Kia, Sheff Utd, Duxbury, McCabe and arbitration

[Unbiased Blade]

UB, I went to Sheffield last night, was quite impressed. Lively place.

What makes you so sure that Scudamore and WHU were in cahoots? Ok, fair enough, it has been said that we were offering Kia 'oral cuddles' or something like that, after the contract was torn up but you'd expect that. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but are you saying that Tevez should not have been cleared to play?

I honestly don't know whether Tevez should have been cleared to play or not. Do I think he made a difference? - yes. Did West Ham think he would make a difference & therefore would do (almost) anything to get clearance to play him? - also yes.

As to "in cahoots" it was confirmed & unchallenged at our arbitration against the PL that conversations were taking place between Scudamore & Magnusson in the days just prior to the disciplinary hearing. Emails were produced in evidence which certainly suggested a degree of "plea-bargaining" between the parties. Fair enough since Eggy was threatening court action. So how can Scudamore claim the disciplinary tribunal was "totally independent?" during his contemptuous dismissal not only of Sheff Utd, but also of the other chairmen who asked for sight of the evidence that the 3rd Party Agreement had been terminated. (Personally, if 25% of the people to whom I am accountable for my job demanded answers, I would think twice before riding roughshod over them!)Let's be honest, if you trawl through this thread a lot of the posters admit West Ham were mighty lucky not to lose points - not because Tevez wasn't registered to play (I fully accept he was and have never argued otherwise) but because of the club's behaviour.

As to Dave Richards, he's unpopular on both sides of Sheffield. He walked out on Wednesday after they got relegated (he was Chairman at the time!) in order to take over as Chairman of the PL and has done his best to hang on to the job.

Glad you enjoyed Sheffield! I just hope that the next time our clubs meet, the occasion isn't marred by two bunches of mindless morons hell bent on exacting "revenge" on each other.

[Dan1326]

I believe the Jagiela handball was an attept of match fixing to send us down. Would that be a criminal offence? Maybe our lawyer should pursue that line

[Westcliff Hammer]

I honestly don't know whether Tevez should have been cleared to play or not. Do I think he made a difference? - yes. Did West Ham think he would make a difference & therefore would do (almost) anything to get clearance to play him? - also yes.

As to "in cahoots" it was confirmed & unchallenged at our arbitration against the PL that conversations were taking place between Scudamore & Magnusson in the days just prior to the disciplinary hearing. Emails were produced in evidence which certainly suggested a degree of "plea-bargaining" between the parties. Fair enough since Eggy was threatening court action. So how can Scudamore claim the disciplinary tribunal was "totally independent?" during his contemptuous dismissal not only of Sheff Utd, but also of the other chairmen who asked for sight of the evidence that the 3rd Party Agreement had been terminated. (Personally, if 25% of the people to whom I am accountable for my job demanded answers, I would think twice before riding roughshod over them!)Let's be honest, if you trawl through this thread a lot of the posters admit West Ham were mighty lucky not to lose points - not because Tevez wasn't registered to play (I fully accept he was and have never argued otherwise) but because of the club's behaviour.

As to Dave Richards, he's unpopular on both sides of Sheffield. He walked out on Wednesday after they got relegated (he was Chairman at the time!) in order to take over as Chairman of the PL and has done his best to hang on to the job.

The point is Sheff Utd are claiming that Tevez kept us up alone he DIDN'T, Did he keep a clean sheet at Arsenal nope!. You went down because you didn't have the b*llocks for the fight and you WILL lose this one! You bottled it big style.
Your witness in the case Oliver Holt backs your claim for this but the idiot gave the man of the match award to whom ...... Robert Green! The commentary on sky during that game also say that Bobby Zamora created the flaick on for Tevez so he didn't create that goal on his own.
Your pathetic attempt to get Shaun Bean to march for fairness in football i mean come on like that twat will have any sway in the matter

Glad you enjoyed Sheffield! I just hope that the next time our clubs meet, the occasion isn't marred by two bunches of mindless morons hell bent on exacting "revenge" on each other.

[Unbiased Blade]

"Mate, your gonna get f*** all our lawyer is Maurice Watkins, he's the geezer that Cantona off a custodial sentace for assualting a spectator so to be fair i really wouldn't over excited just yet.
Your c*** of a chairman McCunt and the rest of your muggy club aren't totally innocent in this you blew a 10 point cushion tevez didn't do that did he?, Who played when you whacked up 4-0 (deservedly so) Tevez wasn't it so he really made a difference didn't he?, Jagielka handballed in the game that sent you down was that Tevez's fault no!!. Had we been given a point deduction as im convinced your feeble excuse for a club were banking on this would you still be pursuing this NOPE course you f***ing wouldn't"

Such a shame that your grasp of orthography & grammatical construction doesn't match the high standards of your usage of the anglo-saxon vernacular. Still, as to the points you so lucidly and cogently highlight:

I'm not over excited - not really expecting a bean from this.


We only whacked you 3-0.

As to the handball - it was clearly Tevez's fault. He scored at Old Trafford just before the corner was awarded to Wigan, and the news was filtering around our ground. Shocked at this revelation and horrified by the sheer injustice, Jagielka inadvertently threw his arms up in the air in frustration at the exact moment the ball came past him, striking on the hand (i.e ball to hand - blatantly poor refereeing decision) leading to the award of a penalty.

Claerly therefore Dan's claim of match-fixing is no more than an attempt to mask the truth that we all know - it was Tevez's fault that Jagielka handballed and nothing will convince me otherwise. (Where's the smiley for ironic piss-taking?)

[neilbob]

We only whacked you 3-0.

As to the handball - it was clearly Tevez's fault. He scored at Old Trafford just before the corner was awarded to Wigan, and the news was filtering around our ground. Shocked at this revelation and horrified by the sheer injustice, Jagielka inadvertently threw his arms up in the air in frustration at the exact moment the ball came past him, striking on the hand (i.e ball to hand - blatantly poor refereeing decision) leading to the award of a penalty.

Claerly therefore Dan's claim of match-fixing is no more than an attempt to mask the truth that we all know - it was Tevez's fault that Jagielka handballed and nothing will convince me otherwise. (Where's the smiley for ironic piss-taking?)

I don't do threats often, but when I'm oop north again I'm going to hunt you down and buy you a beer :lol:

[Hugh Jargon (Old)]

mmmm BIG words...by the way no one likes a smart-arse UB..

Anyway...the bottom line is you are a bad loser, have no dignity and Sheff Utd are going to ruin football.


Oh.... and most probably you live in a hovel,eat rats for your Sunday roast, beat your wife and put ferretts down your trousers?

I'm right arn't I? Pardon?

[claret-hammer]

yes i will buy you a beer too,because your obviously on something were not at the moment.

[Up the Junction]

Mate, your gonna get f*** all ... Your c*** of a chairman McCunt and the rest of your muggy club ... your feeble excuse for a club ... be pursuing this NOPE course you f***ing wouldn't

Unnecessarily provocative in the circumstances ... if you have nothing sensible to say, please say nothing.

[neilbob]

mmmm BIG words...by the way no one likes a smart-arse UB..

Anyway...the bottom line is you are a bad loser, have no dignity and Sheff Utd are going to ruin football.


Oh.... and most probably you live in a hovel,eat rats for your Sunday roast, beat your wife and put ferretts down your trousers?

I'm right arn't I? Pardon?

Maybe just me Hugh, but I thought it was quite funny :lol:

[EggyBread]

Don't worry fellas, it's all going to be alright.

I am the new Nostrodamus, and Sheffield will be under 30 feet of water, come the end of the year.

[Pedant]

I believe the Jagiela handball was an attept of match fixing to send us down. Would that be a criminal offence? Maybe our lawyer should pursue that line

There is a much simpler explanation that that, involving triggering a relegation release clause and a tasty pay hike.

Jag's the only one who has never really been put on the spot in this whole thing.

[mrmoonhasleftthestadium]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7659887.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has offered hope to West Ham's appeal against a tribunal decision ordering compensation to Sheffield United.
The Blades were relegated in 2006-7 and a tribunal ruled West Ham broke Premier League rules to sign Carlos Tevez, who had a key role in keeping them up.
BBC Sport understands CAS is to hold a preliminary hearing to decide whether they will hear the appeal in full.
The Blades have been given until 10 October to provide an arbitrator.
If they fail to provide one for the preliminary hearing, CAS will appoint one on their behalf.
West Ham have already appointed an arbitrator and submitted a 12-page legal document to CAS which argues that they haven't had the chance of appeal.

And BBC Sport's editor Mihir Bose says the club will be desperate to avoid a large pay-out to the Blades considering the current global credit crisis.
The collapse of major Icelandic bank Landsbanki - in which owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson is a major shareholder - has prompted claims that the Hammers face an uncertain future.
But, as Bose explains: "West Ham are saying they are not affected by the Icelandic bank situation and are dressing matters up as business as normal.
"And, despite admitting players must be sold before they can buy, they are saying manager Gianfranco Zola always intended to trim the squad.
"However, clearly, these are difficult times for football clubs in general and West Ham certainly don't want to have pay out what could be up to £30m for something that happened two years ago."

[bumpkinhammer]

Seems like we may have a chance of an appeal after all with CAS, they are having a meet to see if we can have a Full appeal heard.
SUFC have until 10th to appoint an arbitrator or have one appointed on their behalf.
Things could be looking up.

[bumpkinhammer]

I see that SUFC are planning ground development and an increase in capacity. It has been the plan all along to get us to pay for it.
If they reckon they can get 40,000 fans in lower league football they are more deluded than i thought.
Come on CAS see sense and tell these twats to shut the f*** up.

[AlfieG]

Another view.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sportheadlines ... 4574276.jp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


New twist in Tevez row

Published Date: 09 October 2008
By James Shield
SHEFFIELD United will attempt to block West Ham's efforts to win a new hearing over the Carlos Tevez Affair at the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the London club's battle to overturn Bramall Lane's landmark legal victory enters a critical phase.
Officials in Lausanne have set United a 24 hour deadline to respond to West Ham's submission that CAS should intervene after an independent tribunal ruled they are liable for compensation after breaching transfer regulations when they signed the Argentina international in 2006.

United, who were relegated in controversial circumstances at the end of the 2006/07 campaign, are currently in the process of finalising their claim which could see them receive up to £50m from West Ham.

And, having consulted with their lawyers, United will tell CAS that they have no jurisdiction over what both they and the Football Association, whose guidelines governed the three man panel's investigation, believe was a private matter.

West Ham, like United, agreed that the decision of Lord Griffiths and his colleagues would be binding before entering into the process and the FA, despite insisting they played no part in the arbitration, are known to back Bramall Lane's stance.

However West Ham's approach to CAS is believed to focus on the fact that they have had no chance to appeal the ruling that Tevez, whose presence in their team contravened rules outlawing third party agreements, helped them win more than three points over the course of the campaign.

[QuintonNimoy]

All very confusing this. I have read the rules of the CAS and to me it is pretty apparent that the parties have to agree to arbitration. If, at that preliminary hearing The Blades say 'sorry, we do not agree to arbitration' then I can't see how it can happen. The FA rules are quite different and require a party to participate if an aggrieved party seeks arbitration.

I don't think either that we could go to the High Court if The Blades refuse to go to the CAS. I could see how someone could argue that their refusal to go to the CAS denies us our natural right of justice (i.e. to appeal), but my understanding is that the FA arbitration rules preclude the ability to take further proceedings and if we did so would probably lead to disciplinary action taken against us. If anybody has different information then I would like to hear it.

I don't see why they're even having the preliminary hearing if there's no route of appeal, it seems like a huge waste of time unless SU are planning to agree to it. One or two individuals have hinted they might have (or at least that the SU board is not all of one mind), but how good their info is I have no idea. How the various systems might be interlinked could be a beauraucratic nightmare, or gold mine from our point of view.

On the subject of the court appeal, we can't appeal the findings as such but we should be able to try to get it overturned on either the perversity of the tribunal's conclusions or on technical grounds if they haven't followed their own rules (very unlikely) if we can show those things have happened. That should be OK from the standpoint of facing further punishment, as it's not legal action against SU or another member club, not against the FA as such and it's not an appeal on the ruling, but an attempt to show the tribunal didn't do what it's supposed to and is somehow in breach of the law governing tribunals themselves. I have no idea what the chances of success would be.

EDIT:
This story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... lapse.html

Seems to indicate our claim is based around being given no right of appeal. I still don't see what CAS have to do with that, unless perhaps SU/the FA might agree to stop us going to court over it.

[Eggchaser]

And, having consulted with their lawyers, United will tell CAS that they have no jurisdiction over what both they and the Football Association, whose guidelines governed the three man panel's investigation, believe was a private matter.

As far as I remember all members of the Premier League agree that their rules are binding too, with no appeal outside

West Ham, like United, agreed that the decision of Lord Griffiths and his colleagues would be binding before entering into the process and the FA, despite insisting they played no part in the arbitration, are known to back Bramall Lane's stance.

Didn't the other members of the Premier League all agree the same about the 1st hearing, until they didn't get the decision they wanted?

[Puff Daddy]

If we do eventually lose this fight with McCabe and co and he goes for then jugular and the amount we have to pay forces us into closure, who will be the winners? Does this mean that we would still have to pay beyond closure ? Would arbitrators and sequestrators look through our books and offer them whatever is left after debts are repaid? Perhaps 'Unbiased Blade' has the answers.

[Demo]

From what I have read it looks as if we had no choice but to submit to an arbitration hearing from which there was no appeals process. That cannot be classed as fair in any walk of life. If we went voluntarily to arbitration then it's tough luck if we didn't like the verdict.

Are we now are appealing to CAS over the lack of appeals process, and not the actual result of the arbitration?

[Unbiased Blade]

If we do eventually lose this fight with McCabe and co and he goes for then jugular and the amount we have to pay forces us into closure, who will be the winners? Does this mean that we would still have to pay beyond closure ? Would arbitrators and sequestrators look through our books and offer them whatever is left after debts are repaid? Perhaps 'Unbiased Blade' has the answers.

Sorry not got the answers mate! Interesting that a few posters on our forums are commenting on this now. In view of the problems in Iceland, there is some worry that we would not want to be the ones to send West Ham to the wall and that we should not force the payment of any award if that would be the effect. Pleased to see that really.

As to the arbitration issue, this is the procedure:

When an appeal is filed with CAS the Appellant (West Ham) has to fill in a statement of appeal which happens to contain the name of the arbitrator chosen from the CAS list.

They also have to submit a copy of the provisions of the statutes or regulations or the specific agreement providing for appeal to the CAS. If such an agreement exists then CAS will set the arbitration in motion and communicate the statement of appeal to the respondent (Sheffield United) who within 20 days from the receipt of the grounds for the appeal, has to submit to the CAS an answer containing:

• a statement of defence;
• any defence of lack of jurisdiction;
• any counterclaim;
• any exhibits or specification of other evidence upon which the Respondent intends to rely, including the names of the witnesses and experts whom he intends to call; the witness statements, if any, shall be filed together with the answer, unless the President of the Panel decides otherwise.

The Respondent also has to choose its own arbiter from the CAS list.

CAS has received a statement of appeal from West Ham. It seems unlikely that the arbitration has been set in motion –
the BBC reports that a preliminary hearing has been set up.
We know that there is no agreement providing an appeal to CAS, that the F.A. have no specific clause which allows an appeal to CAS and that the FA rules preclude an appeal, review or any recourse to a court of law'. West Ham are arguing that CAS is not a court of law, but a tribunal and therefore they have the right to appeal to the CAS and, that as the first arbitration was imposed upon them then they should have the right to appeal. I assume that the hearing is to determine whether CAS has jurisdiction over this case, that West Ham have the right to appeal and if an arbitration agreement which specifies recourse to the CAS exists. If it is found that they have, then we have no option but to submit to arbitration.
If it is found that they have not, then CAS needs our permission to go ahead.


CAS Appeal Arbitration Procedure

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/arbitrage_reg ... 089-7-1-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;