheffield United, though they argue that the evidence was heard by an
independent commission which decided to fine West Ham £5.5 million and not
dock the club any points.
The Premier League also ruled that Tevez's contract with West Ham, in breach
of League rules, should be terminated, but club officials managed to reach a
new agreement that would allowed him to continue playing.
There remains considerable question-marks over how that agreement was
terminated. The FA have not been involved in the process, other than to
facilitate the independent arbitration tribunal that has ruled in Sheffield
United's favour.
How did Sheffield United reach £30m?
Breakdown of estimated losses:
As a result of their relegation, Sheffield United claim they lost out on
nearly £22 million in television and merchandising rights as well as bonus
payments.
The rest of the claim for damages in based on ticket sales, sponsorship
deals, club merchandising and a loss of £4m for the sale of Phil Jagielka to
Everton due to a clause in the player's contract.
The future
West Ham:
West Ham are seeking legal advice but would like to fight the £30 million
compensation claim through the Court of Arbitration for Sport. If not, they
would argue that there were other mitigating factors that should reduce the
claim.
Sheffield Utd:
They want more than £30 million and have hinted at possible further action
against the Premier League. It is understood, however, that they privately
accept that they will not be reinstated into the top flight some 16 months
after being relegated.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers deny summer transfer activity was linked to Tevez case - Echo
1:34pm Wednesday 24th September 2008
WEST HAM have denied suggestions that a lack of summer transfers was linked
to the verdict in the Carlos Tevez case. Anton Ferdinand, Bobby Zamora,
George McCartney, John Pantsil and Richard Wright were all off-loaded for
combined fees of approaching £20million, while Freddie Ljungberg and Nobby
Solano also left Upton Park. Valon Behrami was the only notable big-name
signing, arriving at the Boleyn Ground alongside a mix of loan signings and
youngsters. But the club - who face forking out hefty compensation after an
independent Football Association tribunal ruled that Sheffield United had
been unfairly relegated in the 2006/07 season - refuted suggestions their
activity in the market was dictated in anticipation of the ruling against
them. A statement on the club's website said: "With regard to the club's
transfer activity this summer, we made no assumption in terms of the
arbitration panel. "Our transfer policy continues to be based on sound
football and business principles with the aim of taking West Ham United
forward under new manager Gianfranco Zola."
But the Blades want as much as £30million in lost television rights,
transfer shortfalls and merchandising losses due to the relegation. And that
seriously threatens to tie boss Gianfranco Zola's hands in the January
transfer window. Big name stars such as Dean Ashton, Robert Green, Mark
Noble and Craig Bellamy have already been mooted as possible casualties as
the club looks to fund the compensation. The result of the ruling centres
around the Blades' claim that the east Londoners should have been deducted
points for illegally fielding Tevez and Javier Mascherano. Instead, an
arbitration hearing found the Irons guilty of acting improperly and
withholding vital documentation for the Argentina internationals, and fined
the club a record £5.5million. The Bramall Lane outfit's subsequent appeal
was thrown out by the High Court last year. But a three-man panel ruled this
week that Tevez's contribution 'made the difference between West Ham
remaining in the Premiership and being relegated at the end of the season'.
West Ham are said to be planning an appeal but will wait to discover the
exact compensation figure.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham back chief executive at heart of Carlos Tevez transfer row -
Telegraph
West Ham intend to stand by chief executive Scott Duxbury and have said that
his position is not under threat.
By Jeremy Wilson
Last Updated: 1:39PM BST 24 Sep 2008
Duxbury was the club's legal and commercial director when West Ham signed
Carlos Tevez and has now been accused of making verbal assurances that the
original agreement between the club and the player's representatives still
existed even though the Premier League thought it had been terminated so
that the Argentina striker could play in West Ham's remaining games. The
accusation was made by Kia Joorabchian's solicitor Graham Shear during a
three-man independent tribunal hearing into Sheffield United's claim for up
to £30 million in compensation over the Tevez affair. He said: "Admittedly,
on that same day, 27 April, and also again at the meeting the following week
at which I was present, [West Ham] made clear that they intended to and
would, notwithstanding the 27 April letter, perform their obligations under
the Private Agreement. This has, at least in private and behind the scenes,
always remained [West Ham's] position."
In another passage, Tribunal chairman Lord Griffiths asked Shear for
clarification: "The impression that your evidence has left with me is that
Mr Duxbury was saying to you: 'Don't worry, we are not going to depart from
the terms we had agreed'. Shear replied: 'Broadly, yes'."
