During the 2006/2007 season, the Hammers fielded Carlos Tevez who was an ineligible player.
That is simply not true. Learn the facts before opening your ignorant mouth. Oh, and your website is shite.
-Dan
SUFC
· 1 year ago
Sheffield United are big club.
Jon
· 1 year ago
The EPL is a better league for not having long ball pub teams like Sheffield Utd in it. They went down purely and simply because they failed to win their last home game. Added to the fact that they beat West Ham when Tevez was in the team, their destiny was solely in their hands and they blew it! They deserve nothing....
SUFC
· 1 year ago
Sheffield United are big club.
dave
· 1 year ago
I agree this is a very poor website
GC
· 1 year ago
Write a story where you dont have all the facts and just jump on the bandwagon..........................oh you just did.
BAC
· 1 year ago
West Ham don't need to shut up, they're not the ones who have been bleating on about this matter, that's been the people at Sheffield United seizing on some minor legal irregularities as a 'get out of jail free' card to help shield them from the consequences of their own incompetence on the football pitch.
taffy
· 1 year ago
this league is run by the F.A. and if they fined us for playing Tevez which they did then thats the end of the matter. if anyone should pay sheffield united it's the F.A. . but why even should they? you agree at the begining of the season to go by their rules and that you should do. be it fines or point deductions for unregistered players or a referee mising a dive and giving a penalty kick. this is sour grapes by sheffield united of the highest order.....if your 10 points clear with a few games to go and then you can't beat wigan at home then you deserve to go down.
mungo
· 1 year ago
muppet
Jimmy
· 1 year ago
I don't understand how they can make a ruling on what could possibly have happened if Tevez was not a West Ham player. They cant prove beyond doubt that whoever played in place of Tevez would have played the most amazing few games of his career and done better than Tevez... I know Im probably refering to Marlon Harewood but it all seems unprovable.
Bob
· 1 year ago
Gaffer - Stick to reporting about American throwball
Lorne
· 1 year ago
Can you please tell me who is the owner of this site as I am going to contact my lawyers. What you have said here is libelous. I look forward to hearing back.
The Gaffer
· 1 year ago
Dan:
"Premier League club West Ham were fined £5.5million by the Premier League but not docked points when found guilty of fielding the ineligible Tevez."
Are you kidding passing this article off as 'news'?
Do you have some sort of crystal ball that guarantees that if Tevez didn't play, West Ham would have lost? Haven't they beaten Manure since without him?
Also, facts are facts, West Ham broke two rules, one regarding full disclosure to the Premier League and the other one concerning 3rd party INFLUENCE.
There is no rule against a player being owned by a 3rd party and at no point was Tevez illegally registered to play for West ham.
This matter should have been put to bed already, the panels apparent quotes are ridiculous.
ohmygosh
· 1 year ago
Now you're really taking the mick.
As fact that Tevez was an illegally registered player, you point towards a Sheffield United site?
What a joke.
Dan
· 1 year ago
Wow Gaffer, way to use the website of the idiots that you don't tell to "shut up".
They were always registered with the premiere league. They did have illegal buyout clauses during the January transfer window in their contracts (which were not exercised, by the way). So they were 3rd party influenced.
You know the same 3rd party influence that Sheffield Utd used by telling Watford that Steve Kabba cannot play against them, and Lilian Nalis couldnt play against them for Portsmouth. THAT 3rd party influence.
"Without Carlos Tevez playing for West Ham, the Hammers would have definitely been relegated and Sheffield United would have stayed up."
I forgot that goal he scored right before the half @the Emirates, oh thats right that was Bobby Zamora.
You really know nothing, and your site really is a disaster. Maybe if you start posting anyting resembling fact, I'll come back again someday. I will simply come back here to read any possible (inaccurate) response by you, and never again. And i'll tell everyone I knwo the same--but no one I know respects the site so I doubt it affects anything.
