What Do You Make of the Tevez Deal?

Ihave been out of radio contact today so I have only just caught up with the news that West Ham and Sheffield United have reportedly agreed an out of court settlement over Sheffield United’s claim for damages over the Tevez affair. It seems that we will be paying them £10 million over five years.

I suppose a deal of this sort was inevtiable but it creates a very bad precedent and leaves a terrible taste in the mouth. It cements Sheffield United’s reputation as our most hated team, I guess.

I think the main thing is that the settlement of this dispute means that it will be easier for the club’s owners to seek a sale. No one was going to buy us until this was resolved. I suspect that a deal will now go ahead sooner rather than later.

What’s your view?

Advertisements

109 Responses to What Do You Make of the Tevez Deal?

  1. the headmaster says:

    10 million in today’s world of football is a drop in the ocean.
    I know that there will be those that come on here and resent paying the northerners a penny – and I do see that point of view. However, compared to the outrageous claims they initially made and the potential impact on our club, this feels like a victory to me.
    coyi

  2. Dominic says:

    I still think we should not pay a penny. Why is it that sheffield went down cause of tevez an not cause they handled the ball in the box in their last game? Remenber they were 1-0 up and safe till thay conceded a stupid penalty.
    Didn’t we already pay a 5 million fine for our irregularities?
    What about the FA? if there was something irregular they should have noticed when processing the registration. Why won’t the FA pay sheffield instead?
    With 10 million we can get a centre forward that scores 15-20 goals a season.

  3. devo says:

    its going to be the start of a lot of disgruntled other teams who are looking for they pound of flesh,its opened a real can of worms,any tom dick and harry will want a cut

  4. richard says:

    according to the times tomorrow its 25m, and the evening standard tonight 15m. either way we could probably have bought him for that in the first place, and then sold him to the mancs for a huge profit. i’m just glad the saga is almost over.

  5. Darren Williams says:

    I have just read from Newsnow that the Times are saying that it is in fact 10 million now and then a further 15 million over the next five years. Hope thats not the case.

  6. HornchurchIron says:

    Make that £25M according to the Mail & Times.
    I’m finished with Premier League football.

  7. Peter says:

    The Times are reporting total cost to West Ham will be £25m – £10m now and further £15m over next 5 years.

  8. DICEY says:

    I AM TOTALLY LIVID. THAT LORD GRIFFITHS SHOULD BE HUNG DRAWN A QUARTERED AND I WOULD DO IT NO PROBLEM. HE IS A F****** W***** THIS IS NOT RIGHT PAYING THESE SCUMBAGS MONEY WHEN ITS THEIR ON FAULT. THAT THEY HAVE A SHIT TEAM AND GOT RELAGATED.THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.THIS IS GOING TO OPEN A BIG CAN OF WORMS.CRASH AND BURN MCCABE YOU WEASEL.HOPE YOU DIE SOON.

  9. Goatygav says:

    Glad it’s all over.

    COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. Trappisto says:

    It’s a mixed feeling for me, as I’m sure it is for most people on here – on one hand I’m pleased that it’s finally going to get resolved, and the danger of us having to pay out a ridiculous amount is over (and thus the danger of it bankrupting us or somesuch), but on the other hand I’m annoyed that we’re paying out as I don’t really feel we should be.

    Still, I guess if this puts it to bed then it’s all well enough. The board need to go on a real charm offensive now though via the media as our reputation has been hit by all of this. A few years ago I’d get plenty of ‘Oh, I like West Ham and want to see them do well’ from neutrals, but now it’s ‘West Ham are cheats and I hope they get what’s coming to them’ or whatever. I don’t really think we’ve done anything wrong, and I hate the club being perceived in that way.

  11. Old Biddy says:

    This whole saga just sums up modern day football for me……….money money money!!! a club gets relegated because over 38 games they were nt good enough to stay in the division,then on a technicality they sense finacial gain and BANG! they do anything to get there reward!….WHAT WILL THEY DO WITH 10 MILLION???..WHAT BENEFIT WILL THERE CASH PAYING FANS GET????…NOWT!.its going to compensate the players and staff that were not good enough to stay in the prem….look after number one Mr McCabe!!!

  12. phil says:

    Really disappointed, yet not surprised. I’m sure that on a practical level, with a buyer needed sooner rather than later, it is necessary to resolve anything that might delay a purchase. On the other hand it looks like an acceptance of the verdict. Perhaps I was still optimistic enough to think that the PL/FA investigation would undermine the Lord Griffths tribunal. I am still really angry that after winning only one of their legal attempts, Sheffield Utd are going to get a large payout through such a dubious judgment.

  13. Colin says:

    No one can make an informed comment unles they have read the small print and have full knowledge of all the facts.

    With that said, generally speaking, this will create legal arguments and law suits. What happens when a team fields a weak team to rest players – law suits?

  14. Verbal Volley says:

    I feel like I’ve been mugged. McCabe has definitely been persistent, shown no shame, cried like a baby in public and played on the Underdog mentality that passes for ‘fair play’ in this country. Would have been good to have seen him left with nothing, that would have been REAL justice….

    But… BG is obviously trying to sell the club as soon as he can before all his debts get called in Iceland, without dropping to a bargain Quick Sale price, so sorting it out sooner rather than later was probably a no brainer for him, and it is a relatively small amount, spread over a few years. Once again, the only winners will be the lawyers. At least the blunts haven’t exactly won anything that will change their situation, maybe we can do a deal whereby they get Boa Morte, Neill and Faubert in lieu of the cash….

    It really is just a shame that, although we are not blameless, thanks to McCabe and his greedy tears, we have been branded cheats and that will stay with us for a long time to come yet.

    If it’s true that what goes around comes around, McCabe has a tidal wave of shit heading his way… I hope he loses everything and the blunts never see the top flight again

  15. James says:

    Sod it, We certainly showed up McCabe with his £45 Million estimation, It just shows to the other clubs that we can defend ourselves quite well when others try to hoodwink us.

    Although, I am quite worried about that Spud fan Lord Griffiths and the position he holds, I can certainly see a points deduction coming our way with him at the helm, so all I can say is, GRIFFITHS OUT, GRIFFITHS OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. Dave says:

    Having written at length (In other publications)regarding this, what seems to be, ‘very’ biased solution – seemingly throughout its ‘entire’ and protracted period; I have now come to an extemely blunt conclusion.

    That is, apart from concealing myself outside Brammall Lane, behind a ‘grassy knoll’ sporting a Barret 50 Cal, scope and silencer, with a picture of K.McCabe indelibly etched in me neuron box.

    The question I have to ask myself first is: Would I have wanted West Ham Utd to pay £10 – £15 million (The equivalent to the compo figure) to sign Carlos Tevez ‘before’ this tumult transpired and thus nullify the ludicrous situation?

    When, in retrospect, I consider the end or last six games of that season, where, without denigration of the rest of the team, Carlos Tevez (And Robert Green!) were incredibly influential in our resulting Premiership status, I think my answer would have to be a resounding NO!

    Yes, No! You read correctly. Infact, I’m absolutely certain of it!

    Yep! conversely, I would have paid double; no, triple for the little fellow’s services – as long as that is if Mascherano accompanied him on a free with Rigor in the opposing direction!!!

    Yep! Worth every bloody penny Imho! chuckle!

    All The Best D.J.E

  17. Stringer Bell says:

    The Times are now running an article that states we will be paying the old blunts £25M.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article5904470.ece

    I sincerely hope this is bullshit.

    The blunts do not deserve a penny.

  18. kall says:

    Gutted They do what they want and no action . It was on the su web site that they had a third party deal why no action ? What am i missing ? Im sick , screw them . Thank god for Zola and Clark come on u irons !

  19. Paul says:

    The whole thing stinks, and the judgement was flawed , and we could go on and on ,on so many points and be vindicated .However my real anger is not even directed towards Kevin McCabe and Sheffield United ,but the previous hierachy at the Boleyn Ground .It’s laughable in the extreme that Scott Duxbury should not only have kept his job but have been PROMOTED after the original fiasco when we got fined 5.5 million .West Ham United football club owe it to every single supporter to pursue Messers Terry Brown ,Paul Aldridge and Duxbury to the gates of hell if nescessary to get every penny lost through their negilence,greed and sure incompetence which has tarnished the reputation of our great club .Maybe BG should ask Kevin McCabe for his legal briefs telephone no’s because his were clearly better than ours !

  20. Tevezgate says:

    In the context of buying Loonyberg out of his contract for 6m this seems about right. The main thing is we stay where we belong, and Shitfield Utd will continue on to where they belong, i.e. non league footy sooner rather than later.

    COYI !!

  21. SJ Chandos says:

    The Daily Mail online has been verey funny today. At 9.40am the compensation figure was reported as 10m, at 2pm it was 15m and now it is 25m!!!! They know jack shit about the actual terms of the settlement, but are racking it up put it in the worst possible light for the Hammers.

  22. SJ Chandos says:

    They are right though to keep it out of the hands of Griffths and his kangeroo court!

  23. malcontent says:

    It seems ten million is only the upfront figure, compensation over the next few years will amount to somewhere in the region of 25 million. Sick about the whole affair, Duxbury out.

  24. Kim says:

    Of course they don’t deserve a penny but, if it means the press will shut up about it then it is worth £10m. I would like to know the figure but I know it will be the usual ‘undisclosed sum’ if there is anything on the website.

    It does make me think that a buyer has been found though and they can now proceed to the due diligence bit of the proceedings. We will see.

  25. ironsmith says:

    In todays’ world I see too much of the ‘rewards of failure’ and it is particularly distasteful when it happens and the club you have supported for 49 years is directly involved as a victim. The FA/PL should continue their inquiry but change their objectives to seeking the answer as to why Griffiths arrived at such a ridiculous conclusion. The only positive is that the 2 clubs are where they should be right now Hammers- Premier Class, Blades- Championship and we can now move on to much better things!

  26. Mikef says:

    If it is around £10 mil over 5 years, the settlement will not bankrupt us (although I never really thought it would – until Griffiths came along that is!) But at the same time I look at what SUFC did;

    – appealling the original EPL ruling,
    – losing two legal appeals, which should have got them fined for bringing the game into disrepute,
    – Kabba, whatever SUFC say was exactly the same law breached.
    – Morgan’s elbow on the Barnsley forward ,who might never play again

    and I ask myself where is the justice? If there is any justice SUFC will now be fined for all the above.

    All that remains is to go after the previous owners for back to back compensation. Roll on a new owner and let’s put this saga to bed once and for all.

    Mikef

  27. Shropshire Hammer says:

    A crazy episode hopefully coming to an end. As others have stated we were not blameless and if the boot was on the other foot we may have also pursued the same line as SU. If anything I think, once again, that the media (particularly the Daily Fail) has whipped up quite a campaign against us, as this type of controversy sells papers. Final thought is that at the end of the day, money, not justice, rules the day. Just like everything else in our world.

  28. simo says:

    from 45 million to agree on 10 million payment over five years, funny as, just shows how bloody stupid those northern divs are to be honest, good work west ham, scott duxbury must be laughing his balls off.

  29. Vingt-deux says:

    Well said ‘Verbal Volley’!

    “The Underdog mentality that passes for ‘fair play’ in this country” …. which may I say is rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

  30. WHTID says:

    sorry to burst the bubble lads but its worse then 10 mill ………………
    The Daily Mail are reporting that the Hammers will actually pay the Yorkshire club approximately £25million in the form of a bond over the next four or five years in a bid to end the clubs’ wrangle over the eligibility of the Argentina forward to play in East London during the 2006-07 season. The Times are in agreement over the sum, but they think it involves £10million up front.

  31. Jolly says:

    To be honest, like a lot of fans i’m feckin livid at the thought that we’ve paid a single penny, let alone the £25m that is being reported this morning. I think it sets a realy sad precedent for the future and shows that the ‘Where there’s blame, there’s a claim’ culture is now epidemic in all walks of life – including sport. If you fail with your first appeal, try again. Fail again, keep trying and trying, becasue you can fail a 100 times – you only need to win once!
    The facts will always show that Sheff Utd were relegated simply because they were unable to beat Wigan on the last day of the season and threw away a 10pt lead in the final run in – the blame MUST be laid squarly and wholely on the shoulders of the players and the manager. This pay out simply washes away the blame from them and will, in all probability, make them sporting martyrs in their fans eyes – bullied, beaten and eventualy killed off by big boys who cheated.
    The only miniscule positive i can find in this ‘compromise’ is that it would appear to indicate the very soon sale of the club – i would suggest that the potential new owners want a clean piece of paper when they take control and have assured BG that they will part-compensate him for this payout.
    It all leaves a very sour taste and one we should never, ever forgive Sheff Utd, Lord Griffiths or the FA for.
    The new WHUFC top ten of hate looks like this for me:
    10 Craig Bellamy
    9 Jermiane Defoe
    8 Keith Hackett
    7 Paul Ince
    6 Lord Griffiths
    5 Kevin McCabe
    4 Sheff Utd + fans
    3 Fat Frank
    2 Tottenham
    1 Millwall

  32. 10no6 says:

    My mum always says “God pays his debts without money” so with that warming thought Snivel United shall be enjoying the fizzy pop league for a while yet. Greedy Guts McC…

    If it means we can move forward and a new buyer comes in to provide Zola the stability we need to build a great football team then so be it, we are already a great football club.

  33. 10no6 says:

    Sorry WHITD I need a better source than the Daily Mail to believe we would have settled OOC for 25m. I think the club should tell us and tell us straight. According to the Mail we are responsible for the crucifixion, all major European wars and the French pox, so I will take what they say with a big pinch of salt

    Come on you Irons

  34. Pig hater says:

    Very annoying outcome. Your comment “this cements Sheffield United as a most hated club” is spot on.

    Let’s face it, its not as if Fulham or Wigan or whoever would have followed a similar course of action is it?

  35. WHTID says:

    10no6 fair play mate……… agree with you but they will only sugar coat it. i tell you what i would love to get money grabbing snivel utd in the cup, just to well better not say what we should do with them!!!!!!!!!!!! COYI…. west ham till i die UTD UTD UTD

  36. E1 says:

    Out of court settlement is the best way to sort this for both clubs as neither,had it gone to court would be sure to get the verdict. Even if the figure is 25mill you could say we have got off light(not that we should have to pay anything IMHO)and sheffi nited got more than they would have in court.
    The main thing is hopefully that is the end of it and we are PL they are fizzy pop and long may they rot there. Funny how the 25 mill is the same figure as the blunts debt mcCabe not putting the team building 1st then?
    The new buyer who ever now I am sure won’t see paying 2 to 5 mill a year as to big a problem once it is written in the budget and in small bits ain’t going to help the blunts much on the player front.
    All in all a good deal for the irons and more now for us to look forward to
    COYI!!!!!!!!!!!

  37. jon.london colney says:

    10/15/25 mill? come on please!does this not say exactly what we all know already? THEY DONT KNOW HOW MUCH IT IS! its pure guess work on the jurno’s behalf.
    when west ham release a statement then we will know.
    i cant wait for the day we play them disgusting northern money grabbing scum again.

  38. Scalyback says:

    If true, this really annoys me on several counts:-
    1. It was brought about by the judgement of a kangaroo court, not a court of law, and without the right to appeal which is in stark contrast to the way SUFC faired with appeal after appeal, although they lost on all or nearly all counts. This must be contrary to natural justice.
    2. How can anyone determine that one player was the difference between relegation & staying up? The statistics of games with & without Tevez even show we were better without him.
    3. What benefit did West Ham gain by having a player who could be sold without their agreement? I accept that we probably breached the rules technically, but what effect did this have on the pitch?
    Having said all this, I am glad it will be settled & we can move on. I just hope that justice prevails in the latest farcical investigation.I cant wait until we play SUFC next; but hopefully they will not get promoted & this will be a long time coming.

  39. Roymondo says:

    I don’t think that we will ever know the actual figure as both clubs will probably issue a joint statement where no numbers are mentioned at all. And that’s almost certainly the best way of doing it.
    This will not, of course, stop our revered brethren in the Fourth Estate from continuing to make up figures which, almost certainly, will be inflated to prove to them selves that West Ham got what they deserve. Come in, Harry Harris……..
    If the agreed amount is paid over five years (which seems about the only constant in all of the stories doing the rounds) it will be a good deal for us given that we can’t get away without some form of payment, however much we might disagree with it.
    Once the agreement is ratified the club can move on as it will take all of the doubt away. Whether this means a sale to new owners or the current hierarchy staying is not that important as long as the decision is the right one for the club.
    Outside of the Tevez affair, we have seen a large amount of stabilisation in the past few months and we don’t want to lose that. New owners could – just could – de-stabilise things as money and sense don’t always seem to go together in football.

  40. 10no6 says:

    Cheers WHITD I too can’t wait to meet them in a cup and don’t care about the result either!!!

  41. WHTID says:

    10no6 we can but dream ay!!!!! home get them at home if we do i’ll meet you in the queens ay lol!!!!!

  42. MickeyN says:

    The ONLY plus point is that paying up will end this saga. Surely if SU ever had a case (and there’s a big “if”) it must be against the regulators (PL? FA?). After all Tevez was not playing secretly for us under a cloak of invisibility. WHUFC paid a huge fine for the original transgression and thereafter the authorities claimed that they were satisfied that WHUFC had corrected the position. Curbishley recently confirmed that Tevez and co were notified by letter of the termination of the “illegal” part of the deal. And on the often raised issue of why WHUFC were not deducted points when smaller clubs have been, it should be noted that: WHUFC’s “crime” had not occurred before (therefore there was no precedent for a points deduction); the “crime” is common practice throughout the world; and a £5.5million fine would probably bankrupt the smaller clubs who suffered points deductions.

    I am sorry to ramble on with these often repeated arguments – but I am very angry at the sheer injustice of ANY payout to SU and the smugness of the media who report on this. COYI!!

  43. BAC says:

    I doubt whether we’d be reading about an out of court compensation settlement in this matter if it were not for the severe downturn in BG’s fortunes as a consequence of the Icelandic financial meltdown. I’d be surprised if his instincts were not the same as most West Ham fans – fight this injustice as far as possible – and if he were still a billionaire he could easily afford to take a gamble on further legal action.

    But, sadly, he no longer has that option, because he has to sell the club in the near future, so it makes sense from his viewpoint to be pragmatic and do a deal which will remove some of the uncertainty thought to have been deterring potential purchasers. McCabe has been lucky in the timing of the affair, just as he was almost unbelievably lucky with the FA arbitration set up and decision.

    The amount of the financial settlement, whatever that might be, should have little or no detrimental effect on West Ham, its players or supporters, though, because the most probable consequence will simply be for it to reduce the amount of the club’s sale price, which is money that would have been taken out of the club and paid to Hansa’s creditors, anyway.

    What the club has to worry about now is the further kangaroo court set up by the FA and the Premier League, prompted by Lord Griffiths’ interpretation of what was allegedly said between Messrs Duxbury and Shear following the Premier League’s disciplinary decision. If that inquiry follows Griffiths logic, i.e. everything must be viewed in the worst possible light, and no weight can be given to any explanations West Ham might put forward, we can expect to be stuffed yet again.

    I do hope that the fact the financial circumstances have forced West Ham to settle will not be taken as an admission of culpability in respect of ‘post disciplinary panel decision’ events.

