First Friendly

[Xàbia Shrimper]

With their alleged healthy bank balance post takeover, a £5.5m fine isn't going to hurt them that much. The PL bottled it big-time with this and should have hit WHUFC where it hurts, a lesser fine and 5 point deduction would have been a fairer punishment and also set a precedent to discourage dodgy 3rd party transfers in the future!

Fine, I agree. But then the vitroil should be directed at the FA, not West Ham United?

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Fine, I agree. But then the vitroil should be directed at the FA, not West Ham United?

On that particular point I have to agree.
Not sure who Scudamore thinks he is, but the PL seem to have this "do as we say not as we do" attitude right now. Another nail in the coffin of the beautiful game!

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

On that particular point I have to agree.
Not sure who Scudamore thinks he is, but the PL seem to have this "do as we say not as we do" attitude right now. Another nail in the coffin of the beautiful game!

In my opinion, West Ham United did not set out to deceive but they have accepted that they broke FA rules, pleaded guilty and were subsequently fined to the tune of £5.5m. The problem, as we all know, is that precedents were set earlier in the season with Bury and AFC Wimbledon over the use of incorrectly registered players. For me, a fine of £5.5m is a hefty sum for a club like West Ham to absorb, irrespective of the capital earned from the Premiership, but the correct one in terms of their position.

 

[Uncle Leo]

WHUFC (because i was born there) disappeared

You were born at the Boleyn Ground? How odd.

 

[Pubey]

You were born at the Boleyn Ground? How odd.

nope, but i was born in east london and a lot of my parents friends were west ham fans

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

In my opinion, West Ham United did not set out to deceive but they have accepted that they broke FA rules, pleaded guilty and were subsequently fined to the tune of £5.5m. The problem, as we all know, is that precedents were set earlier in the season with Bury and AFC Wimbledon over the use of incorrectly registered players. For me, a fine of £5.5m is a hefty sum for a club like West Ham to absorb, irrespective of the capital earned from the Premiership, but the correct one in terms of their position.

Mike, remove your claret and blue glasses and read the judgement.

First, West Ham pleaded guilty to not acting in good faith. That's not making an honest mistake.

The judgement uses terms like "we find it surprising" when discussing West Ham's submissions, which is basically judicial speak for we don't believe you.

It is described as "an obvious and deliberate breach of the Rules" and a "grave breach of trust... because in our finding the club has been responsible for dishonesty and deceit".

West Ham should have had points deducted. The mitigating factors are incredibly weak and legally questionable.

The mitigating factors
1. The hamsters pleaded guilty - fair enough it is an established mitigating factor.
2. New ownership and management - it is the club being charged, not the individuals. I believe there are numerous precedents for clubs being punished for their predecessor's mistakes.
3. If the contracts had been disclosed they could have been renegotiated so that they didn't breach the rules - the point is that Wet Sham didn't disclose them when they should have.
4. Delay between discovery and breach - again, caused because of the hamster's deceit. To say that we might have deducted points in January, but we can't in April is simply staggering.
5. Tevez continued to play for the club after discovery of the breach - How is this a mitigating factor? The FA should have stopped him! The reason the FAPL didn't act was because Tevez is a big name, who brings publicity and therefore money.
6. The players and the fans - WTF! Since when have they been considered before? The judgement even admits this "of course, if the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points" so why here? Because "the fans and players have been against relegation" (Have the players been fighting? They've laid down and died on more than one occasion eg when they got thumped by Charlton!) "Those efforts and loyalty would be to no avail .... were we to deduct points" Absolute rubbish.
7. It was the club who brought this to the FA's attention - fair enough, but the club shouldn't be credited twice with admitting to it.

I'm no expert in public law, but I would seriously question whether these reasons for not deducting points breach the rules of natural justice. I'm sure the other struggling clubs are seriously considering whether to seek judicial review. The trouble is that even if Wigan, Charlton, Sheff Utd successfully overturn it, the only sanction the courts have is to force the FAPL to go through the same procedure again, and the chances are that the same punishment will be handed down and they'll manage to dig out some vaguely legitimate grounds for it this time.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Mike, remove your claret and blue glasses and read the judgement.

First, West Ham pleaded guilty to not acting in good faith. That's not making an honest mistake.

The judgement uses terms like "we find it surprising" when discussing West Ham's submissions, which is basically judicial speak for we don't believe you.

It is described as "an obvious and deliberate breach of the Rules" and a "grave breach of trust... because in our finding the club has been responsible for dishonesty and deceit".

West Ham should have had points deducted. The mitigating factors are incredibly weak and legally questionable.

The mitigating factors
1. The hamsters pleaded guilty - fair enough it is an established mitigating factor.
2. New ownership and management - it is the club being charged, not the individuals. I believe there are numerous precedents for clubs being punished for their predecessor's mistakes.
3. If the contracts had been disclosed they could have been renegotiated so that they didn't breach the rules - the point is that Wet Sham didn't disclose them when they should have.
4. Delay between discovery and breach - again, caused because of the hamster's deceit. To say that we might have deducted points in January, but we can't in April is simply staggering.
5. Tevez continued to play for the club after discovery of the breach - How is this a mitigating factor? The FA should have stopped him! The reason the FAPL didn't act was because Tevez is a big name, who brings publicity and therefore money.
6. The players and the fans - WTF! Since when have they been considered before? The judgement even admits this "of course, if the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points" so why here? Because "the fans and players have been against relegation" (Have the players been fighting? They've laid down and died on more than one occasion eg when they got thumped by Charlton!) "Those efforts and loyalty would be to no avail .... were we to deduct points" Absolute rubbish.
7. It was the club who brought this to the FA's attention - fair enough, but the club shouldn't be credited twice with admitting to it.

I'm no expert in public law, but I would seriously question whether these reasons for not deducting points breach the rules of natural justice. I'm sure the other struggling clubs are seriously considering whether to seek judicial review. The trouble is that even if Wigan, Charlton, Sheff Utd successfully overturn it, the only sanction the courts have is to force the FAPL to go through the same procedure again, and the chances are that the same punishment will be handed down and they'll manage to dig out some vaguely legitimate grounds for it this time.

Anybody got Dave Whelan's email address?
YB, you could get some consultancy off him!

 

[WickfordShrimper]

a fine of £5.5m is a hefty sum for a club like West Ham to absorb, irrespective of the capital earned from the Premiership, but the correct one in terms of their position.

bloody hell Mike thats peanuts to a premier**** club, the hamsters if they are allowed to stay up will be getting a 40million TV payout alone.... maybe a fine of 40 million... then i reckon thats about right

the only option is a point deduction the FA must HAVE to look after ALL the 22 teams in premiership not just ONE !!

If west ham survice .. they have cheated and have an unfair advantage and thats not right on the other 21 clubs how all have played by the rules


ONE TEAM IN ESSEX
SOUTHEND UNITED FC

 

[SUFC_Al]

hate being pedantic but there's 20 teams in the premiership and I agree with what you say.

 

[Mick]

I'm no expert in public law .....

This is not a public law issue.

I don't think any of us knows enough about the actual infringement or the regulations to be able to pass judgement on this case. Most emotional comments are because it's West Ham. If it were, say, Middlesbrough, most people wouldn't give a toss.

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

This is not a public law issue.

I don't think any of us knows enough about the actual infringement or the regulations to be able to pass judgement on this case. Most emotional comments are because it's West Ham. If it were, say, Middlesbrough, most people wouldn't give a toss.

Spot on, sir ...

 

[WickfordShrimper]

This is not a public law issue.

I don't think any of us knows enough about the actual infringement or the regulations to be able to pass judgement on this case. Most emotional comments are because it's West Ham. If it were, say, Middlesbrough, most people wouldn't give a toss.

Too right Mick.... the last 3 bloody weeks Ive had hamsters fans shouting at me every pub i go in COME ON U IRONS .lol

Southend are **** ... going down going down.. blah blah blah... I laugh but its starting to **** me right off !!


One Team in ESSEX
SOUTHEND UNITED FC

 

[SUFC_Al]

Too right Mick.... the last 3 bloody weeks Ive had hamsters fans shouting at me every pub i go in COME ON U IRONS .lol

Southend are **** ... going down going down.. blah blah blah... I laugh but its starting to **** me right off !!


One Team in ESSEX
SOUTHEND UNITED FC

Step 1 - Size up one of the scumbags

Step 2 - Make sure he's within striking distance

Step 3 - Bring your knee up wih reasonable force and aim between the offenders legs and follow through

Step 4 - Stand over the guy and shout abuse back.

Okay, i'm bored stiff

 

[steveo]

great to be playing a real big club,everyone's second team right? Here's hoping they stay up.

Are they?
No
No

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Are they?
No
No

Steve, were you away from school the day they taught irony? :D

 

[Reading Shrimper]

6. The players and the fans - WTF! Since when have they been considered before? The judgement even admits this "of course, if the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points" so why here? Because "the fans and players have been against relegation" (Have the players been fighting? They've laid down and died on more than one occasion eg when they got thumped by Charlton!) "Those efforts and loyalty would be to no avail .... were we to deduct points" Absolute rubbish.

Totally with you there. I'm sick of hearing 'deducting points and relegating West Ham would only punish the fans'. What about the fans of Wigan and/or Sheffield United, whose clubs have acted honestly and within the rules of the transfer market?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

This is not a public law issue.

I don't think any of us knows enough about the actual infringement or the regulations to be able to pass judgement on this case. Most emotional comments are because it's West Ham. If it were, say, Middlesbrough, most people wouldn't give a toss.

To what extent a public law principle such as the rules of natural justice can apply to a private body such as the Premier League who exerts monopolistic regulatory powers, is indeed one of the questions that would need to be answered by an expert in public law. There will be a degree of overlap, the question is how much, but I can use the term 'regulatory law' instead.

The judgment contains the salient facts, so its possible to have an informed view on the subject.clicky.

Many emotional comments are made because it is West Ham who have escaped punishment (Middlesborough are an interesting suggestion, as they were relegated by a points deduction), but regardless of that there is a strong suspicion amongst many football fans that if it was a smaller club eg Sheffield United, they would have had points deducted. Regardless of it being Wet Sham, that offends my sense of fair play.

 

[fbm]

Gutted they've arranged one against them. Claret & Blue bubblers will be coming out of the woodwork all over the place. Sorry, I'd go if it was a meaningful game, but I'm not wasting money to see that ugly bunch otherwise.

So the prospect of a near sell out for a friendly and the cash benefit for our club doesn't come into the equation then?

No doubt you'd prefer a half full stadium against some other Prem sides reserve team?

 

[Dustybin]

I thought friendlies were meant to be fun...and ...well...friendly...:confused:

 

[fbm]

I thought friendlies were meant to be fun...and ...well...friendly...:confused:

I seem to remember the last time we played WH in a friendly they thumped us 5-1 at the Hall and it was pretty friendly between both players and fans. And it was a sell out.