West Ham decision

[Shaggy]

It is a disgrace that the fine for this is so high when that for saftey infractions/racism/violence are frequently so low.

[Howard_lfc]

It is a disgrace that the fine for this is so high when that for saftey infractions/racism/violence are frequently so low.

Actually I don't think it is. If you consider the amount of money that will be sloshing around the premier league for the next few years - each club will be getting a kings ransom just to remain in the league. If teams wanna bend the rules and then deliberately try to conceal them then the punishment is either a) a points deduction or b) a hefty fine. In my opinion - docking them 3 points would have been more severe. They got off lightly.

[Chiccada]

http://www.premierleague.com/public/downloads/publications/PL270407final.txt

this is the transcript from the hearing, its very long. So you may as well just read the bit at the bottom.

[Bob]

Thats not actually an offence if they are registered to the club though is it. Originally the FA was saying that the hearing was to determine whether or not the contracts gave MSI (a third party) control over selection or other team affairs.

Personally I think it is £5.5m penalty to prevent the FA and West Ham being sued by other clubs who have been harshly punished for paperwork infractions. With West Ham taking it instead of a points deduction on the gamble that they stay in the PL being worth the money.

It is a disgrace that the fine for this is so high when that for saftey infractions/racism/violence are frequently so low.

But the argument is the clubs can only do so much to control their fans, whereas in this case they are directly implicated.

5.5 certainly is a lot.

I'll have Tevez though - we could be favourites surely?

[dww]

Actually I don't think it is. If you consider the amount of money that will be sloshing around the premier league for the next few years - each club will be getting a kings ransom just to remain in the league. If teams wanna bend the rules and then deliberately try to conceal them then the punishment is either a) a points deduction or b) a hefty fine. In my opinion - docking them 3 points would have been more severe. They got off lightly.

I would argue for higher fines for the other stuff more than necessarily a lower one for this. Although I am yet to be convinced that West Ham did all that much wrong. I would add that the punishments of racism etc. are also disproportionately low when you look at other punishments such as which ever non-league team it was who were fined 10 points for incorrectly registering a player (which even the FA admitted was an honest mistake).

I suspect you are right about the three points and as I said I imagine that West Ham negotiated to take a bigger financial blow rather than the points deduction.

[dww]

But the argument is the clubs can only do so much to control their fans, whereas in this case they are directly implicated.

5.5 certainly is a lot.

I'll have Tevez though - we could be favourites surely?

The thing is if you punish the club at all it should be because you feel they are culpable in some way. If they can do something about it in the FAs opinion then they need to be fined enough to mean they are forced to respond. A paltry fine does nothing to any PL clubs finances.

[Gray]

I'll have Tevez though - we could be favourites surely?

I don't know, but stop calling me Shirley.

[Howard_lfc]

I would argue for higher fines for the other stuff more than necessarily a lower one for this. Although I am yet to be convinced that West Ham did all that much wrong. I would add that the punishments of racism etc. are also disproportionately low when you look at other punishments such as which ever non-league team it was who were fined 10 points for incorrectly registering a player (which even the FA admitted was an honest mistake).

I suspect you are right about the three points and as I said I imagine that West Ham negotiated to take a bigger financial blow rather than the points deduction.

Still hope west ham go down though Dave !!!

[dww]

Still hope west ham go down though Dave !!!

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. If I had my way I would somehow relegate Anton ferdinand for being the stupidest footballer ever and have West Ham stay up. I quite like their youth policy and the fact they are one of the few bottom half teams who aim to play football.

[Bob]

I don't know, but stop calling me Shirley.

You cannot be serious?

[AFII]

Ok, slightly more simple than i was after

What i'm trying to work out is, how did they not own them, and how they could decide to field them when they werent the proper 'owners'....

And likewise, in the meantime, how come Tevez has been allowed to continue playing for them?

I think they registred them as if they are owned by West Ham 100% and not MSI.

[SouthAfricaRed]

Can anyone actually explain, in simple terms, what West Ham actually did wrong?

You are not allowed to register and play a player that has a contract owned by a 3rd party. West Ham lied to the FA and neglected to submit all the papers needed to prove that they owned the players

In this case Kia Joorabchian owns the contracts of Mascherano and Teves. They basically leased the players to West Ham. Only a player that belongs to a club can be allowed to register and play in EPL.

What I dont understand is that we have bought Mascherano's contract for 1.8 million for 18 months where after he'll be owned by Kia Joorabchian again, unless we pay 10 million?

Isnt this just a case of leasing him from Kia Joorabchian?