Blades lose appeal

[AFII]

so...
a) Is that legal within the rules of the FA? If so, why would Tevez be ineligible?
b) If it is legal, who owns Mascherano?
c) If Kia, then why did we pay a transfer fee to West Ham for him?

a) It's not legal. The reason is that it's not allowed that a third party decides if a player plays or not, in this case Kia.

b) We owns Mascherano 100% until next summer but we can't sell him and neither can Kia.

c) We didn't pay any transfer fee to West Ham. We paid Kia £1.5m for an 18 month loan.

[BrooklynRed]

a) It's not legal. The reason is that it's not allowed that a third party decides if a player plays or not, in this case Kia.

b) We owns Mascherano 100% until next summer but we can't sell him and neither can Kia.

c) We didn't pay any transfer fee to West Ham. We paid Kia £1.5m for an 18 month loan.

A) So, if this is the case, how could West Ham only be docked money? Terrible, seemingly corrupt, decision.

B) That can't be true. If we 'owned' Mascherano, we could do whatever we wanted with him. SO, if its a loan, he is our player, yes, but we don't have the rights. We'll have to sign him up and pay a transfer fee and hopefully buy him outright next summer (which is what i assumed).

[dww]

so...
a) Is that legal within the rules of the FA? If so, why would Tevez be ineligible?
b) If it is legal, who owns Mascherano?
c) If Kia, then why did we pay a transfer fee to West Ham for him?

a) No.
b) The reason the deal to bring Mascher to us is because it was a complicated legal agreement. My understanding is we own him until the end of his 18 month contract with us when his ownership reverts to MSI.
c) we paid MSI as far as i understand. who in turn paid west ham who had a fee written into the original agreement that if MSI moved the player on in january they had to recieve.

Note: all the above is surmized from the media and should not be taken as gospel truth.

The reason I think that West Ham should not have been docked points is that there was a precedent set when Sugar took over Tottenham that punishments from before a new ownership with reference to technical rule breaches should not be carried over to a new owner who offers to correct the breaches going forward. In this case I think a fine could have been given in such a way that the current West Ham board could seek to recover it from Terrance Brown whereas they could not ever hope to recover points.

Although admittedly they should have looked at what they were buying more closely.

[Red Chilli]

So, if this is the case, how could West Ham only be docked money? Terrible, seemingly corrupt, decision.

Exactly

Staying in the Premiership is worth a hell of a lot more than 5.5 million pounds too. How did they even come up with that figure? Idiots

[Red Chilli]

a) No.
b) The reason the deal to bring Mascher to us is because it was a complicated legal agreement. My understanding is we own him until the end of his 18 month contract with us when his ownership reverts to MSI.
c) we paid MSI as far as i understand. who in turn paid west ham who had a fee written into the original agreement that if MSI moved the player on in january they had to recieve.

Note: all the above is surmized from the media and should not be taken as gospel truth.

The reason I think that West Ham should not have been docked points is that there was a precedent set when Sugar took over Tottenham that punishments from before a new ownership with reference to technical rule breaches should not be carried over to a new owner who offers to correct the breaches going forward. In this case I think a fine could have been given in such a way that the current West Ham board could seek to recover it from Terrance Brown whereas they could not ever hope to recover points.
Although admittedly they should have looked at what they were buying more closely.

Sorry, I don't buy that precedent argument. IF that is the case then they shouldn't have been fined as it was part of the old regime.

On buying Ice Ham, you'd expect the new owners to have a look at a few hings, important things like, I don't know, player's contracts?
So in full knowledge of the fact that Tevez was owned by a 3rd party, why did the new owners continue to play an inelligible player.

The deal was done by the old regime, but the new regime continued to break the rules everytime they played Tevez.

[dww]

Sorry, I don't buy that precedent argument. IF that is the case then they shouldn't have been fined as it was part of the old regime.

On buying Ice Ham, you'd expect the new owners to have a look at a few hings, important things like, I don't know, player's contracts?
So in full knowledge of the fact that Tevez was owned by a 3rd party, why did the new owners continue to play an inelligible player.

The deal was done by the old regime, but the new regime continued to break the rules everytime they played Tevez.

To be honest I think the panel made a weird compromise decision which pleased no one and was a cop out. However I don't think that it sets a dangerous precendent in the way alleged earlier because of the reasons I have stated.

In terms of Tevez's contract. Indeed and frankly I have no idea about the ins and outs of the contract. They claim that they had altered the deal - in a way similar to what we did. It is not obvious that this is the case however or indeed at what point they did it and whether they were trying to resolve things with the Premier League once they took over.

To be honest it was a mess of a decision and I have no idea why the PL didn't refuse/delay accepting registration in the first place as it was pretty clear from the media coverage that the deal was not going to be simple and that at the least other clubs would question it.

[Gordy Boy]

Sorry, I don't buy that precedent argument. IF that is the case then they shouldn't have been fined as it was part of the old regime.

On buying Ice Ham, you'd expect the new owners to have a look at a few hings, important things like, I don't know, player's contracts?
So in full knowledge of the fact that Tevez was owned by a 3rd party, why did the new owners continue to play an inelligible player.

The deal was done by the old regime, but the new regime continued to break the rules everytime they played Tevez.

Are you actually Neil Warnock?

If you are then I apologise for calling you punchable.

[Red Chilli]

Are you actually Neil Warnock?

If you are then I apologise for calling you punchable.

No, go ahead fill your boots

[Slim]

I'm afraid it was pretty obvious to everybody it would end this way.......everybody except Sheff United anyway as their chairman still kept saying he expected to stay up.

Just for Warnock's buffoonery, they deserve to go down.

[Kenneth]

The arbiitration pannel said that if they were acting in the original decision, they would have docked points. Problem was that SU had to prove that the original disciplinary pannel acted 'irrationally'. Very hard to prove. The PL got away with a blatant piece of favouritism that leaves me questioning whether the governance of top flight footy is corrupt or at least biased. Whole thing stinks.

[Parm]

What a waste of time.

Feel a bit sorry for Sheffield United, even though I hate them.

true, they havent done anything wrong and got ****ed and humiliated.
**** it who cares.

[reddragon]

The arbiitration pannel said that if they were acting in the original decision, they would have docked points. Problem was that SU had to prove that the original disciplinary pannel acted 'irrationally'. Very hard to prove. The PL got away with a blatant piece of favouritism that leaves me questioning whether the governance of top flight footy is corrupt or at least biased. Whole thing stinks.

it does, and surprise, surprise it's the london club who comes out on top as usual.

[Marky]

A massive injustice. Football has gone to pot these past few years.
Is it the beginning of the end of 'the beautiful game'?

[El Jefecito]

Sheff Utd, were crap, from a footballing perspective they deserved to go down!

[AFII]

Wigan Athletic chairman Dave Whelan has reiterated his call for Premier League chiefs Richard Scudamore and Sir Dave Richards to consider their positions.

Two months ago the Latics supremo suggested the league's chief executive and chairman should stand down following a disciplinary commission decision not to dock West Ham points over the Tevez-Mascherano affair.

Whelan was particularly aggrieved at the league's failure to follow the commission's recommendation to cancel Tevez's registration after West Ham were found guilty of breaching league rules over the third-party ownership of players.

And now following an arbitration panel decision to uphold the Premier League's ruling despite suggesting West Ham should have been docked points, Whelan has reiterated his claim.

Relegated Sheffield United revealed their disappointment and have vowed to consider their options following Tuesday's findings.

"It's been a botched affair," Whelan told the Daily Mail. "All kinds of things have been done incorrectly and, from what I can tell, covered up.

"And so much time has been wasted getting to this point.

"I'm sure nothing can now be done for Sheffield United and that is very sad. It just isn't right.

"What the arbitration panel are saying backs up everything Wigan, Sheffield United, Fulham, Charlton and Middlesbrough have been saying all along and if the arbitration panel think it's wrong, then Richard Scudamore and Dave Richards have seriously got to consider their positions."

http://www.football.co.uk/wigan/whel...l_248977.shtml