Kia, Sheff Utd, Duxbury, McCabe and arbitration

[mcan]

not a points deduction that would have relegated us.

Well only by the amount of points that would have kept them up, ie 3 or more.

[Up the Junction]

A few pages ago, one of you dared an SUFC supporter to register and face you.

Not quite - we simply wanted one or your lot to come on here and argue the case without resorting to insults or falsehoods. Fair play to you, so far.

I'm no more a monkey than you are spivs, my wife remains unbeaten, I don't keep coal in the bath and I've got a Labrador, not a whippet.

Conversely, just because I live south of Birmingham does not a Cockney make me, jellied eels are vile and rhyming slang hasn't been used in regular conversation since the 1950s.

[Kent Bubble Blower]

I speak as a supporter of a club who once lent Peter Withe to another club and he scored against us. Kabba played against us for Blackpool this season. The '3rd party influence' was a story written by the talking buttock as an attempt to muddy the water, and has no bearing on this case as it wasn't even under review. Take us to court....

Which just happened to also be mentioned on the website of both clubs and by at least one of the managers...

[Memorial Ground]

Sorry to say that you're simply looking at a desperate attempt to wriggle out of it. You'd have accepted the verdict if it had gone the other way I suppose? I suspect that there isn't a single poster on here who knows enough about the law to post about the legality aspect - that's just clutching at straws. Stop looking for technicalities and face the facts.

I was quite looking forward to discussing this with you but it seems you're just another one that the mods are going to have to deal with, since you won't face facts yourself.

Come on mate, make this interesting, tell us what we've done wrong and why we owe you money for it.

And calm the f*** down.

[tonycurrie]

None of those things I'm afraid - just an honest football supporter.

[Hastings Hammer]

Classic arguments from the Sheffield fans on the forums/blogs, Tevez inelligible. Please get your facts straight he was never inelligible. West Ham were fined as Tevez could be moved without West Ham's consent. Not because he was inelligible to play, there was no precedent for points deduction and this was a very minor infringement. If West Ham had denied the offence then more than likely the case would have been dismissed. However Steve Kabba, red herring, actual third party interference, if you start throwing mud should make sure that you are innocent. Sheffield United are an embarrassment to football.
They were not good enough and were relegated for that reason. Their players are to blame and the manager is to blame. Try winning games and fielding full strength sides that would have helped. This awful decision has killed football as we know it. Point proven Sheffield players looking to sue West Ham, all about money. I have followed the Hammers for 35 years and football was about decisions on the pitch, good or bad but on the pitch. That was what decided issues, not chairmen of teams acting like spoilt children ignoring everything until a misguided bunch of buffoons agree with him. Civil law is about balance of probabilities not wild psychic predictions. Football was always unpredictable thats what makes it appealing. A season is that, a season not a few selective games that support your viewpoint. The balance of probabilities are there is no way to say how many games were influenced by Tevez as there is no way to prove how someone else would have reacted or performed in the same position. It is of course a team game. Rant over,will go back to grinding my teeth and grimacing at this farcical decision.

[Lennie Hammer]

barneyb: where have you been for 6 years?

tonycurrie: Calm down mate. It's no good you coming from Sheff Utd forums which all disagree with us, and then saying we shouldn't disagree with you. We agree with you that we did wrong, and excepted our punishment. It's Sheff Utd that couldn't accept the decision, time and time again. Why should we accept it now, when it fly's in the face of other decisions and (we think), is so obviously flawed.

Finally… if you're so convinced that you're right, then you've nothing to worry about eh?

[Charle Hammer]

You'd have accepted the verdict if it had gone the other way I suppose?

Like you in the first two failed arbitrations

[jimmy666]

. I've supported SUFC for nearly 50 years through thin and thinner, and never ever do we get justice in a spat with a fashionable club.

Then came one of the most controversial moments in the Cup's history. In February, 1999 the two sides met at Highbury in the fifth round.

The score was tied at 1-1 in the second half when United put the ball out of play after an injury to a player, however Arsenal failed to throw the ball back to United, instead the ball was thrown to Marc Overmars and he slotted the ball home in the 76th minute.

Despite a massive protest from United players, fans and coaching staff, the referee allowed the goal to stand and the match finished 2-1.

However the result of the backlash against Arsenal's actions on the pitch and the referee's decision to allow the goal, Arsene Wenger agreed to replay the game 10 days later.

Unfortunately for United their exit was confirmed after the 90 minutes with the same 2-1 scoreline, with Overmars again on the scoresheet.

- Play to the whistle and all that. Referee's decision is final. Not for anyone assoicated with Sheffield Utd though. Moan long enough, hard enough and loud enough and you are bound to get your own way. Shame they still ****ed it up when they got a second chance. I hope you were at both games so you wasted your money getting there twice...
They just want that 30 mil so they can sign up even more lawyers ready for the next relegation...

[DrVenk]

delete

[tonycurrie]

I was quite looking forward to discussing this with you but it seems you're just another one that the mods are going to have to deal with, since you won't face facts yourself.

Come on mate, make this interesting, tell us what we've done wrong and why we owe you money for it.

And calm the f*** down.

Erm...I haven't got anything to be angry about, so calming down isn't really appropriate. Why would your Mods ban me? I was challenged as an SUFC man to post, but because I disagree with you I have to be banned? How odd.

[mcan]

Now you're scared, because you've spent the money.

Not scared mate, just pissed off. It's the principle of it that irks. Even if we fail with any appeals and do have to pay up, it will be no more than a small fraction of that claimed.

And for the record we're not proud of the way certain individuals have acted, but there are plenty of other threads over many years here which we use to vent our spleens on them, on this matter and countless others.

And, btw, I take it from your words about Kabba that you concede you broke the rules there?

Justice? :lol:

[szola]

http://www.whufc.com/page/News/0,,12562~1403833,00.html


Is it ok that our captain writes his blog with a picture of Carlitos placed firmly on his desk?

[beckton]

I speak as a supporter of a club who once lent Peter Withe to another club and he scored against us. Kabba played against us for Blackpool this season. The '3rd party influence' was a story written by the talking buttock as an attempt to muddy the water, and has no bearing on this case as it wasn't even under review. Take us to court....

Come on mate, it was on the Sheff Utd and Watford websites aswell as the local press.

Warnock was quoted as saying it was in the Contract that Kabba couldn't play and that he had checked it himself.

McCabe came out after and was quoted saying you can't do anything if manager's have a gentlemens agreement.

A bit like our one for Tevez to play the last couple of games.

[Memorial Ground]

Erm...I haven't got anything to be angry about, so calming down isn't really appropriate. Why would your Mods ban me? I was challenged as an SUFC man to post, but because I disagree with you I have to be banned? How odd.

No, we all disagree with eachother, but we give reasons.

You've yet to give us a reason to suggest that we're 'just trying to wriggle out of it'. We've got facts to challenge this judgement, but to you these are just 'clutching at straws'?

The hard facts say that we did wrong and were punished, and it's f*** all to do with Sheff U. Please challenge this.

[tonycurrie]

Well, IS there a case pending about Kabba? Do tell?

[DrVenk]

Erm...I haven't got anything to be angry about, so calming down isn't really appropriate. Why would your Mods ban me? I was challenged as an SUFC man to post, but because I disagree with you I have to be banned? How odd.

Do you deny that Sheff Utd exerted 3rd party influence over Watford and their ability to play Kabba? It is a fact they did, and it is a fact that it directly relates to rule U18. If you want to discuss the law, then your arguments need to be consistent with it. If the Tevez case breached the rule, so does the Kabba issue.

[DrVenk]

Well, IS there a case pending about Kabba? Do tell?

No, because there seems to be only one very petty, money grabbing club at the moment.

[joyful]

First of all, well done for putting your head above the parapet. Now I'll attempt to answer some of your points.

tonycurrie wrote
You went to binding arbitration, waiving your right to appeal, because your brief thought you'd win

No, under FA rules we had no option. Those rules say there IS no right of appeal to a court, though its a grey area about an appeal to CAS and many lawyers who post on here think this rule in itself contravenes English Law.

ll 130 pages on this thread - and believe me I've read all of them - fail to acknowledge that you broke the rules and were found out.

No. We acknowledged we broke two rules and were fined £5.5 million. Neither of those rules made Tevez an illegal player. The PL confirmed he was properly registered in a letter sent to all PL clubs after the original April hearing. If there's a point of dispute, it's whether Tevez was or was not legal to play for West Ham during the last three games of the season, after the hearing on April 26.
The Griffiths panel chose to believe Graham Shear, Joorabchian's lawyer, who said that he'd received “words of comfort” and “oral cuddles” (those are the only direct quotes from Shear's testimony contained in the Griffiths judgement) from Scott Duxbury about their position regarding Tevez.
Many of us, myself included, have deep misgivings about Duxbury. But this is hardly a hugely incriminating statement. The Griffiths panel then went on to make some huge assumptions based on that evidence.
1. Those "words of comfort" were tantamount to a promise to honour the exact terms of the private agreement.
2. That, if the PL had known about this, they would NOT have cleared Tevez to play. (I find this assumption staggering, given that the PL had already stated that TEvez was a legal player even while the third party agreement was in force -- why now, when it was torn up, would he become illegal because of a nebulous verbal agreement.) And there are any number of gentlemen's agreements, eg Kabba et al, which have NEVER been pursued by the PL.
3. That Tevez would have contributed at least three points to West Ham's total. (If you've read all the 130 thread pages, you'll find plenty of evidence why that assumption is flawed. Don't have time to repeat it all -- except that the following season, we got three points against a Man U team that included tevez playing for them!)

This is, in reality, the FA mounting a swansong attack in a bid to put the PL genie that they created back into its bottle. If your footballers REALLY THINK its a good idea to sue us for loss of earnings when they couldn't earn more than 38 points in a season (don't forget, we got relegated once with 42 points) then quite frankly, I don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror.

[tonycurrie]

The hard facts say that we did wrong and were punished, and it's f*** all to do with Sheff U. Please challenge this.

Easy. You lied, owned up and then were found to have lied even more after you were punished.