The tribunal's findings state that: "If the Premier League had known what Mr
Duxbury for West Ham was saying to Mr Joorabchian's solicitor following the
commission decision, we are confident the Premier League would have
suspended Mr Tevez's registration as a West Ham player."
The tribunal also concluded that Tevez had made at least three points
difference to West Ham during the 2006-07 season. They found in favour of
relegated Sheffield United and could order West Ham to pay the club £30
million, though a spokesman said today: "We are still digesting the findings
of the tribunal but the position of Scott Duxbury is not under review."
West Ham are considering an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport,
but will not take any legal action against the club's previous owners. They
have already privately agreed an out-of-court settlement to a legal dispute
with former chairman Terry Brown.
Brown sold his majority holding in the Hammers to an Icelandic consortium as
part of an £85 million takeover in November 2006, remaining as a director.
But following the fallout from the Tevez and Javier Mascherano transfer saga
– which saw West Ham fined £5.5 million – certain contractual agreements
with Brown, such as a £1.2 million salary and seats in the directors' box at
Upton Park, were withdrawn.
Billionaire owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson also has no intention of leaving
West Ham even if the club is unsuccessful in staving off the £30 million
compensation claim.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Striker Di Michele enjoying fresh start at West Ham - Daily Mail
By Sportsmail Reporter
Last updated at 1:47 PM on 24th September 2008
David Di Michele has raised hopes of making his move to West Ham a permanent
switch after saying he has no intention of returning to Torino. The on-loan
Italian striker opened his Hammers' account with two goals in the 3-1
victory over Newcastle at the weekend. David Di Michele revealed he agreed a
12-month loan switch to Upton Park because he clashed with Torino coach
Gianni De Biasi. And the 32-year-old is enjoying his hoping to impress new
manager Gianfranco Zola. 'In England it's fantastic,' he said. 'I left
Torino because of De Biasi. He is still carrying on, but I don't care what
he says.'
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now the heads must roll: West Ham can't keep blaming old regime - Daily Mail
By Matt Lawton Last updated at 10:48 PM on 23rd September 2008
What was supposed to be a cheap way of bringing world-class talent into West
Ham is starting to look very expensive indeed. Those third party agreements
will not end in relegation for Gianfranco Zola's side, and for that reason
Carlos Tevez probably just about remains money well spent given that his
contribution proved so significant in keeping West Ham in the Premier League
in May 2007. But the bill, as Sheffield United explained to the independent
arbitration tribunal, could be as much as £30million and it will almost
certainly cost jobs as well. While Sir Dave Richards and Richard Scudamore
must brace themselves for yet more criticism for the way the Premier League
handled the Tevez scandal, others must also now be vulnerable. How Scott
Duxbury survived at Upton Park when the original Premier League inquiry
first revealed his role in the affair is a mystery. The lawyer was severely
criticised by the independent commission for withholding information and yet
he was promoted to chief executive officer.
Now it has emerged that he provided verbal assurances to Kia Joorabchian
that the agent's third party agreement still existed - even though he
informed the Premier League that the agreement had in fact been terminated
to allow Tevez to participate in what remained of West Ham's battle for
survival - Duxbury has to go. That meeting in Les Ambassadeurs casino on May
2 last year, and the telephone conversations that subsequently took place,
do not reflect well on the men who were there. Not on Duxbury and Eggert
Magnusson, the then West Ham chairman, nor Joorabchian and Graham Shear, the
lawyer who revealed the staggering details to the three members of the
tribunal. They were party to an outrageous breach of Premier League
regulations, something both the Premier League and the Football Association
might yet wish to examine.
Even if those who now run West Ham can still point to the club's previous
administration for entering into the agreement with Joorabchian in the first
place, theirpositions have become more difficult to defend. Last night both
West Ham and the Premier League were keen to shift the attention on to the
wider implications of this case, and in fairness they are worthy of
examination. Even if justice has been done, what has happened sets a
dangerous precedent and, in the words of one senior Premier League official,
'opens an enormous can of worms'.
Whatever mistakes were committed by the Premier League, they did agree to an
independent commission and that commission then concluded that, while a
points deduction was not appropriate, West Ham should receive a world record
fine of £5.5m. Sheffield United then exercised their right to appeal and
that proved unsuccessful, as did their attempts to gain justice at the Court
of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne and the High Court in London. To then
take the matter to the FA, and employ an obscure regulation that essentially
gave them the right to sue another club, does somewhat undermine the system
that was put in place by the Premier League and has now been reviewed. As
much was pointed out by the Premier League to the FA, whose officials
clearly ignored them, with the suspicion being that politics were very much
in play. There is a suggestion that in the process of being seen to be doing
the right thing, the FA were in fact scoring points against the Premier
League by allowing Sheffield United to continue in their pursuit of justice.
