Discussion
stovey said:
Why won't Curbishley play Sheringham? Even bring him on in the last 10 mins.
Its not about "it could work with Sheringham and Teves" he has to play the players he knows will score. and its working so far. Zamora and Teves are knocking them in now.
Why can all us West ham fans a an easy life.
Roll on Wigan we will loose this but beat bolton and man u..
that how west ham pay and think..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footb
Were are 1 of 5 clubs that could be the 2 who get relegated why mess about with tactics and play an old t
t (who in the last 6months has ribbed thousands of pounds from other players in the squad due to gambeling.) and damage our chane of staying up.. if we stay up the club will get 80 million next year. that alone nearly pays what egg man back what he paid out for the club.
sheringham is crap and has caused several players into gambleing rehab (including some very young potental players). harewood looks lost on a pitch. he too is one whichwill be sold weither we stay up or not along with Etherington, Anton, Reo Cocker,Carrell, Konchesky, Bowyer also looks set to be off.
em all. the players above have been useless all season.. and thank Pardew has gone. what a waste of talent he was. could have been a great manager but ed it!
Were are 1 of 5 clubs that could be the 2 who get relegated why mess about with tactics and play an old t
t (who in the last 6months has ribbed thousands of pounds from other players in the squad due to gambeling.) and damage our chane of staying up.. if we stay up the club will get 80 million next year. that alone nearly pays what egg man back what he paid out for the club. sheringham is crap and has caused several players into gambleing rehab (including some very young potental players). harewood looks lost on a pitch. he too is one whichwill be sold weither we stay up or not along with Etherington, Anton, Reo Cocker,Carrell, Konchesky, Bowyer also looks set to be off.
em all. the players above have been useless all season.. and thank Pardew has gone. what a waste of talent he was. could have been a great manager but ed it! Edited by NickFRP on Tuesday 24th April 12:28
herbie hammer said:
RodMod, Thanks for the offer but if I bring any more programmes home Mrs HH will go nuts.
NickFRP - Fair points, but Carroll, Etherington and some of the others already had problems with the gambling before Teddy arrived! Agree with the comments on Marlon, personally I dont want him to pull on the claret and blue ever again after the Watford game, but, he does give you something when he comes on and we may just need that.
I am not really a Zamora fan to be honest, he has notched a few times this year but, when you watch hime, he could do so much more and whilst I am greatful for his goals for teh club(especially in the play off final and last week) we need something better.
Also, I was never a Pardew fan and if he had stayed, would it have been like Roeder and got worse, who knows - but, I do have a sneaky suspicion that he may just have turned it around and we would be safe by now, we will never know and lets hope Curbs gets the luck and we stay up and he gets rid of the likes of Marlon, Konch, Reo-Coker, Ferdinand, Collins, Bowyer and keeps Green, Neil and Upson to build a sound defense and of cousre we need to keep Ashton at least until January.
HH
NickFRP - Fair points, but Carroll, Etherington and some of the others already had problems with the gambling before Teddy arrived! Agree with the comments on Marlon, personally I dont want him to pull on the claret and blue ever again after the Watford game, but, he does give you something when he comes on and we may just need that.
I am not really a Zamora fan to be honest, he has notched a few times this year but, when you watch hime, he could do so much more and whilst I am greatful for his goals for teh club(especially in the play off final and last week) we need something better.
Also, I was never a Pardew fan and if he had stayed, would it have been like Roeder and got worse, who knows - but, I do have a sneaky suspicion that he may just have turned it around and we would be safe by now, we will never know and lets hope Curbs gets the luck and we stay up and he gets rid of the likes of Marlon, Konch, Reo-Coker, Ferdinand, Collins, Bowyer and keeps Green, Neil and Upson to build a sound defense and of cousre we need to keep Ashton at least until January.
HH
Definently.. Neil has been amazing since we bought him.. what a great buy.. solid as a rock. shame glass seems to be stronger than upson at the moment... let pray we stay up
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
Fittster said:
FIFA are on the case, be interesting to see if they can over rule the FA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footb
I have to admit I don't think any of the organisations that supposedly run football have the balls to actually do much about rule breaking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footb
I have to admit I don't think any of the organisations that supposedly run football have the balls to actually do much about rule breaking.
Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 15th May 12:48
not the best news i must say
wish it could be put to bed now!
can re be relegated after the season?
FFS sheff are a bunch of whinging old men. give it up.. the gang of 4 is now a lonley gang of one relegated managerless team
the Prem have delt there blow to west ham. end off
If a goal was scored in a match but the ref doesnt declare it, It isnt a goal, no one can chage that outcome. no matter how hard you piss on the ref, the PL.
if i was Sheff. id want to sue the tt who brougth down the wigan player which caused the penalty. he was the little er who caused you to go down. and the fact you hadnt scored enough to win games.
If West Ham did get docked points i think by now we would be getting on with it. prem or not. What is injustice is the fact we have been fined. and now whingign sheff are doign everything in the power to shit stir
OFF
the Prem have delt there blow to west ham. end off
If a goal was scored in a match but the ref doesnt declare it, It isnt a goal, no one can chage that outcome. no matter how hard you piss on the ref, the PL.
if i was Sheff. id want to sue the t
t who brougth down the wigan player which caused the penalty. he was the little er who caused you to go down. and the fact you hadnt scored enough to win games. If West Ham did get docked points i think by now we would be getting on with it. prem or not. What is injustice is the fact we have been fined. and now whingign sheff are doign everything in the power to shit stir
OFFGassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff