Ihave been out of radio contact today so I have only just caught up with the news that West Ham and Sheffield United have reportedly agreed an out of court settlement over Sheffield United’s claim for damages over the Tevez affair. It seems that we will be paying them £10 million over five years.
I suppose a deal of this sort was inevtiable but it creates a very bad precedent and leaves a terrible taste in the mouth. It cements Sheffield United’s reputation as our most hated team, I guess.
I think the main thing is that the settlement of this dispute means that it will be easier for the club’s owners to seek a sale. No one was going to buy us until this was resolved. I suspect that a deal will now go ahead sooner rather than later.
What’s your view?
a lot of people think its a good deal, i for one completely disagree. we do NOT owe them a penny i wouldnt have given anything to those bastards.
explain to me this…..
they play wigan, at home on the last day of the season. a win, or draw if i remember would have kept them up. they lost. correct me if im wrong but i dont think tevez had f*** all to do with that game so it is utter blx we are giving them money.
this is gunna have a bad ripple effect on football and im absolutely disgusted
A lot of people forget that the original punishment was not just for breaking the 3rd party influence rule, but for deliberately witholding documents and lying about it to Prem league.
(the breakdown of the fine 3 million for the lying, and 2.5 for breaking 3rd party influence rule – the lying was the greater offence).
It then appears that after the first commission’s verdict, Scott Duxbury lied and deceived the Prem league again, so that Tevez could play in those last 3 games. That is unbelievable and unnaceptable in my opinion.
I think there’s more to this that we don’t know about.
If it was just ‘oral cuddles’, why don’t we contest that more vigirously?
I used to try and defend WHU and argue our case, but when the later information came to light, regarding the deal struck with Joorabchian to allow Tevez to play in last 3 games, I found our case undefendable.
We are not victims in my opinions. We consistently lied to the Prem league.
Carlos Tevez did have a big influence on those last 3 games, and that does have a lot to do with Sheff U getting relegated.
If Tevez shouldn’t have been playing in those last 3 gamnes because the 3rd party agreement with Joorabchian still existed, then I can understand Sheff U’s position – their argument is that over the course of the season they accumulated enough points and did well enough to avoid relegation under normal circumstances, and only went down because one of their direct competitors lied to the Prem league to enable a highly influential player to play in the last 3 games when he shouldn’t have done.
If we really did nothing wrong and have nothing to hide as Dubury claims, then we should all welcome the new FA/Prem league enquiry.
They will be investigating the circumstances surrounding the conditions that allowed Tevez to play in the last 3 games more thoroughly than Lord Griffiths I expect..
In the end, Griffiths just seemed to rely on one man’s evidence, Kia’s lawyer Grahahm Shears and the infamous ‘oral cuddles’ phrase.
The FA/Prem league need to have this new enquiry as, in effect, the Griffiths verdict, has stated that the Prem league were stitched up by Duxbury to allow Tevez to play in those last 3 games – the FA/Prem leasgue need to get to the bottom of this and found out the truth, because at the moment they have been made to look very silly as it appears WHU lied and broke their rules again, and got away with it, and, arguably, WHU avioided relegation as a result of it.
WE should welcome the new enquiry because if we really have done nothing wrong then that should clear us, overturn Griffiths verdict – and that would inevitably mean overturning the Sheff U compensation agreement, and not having to pay a penny of it.
If, however, further evidence does come to light – and there are rumours of an incriminating e-mail etc -and if it does turn out that Griffiths was right, and Duxbury did do a secret deal with Joorabchian, and did lie and deceive the Prem league again, so that Tevez could play in thoselast 3 games, then quite, frankly, we deserve to have the book thrown at us, and deserve every punishment we get.
All West Ham fans ought to welcome the new enquiry, just to find out the real truth of what happened.
Personally, I do fear the worst, and that it may well be shown that WHU did lie and decieve again, but at least we might have a clearer picture of what exactly went on.
