Jump to content

Wigan chairman on West Ham


Recommended Posts

This is a very serious offence West Ham committed," said Whelan. "They broke the law, told blatant lies and should have got a 10-point penalty.

"If we can sue West Ham or the Premier League, I am sure that will happen."

"Justice would be West Ham being one of the two clubs that still has to go down, but justice has so far not been served in this case.

"If there was any action taken by the bottom six clubs that are in danger of going down, I'd be a big supporter of that action.

"I think the bottom six will stick together and take action together whichever two clubs go down, if West Ham aren't one of them.

"If any action is taken I think it'll be in the next 14 days and I'll support any action that the clubs want to take."

Sounds like he's pretty pissed off with West Ham for they way they've conducted himself. He won't be happy unless their relegated, whether it's because of results or court action.

So how the hell can he say this in the course of the same interview?

"I have no anger with West Ham or their supporters. They are a great club and get very well supported.

So they break the law and tell blatant lies and he wants justice to be served (provided that's relegation) but he's not angry with them?

Can anyone explain this buffoon's thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


IMO, the guy is a c*nt. he's not interested in the sanctity of the game, he's only interested in wigan staying up. he seems to talk a lot more than charmen should, in my view.

it's false moral crusaders like him that I can't stand- I think he also said publically words to the effect that RA was giving chelsea an unfair advantage/ inflating the transfer market... he never spoke about how wigan were "subsidised" by his jjb sports business, and he never complained when chelsea were receptive to wigan's offer for scott parker (a direct result of chelsea getting better players thanks to that "unfair advantage")

that being said, I do think that the premier league or fa (whoever was responsible) bottled the points deduction. if they were mid table, I guarantee the points would have been docked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hes a massive hypocrite. he advocates a salary cap in football, yet the rugby league team he owns has broken the rugby league salary cap for the last 2 seasons. they got done for it by the rfl but only recieved a 6 points deduction when anything upto 15 points had been mentioned, which woulda seen them relegated. the mans a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whelan is a moron and yes this rant is entirely based on self interest however, that aside, I do agree with his sentiment. West Ham should have been docked points, precedence alone dictates that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree loz. they should definately have been docekd. but the fa need money. ive got a feeling a deal was agreed. the fa said they would fine em ?5.5 mill but no points, as long as west ham just accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Apparently, to quote Andy Townsend:

As many as six clubs at the bottom end of the Premiership are threatening legal action if West Ham are not docked points.

Of course, it's fairly obvious where this lot are coming from - they get a few quid and send West Ham down. Very dodgy this, it's one thing disagreeing with a decision but to sue for compensation because you disagree with a decision, and at that, a decision that only indirectly - even if those indirect consequences means relegation for your club - would set a very dangerous precedent.

However, it's currently unclear (nudge nudge, wink wink) whether these clubs would continue their claims for legal action if West Ham are related even without having points docked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hes a massive hypocrite. he advocates a salary cap in football, yet the rugby league team he owns has broken the rugby league salary cap for the last 2 seasons. they got done for it by the rfl but only recieved a 6 points deduction when anything upto 15 points had been mentioned, which woulda seen them relegated. the mans a moron.

the same moron who bangs on about must have an english manager and gets JBB sports investigated for overpriced england shirts from the overseas sweatshops. I hope wigan go down! oh and their manager is a scouser!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a bit heavy going in places, but the full report of the Independant commission's judgement can be found here.

The bottom line is that West Ham admitted their guilt. The commission could have imposed a points deduction as a penalty. They even went as far as to say "That [a points deduction] is a course that we consider would normally follow from such a breach of these Rules". But decided not to deduct points. Curiously, the fact that West Ham have not sacked the guy apparently responsible helped their cause in deciding the punishment.

To save you slogging through the entire report, here is an extract. It is the part where they decided on the penalty:

Penalty.

That being the basis upon which we will proceed, what then is the appropriate penalty? In determining that, we have taken into account and given West Ham credit for the pleas of guilty and we have taken into account their hitherto exemplary disciplinary record. We are of the view that these are exceedingly serious allegations because they amount to not only an obvious and deliberate breach of the Rules, but a grave breach of trust as to the FAPL and its constituent members, because in our finding the club has been responsible for dishonesty and deceit.

The Rules of the FAPL allow us to penalise a club by deducting points. That is a course that we consider would normally follow from such a breach of these Rules. Many clubs may be of the view that all competitions should be decided on the pitch and not by tribunals. Whilst that is a natural and understandable view, the fact remains that some breaches will be of such a serious nature that only a deduction of points would be appropriate.

Some clubs, here perhaps those who are locked in the relegation battle with West Ham, may be of the view that only a points deduction would be appropriate. Here, we have finally come to the view that a deduction of points would not be proportionate punishment.

We have taken the following factors into account:

One, the club's pleas of guilty.

Two, the fact that the club is under new ownership and management. True it is that Mr Duxbury remains, but we are impressed by Mr Sturman's point that Mr Magnusson could have cynically dispensed with his services so as to reflect more favourably upon the club.

Three, had the club in time made disclosure of the third party contracts to the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into which would not have offended the Rules. Mr Mascherano is now playing football for Liverpool. He is doing so pursuant to a contract entirely different in form to these contracts, and which has been approved by the FAPL. We have no reason to suspect that the same could not have been achieved with West Ham in August 2006.

Four, there has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party's fault, the consequence is that a points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome, would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which would have consigned the club to certain relegation.

Five, Tevez has continued to play for the club after the discovery of these breaches. The FAPL had the power to have then terminated his registration. For understandable reasons, they did not. Had it not been for these proceedings, the club and the FAPL might have reached a similar situation to that pertaining to Liverpool and Mascherano. Tevez, we note, has played in more games post-24th January than before it.

Six, we have considered the position of the players and the fans. They are in no way to blame for this situation. Of course, if the impact upon players and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a deduction of points. However, in this case, the fans and the players have been fighting against relegation. They have been doing so from between January and April. They have been so doing against the ever-present threat of a deduction of points. Those efforts and that loyalty would be to no avail were we to now, on what might be termed the eve of the end of the season, to deduct points.

Seven, it was Mr Igoe, thus the club, then under new ownership, who brought attention to these breaches.

Thus we do not order any deduction of points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I feel bad for Sheffield Utd today, from what I saw of them this season they were INFINITELY more entertaining than Wigan. And for reasons I can't explain I just loathe Paul Jewell.

Wet Spam sure got out of jail in the last month or so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel bad for Sheffield Utd today, from what I saw of them this season they were INFINITELY more entertaining than Wigan. And for reasons I can't explain I just loathe Paul Jewell.

Wet Spam sure got out of jail in the last month or so...

Agree totally about Sheffield United, they're not a bad team and I wanted them to stay up. I also like Neil Warnock, and think the Premiership was a better place for his being there.

Simple explanation for your (and my) loathing of Paul Jewell - he's a typical f*ckin' scouse tw*t - nothing's ever his fault.

West Ham should have been docked points, but obviously, with Brooking at the FA that was never going to happen. What with the scousers constantly getting 'special consideration', I think there ought to be an independent inquiry into the going's-on at the FA - the place reeks of corruption. Especially when you consider how harshly they come down on smaller clubs.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I'm mistaken, the mere fact of staying in the Premiership will cover, or at least greatly minimise the damage of the fine. If they'd gone down it would have been a very different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thinking...with the heavy fine West Ham has to pay, has there been any talk about whether or not they can pay the fine without selling players? icon_confused.gif

West Ham aren't skint and on top of that they have the guaranteed wedge from retaining their Premiership status. ?5.5m is peanuts compared to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Agree totally about Sheffield United, they're not a bad team and I wanted them to stay up. I also like Neil Warnock, and think the Premiership was a better place for his being there.

Simple explanation for your (and my) loathing of Paul Jewell - he's a typical f*ckin' scouse tw*t - nothing's ever his fault.

Excellent, glad I'm not alone. High five! [/borat]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!