hammers fined!!!

[BLUENUT]

News just in!

Hammers fined ?5.5M for fielding 2 players they didn't own!

[loz]

Ouch!!!!

?30k for crowd trouble, ?5.5m for ropey paperwork........ hands up who is surprised!

[TT]

Ouch!!!!

?30k for crowd trouble, ?5.5m for ropey paperwork........ hands up who is surprised!

and wasn't it just ?2,500 for wenger for calling officials liars !?

[sweet waffle]

Maybe we should help them out by taking Tevez of their hands.

[BLUENUT]

if they stay up EPL teams receive an extra ?20m per club from TV revenue, so ?5.5m will hardly be a dent, but if they go down, they'll lose the ?20m and have to opay the 5.5m so it'll hit 'em hard.

How many biscuits do you have to sell to make ?5.5m?

They have to get Gary Baldi off their books!

[loz]

BLUENUT

DO clubs going down not now get a fairly hefty parachute payment?

[BLUENUT]

Oh yeah, that really takes the biscuit, but in comaprison it's just crumbs!

At least they won't be hob-nob'bing it with the big boys

The FA are crackers!

(dont worry the coat is on)

[sweet waffle]

I'm glad they didn't get a points deduction as they would have been down and out of the league and I want them fighting for there premiership lives on the last day of the season when the play Manure.

[glory55]

Those jammy dodgers will count themselves lucky....

that there not chocolate fingering it down in the Championship!

[Gem]

They'll appeal and get fined ?150 instead.

[loz]

They'll appeal and get fined ?150 instead.

I bet they don't. They admitted guilt and my guess is that they struck a deal whereby if they admitted guilt they only get a fine.

[Gem]

They'll need to sell Dean Ashton to us then to raise the funds they've just lost

[Mod]

Why would we want that waste of space, he's be a small fish in a big pond with us.

[loz]

Why would we want that waste of space, he's be a small fish in a big pond with us.

Somewhere in the vicinity of Gem's street

[Lofty]

Ouch!!!!

?30k for crowd trouble, ?5.5m for ropey paperwork........ hands up who is surprised!

And an award for best behaved supporters if your Scouse.

[Gem]

Why would we want that waste of space, he's be a small fish in a big pond with us.

Premiership quality [if you can score with West Ham quality players setting you up - you must be able to finish], two footed, good in the air, young, confident...the only downside is he's English, so he'd cost ?10million more than he's worth.

I'm also sure a lot of fans throught Frank Lampard would sink and not swim with us.

I think he'd do well anyway. Then again, I really wanted Del Horno.

[flasher10]

Most deals involving Penis Zahavi tend to lead to some form of grief for somebody.

May i interest you in Avram Grant?. Stevie Clarke? Who is he?

Failing that may i interest you in Juan Sebastian Veron? Or perhaps Hernan Crespo?

Hmm, okay not interested? What about Ashley Cole?

Wanna new manager? I know a guy called Sven. A real class act.

[Lofty]

I thought Mascherano had been signed by Liverpool? I must be wrong because according to the BBC:

Mascherano has since moved to Liverpool on a loan deal.

And here again, the Scousers were allowed to bend the rules, as when they were allowed into the Champions League after they flucked the trophy. But then they're a special case, arent't they?

Of more immediate importance, the same story states that Tevez has got the ok to play today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 602697.stm

[BLUENUT]

I wonder if Mr Brooking used his influence at the FA to save them from a points deduction

[Guest AJ]

I wonder if Mr Brooking used his influence at the FA to save them from a points deduction

Surely not.......

Heard some rumblings to the effect of the below on talksh!te..

Spurts set a precedent under the football league in the eighties I believe, they fielded 'illegible' players and were fined around 300,000 but no points (I think if points had been taken they would have been relegated that year as well). However under premier league jurisdiction M'boro were docked points for not fulfilling a fixture (due to illness of players) and subsequently went down which is similar but not the same. So I think the "independent" panel looked back in history and took the ruling the football league had handed out to spurts (precedents and all that despite being set by a different governing authority).

I personally go with the Brooking theory and the fact the "independent" panel and FA simply bottled sending them down.

The alternative is thus:-

The Premier League is a completely different beast to the old Football League - it's about the advancement of the few and the many are ignored. The Prem is run by chairman who are after publicity and the pursuit of global business opportunities, and even greater wealth. Players are paid millions and therefore the league attracts the money-obsessed, though not the best, players in the world and ticket prices are through the roof. The flipside of this is the farcical situation with parachute payments and transfer windows that make it incredibly difficult for any team outside of the Premier to break in and compete - particularly the team that comes up in the playoffs and has 8 weeks to assemble a side. The reason - the chairmen run the league and they have to protect their investment. The result - a league where the chairmen are the personalities, the likes of Reading, Wigan, Blackburn and Middlesbro can prosper because they have rich benefactors.

The league knows that West Ham are a biggish club with decent enough support in terms of numbers (pains to say it), so fined them as they knew a points deduction would mean certain relegation. That means chairmen can expect a full away end next year, not a 1000 or so if it's Sheff Utd, Reading et al. The verdict even referred to their large support base, which in any rational mind would be irrelevant when discussing breaches of transfer rules. Plus the 'product' has more appeal when it comes to negotiating sponsorship deals and TV rights if the bigger clubs are in the top drawer. it all comes down to the ? at the end of the day!

[loz]

I think it is far more straight forward than that. I think the panel saw West Ham as doomed to relegation anyway and took the opportunity to get a wedge out of them - nobody could have expected West Ham to pull off this relegation escape.

[Guest AJ]

I think it is far more straight forward than that. I think the panel saw West Ham as doomed to relegation anyway and took the opportunity to get a wedge out of them - nobody could have expected West Ham to pull off this relegation escape.

I see where your coming from, definitely makes sense, but, I'll be honest and this is a horrible thing to admit to ;-) I had them to stay up unless they were deducted points, the quality of squad (and Tevez's goals once it was clear he could play more to the point) was just to good for them to be relegated, !!! Should have put some money on it really. One good thing to come out of it - it's six points next season.

[Lofty]

The latest, and sorry I should have put this post here, is that Blatter is sticking his oar in. Apparently, it's still highly unlikely that West Ham will have points docked for this season, but that there is a better possibility of them having points docked at the start of next season.

[Guest AJ]

it's still highly unlikely that West Ham will have points docked for this season, but that there is a better possibility of them having points docked at the start of next season.

Music to the ears down before the season starts, Tevez gone in the summer, 5.5 million quid out of pocket, and six points gained for us...fan-bloody-tastic

[Lofty]

Sheffield United today began arbitration proceedings against the Premier League, mainly on two counts. Firstly that the Premier League failed to investigate the Tevez case and to apply proper punishment to West Ham, and secondly against West Ham continuing to play Tevez despite questions over his eligibility According to the Sky report, one, admittedly remote, possibility, is that there will be 21 teams in next season's Premier League.

Sky Sports report here

and from the BBC