Relations between the two organisations have long been strained but rarely
have they been worse than they were yesterday. Success for Sheffield United
does, however, raise some alarming questions. What, for instance, would
happen if Watford lost out by a point to Reading in the race for promotion
and suddenly decided to refer back to that phantom goal?
Any club that is not happy with their final league position, for whatever
reason, might now turn to their lawyers after this,' remarked one observer
last night. How much West Ham are ordered to pay in damages to Sheffield
United remains to be seen. The three members of the tribunal that was
chaired by Lord Griffiths will reconvene next week but it could be months
before they agree on a figure. In the meantime, West Ham will continue to
consult their legal representatives and consider a course of action that
could well take them to the CAS in Switzerland.
Just like Sheffield United, they are unlikely to prove successful with the
CAS, not least because the independent tribunal is a recognised dispute
resolution body.
West Ham would argue that Sheffield United have already had their day in
court, as well as their right of appeal, and they may also point to the fact
that the three members of the tribunal have a 'scant knowledge' of football.
But when all the evidence is examined in the documents that are in the
possession of Sportsmail, sympathy for West Ham will be in fairly short
supply. In principle, there is no right of appeal and from the moment they
joined Sheffield United in appointing the three members of the tribunal,
they committed to abiding by the outcome of the hearing. And the truth is,
the legal advice West Ham received said Sheffield United would fail in their
claim for compensation. Today those responsible simply need to start taking
responsibility. West Ham could begin with the dismissal, however symbolic,
of Duxbury.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Duxbury won't be sacked as West Ham stand their ground over Tevez cover-up
claims - Daily Mail
By KEN DYER
Last updated at 11:58 AM on 24th September 2008
West Ham insist they will stand by under-fire chief executive Scott Duxbury
and maintained that his position is not under review. Duxbury was the club's
legal representative at the time of the Carlos Tevez affair and was accused
of witholding information by the first Premier League inquiry into the
affair in April 2007, when West Ham were fined £5.5million. Now the Football
Association's independent tribunal have found that Duxbury verbally assured
Kia Joorabchian, the part-owner of Tevez, that the third-party agreement
still existed even though he had informed the Premier League that it had
been terminated so that the Argentina striker could play in West Ham's
remaining games. The tribunal's findings state that: 'We have no doubt that
those [Tevez's] services were worth at least three points to West Ham over
the season and were what made the difference between West Ham remaining in
the Premier League and being relegated. 'Moreover, if the Premier League had
known what Mr Duxbury for West Ham was saying to Mr Joorabchian's solicitor
[Graham Shear] following the commission decision, we are confident the
Premier League would have suspended Mr Tevez's registration as a West Ham
player.'
The tribunal found in favour of relegated Sheffield United and could order
West Ham to pay the club £30m but a spokesman said today: 'We are still
digesting the findings of the tribunal but the position of Scott Duxbury is
not under review.' West Ham will decide before the end of the week whether
to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. They also look
certain to call for a 'forensic' examination of Sheffield United's books
following the club's intention to claim more than £30m as compensation for
lost revenue after they were relegated.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The £30m lie: The key men in the Tevez deal ... and what happened next -
Daily Mail
By Sportsmail Reporter
Last updated at 12:12 PM on 24th September 2008
West Ham are facing a crippling £30million damages payout after an
independent tribunal ruled in favour of Sheffield United over the Carlos
Tevez affair. The judgement on the Tevez affair, announced, reads: "On the
totality of the evidence, we have no doubt that West Ham would have secured
at least three fewer points over the 2006-07 season if Carlos Tevez had not
been playing for the club. Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the
evidence that we heard, that even over the final two games of the season,
West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr
Tevez. "He played outstandingly well in the two wins that West Ham secured
on those last two games."
Here we identify the main players in the Tevez affair.
Carlos Tevez: Joined Manchester Utd on a free transfer in the summer of
2007, with a view to completing a £32m move to the European champions.
Javier Mascherano: The midfielder left Upton Park in January 2007 and signed
for Liverpool a month later after the issue of his third-party ownership was
investigated by FIFA.
Neil Warnock: Quit Sheffield United in May 2007 after the club were
relegated from the Premier League. Now boss at Crystal Palace.
Kia Joorabchian: Still Carlos Tevez's advisor and and now involved with
transfers at Manchester City.
Alan Pardew: Sacked as West Ham boss in 2007. Now in charge at Championship
side Charlton Athletic.
Terence Brown: West Ham chairman made £33.4m from the sale of the club to
Icelandic syndicate and now allowed back at Upton Park.
Scott Duxbury: Promoted to role of chief executive at Upton Park despite
being found guilty of lying to the Premier League.
Paul Aldridge: Former West Ham managing director also found to have lied to
Scudamore, now chief operating officer at Manchester City.
Richard Scudamore: Premier League chief executive who remains firmly in
place despite controversy over his '39th game' proposal.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A star performer like Carlos Tevez made all the difference to West Ham's
survival - Telegraph
Sitting in a Zurich law office during Euro 2008, the conference screen in
front of me flickered into life and a busy tribunal room in London
materialised.
By Henry Winter, Football Correspondent
Last Updated: 8:12AM BST 24 Sep 2008
As the three wise men hearing the Carlos Tevez affair nodded for proceedings
to commence, West Ham's QC stood up, looked into his screen and began 40
minutes' sparring with me over the extent of Tevez's role in the Hammers'
survival in the 2006-07 season. For all the heat and legal dust-ups
triggered by the Tevez dispute, primarily because of the cost of relegation
endured by Sheffield United, the case was essentially simple: in a team
sport, can one individual drag 10 others to victory?
West Ham argued that Tevez, for all his undoubted accomplishments, was a cog
in a machine, a performer who needed others to build him a platform.
Sheffield United countered that a footballer of the world-renowned
capabilities of the Argentinian could be the catalyst for success through
his goals and work-rate, and set about trying to prove it. One headline
particularly caught the eye of Bramall Lane's lawyers: "Talent of Tevez
lifts West Ham to safety''. A page-lead in the Telegraph on May 23, 2007 ,
the words captured the livewire forward's contribution to West Ham's 1-0 win
at Manchester United the previous day, the season's climax. But how big was
that contribution? Sheffield United asked me to repeat the central theme of
my match report – that Tevez kept West Ham up – to the tribunal. Sheffield
United picked the Telegraph, but it could have been any other reporter at
Old Trafford that day. To all present in the press box, Tevez delivered an
astonishing display. And this is where the legal and footballing
deliberations intensified. Could Tevez have made the goal on his own? Surely
not, insisted West Ham's QC. Someone must have passed to him. Although
Tevez's prolific contribution to preceding games was noted (six goals in
nine games), Sheffield United's hopes of multi-million-pound compensation
from West Ham came down to one passage of play. The start of the move was
not in question. Robert Green's hefty kick was headed by Bobby Zamora to
Tevez. Zamora's flick was not the greatest, but Tevez showed impressive
strength to hold off Michael Carrick, and return the ball to Zamora. So far,
so simple.
West Ham's case arguably crumbled here. Their QC's assertion that Tevez was
merely a team member, not a defining presence rested on Zamora playing a
good 'assist' pass to Tevez to score. Zamora didn't. Everyone at Old
Trafford that afternoon saw what happened. Zamora over-hit his pass to
Tevez, allowing Wes Brown a chance of snuffing out the danger.
Football always comes down to tiny margins. Who has the most hunger? Who has
the most skill? Zamora's shaky lay-off should have resulted in the collapse
of the attack, in a routine tidying-up operation for Brown. Fortunately for
Zamora, for West Ham, for their loyal fans who screamed their love for the
little Argentinian throughout, Tevez was determined and dextrous enough to
charge down Brown's clearance, elude Edwin van der Sar and score..
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers boss Zola refuses to blame Lastuvka or Tevez affair for Watford
defeat - Daily Mail
By Sportsmail Reporter Last updated at 9:02 AM on 24th September 2008
West Ham manager Gianfranco Zola refused to blame his goalkeeper or the
latest episode in the Carlos Tevez affair for his side crashing out of the
Carling Cup at Watford last night. The Hammers' defeat at Vicarage Road
ended a traumatic day that, by Sheffield United's estimation, could cost
them £30million after a tribunal ruling over the eligibility of Tevez two
seasons ago. Hayden Mullins' own goal 20 minutes from full-time settled the
third-round tie, with the ball striking the midfielder after debutant Jan
Lastuvka came for Lee Williamson's free-kick but did not claim the ball. It
was harsh on the goalkeeper on loan from Shakhtar Donetsk after keeping the
scores level with saves to deny Tommy Smith and Jordan Parkes. 'I can't tell
him anything because he made a fantastic save before he was very unlucky,'
said boss Zola. Zola refused to blame off-the-field matters either, adding:
'I didn't even know about this (tribunal ruling). I don't want to have any
excuses like that.'
Watford boss Aidy Boothroyd did not feel the stroke of luck for the winner
made up for the 'phantom' goal his side conceded against Reading at the
weekend. He thought there may have been a conspiracy when Peter Walton -
who gave a penalty against Watford two years ago when the ball struck Chris
Powell's head - was named as a late replacement for Kevin Stroud as referee.
'I did smile when I saw it was him. I thought we'd get Peter or Kevin Friend
who didn't give the goal in the play-offs,' Boothroyd said. 'There are no
hard feelings and you hope at some point in your life you get the rub of the
green. But it doesn't make up for Saturday. Not after that. We're due a bit
more luck. 'Keith Stroud was ill so we had Peter, who I know because he gave
a handball for a faceball. 'I saw him at a service station after the game in
a toilet and told him he made a howler - but he is a very good referee and
he did well again.'
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Wednesday's football transfer rumours - West Ham to sell all their players?
Tom Bryant guardian.co.uk, Wednesday September 24 2008 08:53 BST
Origami is the art of creating something out of paper; Milligami is the art
of creating something out of absolutely nothing — or at least not very much.
So it is, readers, that today's dose of speculation, half-truths and
palpable nonsense comes to you particularly unencumbered by anything much in
the way of rumours, allowing you ample space below to let the Mill know that
you expect more from a so-called serious newspaper, that this is lazy
journalism, it's not as funny as it used to be and so forth.
After making such a success out of their foray into the transfer market to
secure two lovely Argentines two years ago, West Ham fancy another crack at
it — but this time in reverse. Despite making a cool £19m from the sales of
Anton Ferdinand, George McCartney, Bobby Zamora and John Pantsil over the
summer, the club hope to raise the £30m Sheffield United want by sticking
Dean Ashton, Mark Noble, Robert Green and Scott Parker in the Upton Park
club shop window with 'For Sale — Going Cheap!' signs taped to their frontal
lobes.
They'll be removed from the window, of course, if West Ham owner Bjorgolfur
Gudmundsson digs deep and bails the club out. Given that his last major
financial decision involved ploughing several million quid into XL Airways
just weeks before its collapse, he may just be fool enough to do so, too.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers defiant over Tevez cover-up claims
Ken Dyer, Evening Standard
24.09.08
West Ham today insisted they will stand by under-fire chief executive Scott
Duxbury and maintained that his position is not under review. Duxbury was
the club's legal representative at the time of the Carlos Tevez affair and
was accused of witholding information by the first Premier League inquiry
into the affair in April 2007, when West Ham were fined £5.5million. Now the
Football Association's independent tribunal have found that Duxbury verbally
assured Kia Joorabchian, the part-owner of Tevez, that the third-party
agreement still existed even though he had informed the Premier League that
it had been terminated so that the Argentine striker could play in West
Ham's remaining games. The tribunal's findings, reported in today's Daily
Mail, state that: "We have no doubt that those [Tevez's] services were worth
at least three points to West Ham over the season and were what made the
difference between West Ham remaining in the Premier League and being
relegated. "Moreover, if the Premier League had known what Mr Duxbury for
West Ham was saying to Mr Joorabchian's solicitor [Graham Shear] following
the commission decision, we are confident the Premier League would have
suspended Mr Tevez's registration as a West Ham player."
The tribunal found in favour of relegated Sheffield United and could order
West Ham to pay the club £30m but a spokesman said today: "We are still
digesting the findings of the tribunal but the position of Scott Duxbury is
not under review." West Ham will decide before the end of the week whether
to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. They also look
certain to call for a "forensic" examination of Sheffield United's books
following the club's intention to claim more than £30m as compensation for
lost revenue after they were relegated.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Zola refuses to blame Tevez affair for cup exit - viewlondon.co.uk
Gianfranco has refused to blame the looming prospect of a £30 million fine
over the Carlos Tevez affair for West Ham's Carling Cup exit last night. The
Hammers were beaten 1-0 at Watford on the same day as being informed
Sheffield United had been successful in their compensation claim. An
independent panel is set to decide the amount of compensation after siding
with the Blades over the key role Tevez, now at Manchester United, played in
guiding West Ham to Premier League survival at the Yorkshire club's expense
in 2007. Former Chelsea star Zola saw his side crash out of the cup as Czech
goalkeeper Jan Lastuvka's first start was marred by a missed punch that saw
Hayden Mullins score an unfortunate own goal. But Zola refused to blame
either Lastuvka or Tevez for the result at Vicarage Road. "I can't tell him
anything because he made a fantastic save before he was very unlucky," the
Italian said. "I said to the players that it doesn't have to change our
positive attitude to the work we're doing. It would be too easy to think
everything would be bright. "I didn't even know about [the tribunal ruling];
I don't want to have any excuses like that."
West Ham, who are seeking legal advice over the independent tribunal's
ruling, have already admitted that this summer's limited transfer spending
was in anticipation of a potential penalty.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Chief executive Duxbury faces uncertain future - Echo
10:59am Wednesday 24th September 2008
By Rob Pritchard »
WEST Ham United chief executive Scott Duxbury could be on his way out of
Upton Park after his full role in the Carlos Tevez affair was revealed. The
findings of an independent tribunal – whose decision to find in favour of
Sheffield United could cost the Irons as much as £30million – into the
affair have revealed that lawyer Duxbury ignored a Premier League
commission's demand to tear up Tevez's "third-party" contract in April 2007.
At the same time, West Ham were fined £5.5million after admitting to
breaking two Premier League rules over the signings of Tevez and Argentine
compatriot Javier Mascherano in August 2006. West Ham publicly agreed to
remove the offending agreements from Tevez's contract and the Premier League
allowed the forward to play in the club's final three Premier League games
of the season against Wigan Athletic, Bolton Wanderers and Manchester
United. The 24-year-old would play an influential role in all three fixtures
as the Hammers escaped relegation on the final day of the season at Old
Trafford. However, the latest tribunal has now revealed that then-deputy
chief executive Duxbury made secret promises to Iranian businessmen Kia
Joorabcian - who owned the pair's "economic" rights and now acts as a
"transfer consultant" for the Hammers - and his solicitor Graham Shear that
he would secretly honour an agreement that forced the Irons to sell Tevez if
any other club offered £2million.
The tribunal's judgement ruling makes it clear that Tevez would not have had
his playing registration suspended immediately - making him ineligible for
the season's final three games - had the Premier League been aware of
Duxbury's promises. "We have no doubt that those (Tevez's) services were
worth at least three points to West Ham over the season and were what made
the difference between West Ham remaining in the Premiership and being
relegated at the end of the season," said the ruling. "Moreover, if the
Premier League had known what Mr Duxbury for West Ham was saying to Mr
Joorabchian's solicitor (Shear) following the commission decision, we are
confident that the Premier League would have suspended Mr Tevez's
registration as a West Ham player."
When asked directly by the tribunal chairman Lord Griffiths whether he
believed Duxbury was secretly promising to adhere to the agreement the
Premier League had deemed illegal, Shear replied: "Broadly, yes." Duxbury
arrived at Upton Park as the club's in-house lawyer in June 2001 after
graduating from the Maurice Watkins legal academy at Manchester-based law
firm James Chapman and Co. He was promoted to the role of deputy chief
executive in December 2006 following the arrival of the club's new Icelandic
owners, despite his role in the controversial signings of Tevez and
Mascherano. Duxbury became chief executive in his own right following the
departure of Eggert Magnusson in December 2007, and was heavily involved in
the appointment of new manager Gianfranco Zola earlier this month, In a
statement released on Tuesday, West Ham said: "The club need to digest the
findings and will consult lawyers before considering the next steps."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Pompey boss Redknapp won't wage bid for 'expensive' Appiah - Daily Mail
By Sportsmail Reporter
Last updated at 11:20 AM on 24th September 2008
Harry Redknapp believes Portsmouth are unlikely to make a move for Stephen
Appiah, who has also been linked with West Ham and Arsenal, because of the
Ghana star's likely wage demands. Redknapp believes the midfielder,
available on a free transfer after leaving Turkish side Fenerbahce, will be
too expensive for the cash-strapped south coast club. He told the Portsmouth
News: 'I doubt it very much whether he will be coming to us. 'He's going to
be expensive. He's going to want big, big wages, so it will be difficult.
'We have already brought players in. I have got a squad and we've spent
money to do that. The owner has been great. 'But we're not planning to do
anything else now.'
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Watford Aftermath - West Ham Till I Die
Not really a great day for the Hammers, yesterday, was it? And when you
think I had to drive to Watford from Manchester listening to Gordon Brown
most of the way down the M6, you'll realise why I was in a pretty foul mood
by the time I left Vicarage Road. Best not to blog, I thought.
On the face it, we put out a reasonably strong team last night, even if we
were without three of our first choice strikers. And it was really the non
performance of Di Michele and Freddie Sears that meant we never looked
likely to score. They were both a huge disappointment, Sears in particular.
It is difficult to remember either of them getting anywhere near an on
target shot on goal.
I was very impressed by our new goalkeeper. Well, I was until he flapped at
the cross which Mullins then steered into the net. The back line was also
very shaky against a very nimble Watford attack force. Neill looked good for
half an hour and then went to pieces. Evem Upson had some dodgy moments.
Walter Lopez, however, was everywhere and I would make him man of the match
- if indeed, you could justify having a man of the match. He's not a
particularly tough tackler, and he started off quite nervously, but as the
game wore on he got better, although I think it was his handball that led to
the cross which led to their goal.
Boa Morte as as useless as ever, although he did actually manage a shot on
target. Which was nice.
The highlight of the evening was the Watford directors' box seats, which
were so padded, there was little room left for legroom. Actually the real
highlight of the evening was having dinner before the match with Ray
Clemence. Naturally I spent the whole meal pushing the case for Robert
Green. Unfortunately Clemence was at the West Brom game, where it seems Mr
Green had a bit of a nightmare.
Also in the director's box was one Terry Brown. He sat with Duxbury, Mike
Lee etc at the pre match meal and to all intents and purposes looked as if
he was still part of the club. It was a bit weird really. I was going to
talk to him, but in the end decided discretion was the better part of
valour.
However, I did have a chat with a couple of other people and I think you can
rest assured they are not taking the Sheffield United thing lying down. I
won't betray private conversations but the language used was fairly robust.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
What If Sheffield United Were Just A Better Team? - The West Ham Process
09.24.08
On the totality of the evidence, we have no doubt that West Ham would have
secured at least three fewer points over the 2006/07 season if Carlos Tevez
had not been playing for the club. Indeed, we think it more likely than not
on the evidence that we heard, that even over the final two games of the
season, West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall
without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins that West Ham
secured in those last two games The words that I unfortunately expected
based on our lack of activity in the transfer window, although I do not
think they should be accepted. This statement is quite literally a group of
'what ifs', so on that basis here is my personal 'What If' journey…
What if Tevez had not been playing? Would we have still kept a clean sheet
at Old Trafford on the last day of the season?
Yes.
Would Sheff Utd still have lost their last game?
Yes.
Would we have still beat Arsenal at the Emirates?
Of course, Bobby Z scored a blinder, and Green played out of his skin.
Would we have still lost to Sheff Utd and Charlton and fellow strugglers?
Yes, because as a team we played awful for both of those games.
What if we never signed Tevez in the first place?
Well for sure the team and structure of the club would not have been so
disrupted. There would have been more unity and maybe Pardew would never
have lost his job. The same Alan Pardew who led us to the Premiership, a top
half finish and the FA Cup, all without Tevez…and playing some of the best
football I have seen West Ham play. We may not have been in a relegation
scrap in the first place. A relegation scrap saved for boring, ugly and
scruffy footballing teams…just like Sheffield United and Wigan. Teams who
rely on everything other than winning their own games to survive. I usually
try to be impartial when I write on here, but I'm afraid this is the last
straw. Maybe we could have watched the Blunts fight a relegation battle that
THEY got THEMSELVES into from a distance knowing that we were safe because
we were a settled team playing good football.
What if we didn't have Terrence Brown as a chairman?
He would not have snatched any incentives waved infront of his money
grabbing boney fingers. That means that Kia would never have been on the
scene and neither Tevez. It may mean that Magnusson and Co would have taken
over our club with a peace of mind regarding the players who were at the
club. They could have comfortably funded Pardew and his well grounded team
knowing that their investment was more secure. But, Brown was chairman, so
he did get involved with Kia. We did sign Tevez, it did cost Pardew his job.
It did mean we appointed Curbishley. Who spent awfully the money he was
given leading the board to have to sell players off and putting us in severe
financial turmoil. Right back where we started. At this point, from what I
can work out, we havn't actually gained anything from Tevez playing at the
club.
There is plenty more I can go on with. So I will
Once again, what if Terrence Brown was never chairman?
We would have never signed Glenn 'The Rodent' Roeder. We would never have
got relegated.
We would never have sold Joe Cole, Frank Lampard, Rio Ferdinand, Jermain
Defore, Michael Carrick, Glenn Johnson. We would by all accounts therefore
be one of the best teams in the country, playing high quality football.
Sheff United fans, ever had class like that come from your club? No.
We would be playing Champions League football, and we would once again be a
feared and respected club across the continent.
But here, for everyone, is just a very quick reality check.
You cannot base a decision that is going to cost a club £30m on possiblity
alone. Because as far as I am concerned if certain things had never happened
in our past, our club would be far better off than it is now and I have just
proved that. So Sheffield United, how about you concentrated on playing
football last instead of concerning yourselves with other clubs. You could
certainly do with maybe changing a few things yourself.
I mean your style of play is boring and it deserves to be in the
Championship for one.
To the panel who have made this decision, I would like you to consider maybe
charging Terrence Brown personally, rather than us. The evidence I have just
provided does in fact suggest that the whole reason West Ham are where we
are today is because of him.
I'm not sure I like where we are at the minute to be honest and I would
quite like to change that. So yeah, I think we should sue him. Yeah. That is
actually a good idea.
Perhaps we could sue him for the £56m we lost on Joe Cole and company
because from what I can work out, they should technically still be playing
for us.
Yeah, and infact while we are at it, I think Leeds deserve something. That's
right. You see because if Terrence Brown wasn't in charge of West Ham then
we would never had sold Rio to them. And after all they couldn't really
afford him in the first place.
So, something else I would like to add, is that maybe Leeds deserve to be
promoted back to the Premier League. All the players who are rightfully West
Ham's should be returned and I feel that we should calculate 'what could
have been' and move us up the league accordingly.
I hope you have got to the end of this article thinking, "That's pretty
stupid because none of those things did happen, so you can't say 'what if
they did'".
Neither can anybody every prove that having Tevez in our team gained us any
points. If anything it caused us more trouble than good, how about that
perspective?
You may as well just say that if Tevez never played for us then we wouldn't
have just lost 6-0 to Arsenal.
It is a stupid and dangerous court ruling, that may set an unprecedented
wave of clubs that are not good enough for the Premier League, saying they
don't deserve to be relegated.
Outrageous
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Tevez saga won't distract me - Zola - Echo
12:06pm Wednesday 24th September 2008
By Rob Pritchard »
GIANFRANCO Zola is refusing to let the Carlos Tevez transfer saga divert his
focus from managing West Ham United. Speculation is rife that the Italian,
who suffered his first defeat as Hammers' boss in Tuesday's 1-0 Carling Cup
third round defeat at Watford, may be forced to sell his star players in
January after an independent tribunal ruled in favour of Sheffield United.
The Blades had claimed £30.4million in compensation after being relegated at
West Ham's expense at the end of the 2006/07 season. The Yorkshire side said
Tevez should not have been allowed to play for the Irons after the Premier
League discovered he had joined the club on an illegal "third-party"
contract - a fact the Londoners initially withheld from the league and led
to the club being fined £5.5million. And with a final compensation figure to
be set by a damages panel in the new year, it has been suggested that Zola
could have his hands tied during the January transfer window. However, the
Sardinian himself refused to be drawn on the possible ramifications of the
tribunal's ruling. Let me have the concerns when they happen," said Zola.
"It's something that the club is handling right now but when the decision is
taken we'll make some considerations. "We have to carry on working like this
until January anyway and I'm happy to do that. "When the moment comes, we'll
see."
Meanwhile, the Hammers had dismissed claims that they sold a host of
first-team players over the summer in anticipation of the tribunal ruling
against them. Anton Ferdinand, Bobby Zamora, George McCartney, John Pantsil
and Richard Wright were all off-loaded for combined fees of approaching
£20million, while Freddie Ljungberg and Nobby Solano also left Upton Park. A
club statement insisted: "Our transfer policy continues to be based on sound
football and business principles with the aim of taking West Ham United
forward under new manager Gianfranco Zola."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
New Manager Same Result - WestHamFans.org
Submitted by Neville Nixon on 24 September, 2008 - 06:34.
What is it with West Ham United and the Carling Cup? Over the years in it's
various guises, League Cup, Milk Cup etc, Hammers have struggled or
flattered to deceive. Last night's defeat away to Watford at Vicarage Road
had an uncomfortably familiar feel to it, the litany of disasters stems from
ages ago, Nottingham Forest anyone? Injustice, bad luck or just bad
planning, all these circumstances seem to conspire against the club ever
winning the bloody competition. There are those that say making five changes
to a Premiership outfit before taking on lower league opposition is standard
practice, well all the club now have to show for Hayden Mullins' own goal is
a gap in the fixture list for when the next round is being played. Perhaps
that was the pre-requisite, maybe Franky and Steve thought it better to
'concentrate' on the club's Premiership campaign! - Ed....... Watford:
Loach, Bromby, DeMerit (c), Williamson (Bennett 70), Ainsworth, Bangura,
Smith (Harley 69), Hoskins (Young 80), Mariappa, Parkes, Jenkins Subs not
used: Lee, Eustace, Avinel, Oshodi Goal: Mullins og 70 West Ham United:
Lastuvka, Faubert, Neill (c), Upson, Lopez, Mullins, Noble, Boa Morte
(Parker 61), Sears, Di Michele (Reid 70), Etherington Subs not used: Green,
Ilunga, Behrami, Collison, Stanislas Attendance: 12,914
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment