Discussion
gorvid said:
colonel_smith said:
They are the facts pal...Accept it West ham stay up and the premier league is better for it....
they are SOME of the facts pal...
West Ham tried to cheat, without uncle Trevor pulling strings you would have been out of the Premier league.
Why is the league better for having cheats in it
How can Trevor Brooking pull any strings?????????????He works for the FA..The Premiership is not run by the FA and Brooking in not on the premiership board that makes thes decisions..
gorvid said:
david_s said:
Tev(ez) on the other hand has been an inspiration.
I took my son (6) to the Brighton & Hove Albion game earlier this year and even he could recognise class. If we had played Tevez earlier in the season we would have finished mid table, I hope he stays for another year.
I took my son (6) to the Brighton & Hove Albion game earlier this year and even he could recognise class. If we had played Tevez earlier in the season we would have finished mid table, I hope he stays for another year.
Totally agree - he is great...
Shame he shouldn't have played.
The Premiership say he can play, that is good enough for me.
We scored 41 points and stayed up, Sheffield United scored 38 and were relegated. Those are the only facts that matter.
david_s said:
We scored 41 points and stayed up, Sheffield United scored 38 and were relegated. Those are the only facts that matter.
They might be the only facts that matter to you, but the fact we have gone down and a cheating bunch of string pullers stay up...is a fact that matters to me.
colonel_smith said:
How can Trevor Brooking pull any strings?????????????He works for the FA..The Premiership is not run by the FA and Brooking in not on the premiership board that makes thes decisions..
Of course, whiter than white...
No managers take bungs either, and there has NEVER been match fixing, and n0-players dive.
gorvid said:
david_s said:
We scored 41 points and stayed up, Sheffield United scored 38 and were relegated. Those are the only facts that matter.
They might be the only facts that matter to you, but the fact we have gone down and a cheating bunch of string pullers stay up...is a fact that matters to me.
Our players didn't cheat, neither did our manager nor our Chairman. Over the season, Sheffield United, Charlton and Watford were the worst teams and got relegated. West Ham deserved to stay up and did. I am quite pleased.
We were suitably punished by the ruling body for any transgressions.
Edited by david_s on Sunday 13th May 23:23
david_s said:
gorvid said:
david_s said:
We scored 41 points and stayed up, Sheffield United scored 38 and were relegated. Those are the only facts that matter.
They might be the only facts that matter to you, but the fact we have gone down and a cheating bunch of string pullers stay up...is a fact that matters to me.
Our players didn't cheat, neither did our manager nor our Chairman. Over the season, Sheffield United, Charlton and Watford were the worst teams and got relegated. West Ham deserved to stay up and did. I am quite pleased.
We were suitably punished by the ruling body for any transgressions.
Yeah yeah you've said it, but its all you opinion isn't it....which is great.
Heres mine --> West Ham are cheats, you should be going down....hopefully something will be done.
Cheating sucks.
gorvid said:
david_s said:
gorvid said:
david_s said:
We scored 41 points and stayed up, Sheffield United scored 38 and were relegated. Those are the only facts that matter.
They might be the only facts that matter to you, but the fact we have gone down and a cheating bunch of string pullers stay up...is a fact that matters to me.
Our players didn't cheat, neither did our manager nor our Chairman. Over the season, Sheffield United, Charlton and Watford were the worst teams and got relegated. West Ham deserved to stay up and did. I am quite pleased.
We were suitably punished by the ruling body for any transgressions.
Yeah yeah you've said it, but its all you opinion isn't it....which is great.
Heres mine --> West Ham are cheats, you should be going down....hopefully something will be done.
Cheating sucks.
Had we been relegated I would hope that I could have accepted the fact with good grace, after all we would only have ourselves to blame for playing poorly. Had your team played even a little better they would not have been relegated, blaming others for your own misfortunes doesn't help (in football or in life).
Did Sankofa Case Give West Ham A Fine Outcome?
Following the Premier League’s tribunal decision to only fine West Ham for their breach of the rules we have heard from three of the so called ‘gang of four’ in Wigan, Fulham and Sheffield United. Yet one voice has been absent. We have heard no comment from either Richard Murray, or Peter Varney. There was a reference to off-field events by Pardew following the confirmation of our relegation last Monday, but that was it. We could be maintaining a dignified silence, but I feel there is a chance that the reason our club has kept quiet is the same reason the Premier League are so confident they have nothing to worry about.
At the start of the year Charlton had young full-back, Osei Sankofa, sent off for a foul on Robin Van Persie in the game against Arsenal. Charlton subsequently appealed that sending off and as a result the FA’s disciplinary panel doubled the ban after rejecting what they considered to be a frivolous appeal.
Charlton were not happy with that and with the backing of the Premier League (according to media reports at the time) went to court to get that decision overturned. The court hearing was to obtain an injunction stopping the second match of the ban to give time for arbitration to take place. That attempt failed. Up until recently the reasons for that decision had not been made public.
I have a copy of that judgement and feel that the content of it could have a massive impact on the chances of any legal action over the West Ham affair being successful. Of the gang of four only Charlton will have known the content of that judgement until recently. The Premier League, whilst not being one of the parties involved in the action, will almost certainly have been aware of the content being as they were in favour of Charlton’s actions.
The twelve page judgement sets out the arguments of both sides (incidentally the Barrister representing Charlton in this action is the same gentleman who is representing Iain Dowie) and then gives the judge’s reasons for refusing the injunction.
My understanding is that the Premier League Rules are structured much like the FA’s. Specifically, this means that all parties agree to abide by the disciplinary procedures of the governing bodies and agree not to go to law if decisions do not go their way.
The judgement appears to agree with a Football Association point that disciplinary procedures enforced by a governing body are not ones that are easily susceptible to review by the courts. This gives a clear indication that the judge thinks the legal system should not interfere with the previously agreed codes of conduct (and punishments for the breach of those codes) of sporting bodies.
The judgement also seems to point in the direction that, whilst the impact of decisions can result in relegation, or severe financial loss, it is very difficult for a judge to quantify the affect the decision being challenged actually had on that outcome and as such the legal system should seek to avoid making those sorts of judgements.
Whilst it appears that everyone other than the Premier League’s independent panel and West Ham seems agreed that a points deduction was the most appropriate punishment this was just one of a range of punishments available to the panel once West Ham had pleaded guilty. In reality it would have been considered the ultimate sanction, and potentially would have opened up the door for a legal challenge by West Ham.
The judgement mentions that the decision to double Sankofa’s ban was within the reasonable list of options available to them and whilst Charlton might challenge the correctness of that decision there was no evidence that the panel had acted either unreasonably, or arbitrarily in this matter (especially as the decision was unanimous).
This would make it difficult for any legal challenge over the West Ham decision, as that decision made was not the most extreme sanction available and nor was it something that could be easily argued as overly lenient. In prize money terms, the fine amounts to West Ham finishing around ten places lower in the league (the money drops by around £500,000 per place).
So it seems that there is little scope to challenge the decision to only fine West Ham if we are using the Sankofa judgement as some kind of precedent. However there is one faint glimmer of hope for the clubs involved, especially Sheffield United who now have most at stake. The judgement leaves the door open by saying that in wholly exceptional circumstances a court may be able to overrule the decisions set down by a sporting governing body. It should be quite easy for a lawyer to argue that the circumstances are the dictionary definition of ‘wholly exceptional’ but in reality that is likely to do little more than let a judge hear the case and then make the decision that is still unlikely to go against West Ham.
To be honest I only revisited the Sankofa judgement following a flash of inspiration last week. The Premier League was being very robust in their rebuttal of the complaints that they were too lenient with West Ham. They must have some ace in the hole. Then it came to me; Charlton described the Sankofa judgement as ‘very important’, and maybe this is why. So I put on my tinfoil, conspiracy theorist hat and sought out the Sankofa judgement. Fortunately, it had been published.
Now first I must caveat what follows by saying that I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any ulterior motive by the Premier League with regards to encouraging Charlton in the Sankofa case. what you are about to read is simply conjecture on my part.
Is it possible that the Premier League pushed Charlton in this case as a means of testing the legal waters in advance of an investigation into West Ham? This case happened in early January around the time the Premier League were being made aware of the full story with Tevez and Mascherano’s contracts and would have provided an ideal opportunity to see how the judiciary approached the second-guessing of decisions made by sporting bodies.
The Premier League would have quickly realised that a big fine would be the best course of action, as it would make it very difficult for anyone to challenge the decision following the Sankofa judgement. Whereas a points deduction and the probable relegation that resulted from it would almost certainly be considered an exceptional case and, as such, allow the courts scope to provide a ruling that might cause huge problems for the Premier League.
I am not suggesting that this happened, but at the very least it does appear that Charlton’s court action in January made it easier for the Premier League to come to this decision. The fact that we have finished second bottom rather than one place higher makes it easier to accept, but if we had managed to hold Sheffield United off a few weeks back would we now be cursing the Sankofa case as an example of extreme folly that makes the appointments of Dowie and Reed seem mere trifles by comparison?
Following the Premier League’s tribunal decision to only fine West Ham for their breach of the rules we have heard from three of the so called ‘gang of four’ in Wigan, Fulham and Sheffield United. Yet one voice has been absent. We have heard no comment from either Richard Murray, or Peter Varney. There was a reference to off-field events by Pardew following the confirmation of our relegation last Monday, but that was it. We could be maintaining a dignified silence, but I feel there is a chance that the reason our club has kept quiet is the same reason the Premier League are so confident they have nothing to worry about.
At the start of the year Charlton had young full-back, Osei Sankofa, sent off for a foul on Robin Van Persie in the game against Arsenal. Charlton subsequently appealed that sending off and as a result the FA’s disciplinary panel doubled the ban after rejecting what they considered to be a frivolous appeal.
Charlton were not happy with that and with the backing of the Premier League (according to media reports at the time) went to court to get that decision overturned. The court hearing was to obtain an injunction stopping the second match of the ban to give time for arbitration to take place. That attempt failed. Up until recently the reasons for that decision had not been made public.
I have a copy of that judgement and feel that the content of it could have a massive impact on the chances of any legal action over the West Ham affair being successful. Of the gang of four only Charlton will have known the content of that judgement until recently. The Premier League, whilst not being one of the parties involved in the action, will almost certainly have been aware of the content being as they were in favour of Charlton’s actions.
The twelve page judgement sets out the arguments of both sides (incidentally the Barrister representing Charlton in this action is the same gentleman who is representing Iain Dowie) and then gives the judge’s reasons for refusing the injunction.
My understanding is that the Premier League Rules are structured much like the FA’s. Specifically, this means that all parties agree to abide by the disciplinary procedures of the governing bodies and agree not to go to law if decisions do not go their way.
The judgement appears to agree with a Football Association point that disciplinary procedures enforced by a governing body are not ones that are easily susceptible to review by the courts. This gives a clear indication that the judge thinks the legal system should not interfere with the previously agreed codes of conduct (and punishments for the breach of those codes) of sporting bodies.
The judgement also seems to point in the direction that, whilst the impact of decisions can result in relegation, or severe financial loss, it is very difficult for a judge to quantify the affect the decision being challenged actually had on that outcome and as such the legal system should seek to avoid making those sorts of judgements.
Whilst it appears that everyone other than the Premier League’s independent panel and West Ham seems agreed that a points deduction was the most appropriate punishment this was just one of a range of punishments available to the panel once West Ham had pleaded guilty. In reality it would have been considered the ultimate sanction, and potentially would have opened up the door for a legal challenge by West Ham.
The judgement mentions that the decision to double Sankofa’s ban was within the reasonable list of options available to them and whilst Charlton might challenge the correctness of that decision there was no evidence that the panel had acted either unreasonably, or arbitrarily in this matter (especially as the decision was unanimous).
This would make it difficult for any legal challenge over the West Ham decision, as that decision made was not the most extreme sanction available and nor was it something that could be easily argued as overly lenient. In prize money terms, the fine amounts to West Ham finishing around ten places lower in the league (the money drops by around £500,000 per place).
So it seems that there is little scope to challenge the decision to only fine West Ham if we are using the Sankofa judgement as some kind of precedent. However there is one faint glimmer of hope for the clubs involved, especially Sheffield United who now have most at stake. The judgement leaves the door open by saying that in wholly exceptional circumstances a court may be able to overrule the decisions set down by a sporting governing body. It should be quite easy for a lawyer to argue that the circumstances are the dictionary definition of ‘wholly exceptional’ but in reality that is likely to do little more than let a judge hear the case and then make the decision that is still unlikely to go against West Ham.
To be honest I only revisited the Sankofa judgement following a flash of inspiration last week. The Premier League was being very robust in their rebuttal of the complaints that they were too lenient with West Ham. They must have some ace in the hole. Then it came to me; Charlton described the Sankofa judgement as ‘very important’, and maybe this is why. So I put on my tinfoil, conspiracy theorist hat and sought out the Sankofa judgement. Fortunately, it had been published.
