Sheffield United’s Creative Accounting Backfires

A few weeks ago a High Court Judge ordered Sheffield United to open up their books to West Ham and to demonstrate how they calculated their £50 million claim against West Ham. Apparently this has revealed some creative accounting worthy of Enron/Bernard Madoff/Gordon Brown (delete as appropriate).

Their biggest scam has been to conveniently ignore that fact that they received a parachute payment for two seasons. This is thought to have amounted to more than £15 million. A pretty big accounting mistake, even by the standards of football accountants. And it is one that the Judge is unlikely to look favourably upon.

In normal circumstances I’d want West Ham to play hardball on this and tell them where to go. However, we are not operating in normal circumstances. The club has to be sold in the next few months and there are few buyers who will want to part with their money (especially in these economic times) unless this case has been put to bed.

I would therefore imagine that West Ham will try to reach an out of court settlement with Sheffield United of about £10-£15 million. While it sticks in my craw, business experience tells me it is the right way forward.

NOTE TO SHEFFIELD UNITED FANS: Please don’t post comments. You’re just wasting your time. This is a West Ham site and not an opportunity for you to parade your bilious attacks. Your comments will be deleted.

Advertisements

73 Responses to Sheffield United’s Creative Accounting Backfires

  1. Nik says:

    £10m to £15m. looks like we will sell Ashton and Upson to raise the funds!

  2. Doc H Ball says:

    I don’t agree Iain, we should tell them to stick their claim where the sun don’t shine.

    I have no doubt that there was a 2nd breach of the rules and that the odious Duxbury had a clandestine deal with Kia Joorbachin and that, as a result, the club were liable for a second punishment. What I do doubt is that this can be said to have ‘probably caused’ (the legal test) S Utd’s relegation or that the real damages amount to anything like what they claim.

    S Utd made a trading loss the year they went down. The following year, they made a profit given reduced wages and the parachute payment. They are also claiming 2 seasons’ ‘loss’ meaning they believe we were responsible for them not getting promotion last year. When the acid rain pisse$ down on the steel city, one half of the city looks up and blames Carlos Tevez.

    Further, what’s happened about the Steve Kabba affair? Nothing. We should counter sue, park tanks outside Bramall Lane’s gates and throw Scott Duxbury to the wolves. Other than that, no surrender!

  3. jon.london colney says:

    this needs to be ended very quickly, and the cost is only important to bg but to us its a means to an end.get it cleared up,get the club sold and start looking up and not down.coyi

  4. chris says:

    Ashtons going nowhere,whos going to part with millions on someone with a bad injury record,selling your best players just to raise 10 to 15m is silly,falling out of the prem costs far more,surley the payment would be in instalments.

  5. Roshi says:

    I think this is a very important development in the case and one that I am sure S.Utd have been hoping would not be unearthed.
    Is this the reason that McCabe suddenly became respectful of West Hams plight and started suggesting out of court settlements, knowing that his accounting would be put under scrutiny.

  6. BAC says:

    There may be a big stumbling block to reaching an out of court settlement, and that is that McCabe wants West Ham to formally concede, as part of the deal, that Sheffield United were relegated as a consequence of West Ham breaching PL rules concerning Tevez. There must be a reason why he wants that concession, and I expect it might have something to do with attempting, yet again, to have them reinstated to the PL, possibly at our expense. I can just imaging his buddy at Wigan raising the matter at a PL meeting, pointing out that West Ham had admitted breaching the PL rules after the disciplinary ruling, and that the PL had promised dire punishment if that were the case, and that, as West Ham had admitted their breach had resulted in Sheffield being relegated, the appropriate sanction should be automatic relegation at the end of this season (in addition to the ‘normal’ 3 down) and the reinstatement of Sheff U next season, regardless of their performance in the championship.

    I wouldn’t put anything past the scheming bastards.

  7. Dave Hall says:

    Breaking news is that apparently BG is putting the club up for sale and has 5 potential investors who are interested.

  8. Goatygav says:

    As far as oversights are concerned that’s a pretty huge one!

    It would be healthy for the club to put this behind them and move on ASAP. You make an excellent point about potential buyers not wanting to invest with this hanging around. Despite this there’s the prospect of the Icelandic Consortium being forced to sell quickly. It’s quite a complexed situation – who knows how it’s going to turn out? I certainly wouldn’t want to call it. Thankfully this doesn’t seem to be having an affect on the pitch – well – not away from home at least.

