Pound of flesh - £30 million

Yes I know this is wearily predictable, but I can't resist the temptation. Today's news that an independent tribunal has ruled against West Ham, and for Sheffield United, in the Carlos Tevez affair is laughable. I mean, I'm not laughing, but you get my point.

The crux of my nub is this statement, published in the Daily Mail today:
"On the totality of the evidence, we have no doubt that West Ham would have secured at least three fewer points over the 2006/07 season if Carlos Tevez had not been playing for the club."

Oh yeah? Let's look at the evidence, shall we?

Tevez played well towards the end of the season - really well. He famously scored the only goal of our last game of the season at Old Trafford, and I almost wish he hadn't. That game was won through a heroic effort by every member of our team, but the only fact that registers with the tribunal members is
Man Utd 0 - 1 West Ham (Teves)
That's three points right there, and proof of our guilt.

Never mind that the arrival of Teves and Mascherano was accompanied by absolute chaos, a double signing that took even our manager, Alan Pardew by surprise. Fitting them into the side was an immediate problem, which Pardew solved by  leaving Mascherano on the bench. Results were poor, despite these two undeniably brilliant players in the squad, and eventually Pardew paid with his job.

At this point, how many points had Tevez gained West Ham? To make any kind of intelligent judgment, you have to consider how many points we might have had without him. The previous season, we finished ninth and reached the FA Cup final, qualifying for Europe. So why were we suddenly stuck in the relegation zone?

If any part of our struggles was connected with the arrival of Tevez and Mascherano - and the associated stress and controversy - then thos players actually cost West Ham points.

This may sound like a fatuous point - a one-eyed fan trying to wriggle out of a moral pinch - but it's actually a relatively sophisticated argument. The truth is, the amount of points that one player gains for his team is completely unknowable.

The problem is, the members of the tribunal don't seem to be capable of a sophisticated judgment. And why not?

Because the members of the board were:
Robert Englehart QC, an expert in sport law, but with no apparent knowledge of football
Lord Griffiths, former MCC president and keen golfer
Sir Anthony Colman, former high court judge with no connection to sport of any kind

Let's not have people like this making decisions about the game, OK? Yes, they can argue the legal points, but no, they cannot tell how many points West Ham would have ended the season with if they hadn't signed Carlos Tevez.

Nobody can know that, and it would take an extremely arrogant group of men to think - despite an unplumbable depth of ignorance of the game - that they could.

Douglas Carter

Comments

[tc]

For the 3 wise monkey Sheff Utd fans who continue to bleat on like sheep following their xxxx chairman:

The 'gentlemans agreement' re. Kabba was cheating.(And is against PL/FA rules and is still a contract if verbal therefore liable to 'breaches' of duty of care)

Throwing the game v Wigan was cheating (and by the way if the boot was on the other foot we would not be backing our chairman if they carried out a personal vendetta against not only the board of directors of another club but the whole lot fans as well)

And finally Morgans life threatening violent conduct v. Hume was not only 'not against FA rules' but was cheating.

You really need to think about the last one before you scream like babies about WH being cheats.

BTW - Spurs got away with years of xxxxx and abuse under Sugar with a much reduced fine and no points deduction, because they threatened to go to court v FA. This should have been our approach then this would have died a death. You blunts are just lucky we had an incompetent board. Compensation should be nominal - we'll have whip round down the local. @50 quid should do it.

[TWO WORDS DELETED BY DC, JUST IN CASE THEY WERE LIBELLOUS. SORRY.]

[Mark]

I truly think S utd are the worst loosers i have ever seen in the football. its simple tevez was bought illegally but the FA fined WHUFC at that moment itself. i guess it was 5M if i am not wrong. if sheffield had a problem they should have made a complaint back then itself to dock whufc with points. anyways no one can predict the future. even though tevez was in the team he scored only 5 goals not 20 or not even 10 just 5!! . it all started after jan when there was around 10 point difference between s utd and whufc. they should have still made it safely with such a big gap but their poor player and manager couldnt do the job which was needed off then. even then they flattened whufc 5-0 i guess. this was the match in which tevez did play still they get relegated i mean u gotta be kidding they were really poor and they showed that on the last day as well. its simple u win the matches u get points and u stay up. if this sueing stuff goes on, then every year there would be some club sueing another one. this is a game to played on feild and not in court

[mike]

It all seems a very long time ago now,but cast your minds back to the actual penalty decision that gave Wigan victory,and ultimately SU relagation.Deliberate handball,or what?

[Rich]

In the article you criticise the members of the board that were appointed to make this decision.

"Let's not have people like this making decisions about the game, OK? Yes, they can argue the legal points, but no, they cannot tell how many points West Ham would have ended the season with if they hadn't signed Carlos Tevez."

However, these people were not appointed by the FA but instead were appointed by West Ham and Sheffield Utd. I quote this from the bbc website:

"When two clubs are in dispute, then under the FA's Rule K, there is a procedure for solving disagreements through independent arbitrators.

Each club can nominate one member of a private arbitration tribunal, then together the two parties choose a third to act as chairman."

Therefore no complaints can be made against the panel because they were chosen by the two clubs.

[Huw Williams]

Lets get this Steve Kabba thing sorted once & for all.
Steve Kabba was on loan from SUFC to Watford FC. A gentleman’s agreement was made that he would not play against SUFC wile on loan, this is perfectly within the laws of the game. When the loan was made permanent the agreement did not apply, Steve Kabba did not play against SUFC because he was injured. That injury meant he did not play the game before the match against SUFC or for the remainder of that season. The whole thing was investigated by the PL and nothing was found to be amiss! Please stop trying to use Steve Kabba as an excuse for the wrong doing of West Ham.

[Jimbo]

Well done douggie for making the most valid point about the Tevez affair.Yes those who are judging our wrongs are not fit to do so.The phrase "kangaroo tribunal" springs to mind.Even S Utd supporters would agree that one player can not be responsible for a victory,unless he's the only player on the park for his team.Who's to say if we had played another striker other than Tevez on the last day of the season the result would be any different.This is a factor no one could ever predict.After all if someone were to predict West Ham would be the last team to beat Arsenal at Highbury,and the first to beat them at the Emirates.Who would have believed them.As for S Utd if they do manage to get any amount of compensation out of this.I believe they should be made to pay the same amount in a fine for their third party involvement over their Kabba transfer.Perhaps they should realise they are launching a dangerously large boulder from their glass stadium.

[tc]

Sheffield Utd went down because their manager was rubbish both tactically, as a coach and motivationally. The players were also poor - West Hams technical crime won't change that and SU don't deserve compensation. SU fans are quick to claim the moral highground (hypocritically since Kabba and a whole host of other ACTUAL 3rd party influence prove them and the other clubs prove they broke the same laws) but are they going to condemn their own board, manager and players, especially as this is likely to open the floodgates for loss of earnings, etc. If I was a SU fan I would be ashamed of players trying to profit when their play put us in the Championship.

[recycleman]

west ham did the unthinkable they beat man u at old traford. sheffield let wigan win and come undone. their
plan to make sure west ham went down and they and wigan stayed up back fired. the manager went because of it. they got what they deserved for trying to cheat. thats what i think.

[Gooner]

Steve> "No-one outside of planet football can quite believe that West Ham weren't simply deducted all the points they won while fielding an ineligible player."

True, but the same people, having had it explained to them, also can't believe the arcane ruling that Tevez was an ineligible player.

[Steve]

It's all a red herring. No-one outside of planet football can quite believe that West Ham weren't simply deducted all the points they won while fielding an ineligible player. This happens in every other sport, and in fact it happens in football as well, just for some utterly bizarre reason not in this case. If they have to pay £30M to Sheffield United, plus another £30M in compensation to the United players, they will remain the luckiest club in football.

[RH]

Whether Sheff Utd were worse than Wigan is a red herring. You could have 20 Brazil 1970s in the Prem and three would still be relegated. The point is that Sheff Utd fielded players within the rules and West Ham did not do so. The tribunal considered on a balance of probabilities that Tevez was worth three points - and, let's face it, if he was not, why did West Ham keep playing him, even in the final three games under an iffy contract?

[Nicholas]

This needs to be looked at from another angle. Rather than trying to prove whether or not Tevez and/or Mascherano kept West Ham up, people should be considering whether a 5 million pound fine is a suitable punishment for fielding not one, but TWO ineligible players for most of a season.

The fact that the duo's arrival put the club into turmoil and cost Alan Pardew his job is neither here nor there. Certainly West Ham took Tevez and Mascherano on loan believing they would benefit the team; and there was talk even that they could challenge the best teams in the league.

If a 5 million pound fine is deemed sufficient punishment, then surely other clubs in the future will take the risk of fielding ineligible players if it has a chance of saving them from relegation, the cost of which is far, far, far more than 5 million pounds.

It should have been a mandatory points deduction, enforced immediately after the offence was proved.

[Josh]

Chris Cheetham> Forgetting about the breaking technical rules for a minute, because I think we all agree that the people who write and enforce them are incompetent, can you explain to me what was actually wrong with Tevez playing for West Ham? I mean, there may be some brouhaha about 3rd party ownership, but Tevez surely *ought* to have been able to play for West Ham.

Anyway, if you really think the Blades thought West Ham were responsible for the relegation, why do you think they sacked the manager straight after?

[Chris]

West Ham fans certainly think Tevez helped them stay up if the reception Tevez gets when he went back to Upton Park is anything to go by. West Ham's behaviour was just indefensible and almost as bad are the FA. It was obvious that they were being lied to but they just didn't care about getting at the truth. And poor Sheffield United paid the price. I'm really pleased they're getting some compensation. This verdict was on the cards from the moment Manchester United asked the question "who do we send the money to?" when they signed Tevez. From that moment on the game was up and if this panel hadn't ordered compensation to be paid the courts would have.

[Dyl]

It's my honest oppinion that Sheffield United threw the last game of the season against wigan, believing (almost understandably) that Man utd would beat West Ham at home and thus relegating them. Sure, there's no 'proof' of this (Although Jagielka's hand ball was so obviously intentional it defied belief), but the point is, Sheffield Utd were relegated because they were (on purpose or not), not good enough to beat Wigan. This had nothing to do with Carlos Tevez. West ham receieved their punishment, a fine of £5.5 million, this should have been the end of the matter. Sheffield utd and their legal team are the disgrace here, not West Ham Utd. I sincerely hope Sheffield do not recieve a penny. If anything, they deserve to be punished by the Premierleague for failing to adhere to the contract they signed when they entered the premierleague. Sheffield utd were obliged to accept the decision the league made, that decision was a fine. end of discussion.

[Tim]

Didn't Sheff United not cheat when they illegally played Steve Kabba earlier in the season?

[Mike Taylor Blademan]

Well said and thank you Mr. Chris Cheetham. WHU continue to be in denial. They and their London media chumms coupled with the PL (messrs) Scudamore and Richards would like nothing more than to sweep under the carpet and pretend nothing happended....Luckily for us we have a Chairman with guts and determination that wouldn't accept this wrong-doing. The decision is everything, the money for me you can keep. Shame on the PL.

[Chris Cheetham]

I'm not sure I understand the controversy. This is a clear victory for decency, integrity and commonsense. The original tribunal made a very weak judgement; but that is not the point. Nobody can say how West Ham would have performed in their last three games; but that is not the point. The point is that to ensure that Tevez played in those last three games, which they thought was going to be key to their survival, West Ham told blatant and deliberate lies. Moreover, it didn't take rocket science to figure out that this must have been the case; was Joorabchian really going to give up all rights "overnight and without compensation"? Of course not. It had taken Liverpool two weeks to sort out the "technical" issues when they signed Mascherano. How could West Ham do it in a few hours? I was outraged at the time, but now feel a wrong has been exposed and hope that justice will be done. The conduct of the Premier League now needs to be reviewed. Why did they turn a blind eye, especially when Tevez's move to Man Utd ran into complications? Well done Kevin McCabe.

[Whingeingpom]

Difficult to quantify the impact Tevez had for sure but the writer has missed the point that the arbitration panel was appointed by the parties (one each) and the third member of the panel was appointed jointly. Presumably West Ham and Sheffield wouldn't have appointed them if they didn't think they had sufficient knowledge/experience to decide the case put to them. There is a tendancy to think that matters like this are "football" pure and simple but the reality is that they are not any different to other commercial cases where a party has suffered loss and seeks damages. The "football" issue, as the author says, is one of quantification - did (1) the "illegal" signing of Tevez save West Ham and therefore cost Sheffield a place in the Premiership and (2) how much was that worth?

[Shaun]

'and who will whip us next? how many times will we be punished? will we get our 5m back? have S U done nothing wrong at all? i think not .should charlton take us both to court? wow they could get 60mil'

As a charlton fan, I'm looking into it :D

[richard dow]

I've read these comments which are attributed at the start of this thread

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1060694/EXCLUSIVE-The-30m-lie--false-claims-Carlos-Tevez-deal-nailed-Hammers.html

I've looked at this and I'm no legal expert but is there not a case here for conspiracy to Defraud here???

This absolutely stinks to high heaven.

[Alex in Bris]

Sheffield went down because they were unable to get a point at home against WIgan. Shouldn't they be suing Wigan for beating them?? Or even Steven Gerard for the dive that cost them 2 points in the opening game of the season.

[RazorBlade]

"If any part of our struggles was connected with the arrival of Tevez and Mascherano - and the associated stress and controversy - then thos players actually cost West Ham points."

Hmm that can't ever be proven, whereas having illegal players in your squad can (and HAS undeniably been)

West Ham FC cheated, whether the staff/board/tea-lady knew about it or not is irrelevant and should have had points deducted. Case in point is Mansfield who fielded one illegal player for one game (not 2 in multiple games) and got points deducted, you got away with relegation because of the inadequecies of the PL and FA, who if had had the b4lls to do the right thing in the first place wouldn't have needed this strung out for the last umpteen months

[Josh]

Good article. my thoughts exactly on Alan Pardew & the overall effect on team spirit. This is a good thing, i feel sorry for the West Ham Fans, but your board broke the rules, and finally someone in football gets a proper fine, relative to the actual amounts earnt/lost- unlike ManU's 25k at the weekend.
This could only happen because they were people from outside football. Ex-pro's already gave a pointless fine of £5.5mil...

The last bit of your defense drifting away is that west ham tried to profit from selling tevez.... so you deffinately deserve the fine

[Barca]

I've seen several people saying that the decison has been made in favour of Sheffield United because West Ham would have gained less points had they not had Tevez playing for them, but I haven't been able to find any statement from the arbitration panel on its ruling anywhere online.

I thought it was about the fact that West Ham cheated, lied about it, continued to lie about it, were caught, delayed proceedings, and finally got a decision that was to their liking, but which did not fit the crime.

Could someone please direct me to the official statement form the arbitration panel rather than the 'opinion' pieces on West Ham and Sheffield United message boards?

Edit:
Not everyone is carrying this, but dailymail.co.uk is publishing apparent quotes from the ruling here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1060694/EXCLUSIVE-The-30m-lie--false-claims-Carlos-Tevez-deal-nailed-Hammers.html
Doug