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.

Comments

[Bernie Gould]

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.

[DR]

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.

[Frank]

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.

[JM]

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.

[Bill]

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.

[Paul Case]

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.

[Tricky,59]

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.

[christopher Knight]

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!

[JT]

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.

[degsy]

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

[Malcolm]

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 . . .

[D J Martell]

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 !!!!

[terry o'donnell]

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

[John Hall]

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.

[Richard]

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.

[richard dow]

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??

[richard dow]

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.

[Tom Cooper]

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

[Fester]

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.

[geoff williams]

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.

[michael Ashdown]

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.

[alan]

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!

[Mike Taylor Blademan]

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?

[Gooner]

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?

[Matthew Fuller]

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?