The Anoraks the man! Get your thinking gear around his comments, and therefore, get the d***’* who are running the club? out asap!!!! But, keep U’r ‘mince pies’ on the next ‘mob’ who are coming in!
clack you f****** idiot i couldnt give a s*** if we broke rules why should we pay sheffield unt. that logic goes to say we should be forking out money to all prem clubs for NO F****** REASON AT ALL.
i cant believe what im reading.
johnny B: Excellent DICK van Dyke impression
Well lets be honest, we were never going to get a result with this it was always matter of how much and when, lets just hope the sale goes through before the FA/Premier league investigations so they don’t do anything stupid like dock points for next season
We hope the powers at west ham especially mr duxbury have full coverage for his alleged “Oral cuddles” and that next season this will be a knightmare story to recall down the pub with your mates post game
As for Sheffield and our good friend Mr McCabe may the money buy him and his team nothing but misery and heartbreak.
you never know he might spend the money on K dyer and Craig bellamy
What a load of crap. Give give mac greed nothing. We already paid 5million. Guess the 20ish million will come off the 100 asking price. So by gets the cash he paid back. SU are scum and deserve to get nothing. The points deduction is a major worry could put us in a delegation scrap.
FFS, I am seething! The BBC didn’t even put up our goal v. Wigan for Goal Of The Month… bunch of merchant bankers. Proves once and for all that they’ve bought into the biased media circus over the Tevez affair. ****s
Tevezgate, I was watching for that, but the Wigan match was in March? That was BBC goal of the month for February, I think?
Clack’s concern for clarity and transparency is admirable. But it ignores the fact that other clubs have clearly broken third party influence rules and have effectively got away with it. It is only West Ham that are being pursued by an obcessed FA, driven by Triesman’s agenda to enter in to a power struggle with the PL. Would they be so keen to pursue these issues if it was Man Utd? Course not, they run a mile from conflict with the likes of them. West Ham have a right to expect fair and equal treatment from the English football authorities. They are clearly not receiving it.
Are you really a West Ham fan Clack? If you are, I have to say that with supporters like you who needs enemies?
Clack is right about one thing though, the undue emphasis that Griffths put on Shear’s testimony. However, this is a pattern that runs throughout the Griffths Tribunal hearing. Why put such emphasis upon Henry Winter’s views, why emphasis Gary Lineker’s scripted punch lines on Match of the Day, and why place any importance on Graham Taylor’s opinions?
The truth is that the Griffths Tribunal was not fair and impartial. Consciously or unconsciously the Tribunal had absorbed months of pro-Sheffield Utd propagenda from the media. This clearly influenced the Tribunal’s final decision, there is no other explanation why they would reach the conclusion that they did?
Indeed, by the time of the Griffths Tribunal the dissemination of pro-Sheffield Utd propaganda was so widespread and dominant that it was doubtful that West Ham could ever have received a fair hearing. And that is the way that it transpired!
Man Utd exercised third party influence over Everton’s selection of Tim Howard and Sheffield Utd did likewise with Watford on Kabba and Charlton on Springer. Yet, none of these cases were proven because they were ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ with no written clauses in contracts. That is exactly the same situation with regard to Duxbury’s alleged ‘oral cuddles’with Shear.
There are no e-mails (if there were they would have surfaced by now), any taped evidence collected without Duxbury’s prior knowledge is inadmissable as it contravenes his right to privacy (under the Human Rights Act 1998) and there is copious existing documented evidence that West Ham followed PL instructions to the letter. The only conclusion that they can logically reach is there is no evidence to substantiate Griffths’ allegations.
Clack, We did’nt lie, Duxbury just misplaced the documents Lol!!
Bearing in mind the £5.5 million fine we had from the EPL I would hope that no further action would take place, although looking at Bournemouth, Luton and Leeds etc it just goes to show how heavy handed the FA are in terms of Point deductions!
Griffiths should take note from FIFA who could’nt give a rats arse about it, enough said!
I can’t believe we didn’t challenge the original FA Premiership rules when all this first came out, even an FA spokesman has even said this a while back in television interview. So why didn’t we challenge it, thats what I want to know !
I am pleased this is over. I just hope that ex players don’t come forward to try and get money out of the club!!. But it does mean the owner can sale the club.! I agree with others they went down because they had players who were not good enough in the league. But that’s the chairman and manager fault!. not West Ham.!!!
Now push up the table and get into the top 6.
