I agree over the matter of SUFC players becoming individually involved and suing for loss of earnings appears quite shamefull. But that has all been brought about by this selfish and disgraceful compensation culture brought about in all walks of life!
Its no use trying spin on this matter to try and show SUFC in a bad light. The FACT remains West Ham and certain members of its Officals were dishonest in the clubs name. The fact that they continue to contest this later ruling suggests a degree of responsibility in this fiasco continuing. The best solution now would be for West Ham to accept the fine, sack Duxbury and any others shown to have knowledge in the deception and sue them and the Premier league. The hammers fans are suffering because of others. Not Sheff Utd or Wigan or the press but other members of their own club!

Lets cut through the chase, Sheff utd ballsed up because they lost a stack of games, and furthermore they didnt bitch about Tevez when he played and they beat us. Furhermore, Steve Kabba comes to mind or is this conveniently forgotten by the bad losers. And in a nutshell, their players and ex players wnat to sue West Ham. What you lot at Sheff utd have turned our great sport ugly and opened up a can of worms that you alone are now responsible for. Even the media are tuning on you lot and favouring West ham since your useless players have got involved.

The case and judgement, for the lazy.... I've paraphrased a few bits and may have got some bits wrong, so dont take this as definitve. Read the whole document.


We are claiming for breach of contract, caused by West Hams breaking of the rules of the Premier League. The contract is that clubs in the Premier League will act in the 'utmost good faith' with each other, and that by lieing and cheating, West Ham did not do that and and liable for damages from our resulting unfair relegation.

The tribunal noted the closeness of the relegation battle.

They then looked at the original contracts of Mascherano and Tevez (the original case for which West Ham were fined £5.5m). It seems clear that the players were offered to Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea, all of whom said no, but Joorabchian was trying to take over West Ham at the time and offered the players to sweeten the deal. They took the players but the takeover failed. Instead Magnussen completed his takeover and the die was cast.

In order to get acceptance of the players contracts, Scott Duxbury deliberately misled the Premier League into believing that the contracts were not what they appeared, and later claimed that he had only done this because his lack of knowledge of the rules of the Premier League which this tribunal and the previous one rubbished as complete nonsense.

So on the morning of the Tribunal on April 27th 2007, West Ham pleaded guilty that they had lied about the contracts, and that both players contracts contravened Rule U18. The Tribunal concluded that for a number of reasons that two subsequent tribunals have not fully understood, that they would not deduct points but rather levy a fine of £5.5m, (to be deducted from their Sky money the following season).

But this was not all. West Ham were told that they could not continue to play Tevez without a substantial change to the players contract, removing the offending clauses. They were given 24 hours to do this in order to play Tevez at Wigan the following day. West Ham announced on April 28th, that they had unilaterally 'torn up the contract', send a fax to Mr Joorabchians solicitors to that effect and sent the announcement to the Premier League, and after some discussion it was accepted and Tevez played. West Ham gave a further committment to ensure that any communications between themselves and Mr Joorabchian or MSI (the company who owned the players rights) would be copied to the Premier League in full. In fact the 'new contract' hadn't been agreed by Joorachian or Tevez at all.

It is revealed that after the fax to Joorabchians solicitor Mr Shear terminating the contract, that Scott Duxbury called Mr Shear to tell him that the action they had taken was to satisfy the Premier League, and that the terms of the original offending contract would be honoured. It was agreed to meet on May 2nd and again on May 4th to conclude a private and secret agreement for this to happen. None of the details of these meetings were relayed to the Premier League for obvious reasons.

A direct quote from Mr Shears notebook of the conversations was,

"Kia [Joorabchian] told EM [Eggert Magnusson] and SD [Scott Duxbury] that his investors wanted formal written assurances from WHU [West Ham] as they were all very unhappy about the Notice of Termination served. SD said that because of FAPL [Premier League] had put the club in they couldn't do it formally but both he and EM would perform as per the Agreement and everything would be sorted out after the season ended."

