Tevez is going to cost $60 million......
Sep 25th 2008, 7:31 am
#31
why ayeeeee man!
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Disco Gardens...
Posts: 11,370
Sep 25th 2008, 7:48 am
#32
Hammer for Life
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Too far away from Upton Park, for my liking !
Posts: 5,524
Sep 25th 2008, 3:30 pm
#33
why ayeeeee man!
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Disco Gardens...
Posts: 11,370
Sep 25th 2008, 3:33 pm
#34
Hammer for Life
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Too far away from Upton Park, for my liking !
Posts: 5,524
Re: Tevez is going to cost $60 million......
[QUOTE=Spugsy;6819140]
He might do a good job, but surely he's just a stop gap, who may or may not work...
We have Fulham away, so am quietly optimistic .......mind you, Zamora will probably score a hat trick against us !
We have Fulham away, so am quietly optimistic .......mind you, Zamora will probably score a hat trick against us !
Sep 25th 2008, 8:28 pm
#35
why ayeeeee man!
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Disco Gardens...
Posts: 11,370
Re: Tevez is going to cost $60 million......
[QUOTE=BangleMan;6819152]
aye we need someone till we sell the club and they bring in a manager, fulham aren;t too bad thesedays.
Sep 25th 2008, 8:44 pm
#36
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,434
Re: Tevez is going to cost $60 million......
This was an independent tribunal requested, set up and paid for by Sheff Utd.
West Ham were under no obligation to attend or to supply any evidence or indeed, to put forward their case.
It appears that the tribunal have found in Sheff Utd's favour (not surprising given the one sided circumstances), but the decision has no legal obligation for West Ham to agree to or to pay out any compensation.
Sheff Utd, if they really feel they have a case, can only sue the EPL and not West Ham as a decision was made by the EPL to fine West Ham and not deduct points and that decision still stands and is legal.
Sheff Utd had the right to appeal, which they did twice and lost
As for the Tevez scoring goals and helping West Ham to win points and staying in the EPL, it is impossible to predict an outcome of a football match based on whether a player will score and ultimately win a game.
Therefore, Sheff Utd have no case whatsoever and West Ham have no legal obligation to pay any compensation.
Some other things I fail to understand....
1. West Ham have already been fined by the EPL so surely have been punished twice now and any compensation payed should come from the EPL not from West Ham.
2. There is a rule stating that EPL clubs can't sue each other, although Sheffield United aren't a EPL club now they were when the Tevez incident happened. By allowing them to sue West Ham this has set a precedent allowing every club relegated at the end of each season to sue the EPL and or other clubs for wrong decisions. i.e say Hull are relegated this season... they can sue Newcastle for injuring Fagan citing that the loss of him caused them to drop points.
3. How can they can say that Tevez gained us 3 points in any match as surely his an Mascherano's arrival was the spark that started the run of bad form for West Ham that season ?. Also if West Ham didn't sign Tevez who can say they werent then going to then try and bring in another big name striker who would score as many goals if not more ?
4. Also it says Sheff Utd want £4 million from us for Jagielka as they rated him at £8 million. Surely he is only worth what clubs are willing to pay for him so them valuing him at £8 million is unfair as I guarantee Everton wouldn't have payed that for him nor realistically sell him fr £8 million now.
5. Ultimately how can they say that the 3 points that Tevez won West Ham was a more deciding factor in their relegation than the 60+ points they lost throughout the season. ?? When West Ham played them with Tevez in the squad, Sheff Utd won 3-0. Surely then that means that the Sheffield United squad was better than that of ours with Tevez playing so they should have been expected to pick up more points than us over the course of a season
6. As I recall Tevez was down the mororway on the final day that season playing against Man U, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Sheff Utd losing at home to Wigan, nothing to do with one of their defenders inexplicably raising his arm in the penalty area giving away a penalty and so them subsequently going down !!!!
West Ham were under no obligation to attend or to supply any evidence or indeed, to put forward their case.
