D&G wrote:Not the best prep for the players come Saturday.
I agree but then a positive result for us tomorrow could act as a catalyst for another 3 points at Wiggin can you imagine the relief the club will feel if we get a let off?
Having said that they may already know the result!
Cheltenhammer wrote:
I agree but then a positive result for us tomorrow could act as a catalyst for another 3 points at Wiggin can you imagine the relief the club will feel if we get a let off?
Having said that they may already know the result!
yeah i supose but will the FA lay us off like that beter do or their C*nts!
Arch Dandy wrote:
If they have reached a logical place to stop for the day and the next item/piece of evidence etc would only get half heard before they had to finish they I think they'd adjourn for the day and start again the next day.
There would be no point in cutting an item half way through for the sake of working another half hour, it also gives them a chance to review what they have already heard.
They may also have adjourned because the panel hit a point which couldn't be dealt with, and further research or legal advice was required. That could be good or bad for us, but perhaps the more complicated it gets the better for us?
Also, the QC leading the panel is apparently a top criminal barrister, so wtf that has to do with PL rules beats me!
Off the hook - West Ham won't be docked points over Tevez affair
By MATT LAWTON and SIMON CASS - More by this author » Last updated at 22:50pm on 26th April 2007
Comments Comments
West Ham are expected to escape with a heavy fine on Friday when an independent Premier League commission reconvene to determine if the club fielded ineligible players.
Carlos Tevez has been the hero of the club’s belated relegation escape bid but has also been the subject of a Premier League investigation into his controversial signing.
The expected punishment is sure to cause outrage at other clubs, who would regard it as too lenient.
Paul Jewell, boss of the relegation-threatened Wigan side who meet the Hammers on Saturday, said: "Whoever is doing the inquiry will be desperate for us to beat West Ham. It should have been dealt with a long time ago to give everyone a fair crack of the whip.
"That would have given West Ham an opportunity to deal with it, if they had lost points. Now it’s come to the stage of the season where it seems crazy to have to make a decision."
The commission members who met West Ham’s defence team in London on Thursday are likely to consider a points deduction too harsh.
The charge concerned a breach of Premier League rules U.18 and B.13 and related to the registration of Argentina internationals Tevez and Javier Mascherano last August.
The Premier League does not allow players who are owned by a third party to represent one of their member clubs.
Mascherano and Tevez were owned by Media Sports Investment when they signed from Brazilian club Corinthians and West Ham’s failure to provide the Premier League with all the documentation angered them greatly.
The commission — chairman Simon Bourne-Arton QC, Lord Herman Ouseley and David Dent — met West Ham officials for almost three hours on Thursday.
Eggert Magnusson, the club’s Icelandic chairman who was not in charge when Tevez and Mascherano signed, was joined by deputy chief executive Scott Duxbury and Jim Sturman QC, who has also represented Jose Mourinho.
The defence was expected to stress the fact that the previous administration, in particular former chief executive Paul Aldridge, were responsible for recruiting the two players, while also trying to suggest the Premier League did not fully understand their own rules at the time.
"That would have given West Ham an opportunity to deal with it, if they had lost points. Now it’s come to the stage of the season where it seems crazy to have to make a decision."
He has a point, should have been sorted ages ago.
Anton giving away stupid free kicks has cost us more points than what we would be deducted anyway...
Matt Scott and Jeremy Wilson
Friday April 27, 2007
The Guardian
Paul Aldridge, West Ham United's former managing director who oversaw the transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano to Upton Park, has not been called to give evidence to the Premier League disciplinary panel that began sitting yesterday. The panel has the power to deduct points if West Ham are found guilty, a punishment which might mean relegation for the Premiership strugglers.
Aldridge left West Ham after the takeover by the Icelanders Eggert Magnusson and Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson this season but he made himself available to the disciplinary committee and admits he is puzzled why his personal testimony is not wanted.
"I've had written correspondence with the Premier League but I don't know if it's been heard," he said yesterday. "I have made myself available but no one's asked me [to attend]. I would like to be there to argue any case against me.
"I suppose they might think that [the deputy chief executive] Scott Duxbury was and is the legal view at the club and they can rely on that. But there is a charge that the club was acting in bad faith and I would have thought that my testimony might seem useful. We took a lot of legal advice at the time and we were very comfortable with the position."
The Premier League was less so, and considers ownership of the players by a third party to have been a breach of rule U18, allowing outside forces "materially to influence the club's policies and/or the performance of its teams". The bad-faith accusation relates to the charge that the club "deliberately withheld these agreements from the Premier League".
Those charges were laid on February 3 but the hearing, in front of a three-man disciplinary panel chaired by Simon Bourne-Arton, QC, began yesterday. It sat for three hours to hear West Ham's deposition, which was presented by Duxbury and Magnusson. A verdict is expected today.
West Ham's manager, Alan Curbishley, says that the possibility of a points deduction has not had any impact on his preparation for tomorrow's potentially pivotal match against Wigan Athletic. "It will only be a distraction once they make their decision and we know where we all stand," he said. "For us, at the moment, whatever comes out of the inquiry is irrelevant. It's secondary to what we've got to do this weekend."
The timing of the hearing so close to the end of the season has raised eyebrows, particularly because any sanction might be the subject of an appeal. "The timing is there for everybody, not just West Ham but clubs in the Premiership below us and just above us. Who knows what thinking has gone into it?" said Curbishley.
West Ham have moved to within three points of safety with four wins in their last six games but the club's top-flight status is still in the balance. If victorious at the JJB Stadium tomorrow they will go level on points with Wigan, whose chairman, Dave Whelan, has been quoted as saying that any club found guilty of breaking the rules should be docked points.
"Wigan have voiced their opinion on it and if it was on the other foot I think we'd probably be doing the same," said Curbishley.
westlondonhammer wrote:fine + suspended points deduction at worst imo
Agree with you on that, The whole thing is confused as it was Brown and co who are the culprits if there was any wrong doing. Justice must come down on the side of common sense and if we are found guilty of any wrong doing it would be a travesty to deduct us points when the people facing the charges had f*** all to do with it.
Any fine dished out i understand Eggy will attempt to make TB and co pay, too ****ing right.
Pay with blood i say.
I had a look at the wigan forum and cannot understand why they feel the press has a bias for West Ham. If they had been where we have for this season how can they say the press love us !
cockney farmer wrote:I had a look at the wigan forum and cannot understand why they feel the press has a bias for West Ham. If they had been where we have for this season how can they say the press love us !
london gull wrote:The FA have already set a precendent this season after Bury were thrown out the cup after fielding an illegible player.
Thing is, they also set precedent a few years ago, when we had to replay a game due to fielding an illegible player. If anything, that's what should have happened to Bury, rather than getting thrown out.
One thing we've got to remember is that the hearing that's currently taking place ISN'T an FA disciplinary hearing. It's one called by the Premier League for violation of their rules, not FA ones.
If the FA want to pursue us for fielding Tevez in the FA Cup, it'll be a seperate issue altogether, possibly based on whatever the Premier League's findings are.
What I should have said is "followed their rules".
The rules of the cup now are that if you play an ineligible player you are thrown out. Now I'm not suggesting Tevez is, but if they decide he is then it gets a little complex.
They can't throw you out the cup now, will they ban you for a season ?
Will they make West Ham give Brighton their share of the gate with Watford ?
Bury's solicitors are monitoring closely apparently.