It was also noted that the players insurance for playing injuries was terminated at the same time, and that West Ham put a new policy in place to be paid for by Joorabchian, and it was agreed in a private deal that it would be reimbursed by West Ham to ensure that it looked like the contract had been terminated and that Tevez was a West Ham player.

By May 22nd, the relationship between Joorabchian and West ham had deteriorated to the point that Joorabchian decide to enforce his rights through a legal action in part to complete the sale of Tevez to Man Utd.

The court case was brought by Joorabchian, but in order to keep the details of the case from public eyes, West Ham capitulated, the player was sold, the £2m fee was paid by Man Utd to West Ham, as was demanded by the PL, but in return Joorabchian would be retained as a consultant and the £2m and more would be paid to him as commission on deals, and that he would recoup the fee that way.

The Tribunal also looked at the contribution that Tevez made to the run-in and their eventual survival and concludes that although it could be argued that they were team performances, that Tevez role in them was so significant that they believe his contribution was worth at least 3 points and probably 3pts just in the last 2 games. They sum up like this...


"For the reasons set out above we find that West Ham is liable to Sheffield United in damages for breach of contract. West Ham was in breach of Rule U18 in the contractual arrangements which it made in order to obtain Mr Tevez as a West Ham player in August 2006. It was also in breach of Rule B13 in what it told, and did not tell, the Premier League about the arrangements. West Ham was in further breach of Rule B13 in the discussions held with Mr Joorabchian and his solicitor about the private agreement at a time when it was assuring the Premier League that the private agreement had been terminated.


In consequence of the initial breaches of Rules U18 and B13 West Ham secured what it would not otherwise have had, i.e. the playing services of Mr Tevez for the 2006-7 season. We have no doubt that those services were worth at least 3 points to West Ham over the season and were what made the difference between West Ham remaining in the Premiership and being relegated at the end of the season. In consequence, West Ham remained in the Premiership and Sheffield United was relegated.


Moreover, if the Premier League had known what Mr Duxbury for West Ham was saying to Mr Joorabchian’s solicitor following the Commission decision, we are confident that the Premier League would have suspended Mr Tevez’s registration as a West Ham player. Because the Premier League did not know, Mr Tevez was available to West Ham for the concluding games of the season during which Mr Tevez’s contribution was outstanding such that it was in our view worth at least three points to West Ham.

Further to my earlier post, the problem I have is with people like Dave Roberts who state as fact opinions such as "A points deduction was the only correct penalty".

Why is everyone so convinced of this? There is no comparable precedent to dictate this. It just happens to be the penalty which would have relegated West Ham instead of Sheffield Utd. Its what most neutrals would have preferred, we all support the underdog in this country, but that doesn't make it right. Either legally or morally.

Comparing playing a ringer in sunday football with the complexities of this deal is a very simplistic argument.

The post from BAC below brings some clarity to all this. I suggest Mr Roberts reads it a few times before repeating his "facts".

David Roberts,
no matter how many times people say the contrary, Tevez was never ineligible. You are simply wrong.

Its nothing to do with SUFC being a poorer team and deserving to go down. Its about Wst Ham cheating by playing a 'Ringer'. His playing was a contravention of league rules meaning he was ineligible to play. West Ham thought they could conceal some of the 'dealings'and get away with it. They were caught and punished albeit inappropriately. A points deduction was the only correct penalty. I'm sure many of you have played football yourselves at lower levels? When ever a team was caught playing an ineligible player they would at very least see the opposition awarded the 3points from what ever games he played in. It might even have seen the club disqualified from the league that season for that very reason. If West Ham had finished higher that year then they could well have seen themselves drop several places down the table and lose a quantity of the premier leagues prize money based on the final position. On this occasion however it would have seen them relegated. Yes it is about money as one club (and I suppose its players has suffered a phenomenal loss as a result of the original decision. For the West Ham fans I sympathise because at least the league hold some of the responsibility for allowing Tevez to continue playing. A final comparison I can give is. Can a club say persuade Ronaldinho to play in the final matches of a season without registering him. Not recieve permission to play him. They avoid relegation by playing him and receive only a monetary fine? If that is acceptable then why bother registering players in the first place? Why not just pay the highest amount to someone to represent you in key games? Money talks. When this case was brought to Court and Tribunals and the case was heard in their favour, Hammers fans were demanding that SUFC drop the case. Will they now be accepting this result and dropping any appeal? I think not.

I have read the full transcript of the arbitration panel's judgement (a surprise in itself, that, because I thought binding arbitration panel findings were supposed to be kept confidential) and I do not agree with the tribunal's conclusions.

West Ham gained no improper advantage over any other Premiership club by concluding the separate agreement with Tevez and Mascherano's owners. If the latter had exercised their powers under the agreements, and actually influenced West Ham's team or business affairs, the only losers would have been West Ham United, no-one else. Hence the Premier League's decision to punish by fine rather than deduction of points was correct and appropriate. The Premier League subsequently changed the rules regarding the information required to accompany players' registrations, since they acknowledged that West Ham had not believed they had to disclose arrangements which were not part of the player's contracts, and they must have thought that had some merit, or they wouldn't have needed to change the rules.


Similarly, West Ham cancelled the Tevez third party agreement as instructed by the Premier League. The Premier League were copied in on all further correspondence and litigation. The arbitration tribunal has, however, attached more weight to alleged conversations, which had no force in law, even though it admits it could see how what Duxbury says he said could have been INTERPRETED in the manner claimed by Shears. Perhaps that should have been misinterpreted ...

What was wrong with Duxbury telling MSI's lawyer that they had rescinded the agreement because they had been instructed to do so? That was a fact. What was wrong in him telling the lawyer that, even though no longer contractually bound, the club had no intention to depart from the terms of the rescinded contract, at least until after the end of the season? Nothing wrong with that, keeping the options open, and no third party influence was conceded. None of the discussions altered the fact the contract had been rescinded, and therefore Tevez's post disciplinary tribunal performance was unquestionably legitimate.

Sheffield have been very lucky stumbling on a Tribunal who saw everything their way, so let's not hear any more whingeing from them, please.

With all due respect TrevorH, I think a lot of people have read that article, and others which clarify exactly information has been released regarding the outcome of the Sheff Utd/Tevez hearing. The fact remains that they have made their decision on supposition (something that is assumed or taken for granted without conclusive evidence) and not on facts.

And if it is upheld, this is going to mean that this is going to destroy the very fabric and foundations upon which professional sport (let alone professional football) is built upon.

It is something as big, if not bigger than the Bosman ruling, in that it will completely change how future decisions in the game are reached and made. Any club that can seek compensation for any kind of error in judgement of misdemeaner carried by another party, is going to have the case go to arbitration, who based on supposition, not fact, will decide the outcome.

TrevorH,
I haven't read the transcript, how did they get round the fact that Tevez was a registered West Ham player who was always, according to the Premier League, eligible to play? That seems to make irrelevant any discussion of how many points he was worth to West Ham.

Fans everywhere should read the full transcript that is available online from the Daily Mail. I am a West Ham fan, I have read it and I am afraid that the verdict is probably correct. However there are loads of issues that the arbitration panel didn't deal with because it wasn't part of their remit and this may or may not have influenced this decision.

Be aware everyone if Sheff utd had stayed up and Wigan had been relegated instead this issue would not have gone away. Different team, same course of events.

The arbitration hearing was set up to deal with West Ham and Tevez as they seemingly broke FA rules. It was not about the poor form of Sheff Utd or the Kappa deal or the weakened team at Man Utd.

Read it before you comment. It is enlightening and I am a West Ham fan! Whether the decision is a sporting decision or it is fair is up to individuals to decide.

Redlionblade,
surely you're not really that stupid, are you?!!!
See if you can work it out. Here's a little hint: who was Kabba playing for and who said he couldn't play?

The Ledge,
what exactly is it that you think West Ham did that they should "burn" for?
By the way, if you're going to call someone a cretin for making a spelling mistake perhaps you should check your own spellings, it's "it's an utter disgrace" and "it's a cheats league" not "its!"
Also, have you ever considered taking an anger management course?

The only disgrace ledge is people like you,with your parrot syndrome whinging and greed from a tin pot club, you muppet. Sheff utd have disgraced football with their money grabbibg tactics, and I hope they rot in the lower leagues for eternity. And what a biased article with no backbone to it.

Re: the comments posted by The Ledge. If you're hoping that the Premier League rots in hell, and think that it's a league for cheats, run by cheats, ruining football, why is your club so desperate to get back in it?

Moron.

"claiming for lost earnings and bonuses and good luck to them."

How in your right mind can you wish them luck?

These players earn tens of thousands of pounds a week....they were not of a good enough quality to play in the premiership and subsequently got themselves relegated.

All they had to do was beat a 10man wigan playing heskey in defence on the last day of the season to stay up. It was yours to lose and you lost it

You are a disgrace wishing them luck, they earn ridiculous amounts of money, money that could be saving lives and you think they have a right to claim for lost wages.

what next the company who provide matchday pies sueing for loss of earnings?

This article has annoyed me so much.

Plus, for the record, the arbitration ruling (pages 37-47) has stated that sheff united are equally responsible for their relegation....so as far as I can work out, they are only owed 15million.

If that

Disgrace

Just on the Kabba saga, who exactly is the 3rd party in the Kabba \\\'affair\\\'? The club \\\'owned\\\' the player, Warnock is an employee of the club, so as a employee of SUFC he sanctioned the deal. The 2 clubs sanctioned the deal with no one outside each club having any involvement. Who is the 3rd party that all WH supporters claim there is to justify their continued rule breaking?

What a narrowminded, one-sided, ill- informed piece of opinion. No wonder you blurred your photo MP.
There have been many clubs and individuals caught bending the rules in recent memory. Not all have been hit with a points deduction. But suddenly every fan in the country is a legal expert because they read a few one sided articles in the Mail! Trust me, the verdict in favour of Sheffield United last week is a very bad decision for football in this country.

Typical West Ham fool Claret & Clueless. If you want to retain a shred of dignity at least learn that it is YOURSELVES, not yourselfs, cretin.

As for your club, its an utter disgrace that it has had to come to this but at last we have justice. Some will be tired of hearing about it, but a great wrong was done and it is hopefully to be put right in some small way. I hope your club burns for what it did but nothing like as much as I hope the Premier League rot in hell. Its a cheats leagues run by cheats, for cheats. They are the ruination of real football.

West Ham were heavily fined for breaking a rule that no one had even heard of. I still don't understand what that has got to do with Sheffield Utd.
Even the most deluded Sheffield Utd supporter surely doesn't really believe Carlos Tevez (a player who, incidently, was always completely eligible to play for West Ham) was responsible for their relegation.
Atleaset Sheffield Utd remain back where they belong.

Good article... but the fact remains Sheffied United were not good enough over 38 games to stay in the Premiership and West Ham were.

All you blades fans are playing the self-righteous card but you're no angels - I never hear any mention of the Steve Kabba 3rd party influence, or indeed the weakened side you fielded at Man Utd to gift them the title!!! Maybe you should get your own house in order before you start having a go at others.... People in glass houses.....

And if we are to go down this road of suppostition being taken as fact, then lets talk about the nubmer of points we lost as a result of Tevez's inclusion in the side. We lost numerous games with Tevez in the team, which had he not been in the side, we could definitely have won. I'd say another strikers contribution in his place would be around 3 points, over a whole season.... oh look, that's just enough to keep West Ham up.... Get a grip Blades.

Roll up, roll up to the Sheff Utd Blame Wagon !!! , blame everone but yourselfs blades... the blades even tried to cheat they way out of it in the last game of the season. Blades only have themselfs to blame