Should West Ham be punished twice?
West Ham United face paying massive damages in compensation to Sheffield United after an independent tribunal today ruled against the Premier League club over the Carlos Tevez affair.
Although no figure has yet been agreed, it could be as much as £30 million. This is on top of the £5.5m West Ham were fined in April 2007 by an independent panel for irregularities in Tevez's and Javier Mascherano's registrations - which centred on third-party ownership.
So West Ham are being hit in the pocket twice. For an error that was made under the previous owners of the club. And a previous manager.
Is this right?
There is no doubt that the Upton Park club was guilty of wrongdoing, but how many times must they be punished? If the original fine was not enough then isn't it the panel who came to that original conclusion that should be looked at, not the club?
Or is this much nearer the mark? Do Sheffield United deserve to be compensated for the millions they have lost through revenue by not being in the Premier League?
And when will this all end? If Sheffield United are not happy with their payout will they fight for even more? This is an incident that happened two years ago - and that has already been dealt with by the Premier League AND the High Court. Isn't it time to draw a line under the whole sordid affair?
Let us know what you think in the comment box below.
Sign up for our free daily email, lunchtimes at 1pm
Is it fair that West Ham or any other club can stay up / win games by using players they don't actually own and had a bit of creative accounting to make it look as if they do ?????
The chairmen should hang their heads in shame for allowing loan /lease players makes a mockery of a fair and balanced competition
Posted by: richard dow | 23 Sep 2008 10:19:58
As a Derby fan working in Sheffield you cannot believe the attitude of Blades' fans. They have been moaning non stop about this and won't be satisfied until they are actually welcomed back to the Premier League with an apology. Never mind the fact that they weren't good enough to stay up and that they blew their chance on the last day at home.
Sincerely,
Disgruntled Derby County Supporter
Posted by: Ash | 23 Sep 2008 10:20:12
The fact that Tevez played in well in the last 9 games excludes the fact that he played so poorly in the previous 29, should this not be taken into consideration?
As I understand the case it was that we were not suitable punished for having misfiled some paperwork, which said that there was another body, not the club that held the regestration, who could have some say in who a player plays against. Does this mean that Sheffield United and Watford will be similarly fined for the same offence, in regards to Steve Kabba - who was sold by Sheffield United to Watford but was not permitted to play against Sheffield United?
The fact that we finished in the top 10 the season before these two players arrived should we be claiming that we would have finished higher had these players not arrived.
Every Team in the Premiership must except all rules and punishments that are dealt out by the Premiership, as Sheffield United have refused to acknowledge and adbide by the rules and punishments that are set down by the Premier League does this mean that even if they were to win the CokeCola Championship they would not be permitted to return to the Premiership?
There are too many issues around this to make any clear judgement about compensation and the effect of 1 player in a team of 11.
Posted by: Ben MacBean | 23 Sep 2008 10:42:08
I'd like to know if this Tribunal has any power of enforecment at all. It's grossly wrong and let's hope Watford, faced with relegation or a point from the playoffs sue Reading via this same tribunal for a similar dilemma of loss.
You are totally right, West Ham have already been fined so cannot be fined twice. However I suspect this tribunal only has the power of suggestion and if they state a claim be paid, West Ham are not legally obliged to pay it. That's what Courts are for and as for Sheffield Utd, I believe this will be made clear when the actual power of that tribunal is shown to be irrelevant.
Posted by: David Sullivan | 23 Sep 2008 10:51:27
I'm disgusted as a Chelsea fan to see this still going on, dragged on by Sheffield Utd. I hope by Sheffield Utd being paid £30m by West Ham Utd they accept the sanction of being banned from the Premier League for 20yrs by default of breaking the rules of the Premier League and bringing the Premier League into disrepute.
I Hope after this season the remaining 20 clubs in the Premier League create a Franchise system and end Promotion and Relegation forever. Sheffield Utd will have brought this moment much closer now!!!!
Posted by: Steven Davies | 23 Sep 2008 10:56:40
Sheffield Utd should let this drop. The case was reviewed, a punishment was issued and the whole of football moved on from the whole affair......................apart from Sheffield Utd. And on top of this they have illustrated one thing: that they are obsessed with money. This has no longer become an ethical debate. That was ended when West Ham were fined a record fine and they lost their most important player. This has now fallen into a grubby debate about money and prestige ands that is a sad indightment of where football is going.
Sheffield Utd went down because they were not good enough. West Ham won their ga,mes, Sheffield Utd lost theirs. From a footballingpoint of view, it was still 11 men on a pitch and one team won more than the other.
Posted by: Harry Boulton | 23 Sep 2008 11:08:50
As was reported, West Ham didn't 'misfile' the paperwork; they lied to cover up who actually held the players' registration forms, knowing that it broke the rules.
Maybe West Ham are being punished twice; however, Sheffield United haven't been compensed for relegation; it wasn't them who received the fine, despite losing a possible £50m.
Posted by: cotumely | 23 Sep 2008 11:15:27
Sheffield United are simply showing just how poor they are at accepting the fact they were not good enough to stay up. The easiest way for them to have avoided relegation was to actually win enough points on the field of play. They had their fate in their own hands at the end of the season and blew it, West Ham had to play away to man United and won - so get over it. For the Chairman, Board of Directors and Management of Sheffield United, the over-estimation of their own importance to the rest of the football world is astonishing - a clear example of arrogance without performance and expectation without endeavour. If they decide to play football instead of spending their time chasing a free lunch from West Ham, they might just stand a chance of returning to the Premiership in the future where West Ham will see them on the pitch - where it counts.
Posted by: Keith | 23 Sep 2008 11:35:00
Is it wrong to 'punish' west ham twice - yes
was a £5.5 million fine too small for a punishment - yes
the fa, have shot themselves in the foot, if they had fined west ham more £££ or taken points away.
would west ham of been relegated had they been deducted points? the other factor is, sheff utd could of stayed up, but they blew it on the last day. this is not west ham's fault.
swings and roundabouts
Posted by: De Shurland | 23 Sep 2008 11:38:21
It's not a question of being punished twice. It's a question of why wasn't the punishment sufficient the first time. 5.5 million for a premiership club of their size and for potentially relegating another club through their own illegal actions, is sweet fa to pay!
(Not a Sheffield Utd. fan thank god!)
Posted by: Matt | 23 Sep 2008 11:41:15
Dear or dear , the McCabe sour grapes bandwagon keeps rolling along !
They seem to forget with 10 games left Shefield Utd were 10 points clear of West Ham but just kept losing time after time
Its all very sad , still , keeps the lawyers in pocket i,m sure !
Posted by: Neil Triphook | 23 Sep 2008 11:43:31
As a West Ham fan of many years, I am appalled that our club could even contemplate illegal activities and they should be punished for their mis-deeds. However, that's exactly what happened. They held their hands up, were fined by the Premier League and were allowed to continue playing Tevez. It was up to the league to dock points if that was appropriate. They did not! That being the case, that's the end of the matter. If Sheffield Utd still felt they were wronged, they should have approached the Premier League not WHU. Incidentally Sheffield Utd were not good enough to stay up. If WHU have to pay them compensation for their own shortcomings this sets a precedent for any other team in the Blade's position, to complain and seek compensation from other clubs because they were relegated. Wow and Ha Ha. What is the legality of this tribunal anyway. Before WHU payout a penny, this must be tried in a proper court to see what the grounds really are! If after that they have to pay, then do so, but don't pay anything on the rulings of this motley crew.
Posted by: SPANDAV | 23 Sep 2008 11:45:10
What annoys me most is the constant reference to illegally registered players. This was not the case. There was a clause in the contract that had the potential to allow third party influence. The premier league have a rule against third party influence but until this affair most people assumed the rule was more to do with club officials and shareholders having interests in other clubs. West Ham enquired to the Premier league whether or not this constituted a breach and were told (over the phone) that it did not. The woman at the league denies this, West Ham at the tribunal said that it was the case. The third party influence was there but it could only ever have worked against West Ham. This is why a points deduction was not the correct punishment, but a fine for not filing the paperwork correctly was deemed appropriate. That should really have been the end of the matter.
Forgive me if I am wrong but the supposed result today mentions that the panel believed that West Ham were not likely to have won as many points in the last couple of games without Tevez. Surely law is normally based on facts and not supposition? This outcome, if true, is a complete mockery and does not bode well for the future of football and has far reaching implications for sport in general.
I believe West Ham were wrong. West Ham were not, however, responsible for Sheffield United being relegated. Ideally what should have happened back at the time was West Ham being docked 2 points. There had been no precedent to suggest anything more than a one point deduction.
This arbitration result, if true, is ridiculous.
Posted by: Fester | 23 Sep 2008 12:06:25
The point is that West Ham stayed in the Premiership by cheating. The benefits of staying in the Premiership are far greater than the original fine. It isn't Sheffield Utd's fault that the Premier League didn't have the guts to punish West Ham properly. They had a chance to send out a clear message by docking points (the only true punishment these days) and this saga just proves that they are as gutless as the FA. Why is everybody berating Utd - they haven't broken any rules? If I felt I was £30m out of pocket I'd kick up a fuss as well - so would all you Hammers fans out there!
Posted by: Ian | 23 Sep 2008 12:22:27
Ian, You say Sheffield haven't broken any rules and yet the third party agreement that prevented Steve Kabba from playing was openly stated by your manager. You only got away with it because it was verbal and not written down. Sheffield are more guilty of third party influence. With Tevez and Mascherano there was the potential for third party influence (although only going to be a negative influence). With Kabba there was an actual real life third party influence. You only got away with it because Manchester United had twisted the Premier Leagues arm over the Tim Howard affair. There are many more instances of actual guilt (rather than potential guilt).
West Ham are guilty of stupidity, unprofessionalism and, yes, of deceit (if the aforementioned telephone conversation was fictional). Sheffield United are guilty of the very third party influence that you feel got you relegated. This needs to be addressed.
Posted by: Fester | 23 Sep 2008 13:19:23
Aside from the guilt of West Ham and the cost to Sheff United is the fundamental issue that the punishment did not fit the crime.
The suspicion to most fans is that if the situation were reversed then Sheffield United would have had points deducted; unless part of Sheffield United's history had included Trevor (FA) Brooking, call me Sir Geoff Hurst and Bobby Moore, they were also based in London and whose fans where integral to the core of the England team support, albeit effigy burning boo-boy supporters.
Posted by: matt savage | 23 Sep 2008 13:51:52
Whilst the FA tribunal were peering into their crystal ball to ascertain Tevez's impact on West Ham that season, I wonder of they bothered to look at some of the surrounding facts (for a change).
Before Tevez came, West Ham finished top-half of the table, were FA Cup runners up and into the UEFA Cup, and had a bright young promising manager in Alan Pardew.
Tevez and Mascherano arrived, imposed on Pardew, with all the circus that came with them and their cowboy owners. The manager and key players were unsettled. West Ham were promptly dumped out of the UEFA Cup, then the league Cup, went on a record-breaking losing run, were sold to new owners that didn't own Tevez and Mascherano, the manager was sacked, and West Ham were rooted to the bottom of the league table. What followed was the season from hell: Reo-Joker's whinging, Anton's jolly to New York, battle against relegation and subsequent wrangling with Sheff Utd.
Tevez didn't even score until March, and I don't think he even got into double figures for West Ham. We lost 3-0 to Sheff Utd with him on the pitch!
Tevez is gone, and we finish top half of the table again. Things were looking rosey again.
Where is the FA's evidence that we were better with Tevez over the course of the season? Or are we only to take into consideration the latter portion of the season, i.e. the bit that may support Sheff Utd's case, and conveniently ignore the rest of the season?
Posted by: Matthew Fuller | 23 Sep 2008 14:11:03
In response to comment by Richard Dow: would this be the same fair and balanced competition that still allows Carlos Tevez to be "loaned" by a third party to Man Utd? Why is it okay for them?
Posted by: Matthew Fuller | 23 Sep 2008 14:14:16
I have to say, the original fine looked about right. It was a technical offence with no real effect, for which WH were fined about 1/6 of the amount SU are now claiming. Seems about fair to me.
If Sheff Utd really believe that they were only relegated as a result of the Tevez affair, though, can anyone explain to me why they sacked Warnock?
Posted by: Gooner | 23 Sep 2008 15:43:16
Where do I begin? Justice is done from our point of view. The Premier League should be ashamed. We were treat with utter contempt from the arrogant messers of Scudamore and Richards, wanting to brush the episode under the carpet. We have no grip with WHU, it is not personnal. We we're not good enough to retain our PL status but this does not detract from fact that WHU we're dealt with far too Leniently. Outside of South Yorkshire we've had little or no support from the London based media and so called experts who told us to drop the case. Finally, a lot of inaccurate comments are being posted on here e.g. a) Kabba, the non playing deal WAS approved and WAS legit; this dealt with at the time by the PL b) the Derby fan is totally incorrect as we "got over" the decision ages ago - but that surely does not prevent us continuing our case?
Posted by: Mike Taylor Blademan | 23 Sep 2008 15:50:56
Its not about the money at all - West Ham cheated knowingly by signing a player on terms that were illegal in the PL. This is about the joke that is the ruling powers in UK football. Someone please answer me this:
How can they (footballs ruling powers) allow a club who KNOWINGLY CHEATED by using an illegal player to save them from relegation to be fined £5.5m (a fraction of the amount that West Ham made by staying in the PL) and then fine AND issue points deductions to clubs who suffer financial problems due to poor management (not illegal activity).
I wish someone from the FA would read this and issue a response in the press to show some respect of their own to the fans of the game by explaining this hypocrisy of theirs. Its OK to cheat, just don’t go bust!!!
I bet they all just hide away in Soho till it blows over.
P.S. Not a SUFC supporter – just sorry for state of the game!
Posted by: alan | 23 Sep 2008 16:00:29
As a Happy Hammer for the past 33 yrs I was appalled that the club tried to pul one over on the PL.
That said, the new owners came clean when the knwew the game was up so to speak and we were punished. It is not up to us to debate if that punishment was fair but to accept it and move on.
The facts are we were fined, paid it and over th ecourse of 38 games got more than Sheffield United ergo we stayed up, they didn't.
Deal with it and move on.
Posted by: michael Ashdown | 23 Sep 2008 16:15:54
At last someone else has stated what has been puzzling me for the last 2 years. AS Matt Fuller says:
Tevez didn't even score until March, and I don't think he even got into double figures for West Ham. We lost 3-0 to Sheff Utd with him on the pitch!
Where is the FA's evidence that we were better with Tevez over the course of the season? Or are we only to take into consideration the latter portion of the season, i.e. the bit that may support Sheff Utd's case, and conveniently ignore the rest of the season?
I couldnt put it better myself...so I didnt. I just copied him. But what he says is exactly my point. We were useless with him for 7 months and then he had two good months which helped to repair SOME of the damage he did after he arrived.
Posted by: geoff williams | 23 Sep 2008 16:34:03
Mike Taylor,
Just for the record all of the Media have been anti-West Ham since this started. I am not griping about it. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder.
With regards to Steve Kabba how can the third party influence be above board? Absolute jibberish.
Posted by: Fester | 23 Sep 2008 16:37:45
A ludicrous, appalling and dangerous decision and sadly indicative of a blame culture where no one is prepared to take personal responsibility for their lives and every misfortune is always somebody else's fault...
It was not an illegal clause in Tevez's contract that caused Sheffield united to be relegated... it was their lack of ability on the pitch
And it is about time they behaved like men and admitted this truth
Posted by: Tom Cooper | 23 Sep 2008 16:45:20
In response to Mathew
In response to comment by Richard Dow: would this be the same fair and balanced competition that still allows Carlos Tevez to be "loaned" by a third party to Man Utd? Why is it okay for them?
What did I write??
"The chairmen should hang their heads in shame for allowing loan /lease players makes a mockery of a fair and balanced competition"
I meant this not just for West Ham but any and all still involved in this practise. cheers.
Posted by: richard dow | 23 Sep 2008 17:03:44
Also if this hadn't been here, but in some banana republic we would all be going shame on them, can't even run their football properly.
The whole episode stank from start to finish but the premiership board ie (Chairman) changed the rules to allow these loans and leases where previously they were banned by the F.A.
Makes you wonder not enough money to actually own the players outright??
Posted by: richard dow | 23 Sep 2008 17:10:02
They have not been punished twice. The FA punished them once, but didn't dispense justice. They let the Hammers profit and other clubs suffer, even though they found the Hammer's had cheated and tried to hide their cheating.
The FA's own Appeal Chairman said the original punishment was wrong, but for technical reasons he couldn't change it. So the Blades followed the FA's arbitration procedure and after more than a year West Ham will finally not be allowed to financially profit from their cheating.
Shame on FA for not getting it right first time, nor allowing their Appeal Panel to put it right second time. Financial compensation years later will never be enough.
Posted by: Richard | 23 Sep 2008 17:36:35
Surely you should retitle your question! It should read "Should West Ham United have been properly punished the first time around." Once you get more than 20 miles from the Essex border I think that you'll find that the entire footballing fraternity were appalled by the lenience displayed at the original FA tribunal. West Ham were given an easy ride with Brooking and the reputation of Greenwood's Academy being seen as FA assets, affecting the outcome of that panel's decisions. Justice is only now being seen to be done. Get out of London occasionally and you might recognise that fact.
Posted by: John Hall | 23 Sep 2008 18:31:50
The fact that the members of this panel have nothing to do with soccer is truly amazing. That we in this Country can have kangaroo courts, handing out judgements is absolutly amazing. Yes West Ham committed a technical offence, please tell me what club in the Premiership would be faultless if their books were examined... but this is very sad, unfortunaly it does confirm the generalisation that Yorkshire folk are terrible losers, as well as being obsessed with money, Sheffield United hang your heads in shame, and please dont keep calling West Ham a big club... they are not, if any favourtism has been shown in this case it is by the F.A towards one of their old school chums, not to a working class club in a deprived area of East London. I hope Sheffield United linger long in the lower regions and that other clubs treat them with the contempt they deserve,
Terry from Aldgate
Posted by: terry o'donnell | 23 Sep 2008 18:43:48
I am not a West Ham fan I support Arsenal so
have no love for them. BUT this is a farce, having received a fine by a panel than said its decision was binding, then supported by appeal, what on earth is goning on with yet another enquiry of non football people. As has been said why did they not look at 3/4 of the season when Tevez's selection created many poor displays and therefore cost West Ham ;points not just the few games he played at the end. Sheffield Utd only scored 8 goals !!!!
Posted by: D J Martell | 23 Sep 2008 19:02:23
Warnock always said he would leave if SU were relegated, so he kept his word, wonder what he thinks about it now. Sorry that SU were not a fashionable team at the Premier league . . . and how much money did WH make that year by staying up . . .
Posted by: Malcolm | 23 Sep 2008 20:04:07
the decison is a disgrace. All those morons on here who keep bleating on about the premier league not having the guts to deduct west ham points miss the issue that it was an independent panel who decided the punishment not the Premier League. All Premier League clubs including Sheffield United agreed to stand by any ruling made by the panel. We also get the usual story trotted out that somehow Tevez was not eligible to play for West Ham. He was as FIFA ratified his contract. West Ham did not gain any advantage by lying to the Premier League all that happened was they found themselves 5.5 million pounds worse off
Posted by: degsy | 23 Sep 2008 20:05:28
IT IS REDICILOUS. HOW COME NO BODY SAID NOTHING BEFORE. WHAT IF TEVEZ DIDN'T SCORE AND DIDN'T SAVE W'HAM? NOT FAIR AT ALL.
Posted by: JT | 24 Sep 2008 00:32:45
what happened to the fact that sheffield united could have won their last game of the season, or any other game of the season for that matter?!! surely then with enough points they would have stayed up... I put it down to them needing to pass the blame from them playing sum diabolical football!
The FA punished us, 'nuf said! Sheffield united are now just chasing a quick buck! they shouldnt be compensated for being relegated either... if they had played well all season they wouldnt have been in their predicament!!!
One happy hammer!
Posted by: christopher Knight | 24 Sep 2008 01:11:20
Villa and football fan here. This was a farce in the first place, West Ham should have been deducted points. Who knows how the FA ever arrive at any decisions, they always get it wrong.
Posted by: Tricky,59 | 24 Sep 2008 06:03:15
This is a farce.
West Ham have profitted far more than £30m by being allowed to stay in the Premier League in spite of the rules.
Posted by: Paul Case | 24 Sep 2008 07:48:47
I don't care really about the minutiae of the argument; I'd prefer to look at the bigger picture. This ruling lets the lawyers in and that is not in the best or long term interests of the game. For that reason I think it's a bad ruling made by a greedy lawyer with his eye on the big prize.
Posted by: Bill | 24 Sep 2008 08:46:36
If Sheff Utd players had done their job and beaten Wigan on the last day then they would have been on level points with West Ham and survived. Wigan would have gone down with six points less than West Ham, so the case for points deduction would have dimished.
If you only get 38 points you deserve to be relegated.
Posted by: JM | 24 Sep 2008 09:15:56
Sheffield Utd's whole case - apparently confirmed by the Tribunal panel - was that Tevez's presence (alone) in the latter part of the season prevented West Ham's relegation. Apart from rather underestimating the performance of the rest of the team, this is simply conjecture, although it seems to be regarded as fact. If the honourable gentlemen know the result of a football match by a prior viewing of the team sheet, then they should get down to Ladbrokes to put their money where there collective mouths are. I have been watching football for 40 years and I know that you can't win money predicting the results of football matches whoever is playing. I think it was Alex Ferguson who once said 'football can make an awful fool of you'. Presumably also, Man U must take a share of the blame for Sheffield's predicament since they had a cup-final date the following week and were not really trying! Another area where the Blades might make a killing.
I would say to the honourable gentlement who KNOW the results of football matches by reference to teamsheets, that if you are so smart why aren't you rich.
Posted by: Frank | 24 Sep 2008 09:55:18
Carlos Tevez was never an ineligible player. The 'crime' committed was a false declaration about a term in his contract, a term which in itself was not illegal and for which there is no legislation anywhere formally requiring a points deduction.
The verdict was derived from an Independent tribunal that all clubs agreed to be bound by, so why is there still an appeal in the first place?
Despite all the moral outrage, West Ham were punished for their actions. Sheffield United could have stayed simply by not allowing themselves to lose at home to Wigan. There is no cast-iron way of proving whether they would have fewer points without Tevez. It should also be noted that West Ham played better in both the season before and the season after Tevez's arrival.
This is no more than a case of whinging northern crybabies who cannot accept defeat nearly 18 months later.
If they should sue anybody, it should be the Premier League, but, and this is from someone who does not like West Ham, they have no case and should be laughed out of court. West Ham should not pay them one penny.
Posted by: DR | 24 Sep 2008 12:28:09
Over the 50 years that i have been a hammer we have been relegated on several occasions both with very good players & not so good players.
May i remind all of you whingeing SU supporters that it is a season that relegates a team & not just specific games , for if that were the case, then you could have avoided it by beating Wigan ,& notwithstanding we didn't hear you moaning when you stuffed us 3-0.
Perhaps you thought Tevez was rubbish & that we would be relegated.
Posted by: Bernie Gould | 26 Nov 2008 17:50:59