  44. danny says:

    i think this is astounding.can we get our 5 mill plus back from the fa then.i wonder how this will affect future dealings in football.there was an unbelievable rumour that twat warnock and some scumbag utd players were gonna sue west ham for loss of earnings.i just hope this now ends it and zola and clark can carry on taking us foward and scum utd can just dissappear back into obscurity.

  45. irontc says:

    I guess the legal team just couldnt risk what that stupid, senile old git (Griffiths) was going to do next.

    ‘A fight for justice and fairness in football’ My F***** A***.

    But its time to move on. A bright new era awaits, a healthy academy, a new owner hopefully if BG has to sell and a big, big wodge of cash for the little Italian to spend in the summer!

    COYI!

  46. hammeredCalv says:

    Will Griffiths the yid push for a points deduction at start of next season so his beloved spurs have a chance of finishing above us ? coz lets face it they didnt last year and not going to this year !!
    this whole thing stinks !

    COYI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  47. upton spark says:

    There are all sorts of speculative amounts being reported but as I understand it,we will pay between 10 and 15 million over the next 5 years,which means it is ONE players wages as a lot of Prem players earn around 3 million a year (£60,000 weekly)roughly speaking.So,instead of having a squad of 25 players we only have 24 players.Not too bad in my oppinion.
    If we stay in the Premiership over the 5 years then this amount will be nothing to a club like West Ham.
    I just hope we learn from the experience and no matter what we think of Sheff Utd,we have been seen to have done something wrong as we are paying an out of court settlement which usually means you adnit guilt and don’t want all the legal costs on top so you accept defeat gracefully and walk away.
    There are bound to be those who say we should not pay them a bean,but let’s move on now and hope we get Sheff Utd in a Cup competition soon and wipe the floor with them.”COME ON YOU IRONS”.

  48. D&G says:

    The dinner bell has been well and truely rung! Wait for Fulham, Wigan and Boro to step forward and say ‘hey if they can earn a cool 10million for playing bad all season thus getting relegated then so can we’

    Because of this they are actually well within their right to do so as well. Bloody joke we shouldn’t of handed a single penny to them monkies!

    Paying up proves your guilt if you don’t believe me ask Michael Jackson!

  49. Tony says:

    Somehow these sort of thing seem to go on and on, I hope its all over and only 10mill but I have a very strange feeling that this is not the end of it!! Hope im wrong. Really hate that our club has to pay at first 5 mill and now 10, for not doing there homework and not having some decent legal team that had the ball to say ” no way r we doing any underhand/illeagal/braking the rules crappy deals” I also hope we and many others in football have learned from this sorry saga.Doubt it.

  50. I am glad it’s all over to be honest. If we had gone to court to battle it out, the whole saga could have dragged on for years. This would of course meant more negative press for us and over a long duration, not good.

    Also I think we have been very clever here, as paying them off over a five year period helps with our cashflow, it enables us to keep the players we have and not have to sell players(s) to fund the fine. I dread to think what Lord Griffith could have subjected us to next week. I am glad it’s over.

  51. Rob says:

    a lot of people think its a good deal, i for one completely disagree. we do NOT owe them a penny i wouldnt have given anything to those bastards.

    explain to me this…..

    they play wigan, at home on the last day of the season. a win, or draw if i remember would have kept them up. they lost. correct me if im wrong but i dont think tevez had f*** all to do with that game so it is utter blx we are giving them money.

    this is gunna have a bad ripple effect on football and im absolutely disgusted

  52. clack says:

    A lot of people forget that the original punishment was not just for breaking the 3rd party influence rule, but for deliberately witholding documents and lying about it to Prem league.

    (the breakdown of the fine 3 million for the lying, and 2.5 for breaking 3rd party influence rule – the lying was the greater offence).

    It then appears that after the first commission’s verdict, Scott Duxbury lied and deceived the Prem league again, so that Tevez could play in those last 3 games. That is unbelievable and unnaceptable in my opinion.

    I think there’s more to this that we don’t know about.
    If it was just ‘oral cuddles’, why don’t we contest that more vigirously?

    I used to try and defend WHU and argue our case, but when the later information came to light, regarding the deal struck with Joorabchian to allow Tevez to play in last 3 games, I found our case undefendable.

    We are not victims in my opinions. We consistently lied to the Prem league.

    Carlos Tevez did have a big influence on those last 3 games, and that does have a lot to do with Sheff U getting relegated.

    If Tevez shouldn’t have been playing in those last 3 gamnes because the 3rd party agreement with Joorabchian still existed, then I can understand Sheff U’s position – their argument is that over the course of the season they accumulated enough points and did well enough to avoid relegation under normal circumstances, and only went down because one of their direct competitors lied to the Prem league to enable a highly influential player to play in the last 3 games when he shouldn’t have done.

  53. clack says:

    If we really did nothing wrong and have nothing to hide as Dubury claims, then we should all welcome the new FA/Prem league enquiry.

    They will be investigating the circumstances surrounding the conditions that allowed Tevez to play in the last 3 games more thoroughly than Lord Griffiths I expect..

    In the end, Griffiths just seemed to rely on one man’s evidence, Kia’s lawyer Grahahm Shears and the infamous ‘oral cuddles’ phrase.

    The FA/Prem league need to have this new enquiry as, in effect, the Griffiths verdict, has stated that the Prem league were stitched up by Duxbury to allow Tevez to play in those last 3 games – the FA/Prem leasgue need to get to the bottom of this and found out the truth, because at the moment they have been made to look very silly as it appears WHU lied and broke their rules again, and got away with it, and, arguably, WHU avioided relegation as a result of it.

    WE should welcome the new enquiry because if we really have done nothing wrong then that should clear us, overturn Griffiths verdict – and that would inevitably mean overturning the Sheff U compensation agreement, and not having to pay a penny of it.

    If, however, further evidence does come to light – and there are rumours of an incriminating e-mail etc -and if it does turn out that Griffiths was right, and Duxbury did do a secret deal with Joorabchian, and did lie and deceive the Prem league again, so that Tevez could play in thoselast 3 games, then quite, frankly, we deserve to have the book thrown at us, and deserve every punishment we get.

    All West Ham fans ought to welcome the new enquiry, just to find out the real truth of what happened.

    Personally, I do fear the worst, and that it may well be shown that WHU did lie and decieve again, but at least we might have a clearer picture of what exactly went on.

  54. Johnny B says:

    The Anoraks the man! Get your thinking gear around his comments, and therefore, get the d***’* who are running the club? out asap!!!! But, keep U’r ‘mince pies’ on the next ‘mob’ who are coming in!