    COYI!!!!!

  9. Goatygav says:

    Yes Dave – It’s all over the news including Sky Sports http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_4657619,00.html

  10. SJ Chandos says:

    Exactly, 30m was massively inflated let alone 50m! The parachute payments were always a big factor in reducing their losses. While I really do sympathise with those that want to tell the Blunts to go get stuffed, Iain is right when he says this thing needs to be ended once and for all. The Hammers should offer Sheffield Utd no more than 7m to settle, take it or leave it! This could be paid in two or more instalments and, in doing so, eliminate any immediate financial pressure on the club

    I see that my information on movement in the sale of the club was right. Apparently it was stated in some court papers relating to the Hansa administration that the sale of the club was being actively pursued. £250m seems an high valuation, although that is probably an opening gambit. Sky reckons 5 buyers are interested, and they will be because a debt free, London club, with the Hammers profile, heritage and fan base is always going to be a more attractive proposition than debt ridden provisional clubs like Newcastle and Everton!

    I just hope that the successful party is a good owner who will invest in the team and the club infrastructure, whilst respecting the club’s identity and heritage. I welcome and support Zola’s project, but we still need to recruit world class talent that is ready to go straight in to the team. There needs to be a balance between home grown talent and the purchase of top talent. The youngsters need to train and learn from top stars. We should never, however, become another Chelsea, where youth players never get a look in!

    What we definitely do not need is ascenerio, where new owners lumber the club with massive loans, a la Man U and Liverpool. That was one of the good thing’s about GB’s regime, at least they invested their own money in buying and running the club. But, if it is going to happen than let it be quick, so that we can spend in the January window! Perhaps it’s DIC or one of the middle-east consortiums? If that’s the case the club will go from paupers to trillionaires very quickly! Let’s wait and see.

  11. SJ Chandos says:

    Saw the reseves play last night. Tristian looked very mobile, sharp and effective bagging his two goals But the outstanding display was by Lopez, playing on the left side of midfield. He created virtually all of the Hammers goals and looked a real star. Yet, he does not get a look in at 1st team level, I wonder why?

    Another bonus was the displays of Sears, Kerns, Widdowson and Harvey, who all looked good. If all these and other youth players realise their potential we could have a real embarassment of riches in the near future. West Ham are and always have been the shining hope for England’s future, Capello just does not know it yet! Aston Villa, do me a favour!!!!

  12. Gonzo says:

    Chris (12.36pm) says: “selling your best players just to raise 10 to 15m is silly,falling out of the prem costs far more,” So what would make anyone think the Blades would accept as little as 10-15m compensation for falling out of the prem? Time to be worried – very worried.

  13. Glen says:

    THERE ARE REASONS WHY THE PARACHUTE PAYMENTS ARE LEFT OUT….ITS NOT AN OVERSIGHT….THE CLAIM IS FOR LOSS OF REVENUE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE EARNED IF THEY HAD STAYED UP (NOT WHAT THEY HAVE GOT FROM BEING RELEGATED)…WHICH EVERYONE KNOWS ITS WORTH ABOUT 30MILLION PER SEASON JUST TO BE IN THE PREM… TIMES THAT FIGURE BY 2 FOR THE 2 SEASON SHEFF UTD PROPOSE THEY HAVE MISSED OUT ON THIS REVENUE AND YOU COME TO A FUGURE SOMEWHERE IN THE REGION OF 50 MILLION….I’M SURE THERE IS MORE TO IT BUT THAT IT IS NOT AN OVERSIGHT

  14. Goatygav says:

    Pretty lame reason Glen. BTW – why are you shouting?

  15. goater says:

    Is it just me, or does the statement claim to have between 5 and 10 interested parties in a purchase seem like total spin? Newcastle have had not offers and they are surely a much better prospect: higher gates; higher-placed league team; no £15m to £50m claim pending; no impending FAPL investigation over further rule breaches.

    Really, no-one should get too excited at this stage.

  16. Gonzo says:

    Whatever else we think about him McCabe is not a fool. However, 50m seems much too high to me but not totally impossible. So selling the club in the middle of a credit crunch with potential extra liabilities of 50m isn’t going to be easy. If no buyer is found the money has to come from the sale of players (does anyone know any different?) We have to get real here – there is a worst case scenario – no money and championship football. I suspect our previous glorious management will come to be seen as total idiots for carrying on playing Tevez after the initial FA enquiry.

  17. Big Dave says:

    Hate to say it but administration seems just around the corner. We shouldnt have cheated in the 1st place and deserve to be playing championship football.

  18. chris says:

    gonzo stop the panic,we will be sold to a billionaire in the next 4 weeks zola will have funds for new players plus deano and dyer comin back ,the ground will expand to 60.000 over time,everyone will want to come to west ham,the new owner will pay sheffield what they want, may be a bit extra, and then tell them to piss off,positive vibes, you never no who’s reading…

  19. gaz says:

    If damages are around £50 million and SUFC had parachute payments of around £15 million then that leaves it around the £35 million mark?Shouldn’t underestimate McCabe! He’s a very good business man. And WHUFC will never agree an out of court settlement of £15 millin – £20 million!!

  20. FrannyZola says:

    If we sell our rubbish, we can easily raise 10-12 million….plus even though many would disagree, we should sell Noble while his stock is till high because we’ll get a decent amount and Collison is better than him so can’t see him playing much with our midfield.

  21. DaDon says:

    Sell Noble? Are you nuts? Collison is very good, no question, but given our injury proneness, we need at least six and possibly more first team midfielders in the squad. It’s a 14-man game now and we need quality on the bench as well as on the field. As far as the Sheff U nonsense goes, were it not for the economic backdrop I’m BG would tell ’em where to go, but given that he needs to sell the club then it makes sense to celar this up and move on. I like the idea of counter-suing though, not sure on what grounds. Perhaps malicious persecution…

  22. Upton Spark says:

    Agree with you Ian. Give ’em £15 million and let’s move on.

  23. Gonzo says:

    OK no panic – and the billionaire buyer sounds good…. My original point is that it’s not a question of just giving them 15m and moving on. It’s finding something they will accept and I bet it’s a lot higher than 15m (but lower than 50m).

  24. FrannyZola says:

    DaDon, my fear is that a) he is not gonna play much and b) others are gonna realise that he’s nothing more than average. I know people will say he’s better than that – that’s cool but I disagree.

    I agree with your number of midfielders assertion. With Dyer back, we also have Parker, Mullins, Bowyer Collison, Stokes all vying for just two places. Noble will find it hard to get into that midfield so why not do a bit of good business.

    That’s why I think we can get a good price for him right now which will help pay the fine. He’s just too slow.

    Plus with a buy out looming and the possibility of new funds, Franny may bring in a quality creative midfielder…which is something I think we need most right now and something we’ve always had if you look at our teams throughout history.

  25. D&G says:

    15million!? 10 MAX but

  26. D&G says:

    15million!? 10 MAX but I agree with 5 or more buyers waiting in the wings BG will want this settled fast.

    Problem is Blunts know this…….

  27. Dale says:

    Looking back now, I would suggest that if the FA Prem had done its job correctly in the first place ( points deduction ) then non of this would be going on now!

    Had West Ham been deducted points at the time, this issue would now be dead in the water.

    FA Premier league are quiet for some reason and the rest of English football is watching!!

  28. FrannyZola says:

    You’re right DALE. What the premier league should have done at the appeal is deducted us two points.

    Then Sheff Utd would have got what they wanted, we still would have avoided relegation and the situation would have been dead and buried. Look how far it’s dragged.

  29. colin say's says:

    l would have thought what ever amount was agreed,Sheff Utd would want it in payments ,if a one off payment was made in a profit making year,they would loose half of it in tax.

  30. Hammeron says:

    Hello Ian, I for one would like this whole saga put to bed but personally I think 10 – 15 milliom is too much.
    Could Seffield United be sued for creative accountancy I.E fraud?

  31. Happy Hammer says:

    Trouble is Franny Zola, the fact remains that the punishment for fielding inelligable players has precedents set at 3 points, then our corrupt (and down right stupid) management team continued to play Tevez despite still not having the right registration, thus breaking the laws again.

    It pains me to say but had Wigan gone down they would have done the same, we broke the rules twice and the incompetence of the Premier League has led to this happening. We need to offer 30 million, sell players if need be, but we would still have enough to survive in the Prem IMHO, and then try to build up once again. We need to face facts, we aint gonna win, we’re gonna have to pay the Blades, and it’s not their fault, it’s not us as fans of this great clubs fault, nor is it Carlos’s fault, its down to the incompetence of Egg Head, Brown and Duxberry et al and the Premier League for bodging up the initial punishment.

    Here’s to paying up, putting the matter to bed, and getting sold to some Arab billionaires!

  32. devo says:

    i’ll give that mc cabe his exact payment my right boot up his Jacksee,whinging,whittling,water dripping,bores,one player one goal,doesn’t make a season,where were the complaints when we were losing points hand over fist and the gall we lost to those chislers

  33. Lee says:

    Did Sheff utd not sign the premierships rules and regulations agreement with the premier league decision final !!! If so we have been fined once for this and accepted their decision so why should they be allowed to take us to court! They were not good enough to stay in the league its as simple as that. If tevez was not in our team his replacement may have scored us more goals making us safe from the drop long before the last game ! So I say sod off sheff utd lets fight this ridiculas claim.

  34. old biddy says:

    Having being punished already by the FA Prem,does this mean we are entitled to get that money back?? or should (has i think) the FA Prem be responsible for any damages to Sheff utd ??……….just a thought!

  35. Goatygav says:

    Happy Hammer – Could you be specific about the precedents you mention? They would need to be ones that contravene the Premier League’s “Third Party Ownership” rule otherwise they’d be irrelevant.

    Despite that I agree with you that the West Ham officials lied and were dwon right stupid in doing so.

  36. DaDon says:

    Happy Hammer – for the milliionth time, there was never a question of Tevez’s eligibility to play. He was properly registered at the start of the season, the Premier League cleared him to play after the fine was issued and this whole debate is largely based on an incorrect assumption. This has been stated on several occasions by the Premier League and once in my presence at a conference which was being addressed by Peter Scudamore. The big mistake Eggy made was to plead guilty – which I’m sure he did in good faith in order to get the thing out of the way – but it was strategically the wrong move. If we’d fought it all the way, it would have dragged on for so long that we’d have probably got off to avoid disrupting the League after the end of the season.

    West Ham’s ‘crime’ was without precedent and therefore the 3 point penalty – whilst it could have been applied – was by no means the automatic sanction. As it happens, it was purely an archaic administrative point about third party agreements which are the norm in most Leagues in Europe and yet here we are being painted as the biggest villains in football history. I regard the £5m as ridiculously excessive. I’d say ‘tapping up’ was a far more serious offence yet Chelsea got nothing like as severe a punishment.

    This whole thing is a joke and utterly perverse. In another time I would have argued for fighting it all the way because it is such a patently unfair and unjust campaign against us. However, needs must and a reasonable settlement is the most practical move right now.

  37. Miccky D says:

    I thought Sheffield United fans were told not to post on here. There seems to be a few mascarading as Hammers!

    Good point about getting the fine money back. It always puzzles me how the FA can pocket money when rules are broken. It just promotes the idea that if you have enough money the rules will not apply to you.

    One rule for the rich . . .

  38. Sean says:

    I agree that ‘bilious’ or rude attacks should be deleted as they don’t contribute to the debate, but the problem with total censorship is that you never get to hear the other side of the story and so can never make a balanced judgement. Perhaps this matter would have been settled more quickly and amicably if the Hammers and Blades actually listened to each others points of view!

  39. SJ Chandos says:

    Hammers supporters have no reason to worry, things are moving fast now and the Sheffield Utd stain will come out in the wash! The forsenic study of their accounts has revealed the true scale of their losses and it has badly weakened their hand.

    The Blunts have been playing poker with us. They were hoping to bluff us in to a 30m out of court settlement before this process commenced. And he has well and truly overplayed his hand. He will now try to use the takeover to get whatever he can now, 7-8m maximum, still a substantial amount for a club with no real case. And an amount that will almost wipe their debts.

    Can you believe the muppets on Newcastle Mad are asking why the interest in the Hammers rather than the Toon. Well where do we start – geography, finance, value for money, history, heritage, best youth academy in the country, better colours, more cultured fans …… Lol.

