Thetownend.com

Seems a bit harsh  :shock:

FA must be skint again!

It's the Premier League's decision.

They should be thankful it is not a points deduction, but it certainly sends a message...

That is a massive fine but if they manage to stay up due to no points deduction then they will have got off quite likely in my opinion because of the gulf in cash flow between the premier league and championship

but the FA could get involved because Mr Tevez played in both of West ham Fa cup games against Brighton and Watford.

they could cancel his contract if they wish, but have said he is free to continue playing for West Ham

But if they were cup matches and they were knocked out of the cup - there could be a fine but no league points sanction IMHO.

Quite right too. Its about time fines actually hurt clubs in the pocket. Who the fuck cares about a £10,000 pound fine when you pay employees 40,000 a week!

I'm sure their parachute payment will cover it. :soapy tit wank:

5.5 million isn't harsh. They should be sent down.  I'm still not over our punishment we received in 1990. They done worse.

Different rules for the rich again.

It could of been 7.5m if they pleaded not guilty. My dad heard it on Talksport. What i said earlier because Tevez played in the FA Cup the fa will get involved and it could harm them playing in next season competition.

Not till they get rid of the third party who owns him.

Valid point regarding the FA Cup...because Bury were kicked out by fielding an ineligible player, so by that West Ham should have the same similar punishment.

That is correct. So he cannot play tomorrow against Wigan unless. West Ham make some phone calls to the 3rd party in England or Brazil to cancel the thrid party or they can offically loan him from Corinthinans like Liverpool done with Javier Mascherano. Complicated.

EH ?????

 :shrug: :english:

Where does the money go
Hopefully it'll be filtered down to those lower league clubs in need...........

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:  As if! More chance of me getting blow job off Kate Moss

Oh... just thought aren't the FA negotiating what to pay Newcastle in compensation for his injuries in the World Cup.....
It wasn't £5.5 Million that they were asking for was it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/6557067.stm

about 6m so i hear?? I don't quite get what its all about tbh

should just about cover svens wages for a few months

I think its sour grapes with the other clubs trying to sue west ham/fa of non-deduction of points. Get over it. If you go down its cos you're shit.

Rules are rules. Fielding an illegable player has resulted in teams being thrown out of cups and deducted points. No consistancy.

If the punishment for fielding ineligible players is a heft fine then so be it. But it leaves it open for other clubs to do the same thing 'accidently on purpose' in the future.

Other than that I really don't care who goes down.

Dont think it was fielding an inelligable player was what they were done for. It was for breaking rules on 3rd party ownership of players.

Surely if they broke rules on signing a player owned by a 3rd party the transfer is not deemed legitamate and therefor he should not be playing?

Then again he is still playing so ??

This really has to stop. Stop the winging and the whining and do the talking on the pitch on Sunday afternoon.

SwindonTartanArmy is right. Tevez was legally registered with the FA and Premier League, therefore eligible to play in the league and the cup.

The problem lies with his ownership. West Ham techinically loaned him from his management company rather than Corinthians, which is against the rules.

Other clubs don't have a leg to stand on with these accusations that they're going to sue West Ham.

Tevez wasn't inelligible though, the fine was because of third party ownership. Nowt wrong with him playing.

This whole Tevez ting is pissing me off, fuck off Whelan if you're team was half decent they woul;dn't find themselves in the position they are in.

Come on West Ham, relegate the egg chasing town of Wigan.

OK, I'm confused now then.

Are you allowed to play players 'owned' by a 3rd party?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6638575.stm

That will explain everything.

Cheers.

This bollocks about both players being legally registered to play for the club is just semantics. If the signings were subject to an illegal agreement with a 3rd party I fail to see how they can be regarded as legal!

I think there are a couple of fundamental points that everyone is ignoring.

Ask yourself this question - Would West Ham have been able to sign these players without this breach of rule 18?

I think we all know that the answer is no. When the signing was announced the whole of football and the media said, "How the hell have they managed that?". As a result the club were questioned in detail by the Premier League about the terms of the signing and contracts, and made repeated statements denying any 3rd party interest in the players. They DID NOT make a "mistake" as the BBC site puts it, they knew what they were doing and bloody lied about it!

As a result they had the advantage of being able to field players that otherwise they could not have afforded, giving them an unfair advantage over the other clubs at the bottom of the league. I can therefore well understand why the other clubs are pissed off.

When we got caught running a bit of a cash wages fiddle in order to be able to afford the signings of Calderwood, Foley and a few other 3rd division cloggers we initially got RELEGATED TWO DIVISIONS AND FINED. They ran a fiddle that allowed them to sign two young Argentine world cup stars and they don't lose a single point!

Doesn't that piss you off at all?

The most important thing though is this:

"The commission concluded that a deduction of points "would normally follow from such a breach of rules".

So there is NO ARGUMENT about whether the offence SHOULD be punished by a points deduction, the commission say as much, they've just decided not to this time.

And one of the reasons why points wouldn't be deducted? Because it might mean relegation! Talk about a bottle job.

So tot that lot up and tell me that you wouldn't think about legal action:

1 - The league have allowed one club an unfair advantage in the fight to avoid relegation. No-one else was allowed to sign players on this basis, and one of the players signed in this way played a central role in securing 4 of West Hams last 6 wins.
2 - All precident has been ignored as far as punishment is concerned
3 - The commission admit that they've not applied the accepted rules in terms of punishment

Frankly the whole thing stinks and I can't believe that any of you think the way it's been handled is OK.

If we'd done something like this we'd have been looking at a place in the nationwide next season if we were lucky.

I agree with you Lumps.

The transfer should have been deemed void once it was apparent West Ham had broken the rule. Which is where I was coming from, what I hadn't realised was that the whole thing hinges around the third party having influence over the player regarding the get out clauses rather than a straightforward 'no 3rd party owned players' rule.

It has been proven that this rule was breached. It has been proven West Ham only came clean at the last possible minute. The PL have fudged the outcome becuase deducting points would cause West Hams relagation. In the process they have now set a precedance for all and sundry to do the same as West Ham. Cheat.