  55. Rob says:

    clack you f****** idiot i couldnt give a s*** if we broke rules why should we pay sheffield unt. that logic goes to say we should be forking out money to all prem clubs for NO F****** REASON AT ALL.

    i cant believe what im reading.

  56. E1 says:

    johnny B: Excellent DICK van Dyke impression

  57. chey fitz says:

    Well lets be honest, we were never going to get a result with this it was always matter of how much and when, lets just hope the sale goes through before the FA/Premier league investigations so they don’t do anything stupid like dock points for next season

    We hope the powers at west ham especially mr duxbury have full coverage for his alleged “Oral cuddles” and that next season this will be a knightmare story to recall down the pub with your mates post game

    As for Sheffield and our good friend Mr McCabe may the money buy him and his team nothing but misery and heartbreak.

    you never know he might spend the money on K dyer and Craig bellamy

  58. Daithi02 says:

    What a load of crap. Give give mac greed nothing. We already paid 5million. Guess the 20ish million will come off the 100 asking price. So by gets the cash he paid back. SU are scum and deserve to get nothing. The points deduction is a major worry could put us in a delegation scrap.

  59. Tevezgate says:

    FFS, I am seething! The BBC didn’t even put up our goal v. Wigan for Goal Of The Month… bunch of merchant bankers. Proves once and for all that they’ve bought into the biased media circus over the Tevez affair. ****s

  60. SJ Chandos says:

    Tevezgate, I was watching for that, but the Wigan match was in March? That was BBC goal of the month for February, I think?

  61. SJ Chandos says:

    Clack’s concern for clarity and transparency is admirable. But it ignores the fact that other clubs have clearly broken third party influence rules and have effectively got away with it. It is only West Ham that are being pursued by an obcessed FA, driven by Triesman’s agenda to enter in to a power struggle with the PL. Would they be so keen to pursue these issues if it was Man Utd? Course not, they run a mile from conflict with the likes of them. West Ham have a right to expect fair and equal treatment from the English football authorities. They are clearly not receiving it.

    Are you really a West Ham fan Clack? If you are, I have to say that with supporters like you who needs enemies?

  62. SJ Chandos says:

    Clack is right about one thing though, the undue emphasis that Griffths put on Shear’s testimony. However, this is a pattern that runs throughout the Griffths Tribunal hearing. Why put such emphasis upon Henry Winter’s views, why emphasis Gary Lineker’s scripted punch lines on Match of the Day, and why place any importance on Graham Taylor’s opinions?

    The truth is that the Griffths Tribunal was not fair and impartial. Consciously or unconsciously the Tribunal had absorbed months of pro-Sheffield Utd propagenda from the media. This clearly influenced the Tribunal’s final decision, there is no other explanation why they would reach the conclusion that they did?

    Indeed, by the time of the Griffths Tribunal the dissemination of pro-Sheffield Utd propaganda was so widespread and dominant that it was doubtful that West Ham could ever have received a fair hearing. And that is the way that it transpired!

  63. SJ Chandos says:

    Man Utd exercised third party influence over Everton’s selection of Tim Howard and Sheffield Utd did likewise with Watford on Kabba and Charlton on Springer. Yet, none of these cases were proven because they were ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ with no written clauses in contracts. That is exactly the same situation with regard to Duxbury’s alleged ‘oral cuddles’with Shear.

    There are no e-mails (if there were they would have surfaced by now), any taped evidence collected without Duxbury’s prior knowledge is inadmissable as it contravenes his right to privacy (under the Human Rights Act 1998) and there is copious existing documented evidence that West Ham followed PL instructions to the letter. The only conclusion that they can logically reach is there is no evidence to substantiate Griffths’ allegations.

  64. James says:

    Clack, We did’nt lie, Duxbury just misplaced the documents Lol!!

    Bearing in mind the £5.5 million fine we had from the EPL I would hope that no further action would take place, although looking at Bournemouth, Luton and Leeds etc it just goes to show how heavy handed the FA are in terms of Point deductions!

    Griffiths should take note from FIFA who could’nt give a rats arse about it, enough said!

  65. bill says:

    I can’t believe we didn’t challenge the original FA Premiership rules when all this first came out, even an FA spokesman has even said this a while back in television interview. So why didn’t we challenge it, thats what I want to know !

  66. Richard says:

    I am pleased this is over. I just hope that ex players don’t come forward to try and get money out of the club!!. But it does mean the owner can sale the club.! I agree with others they went down because they had players who were not good enough in the league. But that’s the chairman and manager fault!. not West Ham.!!!
    Now push up the table and get into the top 6.

  67. mokumhammer says:

    By handing over this money, some cynics would say, we were guilty. I’m not sure what of. The blunts were relegated, because they lost 20 games, & not because Tevez played a few games for us

  68. Rob says:

    mokumhammer i could not agree more.

  69. Tevezgate says:

    Ooops, you could be right SJ… beer talking last night 😀

  70. Roshi says:

    First off, it’s a deal made out of court to see through the purchase of West Ham, so in real terms it’s cheap.

    Secondly I would say the original sum 10m is nearer to the truth as an out of court settlement. At 25m you would gamble in court that Sheffield Utd would receive no more than 30m. If Sheffield were after 40m as a claim they would never expect to be awarded that in court and of course it could have gone against them. The max they would have been awarded after our submissions to the court would have been about 15m-20m, so as they say “a bird in the hand..”

  71. jpt says:

    No points deduction.
    Good enough result.

  72. D. McCailey says:

    I’ve read today that it’s 10 mill plus another 15 mill in bonds over 5 years.

    Either way, it won’t bankrupt us but could be a pain in the neck for a few years. However, with the new policy of buy ’em young, we already have the makings of a decent team for the coming years.

    TBH, I just want the whole thing finished and to go a long long long way away. Forever. Just hope this new FA investigation isn’t going to keep going on.

    And I agree this will hopefully enable a new buyer to be found, although I hope whoever it is this ‘football project’ doesn’t change as I like the sound of it.

  73. James says:

    jpt, How do you know that there will be no points deduction then?

    I thought the FA and PL were going to have a seperate investigation, because of that Spud A**E Lord Griffiths!!

    Don’t know about anyone else in here but I am still quite worried about what the outcome of that investigation might be! Remember they hit Leeds, Luton and Bournmouth very hard with points deductions!

    My fingers are crossed until the start of next season!

  74. the headmaster says:

    SJC – clack is most assuredly a west ham united supporter, take it from me and Johnny B who have both identified who this is.
    Mr Clack is far from an idiot Rob. I tend to agree with those who question some of his interpretation which does read at times like a statement from McCabe’s legal team. After all, so much of what has transpired is open to interpretation, I can’t quite see the point in trotting out the most negative angle from a west ham perspective. However, Mr Clack is a very clever and deep thinker whom I respect a lot and I do hope and pray that his darker predictions prove to be wrong. Has he got me worried tho; somewhat.

  75. phil says:

    I don’t see how the new investigation can come up with anything new. It’s surely purely on the basis of what Shear said, otherwise it would have been mentioned in the final ruling. Seeing as the reason the PL did nothing to Sheff Utd regards Kabba was because it was a verbal agreement (which they admitted on their website), rather than in writing, I don’t see how they can take further action against us on the basis of a discussion between Duxbury and Shear. This is why I wish we had held out longer and I think we would have if BG didn’t need to sell up quick. Not that I expect fair treatment anymore. We’ve been a scapegoat for everyone else to point to in order to make themselves look clean and feel better. I don’t like what Duxbury did, and part of me feels like Clack, but don’t see the likes of McCabe or Whelan or Ferguson or Harry etc as any better.

  76. James says:

    Phil, I feel more at ease after you said that about Kabba.

    On the take over aparently “thegeneralmuz” has some information! He seems to know a lot apparently!

  77. E1 says:

    Looks like Tristan could be starting up front with DDM I think zola has little choice really we need a big fella up there to hold the ball Just hope he has got his first touch back.
    I am not sure on the midfield I would rather see spector on the right to help neil out with parker and kovac middle and savio wide left. After all the weekends results we must win this one to keep the presure on those around us.

  78. SJ Chandos says:

    Ok Headmaster, I will take your word for it. Apologies to Clack. I would not normally dream of questioning fellow Hammers fans alliegances, I just found his arguments rather strange, but if that is his genuine views on the Tevez issue then he has a perfect right to express it!

  79. SJ Chandos says:

    My friendly Polish taxi driver informs me that our summer transfer target, Paul Brozek, was stretchered off on Saturday with a knee injury, a la Berhami and Collison. Apparently he is currently having scans, but the initial medical prognosis is that he could be out for up to 6 months!

    Oh well, at least he got injured before he signed for us! Here’s wishing him a complete and speedy recovery.

    The press were relatively quite about West Ham this week. The references to the Tevez settlement expressed a common relief that the whole protracted issue was finally over. Congratulations to the hacks for finally showing a sense of proportion that they should have demonstrated when Sheffield Utd originally started crying foul over their richly deserved relegation! It’s better late than never I suppose.

    However, a special Chandos goes to Mr Calvin in the Sunday Mirror for berating Sheffield Utd for losing the moral high ground (did they ever have it?) by taking their blood money. He feels that Sheffield Utd should have held out for their day in court (even though it was a Tribunal hearing and not a court case). Could it be that there is a sense of dissatisfaction, lurking behind the admirable critique of the Blades’ morals, that Lord Griffths was denied the opportunity to finish the job on West Ham and take them for the full 45m?

    However, the most off the wall peice was in the Sunday Star, which reported that Solicitors acting for the Sheffield Utd players had given West Ham a specified deadline by which to cough up £3.5m compensation for their clients alleged loss of earnings. Yeah right, the term ‘take a running jump’ comes to mind! lol.

  80. Per3z says:

    Hi people… I’m a hammers fan from Singapore, been supporting the team for about 9 years now, since the DiCanio (love him!) days.

    I think the Tevezgate problem has been going on far too long for comfort… and that this out-of-court settlement seems like our best option.

    However, I do agree with Clack… if we did nothing wrong, there’s nothing to hide.

    I think that privately, we might still have to get to the bottom of this: Scott Duxbury remains at our club, and although his partnership with Nani and Zola is bringing great dividends, I think he needs to stand up and take the buck should it be proven that he was guilty of wrongdoing.

    If he really did it, he should owe up. And if he does, maybe, just maybe, we can work a way out for a second chance. (I’m actually quite impressed with the recent transfers. Kovac, Savio, Illunga and DiMichele represent fantastic value for money)

  81. hammeredCalv says:

    James — there was an artical in the observer about our proposed English led consortium buying the club ! i wonder if it has anything to do with TC again ??

  82. Chicken Runner says:

    The “influence” was that the owner had the right to sell Tevez during the January or Summer transfer windows. Therefore whether we cancelled the contract for the final three games or not doesn’t make one iota of difference. We have been well and truly stitched up.

  83. CC says:

    An out of court settlement always smells of guilt by the party being sued… and thats the way this whole saga will be remebered if/when we do agree this settlement.

    The judgement itself was horse-sh*t and belied any indication of any sporting knowledge whatsoever. Coming to a “definitive” conclusion that one player can categorically acrrue 3 points on a teams’ behalf – and without reasonable, or any, doubt at all is an insult to every sport, individual, team and sporting organisation all over the world.

    As for the settlement, I’d give them nothing, nada, not an overcooked dirty rotten brown Irish sausage… like I say, its all but admitting guilt and additional liability and thats not how I’d like this to end…

    And as for them rotten sh*ggers – to lose every case/appeal for compensation until this final binding one smells and grinds like an overused jacks bowl on a rat infested cess-pit in the deepest darkest hovel on the planet. I hope and pray nightly they turn into the next Luton Town and head for obscurity in the not too distant future.

  84. clack says:

    Deep thinker!!! – Headmaster!! Ha,ha!!

    You must have some right thickies at your school, then!!

    But, seriously, I was aware my comments probably wouldn’t go down to well.

  85. thegeneralmuz says:

    hammeredcalv,reading the observer now?i mentioned yesterday the english consortium,hoping tabor is involved tc is defo,you out for a pint tonite?

  86. clack says:

    Chandos (is that a pub just off Cahring Cross Rd, near Traflager Sq, bytheway?).

    But it’s not over yet, is it? – there’s still the FA/Prem league enquiry to come.

    Your points about Kabba and Howard are relevant, but, as you have said yourself, they were ‘gentleman’s agreements’, not conditions of contracts, and, again, the real crime WHU commited is lying, deceiving, deliberately witholding documents when they were specifically asked if there was anymore relevant paperwork, and then lying all over again after the first commssion’s verdict.

    Lying’s no good in sport, or society in general, is it?

    But there was actually a note of postivism amongst my waffle. If we really have done nothing wrong as you, and others on here claim, then that should be realised in the new enquiry.

    I expect new enquiry to be a much more thorough enquiry, and they will look into the circumstances of Tevez’s move to Man U, the token 2 million that Scudamore forced Man U to pay WHU, whcih Kia then sued WHU for, and we settled out of court with him – if they look into all that it will clear up once and for all if the 3rd party agreements still existed.

    Bring it on!

    There is still a lot more to come in my opinion, and this is far from over.

  87. brookings bonce says:

    Here’s the latest news from skysports this morning 🙂

    http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5058069,00.html

    finally it’s over

  88. Nicko says:

    The Blades would sooner be hated by ONE cheating club than the whole football league..

    Mr Duxbury will sleep soundly tonight I think 🙂

    Jellied Eel anyone?

  89. SJ Chandos says:

    Clack, I am afraid I do not know anything about public houses in central London, I do not drink. Is it one that you use? I will look out for it the next time I am in that area, if it bares my name.

    Yes, West Ham admitted lying and withholding documents at the first Tribunal, they were subsequently fined 5.5m for it as you have stated. However, it does not follow, as you seem to suggest, that they then lied a second time. From your post you seem to assume that they did. Surely that has yet to be proven.

    No, it is not over, but it should be because I do not believe that the FA/PL can actually prove West Ham’s guilt. I believe that the emphasise is upon them to prove guilt. As you concede in an ealier post, Griffths placed great store by Shear’s testimony, but there now needs to be some conclusive, supporting evidence. You mentioned previously that evidence in the form of e-mails exist, do you know that for a fact? If they do then that would be more of a concern.

    The thing that really concerns me is that the political context of the Tribunal. It is clear that the FA are using this issue to embarass the PL and put them on the back foot. It is possible that West Ham will be ‘meat in the sandwich’ of a FA/PL power struggle. I still maintain that if Man Utd had been involved in this affair the issue would have been buried long ago. That is unfair because it means that different clubs receive inequitable treatment from football authorities.

    But we shall have to wait and see Clack. We obviously disagree on this issue. However, if the FA/PL can conclusively prove that West Ham misled the authorities a second time, then I will have no problem admitting on here that I was wrong.

  90. Chris Blade says:

    Sheffield United fan here, coming in peace!
    This saga has obviously ranked up the hatred between 2 clubs that previously didn’t share any bad blood and no amount of hand-shaking in boardrooms or even on the football field will change that now.
    I don’t know the ins and outs of all the deals/claims/arbitrations and I haven’t read every piece of small-print on every relevant document, but my personal opinion is that the PL and/or FA have made an almighty mess of this from day one. They have pussy-footed around the issue throughout and it’s ultimately both clubs that have suffered in one way or another. The PL bottled the original decision in favour of getting cold hard cash when they stated something along the lines of “West Ham would normally have been deducted points but as they’re probably going to be relegated we’ll just take some money for the PL Christmas bash”. This has haunted them ever since Tevez scored that goal at Old Trafford and we missed chance after chance at the Lane. I would give that “compensation” back just to see the head of Richard Scudamore on a plate for his negligent role in the whole fiasco.
    Having said all that, on the final day of the season I wasn’t angry at West Ham, Tevez, the PL or the FA. I was furious with Neil Warnock who had overseen our end-of-season decline with some baffling decisions, tactical naivity and (as it came out in his auto-biography) unprofessionalism.
    Hopefully this may change one or two WH opinions of us Blades but as I said before – the hatred will travel in both directions for some time I expect.

  91. SJ Chandos says:

    I am mightily sick of the whole Tevez issue to be honest. I just want it finally concluded to West Ham’s relative satisfaction. Did any take over consortium ever inherit a more toxic, poisoned chalice?

    It is almost as if the Icelandic takeover was doomed from the very beginning. It’s a real shame because I personally feel that BG would have been very good for the club, unlike the previous regime. Lets not forget that BG was not in control of the club when the Tevez/Maschanrano deals were signed. He was just subsequently left to deal with the whole disasterous business.

    Another thing, the newspapers keep talking about West Ham’s £40-45m debt, but where has that come from? When BG took over the club’s £22m debts were wiped out and, unlike other PL club owners, he has not dumped loans on the club, he invested his own money. Did not BG put £30m share capital in to the club only last summer? Perhaps it is just the papers inventing the debt to talk up West Ham’s alleged financial crisis? West Ham must be having the longest running ‘meltdown’in financial history!!!! lol. Even to hardcore ‘financial meltdown’ doom merchants at the Daily Mail have given up on that one.

  92. SwissHammer says:

    http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=628581&sec=england&&cc=5739

    I found this nice little sumamry. I think if you look straight down the middle (which is hard as my heart is claret and blue) this is the fairest summary of the affair i have read.

  93. Claret&bluepoo says:

    What the bloody hell happens if its proved beyond reasonable doubt in the up coming FA / Prem League enquiry that all the paperwork was in order for CT to play in those last three games?

    Can we get the compensation back then?

    Is this just a case of BG’s financial circumstances conspiring to SUFC advantage or having looked at the facts did WHUFC legals brains have litle faith the up coming enquiry prove CT was not legal for those last 3 games.

    If the latter happens then 15mil for retaining Prem status isnt a bad figure is it? Should Duxberry then be appluaded for convincing the Prem League that Tevez could continue to play for us?

    Would we have survived if CT hadnt played in those 3 games?

  94. Mikef says:

    I think once again the media is inventing stories just to out-do each other. Although I have no official evidence I suspect the settlement is £10 mill plus SUFC legal fees – up to £5 mil. The “bond” is nothing more than a guarantee so that new owners cannot renege on whatever has been agreed with BG prior to the sale of the club. What some of us might consider escrow in the old days. We put up the £10 mill which is held by EPL/FA, acceptable bank to both parties. We then get the funds back once the settlement is paid out in full. This is the only logical conclusion I can come to for the widely varying amounts.

    We have Maurice Watkins on our legal team now. Why would he agree to £25mil? Better to have your day in court than sagree to that figure. SUFC were claiming for two years, but no court in the land would allow them to claim for the second year as there is no way they could blame us for not getting promoted, so straight away the claim is halved. Then you factor in the strong rumours; SUFC “conveniently” forgot to include the parachute payments, £11 mil for the 07-08 season. Also missed off was TV money they earned in the 07-08 season. So you realistically end up at about £5-10 mil, which is what I think we paid.

    Yes, everyone will look and say we are guilty but I think the sale of the club was being held up by this procrastination. The risk now is who else is going to come out of the woodwork looking for easy money? Someone mentioned the SUFC players. I am positive a condition of the settlement would have been no further claims from SUFC.

    I am not worried about another inquiry, in fact I look forward to it as it MUST encompass all the other third party deals which came to light – Howard, Kabba and Springer, and we all know that ManU can do no wrong, so nothing to fear.
    Mikef

  95. brooking still the best says:

    By paying this have we admitted we cheated? It sure looks like that to me and i wear claret and blue tinted glasses. I am gutted. What ever Scott Duxbury say’s, he has just sold the club out.

  96. Tevezgate says:

    Mr McCabe said: Mr McCabe said: “We are happy and satisfied with the settlement with West Ham. Throughout the finalisation of the terms for the agreement, the discussions were friendly, co-operative and in the best of spirit with both the Blades and Hammers advisory teams.

    “We are two clubs with a fantastic footballing history who now want to move on and focus on the business of playing football – hopefully for us against the Hammers in the Premier League next season. We look forward to a positive ongoing relationship with West Ham at all levels.”
    ______________________________________________________

    I feel SICK

  97. clack says:

    This is the Chandos pub:

    http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/65/657/

    St.Martin’s Lane, just off Charing Cross Rd.

    Been there for years, good old traditional pub

  98. clack says:

    Chandos,

    I suggest the debt comes from things like Ljungburg, Dyer, Ashton (renewed contract), Neil, Quashie fees and wages, plus out of court settlements with Joorabchian, Terance Brown, Chelsea (over Clarke), and Sheff U.

    I’m no financial expert, but I thought it was pretty well known that Gudmundsson did not put any of his own money into the club, but set up holding companies, which took out loans, guaranteed against his banks and other businesses, which are now bust.

    OK, in theory, it is the holding company that has the debt, and not West Ham United, thankfully!

    But he still wants the new owners to pay off the holding companies debts and loans.

  99. clack says:

    Chandos,

    Mo, I don’t know if an e-mail, or other incriminating evidence exists – as I said, there are rumours, that’s all.

    Like youself, I don’t care for the Daily Mail very much – infact, I can’t stand the Nazi propaganding hypocrites! – but it’s clear sportsmail do have sources, agents probably, outside of West Ham, that have been right on issues regarding our club over last year, or so:

    eg. – the mail broke the Ljungburg pay-off story,
    – they were first with Anton to Sunderland story,
    – and their specualtion that Curbishley was about to be pushed out/ resign a few days before it actually happened, was also spot on.

    Personally, I think they have a source from someone close to Joorabchian (that’s why their updates on the Griffiths trial, and prediction of Sheff U victory proved correct aswell), and they were also banging on for a long time before WHU and Joorabchian settled out of court, that Joorabchian was in possession of an incriminating piece or evidence. Who knows?

  100. clack says:

    Even Jason Burt in the Independent is suggesting the final compensation package is a lot higher than the 10 million he first reported??

    ….-The settlement, the terms of which will remain confidential, is understood to be more than West Ham had hoped to pay but far less than the £45m being demanded by the Blades who have agreed to drop any further legal action. By paying it over five years, West Ham, however, can afford the settlement-….

    Full article: (from saturday):

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/west-ham-to-offer-zola-sweetened-deal-1644809.html

    Most of the papers seem to be going with an overall figure of around 25 million.

  101. Keith Holland says:

    Quite apt that Pards should use the term raped on MotD
    That is how most Hammers fans probably feel – and now that SU players, led by hypocrite Warnock, are asking for their payout, it may get worse.
    Look forward to receiving my season ticket renewal – where will I get a mortgage to pay it ?

  102. Tony says:

    Told you this sage wont go away. Mangers, players , chairmen even the boot cleaner at D&R will b after his or hers half-penney now we have as good as admitted we will pay for a mistake. Everyone wonts a piece of us. Sad day for football.

  103. james says:

    can’t believe SUFC have the nerve to say our relationship is still intact and they look forward to being able to loan our players!!!!! i’ll be disgusted if any of our players go there, unless they bang in a few own goals a game.

  104. Claret&bluepoo says:

    Just heard Chris Somik from IPS Law, the lawyer representing Sheff Utd staff current / former who wish to sue WHUFC, talking to Five Live.

    The presenter, forgot his name sorry, made a good point regarding the the players who joined other Premier League clubs following Sheff Utds relegation asking if they had the right to sue for loss of earnings because they actually wouldn’t have been afected. The lawyer replied they were still entitled to their bonuses. Im not being funny but surely these particular highly payed players can live without those bonuses, the fee this lawyers stands to earn, win or lose, well thats a different matter isn’t it.

    The presenter also made the point that can these staff sue WHUFC if there contract was with SUFC. Perhaps they should sue the Premier League for not ensuring that the paperwork was all in order regarding Carlos playing those last 3 games, after all, as the leagues ruling body is that not a failure of there responsibility to member clubs? It may be squeaky bum time for Mr Scudamore……..

    Is was surprised to hear the lawyer say that he expects WHUFC to agree that this matter can go to arbitration howver, why would WHUFC agree to that?

    He also mentioned that WHUFC had been set a deadline to give their response.

    Will this ever go away you have to wonder.

  105. irontc says:

    I hope to God that Duxbury and the board know what they are doing on this settlement business. If not, we could really be in the brown stuff.

    There must be some kind of solid / in writing evidence that WHUFC lied a second time to the Prem.

  106. Piers Read says:

    Iain, do you or anybody else in the press world have a direct / second hand link to Scott Duxbury or West Ham’s PR?? The club MUST make a further statement soon or insist the Premier League make a statement to clearly define what everyone at West Ham knows, but no one outside the club seems to understand, which is the FACT that West Ham DID succesfully register Tevez to play and that the entire issue / compensation payment to Sheff Utd is based purely on the technicality of 3rd party ownership ONLY.

    Does anyone think Kia secretly influenced Tevez to do anything other than to do what he was paid to do – score goals for West Ham? The answer is no, so clearly there was no untoward 3rd party influence. This uncomfortable fact needs to be forced down everyone’s throats. I’m sick and tired of this bullshit from our Northern Friends who do no understand this fact, so also do not see how McCabe has hoodwinked everyone, including that pratt Lord Griffiths, into believing a technicality in Tevez’s registeration actually contributed to Sheff United relagtion over their 38 games that season.

    I think it is essential the club and the Premier League reiterate this FACT because now more so than ever, it seems we are be labelled as cheats.

  107. Scalyback says:

    There is a really interesting and well written piece in the Daily Mail ( yes, I know it is hard to believe!) which is frightening!

    Heres a link to it (I hope)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1162842/MARTIN-SAMUEL-II-Relegation-Lawyers-4U-winners-Tevez-ruling.html

  108. Paul Williams says:

    Ken Bates is wading in now as well:

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/article-23663714-details/Bates+could+give+Blades+a+taste+of+their+own+medicine/article.do

    Who next? Sheffield United’s shirt manufacturers, the sponsors, the club’s pie makers…?

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: