West Ham United & Sheffield United – Friends At Last?

Ian

Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Jimmy Cass says:

    West Ham have achieved the virtually impossible and started to make me feel sorry for them. This wasn’t a case of onfield cheating. There was no hint of brown envelopes passing hands to fix matches. Just a dodgy player registration technicality. How the Prem. must have wished it had done the sensible thing and deducted points at the time of the offence, but I suppose they had assumed West Ham were relegation certainties at that point, so that would have been no real punishment.

    And now that financial wizard Bates has started circling, you know the situation has descended into complete farce.

  2. Neil says:

    As an Ipswich Town supporter I’m considering sueing West Ham for the additional travelling costs in getting t Sheffield as opposed to East London.

  3. Chris Cheetham says:

    I am very surprised that the media hasn’t made even more of this development. As I understand it, it has been suggested that Lord Griffiths’ key finding was that West Ham had not “torn up” the offending contract after the initial tribunal had required them to do so, but instead simply told the FA Premier League that they had done so whilst executing a verbal side agreement with Kia Joorabchian to confirm to him that they were not intending to simply walk away from that contract. This alleged deceit then enabled Carlos Tevez to play in the final three games of the season. Tevez’s contribution in those three games then formed the basis of Sheffield Utd’s case.

    However, potentially at least, the most significance consequence of this development is not the compensation paid by West Ham to Sheffield Utd or the more fanciful follow up actions by Neil Warnock, the players and the opportunistic Ken Bates, but rather that at long last the FA and FA Premier League have been “forced” into a serious review of the entire affair. If, hypothetically, it is found that West Ham deliberately misled the FA Premier League to enable Tevez to play against Wigan et al then the consequences could be explosive. I can recall a number of occasions when Clubs throughout the leagues (though typically not the big Clubs) have been docked significant numbers of points and even relegated outright, but I do not remember an offence as premeditated or as serious. What would West Ham’s punishment be? Another fine might be seen as a complete sham. In the meantime, at the FA Premier League, it would very hard for Richard Scudamore and David Richards to argue that the deception was so subtle that it wasn’t obvious that they should have taken action sooner. How could they possibly survive?

    The cynical view would be that the joint enquiry will obfuscate and attempt to draw a line under the long-running saga, but if it does not and instead confirms Griffiths’ alleged suspicions then expect fireworks.

  4. Ross says:

    Surely the admin on this website agrees, that it was West Ham in the first place that has led to this situation.

    If West Ham had have gone down they wouldn’t have even got this money they did in the first place. They may have now had to pay out upwards of £20m which is a lot, but they have benefited more from being in the Premier League. I don’t feel sorry for West Ham at all.

    It would do more damage to the game, if teams could cheat their way to onfield success.

  5. Ron Ipstone says:

    Good points are made by the author of the article and Chris Cheetham.
    As I understand the reasoning of the arbitrator, the liability of the Hammers to pay compensation to the Blades lay in contract. Both clubs were members of the Premier League and bound between themselves to obey the rules of the League. Where a club did not obey those rules and caused loss to another club, then compensation can be ordered to recompense the club suffering the loss.

    The Blades’ entitlement to compensation was founded upon it being a member of the Premier League, Neil Warnock was not a member of the Premier League and neither was Leeds United. Mr Bates and Leeds have the further problem in that the company running Leeds and to whom the Blades were contracted to make further payments in respect of players, has got into liquidation. Any money recovered would go to the creditors of the old company, not the new company now running Leeds. Although last time I looked Mr Bates claimed to be the most substantial creditor, this status was disputed by HMRC.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>