It appears that the tribunal have found in Sheff Utd's favour (not surprising given the one sided circumstances), but the decision has no legal obligation for West Ham to agree to or to pay out any compensation.
Sheff Utd, if they really feel they have a case, can only sue the EPL and not West Ham as a decision was made by the EPL to fine West Ham and not deduct points and that decision still stands and is legal.
Sheff Utd had the right to appeal, which they did twice and lost
As for the Tevez scoring goals and helping West Ham to win points and staying in the EPL, it is impossible to predict an outcome of a football match based on whether a player will score and ultimately win a game.
Therefore, Sheff Utd have no case whatsoever and West Ham have no legal obligation to pay any compensation.
Some other things I fail to understand....
1. West Ham have already been fined by the EPL so surely have been punished twice now and any compensation payed should come from the EPL not from West Ham.
2. There is a rule stating that EPL clubs can't sue each other, although Sheffield United aren't a EPL club now they were when the Tevez incident happened. By allowing them to sue West Ham this has set a precedent allowing every club relegated at the end of each season to sue the EPL and or other clubs for wrong decisions. i.e say Hull are relegated this season... they can sue Newcastle for injuring Fagan citing that the loss of him caused them to drop points.
3. How can they can say that Tevez gained us 3 points in any match as surely his an Mascherano's arrival was the spark that started the run of bad form for West Ham that season ?. Also if West Ham didn't sign Tevez who can say they werent then going to then try and bring in another big name striker who would score as many goals if not more ?
4. Also it says Sheff Utd want £4 million from us for Jagielka as they rated him at £8 million. Surely he is only worth what clubs are willing to pay for him so them valuing him at £8 million is unfair as I guarantee Everton wouldn't have payed that for him nor realistically sell him fr £8 million now.
5. Ultimately how can they say that the 3 points that Tevez won West Ham was a more deciding factor in their relegation than the 60+ points they lost throughout the season. ?? When West Ham played them with Tevez in the squad, Sheff Utd won 3-0. Surely then that means that the Sheffield United squad was better than that of ours with Tevez playing so they should have been expected to pick up more points than us over the course of a season
6. As I recall Tevez was down the mororway on the final day that season playing against Man U, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Sheff Utd losing at home to Wigan, nothing to do with one of their defenders inexplicably raising his arm in the penalty area giving away a penalty and so them subsequently going down !!!!
Sep 26th 2008, 5:34 am
#37
Hammer for Life
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Too far away from Upton Park, for my liking !
Posts: 5,524
Re: Tevez is going to cost $60 million......
At last, someone in the media talks sense instead of the journalistic sensationalism that the Sun, Mail etc have been writing about this whole subject, and the issues that this ludicrous judgement for the game of football in future :
Martin Samuels, The Times, Chief Football Correspondent writes:
The Right Honorable The Lord Griffiths, a man who collects lucrative legal commissions as enthusiastically as he does definite articles, is available as a mediator and arbitrator in the specialist areas of international and domestic commercial disputes, according to his CV. Pools forecasts are not mentioned, but even so, he could be worth a ring.
Griffiths can predict football matches, you see - right down to knowing how many points a team will get through a season, or in a sequence of matches. And using these special powers, he can factor in results from around England to give a precise monetary value on the worth of those wins. Griffiths is very talented. I bet he nails those ten home-wins coupons every week.
Yesterday, a tribunal led by Griffiths found that one player - Carlos Tévez - had decided the Premier League relegation issue in 2006-07, as fact. Not as opinion. Not with any vague doubt that the hundreds of other footballers, managers and coaches who were involved might have had some impact, too. Not with any pretence to evaluate their presence.
Griffiths said that Sheffield United went down because of Tévez. He, and two friends, then replayed the season in their mighty minds and, despite all of this action taking place in a hypothetical dimension, prepared to hand down a finite punishment, payable in hard cash. Be warned, this is what happens when you invite lawyers to the party.
