BigGibbo Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 i think its unfair that no other clubs have publicly backed the clubs around west ham in the table with there action against west ham for allegedly fielding illegal players, leaving them looking just bitter! does any one know for sure if the use of those players is even illegal by fa premier league rules? if so i think its unfair to leave just the clubs it affects to sound out against it! please do debate this issue & hopefully leave me & any others interested with a clearer view of any unfair play & peoples opinions on it!
Bryn Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 Yeah they should have but I'm glad they didn't because we don't need another team in the Champo next season who can just buy their way out of it with loads of money.
The People's Hero Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 In my opinion, the FA bottled it big time when they didn't insist on a points deduction. It happened further down the leagues and points were deducted.
Phube Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 How are Liverpool getting away with playing Macherano????
BigGibbo Posted 10 May 2007 Author Posted 10 May 2007 How are Liverpool getting away with playing Macherano???? my understanding is that liverpool bought him out right so they 100% own him but the situation was/is different at west ham with him & tevez
Phube Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 my understanding is that liverpool bought him out right so they 100% own him but the situation was/is different at west ham with him & tevez From Who!!!???
davieG Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 How are Liverpool getting away with playing Macherano???? I believe it's to do with who holds their registration, according to the FA & PL, probably the FL as well this cannot be held by a 3rd party. When they first appeared for West Ham they were both registered with this 3rd party. When Macherano moved to Liverpool that link was severed by then. I understand that the other Clubs anger at this is based on the fact (?) that when they played West Ham Tevez was still not legally their player. But who knows the media forever print speculation, titilation and utter bollocks it's hard to know who's telling the truth. But as the FA have demonstrated many times in the past they are not prepared to stand up to the 'big' clubs they also need loadsa of money to pay off the Wembley fiasco.
BigGibbo Posted 10 May 2007 Author Posted 10 May 2007 From Who!!!??? when west ham bought tevez & maschereno they were owned by an independent agent to do with that kia joorabchian fella not there football team & when west ham bought them it appears they may not have bought them outright! there was definately some wrong doing because they have already been fined £5.5 million pounds for it! im not sure of the exact details but liverpool have bought him straight forward for cash is that any clearer
BigGibbo Posted 10 May 2007 Author Posted 10 May 2007 But who knows the media forever print speculation, titilation and utter bollocks like i mentioned before there was obviously some wrong doing because they have already been fined £5.5 million over the matter!!!
Head Honcho Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 How are Liverpool getting away with playing Macherano???? My understanding is that it was only because Liverpool bought him that this came to light. West Ham kept certain documents from the authorities and this was the reason for their punishment(I think) The reason for the lack of support from other clubs is simple. It is against premier league rules to take the premier league to court and you would risk being ejected from the league if you do. This has Uefa backing and could also lead to you being omitted from any european football. All clubs were made aware of this in a letter last week.
mancunianfox Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 Its as disgraceful as Leeds cheating their way around a ten point deduction next season. A £5m fine does not consider the contribution made by these players over the season and the ruling is very unfair on the clubs fighting relegation. £5m is nothing and is easily worth it if the Hammers stay up.
BigGibbo Posted 10 May 2007 Author Posted 10 May 2007 In my opinion, the FA bottled it big time when they didn't insist on a points deduction. It happened further down the leagues and points were deducted. have you any examples that we can compare it to? there is no reason there should be different punishments for different leagues somethings very fishy here!
Head Honcho Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 Its as disgraceful as Leeds cheating their way around a ten point deduction next season. A £5m fine does not consider the contribution made by these players over the season and the ruling is very unfair on the clubs fighting relegation. £5m is nothing and is easily worth it if the Hammers stay up. ................or even us going into administration and coming out smelling of roses with a hatful of debtors in our wake
The People's Hero Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 have you any examples that we can compare it to? there is no reason there should be different punishments for different leagues somethings very fishy here! I can't remember the club concerned but from memory, a league two side fielded an ineligible player and got docked quite a few points. Believe it was this season. Can anyone shed any light on this?
davieG Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 ................or even us going into administration and coming out smelling of roses with a hatful of debtors in our wake There's many differences between us and Leeds, for a start we were forced into administration by Eric Hall & Wise. We had already agreed to pay all our debtors in full, going into admin meant they got less, but the blame lies fairly and squarely with shitface. We also paid our creditors much more than most clubs coming out of administration. We're only percieved as 'cheats' because we managed to still get promoted, I presume people expected us to throw every game in order to make it acceptable.
lookwhaticando Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 West Ham kept certain documents from the authorities and this was the reason for their punishment(I think) That was one of the rules they violated - withholding vital information regarding the status of a player, or something to that effect.
Joe. Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 Yes they should. They've clearly gained points from them so should therefore be deducted points....
Head Honcho Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 I can't remember the club concerned but from memory, a league two side fielded an ineligible player and got docked quite a few points.Believe it was this season. Can anyone shed any light on this? Was it Wimbledon AFC? from wiki Expelled from competition. After beating Conference side Gravesend & Northfleet 1-0 in a fourth round match, the club was charged by the Football Association with fielding an ineligible player, Jermaine Darlington. On 25 January 2007, a disciplinary hearing decided that the club was to be expelled from the competition and was also ordered to pay back the £7000 in prize money that it had won. Gravesend & Northfleet were subsequently reinstated into the competition. For the same offence, AFC Wimbledon also received an 18 point penalty deduction and £400 fine from the Isthmian League.[5] However, after an appeal by the club against the deduction on March 26, the F.A reduced the punishment to three points and £400, admitting themselves that the penalty imposed was "excessive".[6]
The People's Hero Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 Was it Wimbledon AFC? from wiki Expelled from competition. After beating Conference side Gravesend & Northfleet 1-0 in a fourth round match, the club was charged by the Football Association with fielding an ineligible player, Jermaine Darlington. On 25 January 2007, a disciplinary hearing decided that the club was to be expelled from the competition and was also ordered to pay back the £7000 in prize money that it had won. Gravesend & Northfleet were subsequently reinstated into the competition. For the same offence, AFC Wimbledon also received an 18 point penalty deduction and £400 fine from the Isthmian League.[5] However, after an appeal by the club against the deduction on March 26, the F.A reduced the punishment to three points and £400, admitting themselves that the penalty imposed was "excessive".[6] Yes it was - so I got a few of my facts wrong and thanks for the correction Allen... even after appeal, there was still a points penalty. The equivalent of the Dons prize money would be the financial rewards WHAM will get due to their survival. So £5.5million and no points lost is hardly fair in my opinion.
hebangsthedrums Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 Yep deffo. 5.5m is probably small change to that Icelandic bloke, especially in relation to what they will make staying up. Yet again the 'governing' bodies prove they are pretty much toothless.
Webbo Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 I can't remember the club concerned but from memory, a league two side fielded an ineligible player and got docked quite a few points.Believe it was this season. Can anyone shed any light on this? A few years ago Middlesborough were docked 3 points for failing to fulfill a fixture(there was a flu bug at the club). As a result they were relegated. What's the betting that West Ham would have got away with it?
Head Honcho Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 A few years ago Middlesborough were docked 3 points for failing to fulfill a fixture(there was a flu bug at the club). As a result they were relegated.What's the betting that West Ham would have got away with it? Did I hear on the radio something about where the meeting was held? I can't be sure but I think they were complaining about that. Anyone shed any light on that?
Geo V Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 Its unfair on the new owner to come in and get docked. If anything, it should have all been dealt with from the moment that the deals were agreed. The fact that the FA have let Mascherano go to Liverpool a few months after the deal means that it would be totally inproper to dock them points at this stage. I have a feeling that Man Utd will beat West Ham and send them down anyway because they still owe the Hammers for costing them a title a few years ago!
Head Honcho Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 Its unfair on the new owner to come in and get docked. If anything, it should have all been dealt with from the moment that the deals were agreed. The fact that the FA have let Mascherano go to Liverpool a few months after the deal means that it would be totally inproper to dock them points at this stage.I have a feeling that Man Utd will beat West Ham and send them down anyway because they still owe the Hammers for costing them a title a few years ago! I disagree. You buy the club warts and all and his legal team should have spotted it. WHU can still lose and not go down mind! Anything more then a Bolton 1-0 will see Sheff Utd relegated. It all in the goal difference though isn't it? Someone wrote in the paper yesterday that Bolton and Sheffield should waste time all game to await the result of the Man Utd game and if WHU are beaten then sheffield let Bolton score to win 1-0 and ensure WHU being relegated.
Simon Posted 10 May 2007 Posted 10 May 2007 I said it at the time when AFC Wimbledon were docked points that it was harsh because West Ham would get away with it- and they did. Its double standards and it stinks- no wonder the game is going down the toilet.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.