Top of the league again.
http://www.physioroom.com/news/english_premier_league/epl_injury_table.php
By handing over this money, some cynics would say, we were guilty. I’m not sure what of. The blunts were relegated, because they lost 20 games, & not because Tevez played a few games for us
mokumhammer i could not agree more.
Ooops, you could be right SJ… beer talking last night
First off, it’s a deal made out of court to see through the purchase of West Ham, so in real terms it’s cheap.
Secondly I would say the original sum 10m is nearer to the truth as an out of court settlement. At 25m you would gamble in court that Sheffield Utd would receive no more than 30m. If Sheffield were after 40m as a claim they would never expect to be awarded that in court and of course it could have gone against them. The max they would have been awarded after our submissions to the court would have been about 15m-20m, so as they say “a bird in the hand..”
No points deduction.
Good enough result.
I’ve read today that it’s 10 mill plus another 15 mill in bonds over 5 years.
Either way, it won’t bankrupt us but could be a pain in the neck for a few years. However, with the new policy of buy ‘em young, we already have the makings of a decent team for the coming years.
TBH, I just want the whole thing finished and to go a long long long way away. Forever. Just hope this new FA investigation isn’t going to keep going on.
And I agree this will hopefully enable a new buyer to be found, although I hope whoever it is this ‘football project’ doesn’t change as I like the sound of it.
jpt, How do you know that there will be no points deduction then?
I thought the FA and PL were going to have a seperate investigation, because of that Spud A**E Lord Griffiths!!
Don’t know about anyone else in here but I am still quite worried about what the outcome of that investigation might be! Remember they hit Leeds, Luton and Bournmouth very hard with points deductions!
My fingers are crossed until the start of next season!
SJC – clack is most assuredly a west ham united supporter, take it from me and Johnny B who have both identified who this is.
Mr Clack is far from an idiot Rob. I tend to agree with those who question some of his interpretation which does read at times like a statement from McCabe’s legal team. After all, so much of what has transpired is open to interpretation, I can’t quite see the point in trotting out the most negative angle from a west ham perspective. However, Mr Clack is a very clever and deep thinker whom I respect a lot and I do hope and pray that his darker predictions prove to be wrong. Has he got me worried tho; somewhat.
I don’t see how the new investigation can come up with anything new. It’s surely purely on the basis of what Shear said, otherwise it would have been mentioned in the final ruling. Seeing as the reason the PL did nothing to Sheff Utd regards Kabba was because it was a verbal agreement (which they admitted on their website), rather than in writing, I don’t see how they can take further action against us on the basis of a discussion between Duxbury and Shear. This is why I wish we had held out longer and I think we would have if BG didn’t need to sell up quick. Not that I expect fair treatment anymore. We’ve been a scapegoat for everyone else to point to in order to make themselves look clean and feel better. I don’t like what Duxbury did, and part of me feels like Clack, but don’t see the likes of McCabe or Whelan or Ferguson or Harry etc as any better.
Phil, I feel more at ease after you said that about Kabba.
On the take over aparently “thegeneralmuz” has some information! He seems to know a lot apparently!
Looks like Tristan could be starting up front with DDM I think zola has little choice really we need a big fella up there to hold the ball Just hope he has got his first touch back.
I am not sure on the midfield I would rather see spector on the right to help neil out with parker and kovac middle and savio wide left. After all the weekends results we must win this one to keep the presure on those around us.
Ok Headmaster, I will take your word for it. Apologies to Clack. I would not normally dream of questioning fellow Hammers fans alliegances, I just found his arguments rather strange, but if that is his genuine views on the Tevez issue then he has a perfect right to express it!
My friendly Polish taxi driver informs me that our summer transfer target, Paul Brozek, was stretchered off on Saturday with a knee injury, a la Berhami and Collison. Apparently he is currently having scans, but the initial medical prognosis is that he could be out for up to 6 months!
Oh well, at least he got injured before he signed for us! Here’s wishing him a complete and speedy recovery.
The press were relatively quite about West Ham this week. The references to the Tevez settlement expressed a common relief that the whole protracted issue was finally over. Congratulations to the hacks for finally showing a sense of proportion that they should have demonstrated when Sheffield Utd originally started crying foul over their richly deserved relegation! It’s better late than never I suppose.
However, a special Chandos goes to Mr Calvin in the Sunday Mirror for berating Sheffield Utd for losing the moral high ground (did they ever have it?) by taking their blood money. He feels that Sheffield Utd should have held out for their day in court (even though it was a Tribunal hearing and not a court case). Could it be that there is a sense of dissatisfaction, lurking behind the admirable critique of the Blades’ morals, that Lord Griffths was denied the opportunity to finish the job on West Ham and take them for the full 45m?
However, the most off the wall peice was in the Sunday Star, which reported that Solicitors acting for the Sheffield Utd players had given West Ham a specified deadline by which to cough up £3.5m compensation for their clients alleged loss of earnings. Yeah right, the term ‘take a running jump’ comes to mind! lol.
Hi people… I’m a hammers fan from Singapore, been supporting the team for about 9 years now, since the DiCanio (love him!) days.
I think the Tevezgate problem has been going on far too long for comfort… and that this out-of-court settlement seems like our best option.
However, I do agree with Clack… if we did nothing wrong, there’s nothing to hide.
I think that privately, we might still have to get to the bottom of this: Scott Duxbury remains at our club, and although his partnership with Nani and Zola is bringing great dividends, I think he needs to stand up and take the buck should it be proven that he was guilty of wrongdoing.
If he really did it, he should owe up. And if he does, maybe, just maybe, we can work a way out for a second chance. (I’m actually quite impressed with the recent transfers. Kovac, Savio, Illunga and DiMichele represent fantastic value for money)
James — there was an artical in the observer about our proposed English led consortium buying the club ! i wonder if it has anything to do with TC again ??
The “influence” was that the owner had the right to sell Tevez during the January or Summer transfer windows. Therefore whether we cancelled the contract for the final three games or not doesn’t make one iota of difference. We have been well and truly stitched up.
An out of court settlement always smells of guilt by the party being sued… and thats the way this whole saga will be remebered if/when we do agree this settlement.
The judgement itself was horse-sh*t and belied any indication of any sporting knowledge whatsoever. Coming to a “definitive” conclusion that one player can categorically acrrue 3 points on a teams’ behalf – and without reasonable, or any, doubt at all is an insult to every sport, individual, team and sporting organisation all over the world.
As for the settlement, I’d give them nothing, nada, not an overcooked dirty rotten brown Irish sausage… like I say, its all but admitting guilt and additional liability and thats not how I’d like this to end…
And as for them rotten sh*ggers – to lose every case/appeal for compensation until this final binding one smells and grinds like an overused jacks bowl on a rat infested cess-pit in the deepest darkest hovel on the planet. I hope and pray nightly they turn into the next Luton Town and head for obscurity in the not too distant future.
Deep thinker!!! – Headmaster!! Ha,ha!!
You must have some right thickies at your school, then!!
But, seriously, I was aware my comments probably wouldn’t go down to well.
hammeredcalv,reading the observer now?i mentioned yesterday the english consortium,hoping tabor is involved tc is defo,you out for a pint tonite?
Chandos (is that a pub just off Cahring Cross Rd, near Traflager Sq, bytheway?).
But it’s not over yet, is it? – there’s still the FA/Prem league enquiry to come.
Your points about Kabba and Howard are relevant, but, as you have said yourself, they were ‘gentleman’s agreements’, not conditions of contracts, and, again, the real crime WHU commited is lying, deceiving, deliberately witholding documents when they were specifically asked if there was anymore relevant paperwork, and then lying all over again after the first commssion’s verdict.
Lying’s no good in sport, or society in general, is it?
But there was actually a note of postivism amongst my waffle. If we really have done nothing wrong as you, and others on here claim, then that should be realised in the new enquiry.
I expect new enquiry to be a much more thorough enquiry, and they will look into the circumstances of Tevez’s move to Man U, the token 2 million that Scudamore forced Man U to pay WHU, whcih Kia then sued WHU for, and we settled out of court with him – if they look into all that it will clear up once and for all if the 3rd party agreements still existed.
Bring it on!
There is still a lot more to come in my opinion, and this is far from over.
Here’s the latest news from skysports this morning
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5058069,00.html
finally it’s over
The Blades would sooner be hated by ONE cheating club than the whole football league..
Mr Duxbury will sleep soundly tonight I think
Jellied Eel anyone?
Clack, I am afraid I do not know anything about public houses in central London, I do not drink. Is it one that you use? I will look out for it the next time I am in that area, if it bares my name.
Yes, West Ham admitted lying and withholding documents at the first Tribunal, they were subsequently fined 5.5m for it as you have stated. However, it does not follow, as you seem to suggest, that they then lied a second time. From your post you seem to assume that they did. Surely that has yet to be proven.
No, it is not over, but it should be because I do not believe that the FA/PL can actually prove West Ham’s guilt. I believe that the emphasise is upon them to prove guilt. As you concede in an ealier post, Griffths placed great store by Shear’s testimony, but there now needs to be some conclusive, supporting evidence. You mentioned previously that evidence in the form of e-mails exist, do you know that for a fact? If they do then that would be more of a concern.
The thing that really concerns me is that the political context of the Tribunal. It is clear that the FA are using this issue to embarass the PL and put them on the back foot. It is possible that West Ham will be ‘meat in the sandwich’ of a FA/PL power struggle. I still maintain that if Man Utd had been involved in this affair the issue would have been buried long ago. That is unfair because it means that different clubs receive inequitable treatment from football authorities.
But we shall have to wait and see Clack. We obviously disagree on this issue. However, if the FA/PL can conclusively prove that West Ham misled the authorities a second time, then I will have no problem admitting on here that I was wrong.
Sheffield United fan here, coming in peace!
This saga has obviously ranked up the hatred between 2 clubs that previously didn’t share any bad blood and no amount of hand-shaking in boardrooms or even on the football field will change that now.
I don’t know the ins and outs of all the deals/claims/arbitrations and I haven’t read every piece of small-print on every relevant document, but my personal opinion is that the PL and/or FA have made an almighty mess of this from day one. They have pussy-footed around the issue throughout and it’s ultimately both clubs that have suffered in one way or another. The PL bottled the original decision in favour of getting cold hard cash when they stated something along the lines of “West Ham would normally have been deducted points but as they’re probably going to be relegated we’ll just take some money for the PL Christmas bash”. This has haunted them ever since Tevez scored that goal at Old Trafford and we missed chance after chance at the Lane. I would give that “compensation” back just to see the head of Richard Scudamore on a plate for his negligent role in the whole fiasco.
Having said all that, on the final day of the season I wasn’t angry at West Ham, Tevez, the PL or the FA. I was furious with Neil Warnock who had overseen our end-of-season decline with some baffling decisions, tactical naivity and (as it came out in his auto-biography) unprofessionalism.
Hopefully this may change one or two WH opinions of us Blades but as I said before – the hatred will travel in both directions for some time I expect.
I am mightily sick of the whole Tevez issue to be honest. I just want it finally concluded to West Ham’s relative satisfaction. Did any take over consortium ever inherit a more toxic, poisoned chalice?
It is almost as if the Icelandic takeover was doomed from the very beginning. It’s a real shame because I personally feel that BG would have been very good for the club, unlike the previous regime. Lets not forget that BG was not in control of the club when the Tevez/Maschanrano deals were signed. He was just subsequently left to deal with the whole disasterous business.
Another thing, the newspapers keep talking about West Ham’s £40-45m debt, but where has that come from? When BG took over the club’s £22m debts were wiped out and, unlike other PL club owners, he has not dumped loans on the club, he invested his own money. Did not BG put £30m share capital in to the club only last summer? Perhaps it is just the papers inventing the debt to talk up West Ham’s alleged financial crisis? West Ham must be having the longest running ‘meltdown’in financial history!!!! lol. Even to hardcore ‘financial meltdown’ doom merchants at the Daily Mail have given up on that one.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=628581&sec=england&&cc=5739
I found this nice little sumamry. I think if you look straight down the middle (which is hard as my heart is claret and blue) this is the fairest summary of the affair i have read.
What the bloody hell happens if its proved beyond reasonable doubt in the up coming FA / Prem League enquiry that all the paperwork was in order for CT to play in those last three games?
Can we get the compensation back then?
Is this just a case of BG’s financial circumstances conspiring to SUFC advantage or having looked at the facts did WHUFC legals brains have litle faith the up coming enquiry prove CT was not legal for those last 3 games.
If the latter happens then 15mil for retaining Prem status isnt a bad figure is it? Should Duxberry then be appluaded for convincing the Prem League that Tevez could continue to play for us?
Would we have survived if CT hadnt played in those 3 games?
I think once again the media is inventing stories just to out-do each other. Although I have no official evidence I suspect the settlement is £10 mill plus SUFC legal fees – up to £5 mil. The “bond” is nothing more than a guarantee so that new owners cannot renege on whatever has been agreed with BG prior to the sale of the club. What some of us might consider escrow in the old days. We put up the £10 mill which is held by EPL/FA, acceptable bank to both parties. We then get the funds back once the settlement is paid out in full. This is the only logical conclusion I can come to for the widely varying amounts.
We have Maurice Watkins on our legal team now. Why would he agree to £25mil? Better to have your day in court than sagree to that figure. SUFC were claiming for two years, but no court in the land would allow them to claim for the second year as there is no way they could blame us for not getting promoted, so straight away the claim is halved. Then you factor in the strong rumours; SUFC “conveniently” forgot to include the parachute payments, £11 mil for the 07-08 season. Also missed off was TV money they earned in the 07-08 season. So you realistically end up at about £5-10 mil, which is what I think we paid.
Yes, everyone will look and say we are guilty but I think the sale of the club was being held up by this procrastination. The risk now is who else is going to come out of the woodwork looking for easy money? Someone mentioned the SUFC players. I am positive a condition of the settlement would have been no further claims from SUFC.
I am not worried about another inquiry, in fact I look forward to it as it MUST encompass all the other third party deals which came to light – Howard, Kabba and Springer, and we all know that ManU can do no wrong, so nothing to fear.
Mikef
By paying this have we admitted we cheated? It sure looks like that to me and i wear claret and blue tinted glasses. I am gutted. What ever Scott Duxbury say’s, he has just sold the club out.
Mr McCabe said: Mr McCabe said: “We are happy and satisfied with the settlement with West Ham. Throughout the finalisation of the terms for the agreement, the discussions were friendly, co-operative and in the best of spirit with both the Blades and Hammers advisory teams.
“We are two clubs with a fantastic footballing history who now want to move on and focus on the business of playing football – hopefully for us against the Hammers in the Premier League next season. We look forward to a positive ongoing relationship with West Ham at all levels.”
______________________________________________________
I feel SICK
This is the Chandos pub:
http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/65/657/
St.Martin’s Lane, just off Charing Cross Rd.
Been there for years, good old traditional pub
Chandos,
I suggest the debt comes from things like Ljungburg, Dyer, Ashton (renewed contract), Neil, Quashie fees and wages, plus out of court settlements with Joorabchian, Terance Brown, Chelsea (over Clarke), and Sheff U.
I’m no financial expert, but I thought it was pretty well known that Gudmundsson did not put any of his own money into the club, but set up holding companies, which took out loans, guaranteed against his banks and other businesses, which are now bust.
OK, in theory, it is the holding company that has the debt, and not West Ham United, thankfully!
But he still wants the new owners to pay off the holding companies debts and loans.
Chandos,
Mo, I don’t know if an e-mail, or other incriminating evidence exists – as I said, there are rumours, that’s all.
Like youself, I don’t care for the Daily Mail very much – infact, I can’t stand the Nazi propaganding hypocrites! – but it’s clear sportsmail do have sources, agents probably, outside of West Ham, that have been right on issues regarding our club over last year, or so:
eg. – the mail broke the Ljungburg pay-off story,
– they were first with Anton to Sunderland story,
– and their specualtion that Curbishley was about to be pushed out/ resign a few days before it actually happened, was also spot on.
Personally, I think they have a source from someone close to Joorabchian (that’s why their updates on the Griffiths trial, and prediction of Sheff U victory proved correct aswell), and they were also banging on for a long time before WHU and Joorabchian settled out of court, that Joorabchian was in possession of an incriminating piece or evidence. Who knows?