It does not matter whether one has any sympathy for West Ham United. Senior club officials, including Scott Duxbury, who was inexplicably retained and promoted to chief executive, misled the Premier League over the signings of Tévez and Javier Mascherano, a scandal that could have resulted in the club being relegated. West Ham were fortunate that the league table was taken into account by the original independent commission, sitting on behalf of the Premier League, which decided to impose a financial penalty rather than a points deduction, for fear of deciding the relegation issue in a legal chamber, rather than on a football pitch.
Yet this ruling is as bad, if not worse, because it takes relegation issues away from the football pitch and back to the legal chamber. It sets a precedent that any relegated team with a grievance that can be put down cunningly to one incident, or one player, have a claim. The same applies to a team denied a prize, or perhaps a Champions League place. It moves English football nearer to the game in Italy or Brazil, where important issues are often not resolved until late in the close season and fixture lists are printed pending courtroom appeal.
Think of what happened between Watford and Reading on Saturday: the goal that never was. The Football League has announced that the match will not be replayed, despite a noble offer from Steve Coppell, the Reading manager. Yet what if Watford are two points short of promotion come the end of the season? What if Reading keep another team out of the Premier League by one point? Considering the Griffiths ruling, these clubs have a case against the Football League, or perhaps against Stuart Attwell, the referee.
It may not end there. Hull City looked to have started the season very well, then Danny Guthrie, of Newcastle United, broke Craig Fagan's right leg with a foul tackle. If the fortunes of the club take a downturn with the loss of an important player, to what extent is Guthrie, or his club, responsible? And what might that be worth? Now that Griffiths has determined that a season can be played out accurately in a man's head, where does this end?
Perhaps the one saving grace of the ruling in favour of Sheffield United is that the claim was for compensation, not reinstatement, although Kevin McCabe, the club's plc chairman, may feel empowered to push for the big one now. Welcome to a world of 21-team leagues, of relegationlawyers4U.com. Welcome to a world in which the most important player at your club is no longer the striker, but the QC engaged by the owner.
Can one man keep a team up or relegate another?
We all say these things, but they are unproven opinions, not hard facts. I think that Tévez may have been the difference for West Ham that season, just as Chris Waddle was for Tottenham Hotspur one year and Matthew Le Tissier was for just about his entire career at Southampton. But do I know this? No. A million intangible factors contribute to events in each season and every one is unquantifiable in finite terms. Yet the FA's independent tribunal took into account as one of Sheffield United's witnesses the testimony of the chief football writer of The Daily Telegraph, who said that Tévez kept West Ham up.
Now, I have a great deal of time for the chief football writer of The Daily Telegraph. He is a friend and a professional whom I respect enormously. Yet he is no more an expert in this matter than any devotee of football. Neither am I. If writers could predict the outcome of matches so precisely that we could say for certain, not just as an opinion, what specific factors have won and lost games, or how a match would have panned out had a single participant been removed, we would not need to work. No journalist would present his views as anything more than informed estimation. It is a punt, really. All of it. A good one, we hope, and we like to think entertaining, but a punt nonetheless.
So why was the man from the Telegraph even called? Why does an independent tribunal with the power to pass a ruling that will change football in England irrevocably rely in part on speculation and guesswork? It beggars belief. From this day, every football administrator in every league in the land will open his postbag in the month after the season has ended wincing, for ever in fear of the writ that will take him to court on nothing more than prophecy.
Sheffield United have been hawking this case from commission to courtroom to tribunal until they have found men misguided enough to believe that they can imagine the league programme and legislate on these visions. So what, exactly, are supporters buying tickets for now, if what they see may be rendered meaningless by the interpretation of a committee at a later date? Had West Ham been deducted three points at the time of the first commission for lying to the Premier League, few would have complained. Once the decision to fine was made, however, any further punishment would have to be issued retrospectively, with the season over.
Sheffield United know precisely what adjustment needs to be made to achieve the desired outcome, which is why Tévez's worth to West Ham is always calculated at three points. It is the number required to keep Sheffield United up on goal difference, astutely overriding their failings, as if these, too, could be put down to a player in a different match, representing a different team.
Sheffield United lost more away matches than any other club that season and scored fewer goals away from home. That is not the work of Tévez. Neil Warnock, the manager at the time, fielded a weakened side against Manchester United and lost and his team won only a single match in the last five, against Watford, when Steve Kabba, a former player, mysteriously did not play for their opponents. That was not down to Tévez, either.
Kabba is the sort of figure who could become hugely significant now that matches can be played in the minds of lawyers. He is on loan to Blackpool, was formerly a Sheffield United forward who had been loaned to Watford, with the deal then made permanent. Before Sheffield United and Watford met on April 28, 2007, Warnock, and match preview articles published on both official club websites, stated that Kabba could not feature because of an agreement as part of his transfer.
Kabba had played in 14 of the previous 15 matches for Watford and all of the previous eight. Any arrangement regarding his deselection would be illegal and a case of third-party interference. When the statements about Kabba were brought to the attention of the Premier League, it launched an investigation and Watford provided contract details showing that no pact had been put in writing. “There may be gentlemen's agreements between managers that, in fairness, clubs know nothing about,” McCabe said.
Yet Warnock was quoted in a local newspaper confirming that he had checked the issue and had been told that Kabba could not play, so it was not the manager's work. The most plausible explanation, therefore, is that a private deal was struck between clubs. To believe otherwise is to accept that an official information outlet of Sheffield United would carry false information uncorrected for several months, coincidentally replicated at Watford. Kabba-less, Watford lost 1-0.
And here is the rub. Who is to say that those three points for Sheffield United were any more, or less, significant than any match won by West Ham, with or without Tévez? And if West Ham could countersue, hire private investigators and subpoena everyone involved in the Kabba transfer to get to the bottom of it, would football have to peer deep into the brilliant mind of Griffiths and friends so that they could replay that match, too?
We all think that Tévez was a huge player for West Ham that season, but we cannot know for sure. We cannot faithfully evaluate his goals against the saves of Robert Green or the performances of Matthew Upson in central defence. Certainly, he cannot be held responsible for Sheffield United losing at home to Wigan Athletic on the final day of the season or Warnock's understrength team against Manchester United.
Yet we can begin to estimate the cost to football of Griffiths's foolish precedent. Right now, this is a row about money between two groups of very rich men, vainly dressed up as a fight between right and wrong. But where it goes from here cuts to the heart of Saturday afternoons, a time of the week that will increasingly cease to be of significance to football supporters - for, as we know, lawyers do not work on Saturdays.
Martin Samuels, The Times, Chief Football Correspondent writes:
The Right Honorable The Lord Griffiths, a man who collects lucrative legal commissions as enthusiastically as he does definite articles, is available as a mediator and arbitrator in the specialist areas of international and domestic commercial disputes, according to his CV. Pools forecasts are not mentioned, but even so, he could be worth a ring.
Griffiths can predict football matches, you see - right down to knowing how many points a team will get through a season, or in a sequence of matches. And using these special powers, he can factor in results from around England to give a precise monetary value on the worth of those wins. Griffiths is very talented. I bet he nails those ten home-wins coupons every week.
Yesterday, a tribunal led by Griffiths found that one player - Carlos Tévez - had decided the Premier League relegation issue in 2006-07, as fact. Not as opinion. Not with any vague doubt that the hundreds of other footballers, managers and coaches who were involved might have had some impact, too. Not with any pretence to evaluate their presence.
Griffiths said that Sheffield United went down because of Tévez. He, and two friends, then replayed the season in their mighty minds and, despite all of this action taking place in a hypothetical dimension, prepared to hand down a finite punishment, payable in hard cash. Be warned, this is what happens when you invite lawyers to the party.
It does not matter whether one has any sympathy for West Ham United. Senior club officials, including Scott Duxbury, who was inexplicably retained and promoted to chief executive, misled the Premier League over the signings of Tévez and Javier Mascherano, a scandal that could have resulted in the club being relegated. West Ham were fortunate that the league table was taken into account by the original independent commission, sitting on behalf of the Premier League, which decided to impose a financial penalty rather than a points deduction, for fear of deciding the relegation issue in a legal chamber, rather than on a football pitch.
Yet this ruling is as bad, if not worse, because it takes relegation issues away from the football pitch and back to the legal chamber. It sets a precedent that any relegated team with a grievance that can be put down cunningly to one incident, or one player, have a claim. The same applies to a team denied a prize, or perhaps a Champions League place. It moves English football nearer to the game in Italy or Brazil, where important issues are often not resolved until late in the close season and fixture lists are printed pending courtroom appeal.
Think of what happened between Watford and Reading on Saturday: the goal that never was. The Football League has announced that the match will not be replayed, despite a noble offer from Steve Coppell, the Reading manager. Yet what if Watford are two points short of promotion come the end of the season? What if Reading keep another team out of the Premier League by one point? Considering the Griffiths ruling, these clubs have a case against the Football League, or perhaps against Stuart Attwell, the referee.
It may not end there. Hull City looked to have started the season very well, then Danny Guthrie, of Newcastle United, broke Craig Fagan's right leg with a foul tackle. If the fortunes of the club take a downturn with the loss of an important player, to what extent is Guthrie, or his club, responsible? And what might that be worth? Now that Griffiths has determined that a season can be played out accurately in a man's head, where does this end?
Perhaps the one saving grace of the ruling in favour of Sheffield United is that the claim was for compensation, not reinstatement, although Kevin McCabe, the club's plc chairman, may feel empowered to push for the big one now. Welcome to a world of 21-team leagues, of relegationlawyers4U.com. Welcome to a world in which the most important player at your club is no longer the striker, but the QC engaged by the owner.
Can one man keep a team up or relegate another?
We all say these things, but they are unproven opinions, not hard facts. I think that Tévez may have been the difference for West Ham that season, just as Chris Waddle was for Tottenham Hotspur one year and Matthew Le Tissier was for just about his entire career at Southampton. But do I know this? No. A million intangible factors contribute to events in each season and every one is unquantifiable in finite terms. Yet the FA's independent tribunal took into account as one of Sheffield United's witnesses the testimony of the chief football writer of The Daily Telegraph, who said that Tévez kept West Ham up.
Now, I have a great deal of time for the chief football writer of The Daily Telegraph. He is a friend and a professional whom I respect enormously. Yet he is no more an expert in this matter than any devotee of football. Neither am I. If writers could predict the outcome of matches so precisely that we could say for certain, not just as an opinion, what specific factors have won and lost games, or how a match would have panned out had a single participant been removed, we would not need to work. No journalist would present his views as anything more than informed estimation. It is a punt, really. All of it. A good one, we hope, and we like to think entertaining, but a punt nonetheless.
So why was the man from the Telegraph even called? Why does an independent tribunal with the power to pass a ruling that will change football in England irrevocably rely in part on speculation and guesswork? It beggars belief. From this day, every football administrator in every league in the land will open his postbag in the month after the season has ended wincing, for ever in fear of the writ that will take him to court on nothing more than prophecy.
Sheffield United have been hawking this case from commission to courtroom to tribunal until they have found men misguided enough to believe that they can imagine the league programme and legislate on these visions. So what, exactly, are supporters buying tickets for now, if what they see may be rendered meaningless by the interpretation of a committee at a later date? Had West Ham been deducted three points at the time of the first commission for lying to the Premier League, few would have complained. Once the decision to fine was made, however, any further punishment would have to be issued retrospectively, with the season over.
Sheffield United know precisely what adjustment needs to be made to achieve the desired outcome, which is why Tévez's worth to West Ham is always calculated at three points. It is the number required to keep Sheffield United up on goal difference, astutely overriding their failings, as if these, too, could be put down to a player in a different match, representing a different team.
Sheffield United lost more away matches than any other club that season and scored fewer goals away from home. That is not the work of Tévez. Neil Warnock, the manager at the time, fielded a weakened side against Manchester United and lost and his team won only a single match in the last five, against Watford, when Steve Kabba, a former player, mysteriously did not play for their opponents. That was not down to Tévez, either.
Kabba is the sort of figure who could become hugely significant now that matches can be played in the minds of lawyers. He is on loan to Blackpool, was formerly a Sheffield United forward who had been loaned to Watford, with the deal then made permanent. Before Sheffield United and Watford met on April 28, 2007, Warnock, and match preview articles published on both official club websites, stated that Kabba could not feature because of an agreement as part of his transfer.
Kabba had played in 14 of the previous 15 matches for Watford and all of the previous eight. Any arrangement regarding his deselection would be illegal and a case of third-party interference. When the statements about Kabba were brought to the attention of the Premier League, it launched an investigation and Watford provided contract details showing that no pact had been put in writing. “There may be gentlemen's agreements between managers that, in fairness, clubs know nothing about,” McCabe said.
Yet Warnock was quoted in a local newspaper confirming that he had checked the issue and had been told that Kabba could not play, so it was not the manager's work. The most plausible explanation, therefore, is that a private deal was struck between clubs. To believe otherwise is to accept that an official information outlet of Sheffield United would carry false information uncorrected for several months, coincidentally replicated at Watford. Kabba-less, Watford lost 1-0.
And here is the rub. Who is to say that those three points for Sheffield United were any more, or less, significant than any match won by West Ham, with or without Tévez? And if West Ham could countersue, hire private investigators and subpoena everyone involved in the Kabba transfer to get to the bottom of it, would football have to peer deep into the brilliant mind of Griffiths and friends so that they could replay that match, too?
We all think that Tévez was a huge player for West Ham that season, but we cannot know for sure. We cannot faithfully evaluate his goals against the saves of Robert Green or the performances of Matthew Upson in central defence. Certainly, he cannot be held responsible for Sheffield United losing at home to Wigan Athletic on the final day of the season or Warnock's understrength team against Manchester United.
Yet we can begin to estimate the cost to football of Griffiths's foolish precedent. Right now, this is a row about money between two groups of very rich men, vainly dressed up as a fight between right and wrong. But where it goes from here cuts to the heart of Saturday afternoons, a time of the week that will increasingly cease to be of significance to football supporters - for, as we know, lawyers do not work on Saturdays.
Sep 26th 2008, 7:25 am
#38
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,094
Re: Tevez is going to cost $60 million......
can't be arsed to read that, cough up and stop bleating 
Sep 26th 2008, 8:20 am
#39
Hammer for Life
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Too far away from Upton Park, for my liking !
Posts: 5,524
Re: Tevez is going to cost $60 million......
The exact response expected from a Sunderland fan.......who have the best team they have ever had, and yet booed them and Keane this week.....be very careful mate, or Keano will be on his bike, and you'll be back where you belong in the lower reaches of the Championship
Sep 29th 2008, 10:53 am
#40
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,094
Re: Tevez is going to cost $60 million......
The exact response expected from a Sunderland fan.......who have the best team they have ever had, and yet booed them and Keane this week.....be very careful mate, or Keano will be on his bike, and you'll be back where you belong in the lower reaches of the Championship
Contrary to popular belief Sky didn't invent football in 1992 you know. Sunderland were one of the top teams in the whole country until.... they got caught cheating !If the Premier League had any town halls you'd have been deducted points in the first place and this farce wouldn't have happened. You'll appeal and it'll be reduced to 50 shillings and a sherbet didb dab because The Appy Ammers once won the world cup for us.
