Wednesday, September 24

Daily WHUFC News - WHUFC Club Statement

Club to appeal to CAS - WHUFC
West Ham United have issued a further statement following the FA arbitration
panel ruling
24.09.2008

West Ham United can confirm today that our lawyers are drafting a statement
of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland in
relation to the case involving the club and Sheffield United.

West Ham United cannot comment in detail in response to the FA arbitration
panel ruling made public yesterday because of confidentiality provisions but
will update supporters via whufc.com as and when appropriate.

However, the club can confirm that while we respect the judgement of the FA
arbitration panel, we do not accept that one player's contribution can be
placed over that of the team as a whole nor used as the basis for judging
the results of a 38-game season.

This ruling undermines the significant efforts of our entire playing squad
and coaching staff over the duration of the 2006/07 Premier League season
and does not take sufficient account of the performances of the other 19
clubs in the competition.

We acknowledge again that the club broke Premier League rules in the
original signing of Carlos Tevez but we were dealt with accordingly by an
independent Premier League commission and accepted the significant
punishment handed down at that time.

In light of this and the wider implications of this latest ruling for
English football we have decided to ask that the case be considered by the
Court of Arbitration for Sport.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://vyperz.blogspot.com

Daily WHUFC News - II 24th September 2008

Zola reflects on cup exit - WHUFC
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

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://vyperz.blogspot.com

Daily WHUFC News - 24th September 2008

Watford 1-0 West Ham United - WHUFC
Gianfranco Zola's side were narrow losers
23.09.2008

Carling Cup third round
Watford v West Ham United
Tuesday 23 September
7.45pm
Referee: Peter Walton

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

A Hayden Mullins own goal was all that separated the sides at Vicarage Road
on Tuesday
23.09.2008

West Ham United's Carling Cup hopes were dashed after a Hayden Mullins own
goal was enough to give Championship club Watford a slender victory on
Tuesday night.

After a scrappy contest, Watford took the lead when Mullins inadvertently
struck the ball into an empty net when debutant Jan Lastuvka was unable to
clear a free-kick into the box. Despite late pressure that saw Matthew Upson
hit the bar, Gianfranco Zola's men could not find the goal they craved and
it meant a third straight away defeat this season.

Zola made five changes from the team that swept Newcastle United aside so
impressively on Saturday. Lastuvka made his debut in goal, while Walter
Lopez also got his first start in place of Herita Ilunga. Mullins and Luis
Boa Morte came into midfield in place of the rested Scott Parker and Valon
Behrami, who were on the bench. Carlton Cole was also rested after picking
up a slight knock in Saturday's win so young Freddie Sears got his first
start of the season. Watford had former United defender Jon Harley on the
bench.

Watford showed first with a diving header from Ross Jenkins following good
work on the right by Tommy Smith. Sears had his side's first chance minutes
later when he skipped past his marker, but the 18-year-old could not quite
control his shot. David Di Michele was looking to continue his fantastic
start to life in London after bagging two debut goals against Newcastle and
he quickly got into his stride again - turning his marker before seeing his
curling effort saved by Scott Loach.

On a deceptively chilly night at Vicarage Road both teams were enjoying
plenty of vocal support, with the 2,192 fans in the sold out away end more
than contributing. The home support thought their side had taken the lead in
the 12th minute but Gareth Ainsworth's effort flew into the side-netting.
Unfortunately for them there was no repeat of the controversy of the weekend
game against Reading as referee Peter Walton correctly awarded a goal-kick.
Lastuvka then had his first save to make in a West Ham shirt as he carefully
tipped an attempted chipped shot over the bar.

United so nearly took the lead a few minutes later when Boa Morte showed
strength and persistence to force an opening for himself. His fierce
left-foot drive from an acute angle was turned round the post for a corner.
The visitors attacked again when Di Michele linked up well with Mark Noble
to create a great opening for the midfielder but his drive was parried wide.
Di Michele tumbled in the area moments later but the referee waved play on.

Lopez then showed his defensive nous by making a crucial headed clearance
with two Watford strikers lurking. Seconds later he was at the other end to
deliver a dangerous cross which neither of his two strike partners could
quite get on the end of.

It was an entertaining opening spell with both teams eager to attack at
every opportunity. Ainsworth nearly put the Championship side ahead when he
burst into the area only to flash his shot wide of the far post. The home
side had another chance moments later when Smith played in Will Hoskins, but
his shot was saved well by Lastuvka. The Czech stopper was having an
impressive half as he quickly reacted to smother a deflected shot from
Smith.

Within minutes of the restart Matthew Etherington broke down the left. His
cross towards Di Michele was threatening but Jenkins just got there before
the new No32. Watford pressed back instantly and after Lastuvka had punched
well, Lucas Neill raced across to bravely block Jordan Parkes' follow-up.

Di Michele nearly got his third goal for United when he expertly flicked an
Etherington corner goalwards only for Loach to palm it to safety. Both
goalkeepers were having busy evenings and Lastuvka demonstrated his agility
again to dive brilliantly to his left to keep a point-blank header out.
Seventeen minutes into the second half, West Ham made their first change
bringing on Parker for Boa Morte. Etherington then made a mesmerising
70-yard run into the Watford area but his cut-back was just too far behind
Sears.

Watford took the lead ten minues later. There appeared to be no danger as a
free-kick was swung into the United area. Lastuvka, who had been so
impressive, came for the ball but could not reach it and it cannoned off the
unfortunate Mullins and into the empty net. Zola reacted instantly by
sending on Kyel Reid for Di Michele and his side set about getting back on
even terms. Etherington had a chance moments later but his header from seven
yards went wide.

The last real opportunity came when Upson's header from a Faubert corner
crashed against the bar before going over and as time ebbed away so did
West Ham United's hopes of Carling Cup success for another year at least.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Watford 1-0 West Ham - BBC

An own goal by Hayden Mullins consigned West Ham to an early Carling Cup
exit at the hands of Watford. The winner came when Hammers keeper Jan
Lastuvka missed an Andy Williamson free-kick, which then struck Mullins and
trickled over the goal-line. Watford's Jay DeMerit was injured and hobbled
off five minutes to go but the 10-man home side held on. Luis Boa Morte and
Mark Noble had West Ham's best chances but were denied by keeper Scott
Loach. The loss for the Upton Park side was the first under new manager
Gianfranco Zola. Their exit also came at the end of a day which started with
the news an independent tribunal had ruled against West Ham over the Carlos
Tevez affair. Championship side Watford appeared to sense an opportunity to
upset their Premier league rivals and started in lively fashion. Ross
Jenkins had a diving header that dropped wide of the post and Lionel
Ainsworth also lobbed debutant Lastuvka, who backtracked to tip over. But
the visitors eased themselves into the game and Boa Morte's effort from the
edge of the area was heading for the top corner before Loach saved. David Di
Michele's reverse pass then sent Noble through on the Watford goal but Loach
parried to deny the Hammers midfielder. Lastuvka was the busier keeper as
Watford more than held their own before being rewarded with Mullins' own
goal.

West Ham manager Gianfranco Zola: "I can't tell him (Lastuvka) anything
because he made a fantastic save before he was very unlucky.."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 this (the tribunal ruling). I don't want to have any
excuses like that."

Watford: Loach, Mariappa, Parkes, Bromby, DeMerit, Williamson (Bennett 71),
Ainsworth, Bangura, Jenkins, Smith (Harley 70), Hoskins (Young 80).
Subs Not Used: Lee, Eustace, Avinel, Oshodi.
Booked: Jenkins.
Goals: Mullins 70 og.

West Ham: Lastuvka, Neill, Lopez, Upson, Etherington, Boa Morte (Parker 62),
Noble, Mullins, Faubert, Di Michele (Reid 71), Sears.
Subs Not Used: Green, Ilunga, Behrami, Collison, Stanislas.

Att: 12,914
Ref: Peter Walton (Northamptonshire).

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham ponder tribunal ruling - BBC

West Ham say they will take legal advice as they consider whether to appeal
against an independent tribunal hearing into the Carlos Tevez affair. The
tribunal has ruled against West Ham over the Tevez affair, according to
Sheffield United chairman Kevin McCabe. United claim Tevez was not eligible
to play at the end of the 2006/7 season, yet played a key role in West Ham's
Premiership survival at their expense. The club is claiming more than £30m
in compensation from West Ham. The tribunal will decide on the amount of
compensation to be paid at a later sitting, probably early next year. West
Ham will now take legal advice before deciding on their next move. "The club
need to digest the full findings of the arbitration panel and will consult
lawyers before considering the next steps that we might tackle on this
matter," the club said in a statement. West Ham insisted in the statement
that the potential outcome of the hearing and compensation they might have
to pay had nothing to do with the summer transfers of Anton Ferdinand,
George McCartney, Bobby Zamora and John Pantsil. "With regard to the club's
transfer activity this summer, we made no assumptions in terms of the
arbitration panel and were only informed of the ruling on Friday," the club
said. "The only considerations taken into account were our previously stated
aims of improving the first team with top-quality players. "We are delighted
with the signings made and furthermore the club were able to reject a number
of significant bids for first-team players during the summer."
The Football Association's rule K5c states 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". This precludes
the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and only a very
limited ability to challenge the merits of the award in the Commercial
Court. West Ham were found guilty last April of acting improperly and
withholding vital documentation over the ownership of Argentine duo Tevez
and Javier Mascherano when they signed in 2006. A three-man Premier League
arbitration panel fined the Hammers £5.5m, but did not dock them points, and
they went on to survive the drop on the final day, while Sheffield United
were relegated. Having failed in their attempt to have the original
punishment overturned, the Yorkshire club invoked a Football Association
rule that allows clubs with a legal dispute to go before an independent
tribunal. McCabe told his club's official website: "I can confirm that both
clubs have been notified of the ruling. The arbitration panel has awarded in
our favour. "The matter is still legally in process so I do not wish to
comment any further until we have completed that process."
A club statement added: "The Blades began their legal fight for
reinstatement some 16 months ago, which also included an arbitration hearing
against the Premier League. For clarity, the FA did not sit in judgement on
this case, did not have any influence on the decision and did not appoint
any of the tribunal members
Neil Warnock, who was manager of the Blades during the 2006/7 season and is
now at Crystal Palace, told BBC Sport: "It's justice eventually. Thankfully
it has gone to an independent tribunal, they've listened to all the facts
and the truth has finally come out."
Sheffield United's claim was considered by former MCC president Lord
Griffiths, Sir Anthony Colman, a former High Court judge, and Robert
Englehart QC.
The Football Association emphasised that the process had been independent
and that it "did not sit in judgement on this case...have any influence on
the decision (or) appoint any of the tribunal members."
Tevez and Mascherano, who now play for Manchester United and Liverpool
respectively, were brought to Upton Park from Brazilian club Corinthians on
the final day of the 2006 summer transfer window. With nine matches
remaining in the 2006/07 season, West Ham were rooted to the bottom of the
Premier League and 10 points adrift of safety, while Sheffield United were
two places above the drop zone. Tevez scored five goals after this,
including the winner against Manchester United at Old Trafford on the final
day of the season, to secure West Ham's survival.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Duplicitous Duxbury on the rocks - KUMB
Filed: Tuesday, 23rd September 2008
By: Staff Writer

Scott Duxbury's future as Chief Executive Officer of West Ham United is in
serious doubt tonight after further damaging details relating to the Carlos
Tevez affair were revealed. Duxbury has been cited for comments he made to
Kia Joorbachian's lawyer Graham Shear in April 2007, comments that suggested
he had lied to the Premier League with regards to Carlos Tevez's contract.
The CEO reportedly told Joorabchian and Shear that he would continue to
honour their contract with the club privately whilst telling the Premier
League that it had in fact been torn up. It was this communication form
Duxbury that led the Premier League to grant Tevez permission to play in
West Ham United's final three games of the season against Wigan, Bolton and
Manchester United.
"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," the panel said. "Moreover, 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 that the Premier League would have
suspended Mr Tevez's registration as a West Ham player."
A further passage from the judgment saw tribunal Chairman Lord Griffiths ask
Shear for clarification on this issue: "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.'
"West Ham were desperate to ensure that Mr Tevez played for the club in the
critical last few games of the season. Whilst having no choice but to adhere
to the Premier League's requirements, West Ham wanted to do everything
possible to attempt to placate the rights owners.'

Joorabchian was appointed by West Ham as a 'transfer consultant' earlier
this year after he suddenly halted High Court proceedings against the club.
He had claimed previously that he was in posession of 'explosive evidence'
that could seriously damage West Ham's defence in their arbitration hearing
with Sheffield United, the results of which were made known yesterday.

Today's revelations suggest that Joorabchian's evidence may well have found
its way into the hands of Sheffield United and their legal team. One unnamed
source, talking to the Daily Express back in February had said: "In my view
it could be fresh evidence that West Ham may have broken the rules after
their hearings into the Tevez case. It would also certainly help Sheffield
United in their own claim against West Ham."

Sheffield United are claiming damages of some £30million from West Ham
United; that figure is made up from the following:

Premier League Payments (including basic awards, position-related payments,
TV revenue, commercial and radio contracts): £20,503,868

Lost Value of Players (Phil Jagielka): £4,000,000

Lost Ticket Sales: £2,239,746.83

Merchandise/Sponsorship/Executive Boxes: £1,481,789

Additional Finance Costs (advanced loan repayments): £577,753.51

Lost Business (pre-season tour): £531,989.90

Legal Costs: £525,602.46

Reduced Grants: £377,048

Ticket Levy (Championship only): £175,448.62

Additional Expenses (stewarding/Police costs): £23,651

Total: £30,396,897.32

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Zola: a bad day - KUMB
Filed: Tuesday, 23rd September 2008
By: Staff Writer

Gianfranco Zola has refused to criticise his players despite West Ham
United's 1-0 defeat at Watford in tonight's Carling Cup tie. Zola watched a
pitiful display from his side as the surrendered to a Championship outfit
themselves missing several first team players. "It has not been a great day
for us," he told the post-match press conference. "I knew that it was going
to be tough today. We have been unlucky there; we wanted to win.
"Unfortunately this game came at the worst time, but I said to the players
that it doesn't have to change our positive attitude and the work that we're
doing. "It would be too easy to hope that everything would come right
straight away. Sometimes, to improve, you have to go through difficult times
like today."
The only goal of the game came via a mistake by Robert Green's stand-in Jan
Lastuvka, although Zola refused to criticise the Czech goalkeeper for his
error. "I cannot criticise him because he has made a couple of fantastic
saves," he added. "It happens sometimes." The Italian coach also refused to
comment on the news that West Ham had lost their arbitration hearing with
Sheffield United, adding: "I didn't even know about this; that's something
for the club. I don't want to find an excuse."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers stung by Hornets - SSN
West Ham boss Zola suffers first defeat
Last updated: 23rd September 2008

Gianfranco Zola tasted defeat for the first time as West Ham manager as the
Hammers were dumped out of the Carling Cup in the third round as they went
down 1-0 at Watford. West Ham easily beat Newcastle at the weekend in Zola's
first game in charge, but they could not repeat that feat at Vicarage Road.
The only goal of the game came on 70 minutes as Hayden Mullins put through
his own net. Lionel Ainsworth almost gave the hosts the lead in the 12th
minute when his drive crashed into the side-netting, then Ross Jenkins had a
diving header that dropped wide of the post. Ainsworth also lobbed over Jan
Lastuvka in the 14th minute and the Czech goalkeeper, making his debut,
peddled back to tip over. Freddie Sears was making the running for the
visitors and he cleared the angle of crossbar and post with a drive, then
Jordan Parkes panicked and almost headed a clearance past his own
goalkeeper. As the Hammers eased themselves into the game, Scott Loach was
required twice to keep the score level.
Luis Boa Morte's effort from the edge of the area was heading for the top
corner until it was tipped over, then David Di Michele's reverse pass sent
Mark Noble through, with Loach parrying again. Aidy Boothroyd's side were
rubbing shoulders with Premier League heavyweights two seasons ago and they
showed no fear as they finished the first half strongly. Ainsworth went
close again, drilling across the face of goal. Lastuvka was also required to
save twice from Tommy Smith, the first after a flowing move that ended with
Will Hoskins backheeling into his path. Di Michele had sight of goal at the
near post after the break but the hosts hustled him off the ball at the cost
of just a corner. Lastuvka was busier than Loach at the other end. He saved
a powerful drive from Parkes before leaping to his right to stop Smith's
header from Lee Williamson's cross from the left. Lastuvka's good work was
undone with 20 minutes remaining. After referee Peter Walton awarded a
questionable handball against Walter Lopez, Williamson swung over the
free-kick from the right, the goalkeeper dived over the dipping cross, with
the ball hitting Mullins and trickling over the line.
Jay DeMerit was injured and hobbled down the tunnel with five minutes to go,
leaving Watford with 10 men, but they held on to inflict a first defeat for
Hammers boss Zola.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Zola refuses to blame keeper - SSN
Mullins own goal condemns Italian to first defeat as Hammers boss
Last updated: 23rd September 2008

West Ham boss Gianfranco Zola refused to blame keeper Jan Lastuvka after a
Hayden Mullins own goal condemned the Italian to his first defeat in charge.

Watford progressed into the fourth round of the Carling Cup thanks to the
winner 20 minutes from time from a Lee Williamson free-kick. Lastuvka,
making his first appearance for the Hammers, dived over the dipping cross,
with the ball hitting Mullins and trickling over the line. But the keeper
had previously kept his side level with saves to deny Tommy Smith and Jordan
Parkes. "I can't tell him (Lastuvka) anything because he made a fantastic
save before he was very unlucky," said Zola. "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."
Zola refused to blame the defeat on the tribunal ruling earlier in the day
which could cost the club £30million. There are concerns a hefty fine could
eat into funds for players, but Zola added: "Let me have these concerns if
that happens. It's something the club is handling right now, when the
decision is made then we'll make some considerations. "We have to keep
working like this (with this squad) until January anyway and I'm happy to do
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."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Vinny's Watford Report - West Ham Online
Vinny - Wed Sep 24 2008

League Cup 3rd Round

Watford 1 West Ham United 0

A scrappy game saw West Ham crash out of the League Cup to the hands of
Championship side Watford with Hayden Mullins scoring a own goal on 70
minutes.

These games against lower league opposition in the cup are never good games
of football and I think too many people went to Vicarage Road tonight
expecting us to walk all over Watford which in theory is something we should
do but in reality when does this ever happen?

Looking at the other scores tonight, apart from Arsenal, there is no one who
crushed their lower league opponents. Of course as the Premiership side you
hope that you will have that bit of class which will see you over finish
line but there is such a fine line between a professional job and a terrible
result. That line was a goal keeping blunder which led to the ball hitting
off Hayden Mullins and going into the goal.

We had our chances to score with Di Michele twice coming close, Matthew
Etherington missing a sitter and Matthew Upson hitting the bar.

The game itself was poor and void of good football and with our limited
attacking options we had nothing in our locker to change things with Freddie
Sears isolated up front and when he did get the ball he looked out of his
depth.

The league cup in my opinion is the only thing a side like West Ham can win.
The top clubs barring Chelsea make no effort in this competition and it is
left for the rest of the Premiership sides to battle it out and rivals
Tottenham showed it can be done because despite finishing below us last
season are now competing in European competition off the back of a trip to
Wembley.

Gianfranco Zola made a number of changes to the side which beat Newcastle
last Saturday. In goal, Robert Green was rested and replaced by debutant Jan
Lustuvka.

In defence there was another debut, this time at left back as transfer
window signing Walter Lopez replaced Herita Ilunga who also dropped to the
bench.

In midfield, Hayden Mullins came in for Scott Parker and Luis Boa Morte came
in for Valon Behrami.

Carlton Cole after taking a knock against Newcastle was rested and replaced
by Freddie Sears with Matthew Etherington and David Di Michele either side
of him.

Watford started brightly in possession and saw a lot of the ball as we took
our time to settle. It was evident from the off how Watford wanted to play
which was getting high crosses into the area and working off anything they
could fashion with the second ball.

Good work on the right hand side from Tommy Smith saw a cross into the area
which evaded our defenders for the ball to be met by Ross Jankins but the
header went harmlessly wide.

As an attacking force we were slow to get going but Sears was buzzing around
causing the Watford defenders some concern. Our first shot on target was
from Di Michele as he cut in from the left and hit a curling right foot shot
at goal which had accuracy but no power.

Watford had a couple of efforts as a shot from Ainsworth hit the side
netting and a shot from outside the area was tipped over by Lustuvka who
seemed a little unaware of his position.

The keeper was reluctant to kick the ball long and I don't know if this was
down to an instruction he was given but he just refused to kick the ball,
looking for the short pass every time. Whilst I agree this was probably
needed given that Sears is tiny and Di Michele would rather a terminal
disease than to try and head the ball, some of the short throws out only put
us into trouble.

We nearly took the lead out of nothing as Boa Morte showed great strength
and skill in the area and somehow dug out a shot which was turned over the
bar by Watford keeper Loach.

Our best passage of play in the first half came after some great work from
Di Michele saw Noble put through but instead of looking up and making a pass
into the area, Noble tried a shot from an acute angle which was saved by the
keeper and away for a corner. It was a decent effort and he struck it well
but a quick look up and a bit of patience would have allowed someone else to
have a better chance in scoring.

This was around the time which we had our best spell of the game as we
dominated possession and looked the only side who was going to grab the
goal. The play was being focused down the left hand side with Di Michele,
Etherington and Lopez all looking good on the ball. Lopez put in a couple of
excellent crosses but our problem (as it was to be all night) is that there
was nothing in the area.

Watford had a couple of half chances which went wide of the goal as their
final ball continued to be poor. They rarely troubled us in the first period
with Lustuvka not having to make one meaningful save.

Half time came and although this was not a vintage display, it was pretty
much as expected and I believed at that point we were the side who were
going to go on and win this, being the optimistic fool that I am.

Not long after the re-start we nearly took the lead after great work down
the left from Etherington saw his cross nearly met at the near post by Di
Michele but Jankins just got their ahead of him and the ball went out for a
corner.

At the other end, Watford were unlucky not to take the lead themselves as
Lustuvka made a bad error of judgement and decided to punch a ball (when
catching seemed easier) and the follow up shot from Jordan Parkes was well
blocked by Lucas Neill.

The game had become a very end to end affair and it was anyone's guess who
was going to take the lead. A corner from Etherington was met at the near
post by Di Michele whose glancing header was saved by the keeper and hacked
away as the travelling West Ham fans thought they were just about to score.

The erratic Lustuvka made a superb save at the other end when we got
ourselves in a mess at the back and the cross into the area found Tommy
Smith unmarked from a few yards out but the header was somehow kept out by
the debutant keeper.

The dismal Boa Morte was replaced on the 62nd minute by Scott Parker as both
sides continued to search for that goal which would see them through.

We found lots of space on both flanks but did little with the ball as we
continued to run out of ideas. Etherington was doing most of the work and
playing very well, but the lack of other attacking players meant little was
going to come from any cross that was put into the area.

Watford took the lead through a set piece and an error which was always
going to be way we would concede in this game given Watford's inability in
front of goal.

The free kick was swung in, Lustuvka came and missed the ball and it struck
the unfortunate Hayden Mullins and went into the back of the net.

In reaction Di Michele (our only serious goal threat) was taken off and
replaced by left winger Kyel Reid who went and played on the right and
didn't seem to touch the ball for ten minutes.

We piled forward and had a fantastic chance to score. A cross into the area
from Faubert saw all the Watford defenders push out looking for offside with
Etherington stealing in, unmarked with all the time in the world but his
header was awful and the ball went wide.

Most of our attacks after that were poor and the passing was at times
shocking.

There was time for one last chance on goal and it was from an Etherington
corner which was met by Matthew Upson whose header cannoned off the bar and
went over.

Watford defended well and kept going to till the final whistle and they ran
out victors over a ragged looking West Ham side.

Player Reviews

Jan Lustuvka
Apart from one superb stop in the second half his overall performance was
poor. His distribution of the ball was awful, his decision making was often
wrong and his failure to claim the free kick which lead to the goal cost us
the game.

Walter Lopez
Found it hard in the earlier stages of the first half with Watford focussing
most of their play down his side and gaining success in getting crosses into
the area. As the half wore on he got better and joined up with the attacking
players showing his ability to cross the ball. His second half showing was
decent but got ragged towards the end with some of his passing being way off
the mark.

Lucas Neill
Apart from one really lazy pass in the first half this was a decent display
from the captain who was again at center half. Our problem tonight was not
defending it was the options going forward.

Matthew Upson
Like Neill this was a solid performance where Upson had the Watford
attackers in his pocket for most of the evening. Maybe should have done
better with his header at the end which hit the cross bar.

Julien Faubert
Up against a tricky Watford winger Faubert looked impressive especially in
the first half. In the second they were often doubling up on him which led
to more crosses going into our area. Going forward Faubert looked decent and
put in a few good crosses.

Mark Noble
After some recent good performances this was a very disappointing display
from Mark Noble as he failed to get into the game throughout the 90 minutes.
His passing was poor and when he was on the ball he did little with it.

Hayden Mullins
Despite his own goal (which he was very unlucky with ) I thought Mullins had
an excellent game and was our only midfielder with any passing range. Made
countless passes across the field with Di Michele the beneficiary of these
on more than one occasion. Mullins has his haters and has had since the
first Play Off Final vs Crystal Palace. He has never been forgiven by many
and this has carried through over the years. Tonight he played well.

Luis Boa Morte
I hate the booing of this man and I hate the constant abuse he gets from the
support. But it is hard to defend him when he plays like a cunt and this is
something I thought he was eradicating from his game but tonight he played
like a cunt.

Matthew Etherington
Thought he was our best player and defiantly the best player we had going
forward. He looked our only Premiership quality attacker as he caused
Watford problems on the right wing, the left wing and down the middle. Made
the chance for Di Michele at the start of the second half, made the chance
for Di Michele not long after with the Italian heading at goal, and also
created Upson's chance which hit the bar.

David Di Michele
His overall performance was nothing special, when on the ball he was often
wasteful in possession, BUT he was our only goal scoring threat. For a
player who did so little, he has that something which puts him into the
right position and has the ability to spot a pass like he did setting up
Noble in the first half. Was very unlucky not to score with a good header
from a corner. He doesn't do a great deal but he was the only West Ham
player who looked liked scoring tonight.

Freddie Sears
Lots of effort and I thought he had a decent first half. Never got a pass to
run onto in behind the defenders which is what his game is about. Looked
lost in the second half and when he did get the ball his passing let him
down. From what I have seen of him in the games he has played this season
and the back end of last, he just looks a little out of his depth.

Subs Used

Scott Parker (on for Boa Morte 62 mins)
Did very little of note in his time on the pitch. Gave the ball away a few
times with some poor passess when driving forward.

Kyel Reid (on for Di Michele 71 mins)
Started on the right hand side where he barley got a touch of the ball. Then
went to the left where his first touch let him down. Had one shot which was
charged down by the Watford defence.

Subs Not Used: Green, Ilunga, Behrami, Collison, Stanislas.

Overall

A poor game of football saw us lose due to a keeper mistake which led to an
own goal. We had our chances and did not take them and should have had a lot
more but for our impotence in forward positions.

What was painfully obvious is that we do not have enough options going
forward. With Carlton Cole not playing there is no focal point to our team
and pumping high balls to Freddie Sears will get you no where.

With Dean Ashton injured again, the question at the moment for me is where
is Craig Bellamy? On the bench against Blackburn, he comes on, looks sharp
and scores. The next game he is on the bench against West Brom but
supposedly injured. He is no where to be seen against Newcastle and not
involved again tonight.

Next up is Fulham at Craven Cottage and I expect a much better performance
for my £48. I think we will get it and with Cole back in the side we will at
least have something to aim at and play around like we did against
Newcastle.

Att: 12,914

Franco's Feelings
"I can't tell him (Lastuvka) anything because he made a fantastic save
before he was very unlucky. "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 this (the
tribunal ruling). I don't want to have any excuses like that."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Never mind the facts – here's the b*llocks - KUMB
Filed: Wednesday, 24th September 2008
By: Legal Beagle

So the arbitration panel has sat in judgement and, in a decision that defies
logic, common sense and about a thousand years of English Law, have decided
that compensation should be paid by West Ham to a club for fielding a player
that they were always legally entitled to play.

There is so very much wrong with what little of the judgement that has been
leaked by McCabe (or at least those on his side) that one's first instinct
is to ask "where's the rest of it then?" The whole Tevez affair has been
characterised by triumphant announcements of anticipated victory coming out
of Yorkshire that, on closer inspection have turned out to be defeats, and
McCabe has persistently perpetuated so many outright untruths over the whole
affair that it's tempting to simply ignore the various announcements and
wait for something a little more official. Unfortunately McCabe's tactic of
repeating a lie so often until somebody believes it seems to have paid off –
for now.

Let's take the small piece of information that we have so far on face value
and see what we can make of it. To do this we need to examine the nature of
arbitration and its place within the English Legal system. Although
arbitration is used throughout as an alternative to full-blown legal
proceedings, this does not mean that arbitrators can make up things as they
go along.

Arbitration of whatever nature is covered by statute law; in particular the
1996 Arbitration Act. The burden of proof in arbitration cases is identical
to that required in civil courts, that is, that a claimant must prove their
case only on the balance of probabilities. This means that to win their case
Sheffield United would have had to prove that, on the balance of
probabilities, an illegal act perpetrated by West Ham caused their
relegation.

The one quote we have seen thus far runs as follows:

"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 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 West Ham secured in those last two games."

That may be so but if that is the sole reason for finding in favour of
Sheffield United the decision is legally flawed for a number of reasons:

1. Tevez's Status
Despite libellous comments from the likes of McCabe and certain journalists
(at least one of whom has a financial interest in presenting Neil Warnock in
the best of lights, being as he is his ghostwriter) there is one fact that
those who espouse the Sheffield United cause tend to ignore, cover up, hide
and misrepresent. That fact is Carlos Tevez was never at any time during the
whole affair ineligible to play football for West Ham United. He was as
available for selection as, say Robert Green – whose heroics at Arsenal
arguably had as much to do with the team's survival as anything that Tevez
did during the run in. Indeed, Tevez's status during the run in was
confirmed by no less an authority than the Premier League on a number of
occasions. Lest we forget the Premier League are the sole arbiter of player
eligibility – not Sheffield United.

2. What illegal act?
The only illegal act in the whole proceedings by West Ham related to a
potential breach of third party rules – rules that Sheffield United of
course had no compunction in breaking themselves when it suited them. That
act was not responsible for Sheffield United's relegation – even the
arbitration panel appears to acknowledge that, since the blame is placed
squarely at the feet of Tevez, a player who was always eligible to play.

3. Causal Link?
Playing Tevez caused Sheffield United's relegation? Prove it. They simply
haven't done so.

4. Other factors
Sheffield United's claim of £30m presupposes that Tevez's (quite legal)
selection was the only reason they were relegated. Here's some other issues
that one would suggest had a bearing on the matter:

Jagielka's handball – had the result at Old Trafford gone the way Sheffield
United this nice little piece of deliberate cheating could have sent West
Ham down – a nice little carve-up that backfired on them.


Liverpool's weakened team – the side that Liverpool put out against Fulham
contravened Premier League rule E20 (unlike any selection made by West Ham
which as we have seen contravened no rules whatsoever). Fulham won. To
paraphrase the panel "I have no doubt that Liverpool's breach of Premier
League rules was worth at least three points to Fulham." Without those three
points Fulham would have gone down at Sheffield United's expense.


Sheffield United's weakened team – Proven liar (look at the Kabba deal) Neil
Warnock also contravened Premier League rule E20 in his side's match at Old
Trafford. They put out a weakened side. They lost. A point would have sent
Wigan down. Defeat put Chelsea at a disadvantage. Just as well Abrahmovic is
too rich to worry about suing. Warnock's quote on today's proceedings: "If
you break laws you cannot expect to get away with murder" except presumably
Premiership Rule E12 eh Neil?


Sheffield United's own form – Awful – however as we have seen time and time
again with Warnock, nothing is ever his fault. Only his subsequent departure
from the club would suggest that McCabe held him partly responsible after
all.
The FA were quick to distance themselves from the decision – and frankly
they can hardly be blamed for pointing out their lack of involvement given
the totally bizarre decision the tribunal made. They were also at pains to
point out – wrongly as it happens – that the club had no right of appeal.
Whilst both clubs agreed that the decision would be binding, and as a result
there would be no appeal to the tribunal itself, our old friend the 1996
Arbitration Act allows under S69 for decisions to be challenged if there are
errors of law or serious irregularity. The powers are rightly limited to
prevent their use for appeal on spurious grounds but in this particular
instance the tribunal have come to a decision that errs in law on so many
grounds that the nicest word m'learned colleagues have used to describe it
is "perverse" and a S69 review would appear to stand a good chance of
succeeding.

And now the good news: If Sheffield United really think that this decision
is going to be worth £30m to them they are more deluded than they could
possibly imagine. Even ignoring the legal failings of the decision that a
two-year old could spot, the tribunal's decision has effectively quantified
Tevez's contribution to Sheffield United's demise as being "at least three
points. Let's allow them the fantasy that Jagielka is worth £4m let alone 4p
– and say that they are £30m down. Well put us down for say 6 points out of
our 41 thanks to Tevez. The panel said so!

Therefore our contribution to their demise equals 6/41ths of £30m - say £5m
for cash. Anything more than this contradicts the tribunal's own
quantification of Tevez's contribution to the proceedings. Ridiculous? Of
course but if Sheffield United want to ride roughshod over the law of the
land they can hardly complain if such an irrational decision doesn't quite
work out for them when most sane observers in the legal profession reckon
that any financial recompense would be madness.

Of course they could always sue Liverpool, Jagielka, and Warnock for their
contributions towards their relegation – after all it is fairness that
McCabe's after isn't it?!

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Watford 1 West Ham United 0: Zola suffers first defeat after Mullins
own-goal debacle
By Conrad Leach
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Independent.co.uk Web

Not a great day, then, all told for West Ham. In the morning, they found
Sheffield United had won their compensation claim against them after the
Blades' relegation from the Premier League last year in the wake of the
Carlos Tevez affair, with a figure of £30m being bandied about. So, just
when it suddenly seemed as if a run in the Carling Cup could be as valuable
in terms of money-making as morale-building, along came this third-round
result.

Having won his first game in charge at a canter four days ago, Gianfranco
Zola unexpectedly endured his first defeat as the east Londoners' manager.
He surely never thought it would all be as easy as last Saturday against
Newcastle, but it took a Championship side, not a Premier League one, to
remind him of that.

Zola said: "It hasn't been a great day for us but I knew it would be tough
here. This game came at the worst moment. I said what has happened doesn't
have to change our attitude."

Thinking about what a possible fine could do to the Hammers' transfer
targets in January, he added: "Let me consider it when it happens and if it
happens. We have to carry on working like this until January."

If it was the last thing the Hammers needed in what was a bad 24 hours even
by their recent standards, it was something that Watford and their manager
Aidy Boothroyd arguably deserved. Not only did they take the game to the
visitors, forcing several saves from reserve goalkeeper Jan Lastuvka, but
they also felt they were owed something, from somewhere, for what happened
last Saturday.

At the weekend, hosting Reading, they were on the receiving end of a
diabolical and plain wrong officiating decision, when the ball ran over the
byline – but not between the posts – and a linesman flagged for a goal. So
perhaps the own goal here after 70 minutes from Hayden Mullins was some sort
of footballing payback.

For a game that had showcased two goalkeepers in fine form, Watford's Scott
Loach being the other, it was unfortunate an error by one of them should
play a crucial part in deciding the outcome. Lee Williamson curled in a
free-kick from near the touchline, the Czech Lastuvka missed it and the ball
bounced off Mullins almost apologetically into the goal.

Despite both managers resting half their first team each, there was an
imbalance on the pitch, as the hosts pressed for an early advantage. After
just five minutes Ross Jenkins sent a header from 10 yards just wide of the
post and then Lionel Ainsworth tried his luck twice in a minute. First, the
winger sent a shot a yard past the frame, which was clapped as a goal by
home fans in reference to Saturday's "ghost goal", and then found Lastuvka
equal to his audacious chip from 25 yards.

David di Michele had been the hero with two goals at the weekend for the
Hammers but the Italian was denied here by Loach who showed he has a bright
future.

A delighted Boothroyd said: "After Saturday anything would have done. I'm
thrilled with the result. It was a very young team I put out. We rode our
luck and the players deserved it. We stopped them playing and imposed
ourselves."

Watford (4-5-1): Loach; Mariappa, Bromby, Demerit, Parkes; Jenkins, Smith
(Harley, 70), Bangura, Williamson (Bennett, 70), Ainsworth; Hoskins (Young,
80). Substitutes not used: Lee (gk), Eustace, Avinel, Oshodi.

West Ham (4-3-3): Lastuvka; Faubert, Neill, Upson, Lopez; Boa Morte (Parker,
61), Mullins, Noble; Etherington, Sears, Di Michele (Reid, 70). Substitutes
not used: Green (gk), Ilunga, Behrami, Collison, Stanislas

Referee: P Walton (Northamptonshire)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham seek legal way out of Tevez ruling
Sheffield United demand £30m compensation
Hammers to decide on panel verdict in 48 hours
Stuart James and Sachin Nakrani The Guardian

West Ham United are considering lodging a formal appeal with the Court of
Arbitration for Sport against an independent tribunal's decision to rule in
favour of Sheffield United over the Carlos Tevez affair, despite Football
Association rules suggesting there was no further avenue for legal redress.
It is understood West Ham will make a decision within 48 hours, with club
officials holding talks with lawyers last night over whether to contest the
award.

The consequences of the tribunal's ruling could be severe, with Sheffield
United, who were relegated on the final day of the 2006-07 season, demanding
more than £30m in compensation after the judgment found Tevez was worth at
least three points to West Ham. Board members at Upton Park were said to be
"furious and surprised" when informed of the decision on Friday.

Whether the Court of Arbitration for Sport is an option remains to be seen
but West Ham are questioning whether the FA's rule K5c - which states that
by signing up to the independent tribunal "the parties shall be deemed to
have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any recourse to a
court of law" - precludes challenging the ruling. Some legal experts
suggested otherwise, however, leaving the club in an uneasy position before
last night's Carling Cup defeat by the Championship's Watford.

The verdict was a victory for the Sheffield United chairman, Kevin McCabe,
who has spent the past 16 months campaigning for West Ham to face further
punishment after they were found guilty of breaching rules in relation to
the registration of Tevez and Javier Mascherano in April 2007. West Ham were
fined £5.5m by the FA but McCabe insisted points should have been docked
and, after failing with an appeal, invoked an FA rule allowing clubs to go
before an independent tribunal.

Chaired by Lord Griffiths, the tribunal found that Tevez, who scored the
goal that secured West Ham's survival on the final day of the season, was
instrumental in keeping the club in the Premier League. The judgment
suggested that without the Argentinian, West Ham would have "achieved at
least three points less overall" and, as a consequence, would have been
relegated to the Championship instead of Sheffield United.

While Sheffield United have no chance of regaining their elite status as a
result of the ruling, the club have demanded compensation in recognition of
the money that has been lost through dropping into the Championship. McCabe
had previously claimed relegation cost them £50m but it is reported a figure
of £30,396,897.32 has been demanded to cover reduced television income,
depreciating player values and a drop in merchandising sales.

West Ham, furious that details of the ruling were leaked, dispute the
fairness of that sum. Upton Park officials, who have rejected reports that
players were sold last month because of the possible compensation claim,
also believe the tribunal's ruling has set a dangerous precedent which could
encourage other clubs to regularly contest decisions which are deemed to
have affected their final league position.

Few back West Ham's chances of overturning the ruling. "My take is that West
Ham have no right of appeal either to the English courts or the Court of
Arbitration for Sport," said Steven Friel, partner and expert in arbitration
with Davies Arnold Cooper solicitors. "The only way you could get before
[CAS] would be if both sides agreed to that - and why would Sheffield United
agree, because they have got the award they want?"

McCabe has refused to comment other than to confirm the ruling found in
favour of Sheffield United, although not everyone has been so circumspect.
Neil Warnock, who was in charge when the Blades slipped into the
Championship, has pointed the finger at the Premier League, and in
particular the chief executive, Richard Scudamore, for failing to impose a
stiffer punishment on West Ham before.

"Richard Scudamore should look in the mirror," said Warnock, who felt that
the chief executive probably thought "it was little Sheffield United, no one
gave a hoot. Now it has been dealt with by an independent panel he has no
influence over. I am delighted."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Boothroyd enjoys change of fortune - Telegraph
Watford 1 West Ham 0Gary Jacob

Both teams have felt a sense of injustice in recent days, but it was Hayden
Mullins ruing his ill-fortune last night. The midfield player saw the ball
rebound off his shin into his own goal to give Watford a place in the fourth
round of the Carling Cup, ending a dreadful day for West Ham United, who had
learnt in the morning that they would face a substantial compensation bill
from Sheffield United.

While West Ham were in a state of shock after the legal verdict over the
Carlos Tévez affair, Watford were still stunned by Stuart Attwell's decision
to award a "phantom goal" to Reading during their 2-2 draw on Saturday. The
luck of Adrian Boothroyd, the Watford manager, turned midway through the
second half, however. Lee Williamson's free kick from the right wing evaded
Jan Lastuvka's attempt to punch clear and the ball struck Mullins and rolled
over the line. "I am thrilled with the result; we rode our luck at times,"
Boothroyd said.

Watford's indifferent start to the season owes something to Boothroyd's
decision to move away from the long-ball game. "When we get it right, it
looks wonderful, but when we don't, it can look awful," he said. The
Coca-Cola Championship side endured a frantic final five minutes with ten
men after Jay DeMerit, the defender, hobbled off injured, with three
substitutes having been used. Matthew Upson, the West Ham defender, headed
on to the bar late on.

Gianfranco Zola's influence was evident, with West Ham passing the ball
better through midfield, but without his three main strikers, Freddie Sears
struggled to adapt as a lone forward. Their best moment before Upson's
header nearly forced extra time came when Scott Loach, the Watford
goalkeeper, tipped over Luís Boa Morte's drive from the edge of the area.

"It won't change our positive attitude," Zola, the new manager, said. "To
improve, we need to go through difficult times. I wanted to get angry, but
they tried their best."

Watford (4-4-2): S Loach — A Mariappa, L Bromby, J DeMerit, J Parkes — R
Jenkins, A Bangura, L Williamson (sub: D Bennett, 71min), L Ainsworth — T
Smith (sub: J Harley, 70), W Hoskins (sub: L Young, 80). Substitutes not
used: R Lee, J Eustace, C Avinel, E Oshodi. Booked: Jenkins.

West Ham United (4-3-3): J Lastuvka — J Faubert, L Neill, M Upson, W López —
M Noble, H Mullins, L Boa Morte (sub: S Parker, 62) — D Di Michele (sub: K
Reid, 71), F Sears, M Etherington. Substitutes not used; R Green, H Ilunga,
V Behrami, J Collison, J Stanislas.

Referee: P Walton.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham may appeal over £30m ruling
East London club face huge bill after tribunal rules against them on Tevez
By Ian Herbert
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Tevez's performance was deemed so extraordinary that it was concluded that
the result of West Ham's critical games would have been different had he not
played
Independent.co.uk Web

West Ham United will decide within the next two days whether to appeal to
the international Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), over an FA tribunal
ruling which could leave them paying out £30m to Sheffield United over the
Carlos Tevez affair.

The east London club are actively considering appeals to Fifa or CAS over
the tribunal's findings, but the latter is the most likely option and such a
course of action would reflect the indignation felt by some in the upper
echelons of the club over a decision they believe could allow other
relegated sides to seek redress through the courts.

It has always been Sheffield United's case that West Ham saved themselves
from relegation – and condemned the Blades to the drop – in the 2006/07
season by fielding two players, Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano, who were
owned by third-party companies in breach of Premier League rules. Tevez, in
particular, shone during West Ham's run-in, scoring the winner at Manchester
United which saved his side from the drop. After an 18-month struggle to
prove West Ham are financially liable, the Blades' chairman, Kevin McCabe,
has finally won his argument and last night the view among many West Ham
fans was that the club should hand over a £30m cheque immediately to bring
an end to an ignominious chapter in the club's history. There is a feeling
in some quarters that the Icelandic owners may agree that stringing out the
saga even longer is not desirable.

If the appeal route does not prove a viable option, West Ham are privately
resigned to paying out the £30m Sheffield United are seeking. The judicial
process to establish how much the club must pay to the Blades may take
several months – with an initial directions hearing next week. West Ham will
put forward mitigating factors to limit the damage, but McCabe is confident
of his £30m figure. It has been computed from the loss of TV earnings,
reduced transfer fees, season ticket sales, merchandising and "lost business
opportunities" after relegation.

The thrust of any West Ham case laid before CAS, in Lausanne, Switzerland,
would mirror that which has been laid before the FA Tribunal by its own
lawyers in recent months: that the failure to record the details of the
ownership structures for Tevez and Mascherano cannot account alone for the
Sheffield club's failure to stave off relegation.

But there is also a feeling in some quarters at West Ham, which has no right
of appeal to the FA tribunal itself, that the issue at stake is a bigger one
for football. One scenario being floated yesterday was the prospect of
Watford seeking compensation over the freak goal which the referee, Stuart
Attwell, awarded them against Reading last Saturday if the three points they
might have secured proves the difference between relegation and survival.

West Ham, also indignant that a judgment made available to both sides on
Friday afternoon on the basis of confidentiality, was apparently leaked from
the Yorkshire end, have already been fined £5.5m by the Premier League for
irregularities in Tevez's and Mascherano's registrations. But West Ham were
not deducted points by the league and Tevez was cleared to play in the
club's remaining games of that season. On the final day, the Argentine
scored the winning goal against Manchester United, his current club, to
confirm West Ham's Premier League status.

The Blades' appeal against the Premier League's refusal to deduct points was
rejected by an FA arbitration panel chaired by Sir Philip Oton, but that
panel concluded that it would have reached a different decision to the
Premier League's, had it been in judgment – a verdict which gave the Blades
hope. The club turned its attentions to a compensation fight through a
second FA tribunal, chaired by Lord Griffiths, which has now concluded it
had "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."

The tribunal panel does not recognise West Ham's unilateral termination of
Tevez and Mascherano's flawed initial contracts, ordered by the Premier
League, which meant that they played the last three games of the 2006-7
season under terms acceptable to the League. The tribunal panel added in its
ruling that "even over the final two games of the season, West Ham would
have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez."

The Blades, whose financial demands include £4m for Phil Jagielka, who was
sold cheaply as a result of the drop, also raised the question of a further
intervention by the Premier League, though this seems unlikely.

How figures add up

£36.8m

Amount West Ham received in television revenue during 2007/08.

£49.4m

West Ham's estimated turnover for the year up to May 2007.

£34.6m

Amount spent by West Ham on transfers since May 2007.

£6.25m

Amount spent by Sheffield United since May 2007.

15%

Decrease in Sheffield United's average attendance from 2006/07 to 2007/08.

£59.1m

Value in transfer fees of West Ham's current first-team squad.

£9.5m

Value of Sheffield United's current first-team squad.

James Mariner

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The £30m lie - false claims about Tevez deal that nailed Hammers - Daily
Mail
By Matt Lawton and NEIL ASHTON
Last updated at 12:35 AM on 24th September 2008

West Ham's brazen attempts to conceal the true nature of their arrangement
with Carlos Tevez can be exposed. The club's chief executive Scott Duxbury
faces the sack after it emerged he ignored the Premier League's demand to
tear up a controversial third party agreement. West Ham had been fined
£5.5million by an independent commission in April 2007 for having entered
into the deal to sign Tevez and Javier Mascherano, but then made oral
promises to stand by the arrangement. One Upton Park insider described
lawyer Duxbury's position as 'untenable' but other details heard by the
Independent Tribunal which made a landmark ruling for Sheffield United
suggest the ramifications will reach much farther.
West Ham are considering their position and a possible appeal, while in the
months before a compensation figure is decided - United are claiming more
than £30m - the Premier League's conduct in the matter is set to come under
intense scrutiny again. Wigan owner Dave Whelan has already called for the
resignation of Premier League chairman Dave Richards, while former Sports
Minister Richard Caborn claimed the ruling could rebound legally on the
League.
The Tribunal ruled: '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. 'Moreover, 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 that the Premier League
would have suspended Mr Tevez's registration as a West Ham player.'
The Independent Tribunal's findings detail Duxbury's attempts to mislead the
Premier League following the demand in April 2007 to rescind the
controversial third party agreement with Kia Joorabchian. On Monday,
Sportsmail exclusively revealed that Sheffield United, who were relegated
from the Barclays Premier League on the final day of the 2006/07 season, had
already won the case. Wigan escaped relegation with victory at Sheffield
United on the final day and their chairman Whelan said: 'I've always thought
the chairman should accept responsibility and resign and I've said that to
his face. [Chief executive] Richard Scudamore has backed him but I don't
think Richard should carry the can. I'm delighted for Sheffield United.
Justice has been done.'
The remarkable Tribunal ruling lays bare the roles of Duxbury, who was
deputy chief executive at West Ham at the time, lawyer Graham Shear,
Joorabchian, who brought Tevez and fellow Argentine Javier Mascherano to the
club, former Hammers chairman Terry Brown and ex-chief executive Paul
Aldridge.
In this case, a third party agreement meant West Ham acknowledged two Virgin
Island companies held economic rights to Tevez. They could force the Hammers
to transfer him in January 2007 if another club offered £2million, but West
Ham could not sell him at any stage without the companies' permission.
According to the judgment, Duxbury told Joorabchian and Shear, the solicitor
acting on his behalf, in a series of 'oral cuddles' that West Ham would
publicly agree to tear up the third party agreement but privately honour the
arrangement. Shear, who is named in the document as 'an unwilling and
uncomfortable witness', 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.' 'West Ham were
desperate to ensure that Mr Tevez played for the club in the critical last
few games of the season. Whilst having no choice but to adhere to the
Premier League's requirements, West Ham wanted to do everything possible to
attempt to placate the rights owners.'
A statement released by West Ham said: 'The club need to digest the findings
and will consult lawyers before considering the next steps.' Crystal Palace
manager Neil Warnock, who was in charge when Sheffield United were
relegated, said: 'The verdict puts my faith back in the system. I have a
relegation on my CV that I shouldn't have.'

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Gianfranco Zola's West Ham United spending plans take a hit
Gianfranco Zola, the new West Ham manager, might face significant
restrictions in the January transfer window after an independent arbitration
tribunal ruled in favour of Sheffield United over the Carlos Tevez affair.
By Jeremy Wilson
Last Updated: 1:00AM BST 24 Sep 2008

Having argued that they were relegated unfairly at the end of the 2006-2007
season, Sheffield United are now making an unprecedented compensation claim
against West Ham for more than £30 million. The timing is particularly bad
for West Ham, with the club facing financial challenges at several different
levels. Billionaire owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson has recently seen some of
his business interests hit by the global economic downturn, while the need
this summer to restructure what had been a spiralling wage bill has been
well documented. Anton Ferdinand and George McCartney were controversially
sold, and Freddie Ljungberg and Nolberto Solano were released.

The recent departure of Alan Curbishley has also led to the club paying
Chelsea £1 million to secure the services of Zola's assistant, Steve Clarke.


This season, West Ham have also been forced to cancel their shirt
sponsorship deal with XL after the travel firm went into administration. The
deal, signed last year, was worth £7.5 million over three years.

West Ham's legal advisers had been confident that Sheffield United would
lose their case and yesterday's decision came as a shock. As well as the
Court of Arbitration for Sport, they might appeal to Fifa, world football's
governing body. The setback could, however, undermine the future of West Ham
chief executive Scott Duxbury, whose role in the affair was criticised by
the tribunal.

The arbitration panel was set up by the FA and consisted of Lord Griffiths,
a former president of the MCC, Sir Anthony Colman, a former High Court
judge, and Robert Englehart QC. Sheffield United have also hinted that they
may take action against the Premier League.

As a result of their relegation, Sheffield United claim they lost out on £22
million in television and merchandising rights as well as bonus payments.

The rest of the claim for damages is based on ticket sales, sponsorship
deals, club merchandising and a loss of £4 million for the sale of Phil
Jagielka to Everton due to a clause in the player's contract.

The Premier League have consistently defended the action they took against
West Ham.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Palermo's Cavani never tempted by West Ham
24.09.08 | tribalfootball.com

Palermo striker Edison Cavani insists he never considered leaving for West
Ham in the summer. "The market talk this summer? I never thought of leaving
Palermo," said Cavani. "This is the club that has bet on me two years ago. I
have never given weight to the rumours."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
West Ham intend to fight compo ruling all the way to CAS
24.09.08 | tribalfootball.com

West Ham United will fight the ruling that could see them face a bill of up
to £30million in the Carlos Tevez row. A tribunal ruled Sheffield United
deserve compensation for being relegated in the 2006-07 season when Tevez
starred for the Hammers after being registered illegally. West Ham will
contest the decision on the grounds that the Premier League said striker
Tevez was eligible to play and may take the case to the Court of Arbitration
for Sport in Switzerland, says The Sun.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://vyperz.blogspot.com