  40. Upton Spark says:

    Surely the facts are that West Ham DID have permission to play Tevez as he was after the investigation cleared to play.
    SO,why are Sheff Utd still saying Tevez shouldn’t have been playiing?
    Why are they saying he was not registered when he clearly WAS?
    AND,yes,do we get our £5 million back as we can’t be seen to be paying twice for our missdemeaner surely??
    There are many more questions to be answered,but for the sake of sanity and to stop us arguing any further,AND because we are a really nice friendly club,AND we are such nice easy to get on with supporters etc….
    Oh B*llocks,let’s pay up,I can’t be bothered any more. Mind you,come to think of it…..

  41. Dave Eyre says:

    There has been no forensic study of their accounts.

    There is speculation.

    End of

  42. FrannyZola says:

    DaDon, you’re right. This situation is misunderstood quite a bit. Our situation was unique and did not have a precedent and was not as serious as everyone makes out to be.

    Coupled with the fact that Tevez was cleared and playing legally by the end of the season (i.e the ManU game), it makes the decision against us even more perverse.

    I’m not saying we did nothing wrong – we did but only initially. Its all Duxburys fault…the guys meant to be a lawyer and he couldnt do a legit deal? Everyones suffered (Eggy, BG, the club, Pardew, Curbishely) but this weasel is still here and getting away with it.

    DUXBURY OUT!

  43. Sactown Hammer says:

    What I dont understand about this whole mess was the FA had to know about a third party involvement because their agents was part of the negotoations, in fact I believe at the time Kia was actively pursuing buying WH. Wouldnt the league have to look over the contract, especially when you have two South American players. I’m assuming that a large percentage of their players have third party ownership. Also should WH have any say in that both players hardly made any impact the first half of the season. What a mess.

  44. Gary S says:

    Interesting point in the Independant that Sheffields claim did not take into account the additional costs of being a premiership club, higher wages etc. This diminishes the actual gap between the two figures. If you claim the difference between Premiership revenue and the cost of running the club in the championship you maximise the figure and get to the inflated figures quoted.

  45. Big Dave says:

    We played an ineligible we should lose points its the same at any level of football even down to sunday league. If you play someone whose not registered properly you lose the points for that game so in reality we should lose the points for all the games Tevez played in.

    Seems clear to me and it does to the rest of you if youre honest, we got very lucky with the original fine mainly cos sir trev pulled a few strings for us and now its all coming back to bite us.

    Up the hammers

  46. Goatygav says:

    I hear what people are saying about some continental European Leagues having a different stance on third party ownership of players. I don’t think you can describe what West Ham officials did as a crime but more a “Breach of League Rules.” When you consider this is common practise elsewhere and that those leagues are governed by UEFA and, ultimately, FIFA it makes you wonder what all the fuss is about.

    Despite this the Premier League rule is one which they should keep in place as it supports the integrity of the competition. It makes it much harder for those third parties to influence the outcome of match results and the associated betting scams. All things considered the EPL have got it right and “La Liga” et al should be the ones looking at changing.

  47. Englandsnumber6 says:

    Good article Ian, and i have read every post and the consensus is to put it to bed. But what everyone is failing to take on board is that if we agree to 5- 10 0r 50 million it sets a precident and this cannot happen, Watford and Charlton should be next in line to sue, and then all teams we took points off, Blackburn and Pompy missed out on europe so they should sue us, each club that we took points off should sue because they finished in a lower position and so won less money, i have studied Law and can tell you that the only reason the current owner will allow any of this is because he is selling and doesnt care about future litigation, but let me tell you west ham SHOULD care, it will be the end of the club if they allow the board to give up without a fight.

  48. Goatygav says:

    Big Dave – If the FA have issued a registration then he’s legit to play. It’s not a FA rule that’s been breached but, very specifically, one Premier League rule. That’s the unique thing about this case and so the FA rules you refer to are not relevant.

  49. SJ Chandos says:

    There certainly are a few Sheffield Utd ringers on here! Typical of that club’s honesty really to blog as Hammers fans. That dishonesty obviously goes right through the club to it’s supporters. Up the Hammers!

  50. Big Dave says:

    Chandos im West Ham tru and tru mate, just think that weve shamed our great club with this whole thing and were making ourselves look daft. come and have a drink with me in the black lion before the next game if you dont believe me

  51. Devo's Barnet says:

    Totally agree with you SJ Chandos, it’s so obvious that there are Sheffield Utd fans posting as West Ham fan’s on here. Time to end this blog as they have corrupted even this with their ‘world owes us a living cos we live oop north’ attitude.

  52. Geoff Calladine says:

    Ian, Dont you think that by denying any non WHU fan the right to comment on this article that you are simply further illustrating the whole ethos of ‘we woz wronged’ attitude that obviously exists through out the club? Clearly to the whole of the football world – surprisingly including the London media – WHU cheated, lied and continued to lie and that the so called punishment was soft and totally against any previous ruling for similar or even lesser offences by other ‘small’ clubs. The opinions above said to be written by the other clubs fans clearly are not, and illustrate how strong the feelings are against WHU. The definition of arbitration is an independent decision which cannot be desputed by either party. I wonder what the Hammers fans attitude whould have been if the situation had been reversed?

  53. Goatygav says:

    Geoff Calladine – West Ham wanted an independant tribunal at the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). Sheff Utd managed to block this with a temp injunction. If you truly believe in arbitration by an independent decision then would you agree that Sheff Utd should’ve let it got to the European Sports Courts? Frankly they don’t come more independent!

    You’ve also re-iterated the mistake made by earlier posters on this blog by stating “ruling for similar or even lesser offences” There are no similar ones – this is a unique situation that’s never before been ruled upon!

  54. Devo's Barnet says:

    Geoff, this has all been argued a million times before by people far better informed on the subject so I’m not going to go through it all again.

    But WHU did not CHEAT anyone, they were originally unaware that the third party clause had to be declared to the PL (as it is a brand new rule in this country), then they stupidly panicked and tried to cover it up. The new owners came clean and went to the PL to declare the clause. T
    The arbitration was forced on West Ham after we had already accepted the Premier Leagues deemed punishment for the offence, the 5.5 mil pound fine (a record fine). At that time Sheffield Utd were more than happy as they looked like staying up at our expense AND we’d been fined 5.5 mill into the bargain!

  55. Goatygav says:

    And if the situation had been reversed – we’d have got on with life and stopped banging on forever about it. West Ham have had tons of decisions go against them in the past. (eg. forced to play behind closed doors, made to replay cup semi finals)Difference is the club have accepted “That’s Life” and got on with it.

  56. Ray Moore says:

    Geoff, if the situation was reversed, first we would have made sure we stayed in the divison by winning our games and not taking our mind of the job in hand. Instead Sheffield United thought West ham would get deducted points with the tevez affair and effectively be relegated, so they left their fate in the hands of the FA and Premier league instead of doing the job of staying up. Tevez or no tevez Sheffield united are not a PL club and it shows as they are still in the championship and not even looking like coming up this season.

    Instead they now play the we have been cheated card and try to get things on the easy instead of working hard to reclaim there place in the PL.

  57. Goatygav says:

    Oh – and when you say strong feelings against West Ham – who are you speaking for Geoff? I speak with many fans of other clubs and every single one, bar none, are of the opinion that Sheff Utd went down because they didn’t deserve to stay up due to not putting enough points on the board.

  58. Richard says:

    a year ago there was feeling against West Ham, mainly down to McCabes press campaign and the lack of understanding of the case, this is obviously changing now, I suspect that the despicable hypocrite McCabe knows this.

    If I were West Ham I’d rather be playing conference football than pay those parasites a penny.

  59. Geoff Calladine says:

    Mmmmm…..From the totally illogical, ill informed responses, I seem to have touched a nerve. Good. The judicial arbitration was agreed to by BOTH clubs, so for once WHU need to honour the agreement and say “Thats Life & get on with it”

  60. Ray Moore says:

    Sheffield united need to think thats life and get on with playing crap football in the championship and stop dreaming about the PL.

    no amount of money is going to make them better.

  61. Sir Trev says:

    Ray Moore – I think £50m should pay for a few decent players, although not if alan curbishley is in charge

  62. 10no6 says:

    Geoff calm down mate your illogical emotive post @3;24 does not address any of the valid opinions or points raised in response to your initial post, particularly Goatygav.
    Perhaps we have touched a raw nerve with you.

    to reiterate (now you’ve had a lie down)

    Arbitration in Switzerland (Sheff Utd didn’t want it why not?) but West Ham did is it because it is truly independent with no axe to grind i.e. FA vs Prem

    There is actually no precedent fyi precedent is an action, situation or decision which has already happened and which can be used as a reason why a similar action or decision should be performed or taken

  63. tc says:

    Good article Iain.

    The thing is that they are not going to get ‘lost revenue’. There is a cost to being in the PL.

    We can’t counter sue because we haven’t been sued. This has been sent to arbitration because the FA have called it a dispute between 2 clubs. This is why the arbitration panel could gas off all they liked about what WH had ‘done’. It meant nothing. When it comes to compensation unless the 2 parties are willing to put a test case through the High Courts about a ‘breach of contract’ in ‘duty of care’ then the arbitrary panel judgement would hold. If they so obviously gave a substantial award then it meant that they believed that a ‘breach of contract’ had taken place. This is all a bit boring but what I am getting to is this – the profit or more often loss that a club makes in the PL is at its highest +10m (you can find this on the internet). Unless it could be proved absolutely that Sleazyville Utd were relegated because and ONLY because of the actions of WH and these actions consituted a ‘breach of contract’ (this in itself is an implied vague contract to each PL club of a ‘duty of care’ in its conduct), then they could theoretically get a full years profits (not revenue) as compensation. It ain’t gonna happen. McCabe knows this, He is a chancer who’s businesses are on the edge and he’s out for what he can get. Unfortunately for us when he tried it on, the FA shouted ‘binding arbitration’ and we should have said ‘ no thanks, we’ll go to court’ (there is a precedent for this). In going to arbitration, we allowed this shyster to make a claim against us. And contrary to the newspapers, he did it precisely BECAUSE he knew we could pay him something, because our club is in a good financial position – we have no debt, we have a good book value, we are well supported and own our own ground. He laid a trap and Duxberry doffed his cap and dived in.

  64. tc says:

    Just another thing – it won’t be 10m. It will be undisclosed, with gagging orders and it will be end of. I reckon it will be less than 5m for the reasons above. Then again we could let the Arbitrary Panel do whatever they like and we could go to court to test the case. Under tort and contract all manner of evidence could be presented (what about Tevez current ownership – it ain’t with Man Utd, or the ‘gentlemens’ agreements Kaba and all). I’d be happy with that – it would mean the end of the PL and a kick up the ass for the FA. I’d be happy with that.

    Either way football clubs are going to be dragged into the real world and their accounts are going to be scrutinized by regulators in minute detail in the future. Good, lets put a stop to these dodgy practices and the blatent hyprocrisy that goes along with them.

  65. Goatygav says:

    Too right 10no6. I thought I was going to get a response from Geoff with at least some fact or substance. Shame really. You offer someone the opportunity to develop their argument and all they come back with is a petty wind up unworthy of any further discussion.

  66. Happy Hammer says:

    It’s all down to Egg Head, Brown and Duxberry. Fact is we are never going to agree, I think we got away with not been deducted points but we did nevertheless get away with it so that really should have been it end of, though I do understand the Blades fans feelings as I would have not been happy should the roles have been reversed.

    As for what you say Goatygav you’re a lucky lad cos I’m an exiled Hammer living in Nottingham, and though the locals here dislike the Blunts almost as much as Derby, they are as one in their backing of them, despite my arguments as to why we had already been punished. What they say, and what angers me, is that having then said the third party agreement had been ripped up, therefore making Tevez legal to have his registration renewed, it has subsequently come out that Duxberry and Egg Head lied about this. It was at this point when I had to hold my hands up and say we (not the fans but the management of the club) probably had got away lightly and I would have been absolutely ballistic had things been the other way round.

    Both sets of fans have valid points but what pains me most is that this is what football has become in this country, foreign owners, dodgy transfer deals involving agents, and threatens to sue as money is the most important thing now in football. A sad sad state of affairs and it’s a mess. Whats the answer, just put it to bed, pay up and move on, as hard as that may be for some, its what we should do.

    Oh and if it means we have to sell Lucas Neill to pay for it then every cloud ;-)………..

  67. SJ Chandos says:

    Apologies to you Big Dave if I mistook you for one of the covert Blunts posting on here. It may well be you are a regular, I just have not registered it as I am new to the site.

    I have come to the conclusion that there is no point continuing to argue the toss with the Blunts on here. Their pseudo-arguments are just typical of the nonsense that has come out of Bramall Lane since their relegation A curious mixture of hypocrisy, outrage, vindictiveness, sloppy logic, emotive diatribes and a inability to face the truth, that ultimately they are responsible for their own relegation. Look at their former manager on Sky Sports today, still claiming Sheffield Utd were hard done by! What price personal responsibility?

    Their arguments have been countered time and again, yet the blunts fans appear to have this psychological need to believe that Tevez was responsible for their demise. They defend the authority of the FA tribunal and its decision in their favour, they defend their right to appeal twice, but fail to see the contradiction in denying the Hammers the right to do likewise! Was the PL arbitration process not supposed to be final and binding? Yes, but their lawyers found a loop hole and exploited it. The FA then took Sheffield Utd’s side to get one over the PL, with the Hammers the victim of a plainly perverse decision.

    I could talk about Kabba, I could point out there was no preccedent and no rule that points (three or otherwise) should be deducted; I could point out that there is no similarity between West Ham’s situation and the punishment of clubs who have entered administration (i.e. points deduction) and I could even suggest that a three point deduction is a very convenient for Sheffield Utd’s purposes, but what’s the point? There is no reasoning with zealots. Nuff said!

  68. 10no6 says:

    Happy Hammer – I disagree with everything you said I have plenty of mates, colleagues some support our worst enemies but in footballing terms they agree that the blunts are just trying to avoid responsibility.

    Most people I know at West Ham would not have gone ballistic and demanded anything but took the relegation on the chin – we certainly would not whine and bleat like they are doing!

    To all the quitters and “pragmatists” I say no we should fight this for the good of football and because it is a principle at stake….tell McCabe see you in a High Court (they would lose) or p*ss off you greedy whining cnut

  69. Goatygav says:

    Maybe not so lucky as you might think Happy Hammer. I grew up 10 miles south of Manchester in a little town called Macclesfield (As detailed on the “about” tab where you might want to add yourself), surrounded by Man City, Liverpool, Everton and Man Utd fans, where I still have lots of friends and family and will be spending this weekend. The comments I receive are from those “Northerners” too.

  70. Bacon hater says:

    Agree it is pathetic all those Blunts coming on here. Iain – as a long-suffering Hammer I have enjoyed this blog for some time – keep up the good work. As its your blog the censorship point remains entirely at your discretion; however would you agree that your comments regarding creative accounting are potentially highly dangerous from a libel perspective (given my profession I take a particulat interest in the Enron issue)?

  71. Miccky D says:

    Does anyone have any idea how much it is actually worth financially to be in the PL for a season? That’s what this is all about really. I’m fairly confident that only a very few clubs can turn a profit.

    So the real compensation figure would more likely relate to the difference in losses sustained by Sheffield United as a resulto of not being in the PL. I suspect that they may have committed to some increased costs in terms of player wages but other than that I don’t see what else. Their gate receipts are fairly healthy still, and other than Beattie they don’t have any ‘star’ names in their ranks.

    I think when the figure is determined WHU should be able to deal with it and will do so, so that any potential sale can take place.

    I think everyone (Blades & Hammers) should calm down and let this run its course in the background. In the mean time fans should get on with the job of getting behind their teams as neither of them are doing particularly well at the moment.

  72. WHU Kim says:

    Well done Iain for taking this stand. Sheffield United as a club have peddled enough misinformation in the press from day one so if their fans don’t like to see pro West Ham comments on a West Ham blog then tough luck.

    People who post that everyone in the football world hates West Ham and are on Sheffield Utd’s side don’t go to games. They are just people who can log into a computer. I go home and away every week to watch West Ham and not heard a single comment about it. The truth is fans are only concerned about their own clubs and it’s a pity to see such feebleness on the thread. If these fans ever did bother to go to a live game they might see a large flag around the BML with the words ” United we Stand”, for the benefit of posters like Geoff Calladine and Happy Hammer the United refers to West Ham.

  73. Brian Grant says:

    Hi, would someone please explain to me , how other teams commit the same so called crime as West |ham and yet it is ignored, EG: the player Sheffield united loaned to Watford but was stopped from performing when they played against Sheffield. It is a well known fact that several teams in the premier league are guilty of the same actions and yet only we are being punished. Perhaps I am a little thick and missing the point here, for if I am, I am surely not alone, so I think I think we (West Ham United) ought to tell these upstarts to go away and in the most pleasurable of terms.
    Yours most sincerely Brian Grant

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: