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
Posts