-Dan
jane
· 1 year ago
lorne go and look up the meanin of the word libel before u start shouting it about like its threatenin
Dave
· 1 year ago
This article is exactly what it is...a pile of old garbage
ls7
· 1 year ago
You mention West Ham possibly appealing but according to the BBC, their options seem limited.
The Football Association's rule K5c states that by signing up to arbitration, "the parties shall be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any recourse to a court of law". This precludes the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and only a very limited ability to challenge the merits of the award in the Commercial Court.
Weston
· 1 year ago
God there sure are a lot of crybabies here...West Ham broke a rule or two, its pretty simple actually...
Dan
· 1 year ago
Weston,
And they were already fined for it. The crybabies (and hypocrites) here are Sheffield Utd.
barry the hammer
· 1 year ago
those little puff's got what they wanted then wan**rs, i hope they crash and burn
Hank
· 1 year ago
The attention grabbing headline is a bit ridiculous and total flame bait. That said, the actual facts being reported seem to be accurate. If someone is looking for a source outside of the Sheffield team webpage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/763077...
Patrick
· 1 year ago
Gaffer you realize that you just don't have a full grasp of this complicated situation. and you are playing McCain type semantics. The reason SUFC sued was the games after the fine that Tevez played. When he is fact was a registered WHU footballer cleared to play by the powers that be. The question was not the fine or the punishment because that is against FA rules. It was after it was found that some of the paperwork former owner Brown submitted left off that MSI had a controlling ownership of the players. So again this is about after the fine. Understand that now??? The fine was the punishment, which under league law team can't sue over or go to arbitration or whatever.
SUFC's McCabe also was very vocal that this wasn't about money, yet it was ALWAYS about the money wasn't it. Do the other relegated teams get a share since this is based on what ifs?
and West Ham will not have to sell players. That is just absurd. if the amount is huge WHU will sue Brown and the EPL, since Tevez was played with full clearance of the FA. You may remember Wigan where very vocal back then when he was cleared and they had some sort of council to make sure everything was legal. It was so said the League and the FA.
But if you live in a black and white world and want to call West Ham cheats simply out of spite - whatever that's your own issue. Cause its not on facts.
You sound about as intelligent as a Millwall supporter discussing West Ham in this post.
Patrick
· 1 year ago
I still can't get over the title of this post...
Chris
· 1 year ago
Tevez played during the first half of the season and was just as much a part of the team's failure at that time as in the their successful last few weeks. Maybe the the role of Tevez in the turmiol at that time cost the team 6 points, or 9 points. No one can possibly say, just as no one can possibly say that West Ham would have been relegated without Tevez.
The successful part of the season came after the club had been fined by the league and told that he was allowed to play. I don't hear anyone complaining about the league who, if Tevez was ineligible in the last couple of months, should ultimately be responsible for compensation to Sheffield; such an error would be theirs.
CA
· 1 year ago
Stumbled on this site and have never read anything so ridiculous... Gaffer, if that's what you call yourself. Get you facts straight, Tevez was never deemed ineligible and if you don't believe me read it from the horses mouth. This excerpt is from a letter sent to all Premier League Clubs from The Premier League. :
"The Charges West Ham United were charged under Rule B13 which requires each Club to behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith and also with a breach of Rule U18 reproduced here in full: “No Club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in League Matches or in any of the competitions set out in Rule E10.”
At no point were West Ham United charged with playing an ineligible player – both Tevez and Mascherano were registered on 31 August. All the required documentation was received by the Premier League and the usual confirmations received and sent – a process you are all very familiar with. Registration is definitive as to the status of the player. At no time has Mr Tevez’s registration been revoked or terminated and at all times he has been eligible to play for West Ham."
There you go. Look forward to a summons for libel landing on your doormat!
GRANT
· 1 year ago
they were registered , but not properly thats why the first tribunal said they lied, they said they were owned by west ham ,but this was untrue thats the bit that broke the rules as it was a lie it rendered their registration null and void
its like saying your fully employed applying for a visa card when your not
All Comments
That is simply not true. Learn the facts before opening your ignorant mouth. Oh, and your website is shite.
-Dan
this is sour grapes by sheffield united of the highest order.....if your 10 points clear with a few games to go and then you can't beat wigan at home then you deserve to go down.
"Premier League club West Ham were fined £5.5million by the Premier League but not docked points when found guilty of fielding the ineligible Tevez."
Source: http://tinyurl.com/3zsu6k
Cheers,
The Gaffer
Do you have some sort of crystal ball that guarantees that if Tevez didn't play, West Ham would have lost? Haven't they beaten Manure since without him?
Also, facts are facts, West Ham broke two rules, one regarding full disclosure to the Premier League and the other one concerning 3rd party INFLUENCE.
There is no rule against a player being owned by a 3rd party and at no point was Tevez illegally registered to play for West ham.
This matter should have been put to bed already, the panels apparent quotes are ridiculous.
As fact that Tevez was an illegally registered player, you point towards a Sheffield United site?
What a joke.
They were always registered with the premiere league. They did have illegal buyout clauses during the January transfer window in their contracts (which were not exercised, by the way). So they were 3rd party influenced.
You know the same 3rd party influence that Sheffield Utd used by telling Watford that Steve Kabba cannot play against them, and Lilian Nalis couldnt play against them for Portsmouth. THAT 3rd party influence.
"Without Carlos Tevez playing for West Ham, the Hammers would have definitely been relegated and Sheffield United would have stayed up."
I forgot that goal he scored right before the half @the Emirates, oh thats right that was Bobby Zamora.
You really know nothing, and your site really is a disaster. Maybe if you start posting anyting resembling fact, I'll come back again someday. I will simply come back here to read any possible (inaccurate) response by you, and never again. And i'll tell everyone I knwo the same--but no one I know respects the site so I doubt it affects anything.
-Dan
The Football Association's rule K5c states that by signing up to arbitration, "the parties shall be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any recourse to a court of law". This precludes the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and only a very limited ability to challenge the merits of the award in the Commercial Court.
And they were already fined for it. The crybabies (and hypocrites) here are Sheffield Utd.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/763077...
SUFC's McCabe also was very vocal that this wasn't about money, yet it was ALWAYS about the money wasn't it. Do the other relegated teams get a share since this is based on what ifs?
and West Ham will not have to sell players. That is just absurd. if the amount is huge WHU will sue Brown and the EPL, since Tevez was played with full clearance of the FA. You may remember Wigan where very vocal back then when he was cleared and they had some sort of council to make sure everything was legal. It was so said the League and the FA.
But if you live in a black and white world and want to call West Ham cheats simply out of spite - whatever that's your own issue. Cause its not on facts.
You sound about as intelligent as a Millwall supporter discussing West Ham in this post.
The successful part of the season came after the club had been fined by the league and told that he was allowed to play. I don't hear anyone complaining about the league who, if Tevez was ineligible in the last couple of months, should ultimately be responsible for compensation to Sheffield; such an error would be theirs.
"The Charges
West Ham United were charged under Rule B13 which requires each Club to behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith and also with a breach of Rule U18 reproduced here in full: “No Club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in League Matches or in any of the competitions set out in Rule E10.”
At no point were West Ham United charged with playing an ineligible player – both Tevez and Mascherano were registered on 31 August. All the required documentation was received by the Premier League and the usual confirmations received and sent – a process you are all very familiar with. Registration is definitive as to the status of the player. At no time has Mr Tevez’s registration been revoked or terminated and at all times he has been eligible to play for West Ham."
There you go. Look forward to a summons for libel landing on your doormat!
thats why the first tribunal said they lied, they said they were owned by west ham ,but this was untrue
thats the bit that broke the rules
as it was a lie it rendered their registration null and void
its like saying your fully employed applying for a visa card when your not