Now first I must caveat what follows by saying that I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any ulterior motive by the Premier League with regards to encouraging Charlton in the Sankofa case. what you are about to read is simply conjecture on my part.
Is it possible that the Premier League pushed Charlton in this case as a means of testing the legal waters in advance of an investigation into West Ham? This case happened in early January around the time the Premier League were being made aware of the full story with Tevez and Mascherano’s contracts and would have provided an ideal opportunity to see how the judiciary approached the second-guessing of decisions made by sporting bodies.
The Premier League would have quickly realised that a big fine would be the best course of action, as it would make it very difficult for anyone to challenge the decision following the Sankofa judgement. Whereas a points deduction and the probable relegation that resulted from it would almost certainly be considered an exceptional case and, as such, allow the courts scope to provide a ruling that might cause huge problems for the Premier League.
I am not suggesting that this happened, but at the very least it does appear that Charlton’s court action in January made it easier for the Premier League to come to this decision. The fact that we have finished second bottom rather than one place higher makes it easier to accept, but if we had managed to hold Sheffield United off a few weeks back would we now be cursing the Sankofa case as an example of extreme folly that makes the appointments of Dowie and Reed seem mere trifles by comparison?
starting to get on my tits abit
West ham cheating scum.. How can they cheat. we got a 5.5 million pound fine, and some one (who knows who press maybe) said we could eb docked points and its since blown so far out of hand. it took the FA to charge us 9 or so months. what about Javier Maschriano.. what type of contract is he on.
Sheff were crap on the day they had to win thats why they went down.
Man u feilding a weak team - BULL SHIT. so they rest a few players which come on 55 mins in. they have the FA cup final coming up. they were playing for nothing.
Liverpool having a shit team out to loose against fulham. No one blushed at that
Wigan should have gone down. shit team shit support shit attendence.
ohh well UP THE HAMMERS.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!
(west ham are looking at give Teves 6mill a year to stay at upton park. possible a 31 mill price tag doesnt worry the hammers too much
West ham cheating scum.. How can they cheat. we got a 5.5 million pound fine, and some one (who knows who press maybe) said we could eb docked points and its since blown so far out of hand. it took the FA to charge us 9 or so months. what about Javier Maschriano.. what type of contract is he on.
Sheff were crap on the day they had to win thats why they went down.
Man u feilding a weak team - BULL SHIT. so they rest a few players which come on 55 mins in. they have the FA cup final coming up. they were playing for nothing.
Liverpool having a shit team out to loose against fulham. No one blushed at that
Wigan should have gone down. shit team shit support shit attendence.
ohh well UP THE HAMMERS.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!
(west ham are looking at give Teves 6mill a year to stay at upton park. possible a 31 mill price tag doesnt worry the hammers too much
As a Watford fan I'm not currently in ownership of sour grapes - we deserved to go down.
However, I thoroughly believe that any points gained while fielding Tevez was illegally playing should have been surrendered. West Ham fielded an illegal player who helped to gain those points.
Put simply - they cheated, got caught and paid their way out of trouble.
But then again, as a Watford fan, I know all too well that the Premiership is all about money and only about money...
However, I thoroughly believe that any points gained while fielding Tevez was illegally playing should have been surrendered. West Ham fielded an illegal player who helped to gain those points.
Put simply - they cheated, got caught and paid their way out of trouble.
But then again, as a Watford fan, I know all too well that the Premiership is all about money and only about money...
puggit said:
As a Watford fan I'm not currently in ownership of sour grapes - we deserved to go down.
However, I thoroughly believe that any points gained while fielding Tevez was illegally playing should have been surrendered. West Ham fielded an illegal player who helped to gain those points.
Put simply - they cheated, got caught and paid their way out of trouble.
But then again, as a Watford fan, I know all too well that the Premiership is all about money and only about money...
However, I thoroughly believe that any points gained while fielding Tevez was illegally playing should have been surrendered. West Ham fielded an illegal player who helped to gain those points.
Put simply - they cheated, got caught and paid their way out of trouble.
But then again, as a Watford fan, I know all too well that the Premiership is all about money and only about money...
Clubs have been docked points for fielding ineligible players for 1 game .....
How many has Tevez played ?
although not comprehensive/ solely pertaining player eligibility....here's a list of some previous punishments handed out
* Sunderland 2 points deducted for fielding Ned Doig against WBA 12/9/1890, before
the League approved his registration from Arbroath - Season 1890-91.
* Stockport 2 points deducted for fielding Joe Smith without FA permission on 26/3/1927
- Season 1926-27.
* Peterborough United 19 points deducted & were automatically relegated to division
four , for irregular bonuses - Season 1967-68.
* S
horpe United 3 points awarded when Exeter City failed to fulfill a fixture at S
horpe - Season 1973-74. * Preston North End 1 point deducted for fielding an ineligible player - Season 1973-74.
* Newport County 1 point deducted for fielding an ineligible player - Season 1973-74.
* Aldershot 1 point deducted for fielding an unregistered player - Season 1974-75.
* Bristol Rovers 2 points deducted for fielding an unregistered player - Season 1981-82.
* Blackpool 2 points deducted for fielding an ineligible player - Season 1982-83.
* Tranmere Rovers 2 points deducted for failing to meet a fixture - Season 1987-88.
* Halifax Town 1 point deducted for fielding an unregistered player - Season 1987-88.
* Arsenal 2 points deducted - Season 1990-91.
* Manchester United 1 point deducted - Season 1990-91.
* Middlesbrough 3 points deducted for failing to fulfill a fixture at Blackburn Rovers on
21st December 1996 - Season 1996-97.
* Brighton & Hove Albion 2 points deducted - Season 1996-97.
* Leyton Orient 2 points deducted for fielding an ineligible player - Season 1997-98.
* Chesterfield 9 points deducted for financial irregularities - Season 2000-01.
* Boston United 4 points deducted for financial irregularities during the previous season -
Season 2002-03.
* Wrexham 10 points deducted for going into administration - Season 2004-05.
* Cambridge United 10 points deducted for going into administration - Season 2004-05.
this season i believe Bury were kicked out of a cup comp for an ilegible player?
5.5 million fine ? ....bargain of the century you 'ammers
* Sheffield United fined £10,000 in 2002 when after having had 3 players sent off 2 more players limped out of the game with dubious injuries forcing the ref to abandon the game. Megson, The West Brom Manager, commented "I've been in professional football since 16 and I'm 42 now. I've never ever witnessed anything as disgraceful as that. There is no place for that in any game of football, let alone professional football. There will be no replay. If we are called back to Bramall Lane we shall kick-off and then walk off the pitch"
The desperate end is always the same. You can't help laughing at the fat blokes in tears, yet there's that tingle on the back of the neck that says it could be your team one day, if it hasn't been already.
But still you can't help laughing at the fat blokes crying.
Except this time there is a sour taste in the mouth I would never have expected to feel at the relegation of any fat blokes crying, especially fat blokes whose team are managed by Neil Warnock. I would never have expected to side with Dave Whelan. I have nothing against West Ham. Yet their survival, with Carlos Tevez scoring the winner, leaves football's justice system in a mess.
The legal issues are reportedly clear-cut: because the Premier League's rules on independent disciplinary commissions were followed, there is little prospect of a successful appeal to the courts. However, the lawyers whose views I have seen in the papers appeared to focus on the question of punishment of West Ham's misdemeanours against the governing body, not their obligations to their fellow clubs or the effect that fielding ineligible players had on the outcome of matches.
It is all sufficiently confusing that those in the newspapers calling for retribution on those responsible can't agree on whose fault the decision was. Are Richard Scudamore and the Premier League to blame or Brian Barwick and the FA, or both?
Because the FA have devolved so much power to the Premier League, surely Scudamore is the man to focus on? He has been an excellent commercial leader of the League, as the ever-more eyewatering TV and media rights deals show. But he has been a poor guardian of the game's integrity, as the naive approach to the bungs inquiry and the plainly murky transfers of Tevez and Mascherano show.
Why the contrast in his performance of his different duties? It is possible that his commercial responsibilities affect his handling of other matters. After all, just as the second-hand car salesman is unlikely to warn his customers of every fault, so the man trying to negotiate the odd billion is unlikely to want to highlight any kinks in the game.
There is a plain conflict of interest in the two aspects of the job. Perhaps, too, the independent commission were swayed by the commercial approach of the League's chief executive. They imposed a massive financial penalty and no footballing one whatsoever.
It was a mistake to take West Ham's word on the legitimacy of the deal last August, at a time when the club's manager admitted he didn't understand it. It was a mistake to have the commission pass judgment so late in the season, months after a serious breach of the regulations was belatedly recognised.
It has been a mistake to allow the loaning of players to fellow clubs within the Premiership - or, as Scudamore allowed, for a 'gentleman's agreement' to prevent a player appearing in a match after a transfer. Martin Samuel in The Times pointed out that what happened when Tim Howard was not played in Everton's match with Manchester United was exactly the kind of third-party interference that was at issue with Tevez and Mascherano.
Generally, it was a mistake for the FA to surrender any regulatory powers to the Premier League. The system needs review and reform, and after recent debacles Scudamore is not the man to undertake an overhaul.
There are always problems with disciplinary matters. If you have people with experience of the professional game anywhere near the process then sooner or later they will be accused of bias - look at Jose Mourinho's slurs against David Dein. If they don't have that experience then they will be accused of being unqualified - look at Simon Jordan's abuse of those FA blazers who sat in judgment on him.
But independence is a must and so are transparency and fairness: the different punishments of Bury, AFC Wimbledon (at first instance), AFC Wimbledon (on appeal) and West Ham are so greatly at variance as to bring the game into disrepute.
The Premier League clubs who are unhappy at West Ham's escape need to look beyond the narrow limits of this case to press for wider reform. And Scudamore needs to be left free to concentrate on being a salesman, so that next year I can laugh at fat blokes crying and really enjoy it.
But still you can't help laughing at the fat blokes crying.
Except this time there is a sour taste in the mouth I would never have expected to feel at the relegation of any fat blokes crying, especially fat blokes whose team are managed by Neil Warnock. I would never have expected to side with Dave Whelan. I have nothing against West Ham. Yet their survival, with Carlos Tevez scoring the winner, leaves football's justice system in a mess.
The legal issues are reportedly clear-cut: because the Premier League's rules on independent disciplinary commissions were followed, there is little prospect of a successful appeal to the courts. However, the lawyers whose views I have seen in the papers appeared to focus on the question of punishment of West Ham's misdemeanours against the governing body, not their obligations to their fellow clubs or the effect that fielding ineligible players had on the outcome of matches.
It is all sufficiently confusing that those in the newspapers calling for retribution on those responsible can't agree on whose fault the decision was. Are Richard Scudamore and the Premier League to blame or Brian Barwick and the FA, or both?
Because the FA have devolved so much power to the Premier League, surely Scudamore is the man to focus on? He has been an excellent commercial leader of the League, as the ever-more eyewatering TV and media rights deals show. But he has been a poor guardian of the game's integrity, as the naive approach to the bungs inquiry and the plainly murky transfers of Tevez and Mascherano show.
Why the contrast in his performance of his different duties? It is possible that his commercial responsibilities affect his handling of other matters. After all, just as the second-hand car salesman is unlikely to warn his customers of every fault, so the man trying to negotiate the odd billion is unlikely to want to highlight any kinks in the game.
There is a plain conflict of interest in the two aspects of the job. Perhaps, too, the independent commission were swayed by the commercial approach of the League's chief executive. They imposed a massive financial penalty and no footballing one whatsoever.
It was a mistake to take West Ham's word on the legitimacy of the deal last August, at a time when the club's manager admitted he didn't understand it. It was a mistake to have the commission pass judgment so late in the season, months after a serious breach of the regulations was belatedly recognised.
It has been a mistake to allow the loaning of players to fellow clubs within the Premiership - or, as Scudamore allowed, for a 'gentleman's agreement' to prevent a player appearing in a match after a transfer. Martin Samuel in The Times pointed out that what happened when Tim Howard was not played in Everton's match with Manchester United was exactly the kind of third-party interference that was at issue with Tevez and Mascherano.
Generally, it was a mistake for the FA to surrender any regulatory powers to the Premier League. The system needs review and reform, and after recent debacles Scudamore is not the man to undertake an overhaul.
There are always problems with disciplinary matters. If you have people with experience of the professional game anywhere near the process then sooner or later they will be accused of bias - look at Jose Mourinho's slurs against David Dein. If they don't have that experience then they will be accused of being unqualified - look at Simon Jordan's abuse of those FA blazers who sat in judgment on him.
But independence is a must and so are transparency and fairness: the different punishments of Bury, AFC Wimbledon (at first instance), AFC Wimbledon (on appeal) and West Ham are so greatly at variance as to bring the game into disrepute.
The Premier League clubs who are unhappy at West Ham's escape need to look beyond the narrow limits of this case to press for wider reform. And Scudamore needs to be left free to concentrate on being a salesman, so that next year I can laugh at fat blokes crying and really enjoy it.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff