nothing to do with the fa, gerrard was sent off for 2 yellows and according to fa regulations didn't have to face a suspension, neil mellor was sent off for violent conduct in the same game but the referee (dutch i think?) didn't report itSame as us having Scholes and Rooney suspended in the Premiership for being sent off in the Amsterdam Tournament!
And yet a certain Mr Stevie G got sent off in that same tourney and DIDNT get suspended in the premiership.... Again FA not being consistant in punishment.
tevez and mascherano were registered with west ham, as far as i know there is no problem with the actual transfer and fifa have said the paperwork was in order, the problem is to do with third party interestsVoted 'Don't care', however it must be worse to think how much of an impact Tevez has had in the relegation battle.
Sure there was an incident with Bury playing a non-registered player (a loan player I think) and they where booted from the FA Cup.
Going by that, they should be relegated.
there was a contract between west ham and the company that owns tevez and mascherano stating that they had the right to terminate the players contracts and pay west ham £2m for tevez and around £150k for masch during the january transfer window"No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its team."
The permanent move was agreed in February after the transfer window was closed so he couldn't complete the signing until it re-opened in June. As such, he is technically still on loan at Everton and by FA rules, is not allowed to play against his 'present' team.it's probably nowhere near as bad as manchester united telling everton they couldn't play tim howard in their game if united were still in the title race even though the move had been made permanent, the premier league chief exec peter scudamore knew of the agreement and asked united to remove it from the contract as it's illegal but gave consent for a gentleman's agreement which to me is just as illegal as a written contract
loan deals can be made permanent at any time during the loan period whether it's in the transfer window or not, tim howard is officially an everton playerThe permanent move was agreed in February after the transfer window was closed so he couldn't complete the signing until it re-opened in June. As such, he is technically still on loan at Everton and by FA rules, is not allowed to play against his 'present' team.
another good article on it hereManchester United tried to break Premier League rules by inserting a written agreement into Tim Howard's transfer to Everton which would have legally prevented the American goalkeeper playing against them.
United accused over Tim Howard
Tim Howard: happy at Everton
David Gill, the United chief executive, only agreed to remove the clause after 10 days of talks with the League's chief executive Richard Scudamore.
But it is understood Scudamore gave his consent to a 'gentleman's agreement' between the clubs at the time Howard's season-long loan to Everton was turned into a permanent move in February.
Although both clubs have been cleared of any wrongdoing, the revelation that Scudamore knew of the agreement between United and Everton will raise serious questions over the League's handling of the Howard move.
And the development has left the Premiership vulnerable to accusations of double standards following the record £5.5million fine they handed to West Ham over the Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano controversy.
The League say the apparent contradiction between the way they handled the two cases is explained by the fact that United had no agreement "enforceable by law" in place.
Had Everton decided to play Howard in the 4-2 defeat on April 28 which proved such a pivotal part in United sealing the title, Old Trafford chiefs would have been powerless to act against Everton. But the League may find it difficult to explain why a written agreement is a potential breach of the League's rules while a gentleman's agreement is not.
Scudamore said on Wednesday that the rules may be reviewed to prevent confusion when a player moves to a club after being on loan. The League's regulations state that players on loan cannot turn out against their parent club.
However, one leading sports lawyer questioned the League's consistency over the Tevez and Howard cases, saying: "The rule states that someone who is not the player's registered club cannot materially influence that team's policies. It would seem to me that one club telling another they can't pick him is a potential breach.
"There may have been some difference in the severity of the offence but that doesn't mean United and Everton shouldn't have been charged."
The row over the League's decision to allow Tevez to continue playing for West Ham following the independent commission's ruling on April 27 intensified yesterday as Wigan, Sheffield United, Charlton and Fulham sent a second letter warning Scudamore they are considering legal action.
But West Ham and the League dismissed the new threat, insisting they were satisfied the club had "unilaterally terminated" the agreement with the player's offshore owners on the same day as the judgment and hours before Tevez turned out in the crucial 3-0 victory over Wigan on April 28.
100% correct. I wanted Sheffield United to stay up, watching Match of the Day this season has been worth it for Warnock alone, and it'll be a shame that there's one less genuine manager in the Premiership next year; I'd have much preferred if Paul "I nearly get clubs relegated and everybody loves me" Jewell and his Wigan side had gone down, but they, like West Ham, didn't deserve it, and Sheffield United did.West Ham stayed up because they did the business on the pitch, while Sheffield Utd didn't. It's fair that they stay up in my opinion.
What you have to realise is that Tevez was and always has been registered perfectly legally.They played players that helped them stay up that should not have been playing. They broke the rules. When this kind of thing has happened in the past, it has meant a points reduction. Why not this time? Maybe because West Ham are a big team. They should stick to the rules.
hence my post saying it's probably nowhere near as bad as a team influencing another team's selection on the pitchGood post. You've changed my view.
If memory serves me correct, i think this happened to Tottenham in the past, and they were docked points, but it also happened to another team (Swindon?) and they were relegated 2 divisions.They played players that helped them stay up that should not have been playing. They broke the rules. When this kind of thing has happened in the past, it has meant a points reduction. Why not this time? Maybe because West Ham are a big team. They should stick to the rules.
I remember we actually complied with the F.A. about this, before they decided we were in the wrong and sent us down unjustly.I remember Middlesbrough having ill players and were unable to play against Blackburn Rovers one season... the FA handed out a points deduction to them and it finished them off!! West Ham fielded ineligible players on the field during matches which I think is worse. The punishment doesnt fit the crime in this case.
Im sure if Man United had fielded ineligible players we would have had points docked for sure! to make the Premiership Title race more interesting!
but they didn't field inelgible players, there never was and never has been a problem with the player registrationsIf memory serves me correct, i think this happened to Tottenham in the past, and they were docked points, but it also happened to another team (Swindon?) and they were relegated 2 divisions.
The Premier League are as spineless as the FA in this country. There is no consistency in anything they do. When this first came to light, they should nailed this on the head, but yet, let this snowball into something greater.
The board at West Ham (pre Magnusson) also need to be looked at. They saw easy money with Kia Joorabchian and MSI. This is how two £20mill plus players were 'bought' by West Ham. The whole notion of not initially disclosing their contracts should have also have made people look in. When Joorabchian failed, for whatever reason, his two key assets were left in the Boleyn Ground.
West Ham must have known what ground they walked on, as they intially refrained from using the players. However, i guess when their backs were to the wall, and relegation are forgone conclusion, it was 'ok' to play inelgible players, and if it came to it, and they stayed up, they would fight tooth and nail to prove their innocence.
However, in retrospect, the Premier League have come in as the saviour whilst fining some multi millionaires £5.5m, whilst a points deduction is what really would have hit them in the 'pocket'.
Don't just blame West Ham in this matter, as the Premier League is just as culpable.
The FA and Premier League are 2 completely different bodies and the cases are 2 completely different cases.I remember we actually complied with the F.A. about this, before they decided we were in the wrong and sent us down unjustly.
That's the thing that baffles me too mate.if it had been looked at earlier in the season then in all probability they would have been a points deduction (fact)
but because it was left so late in the season they did not give points as they would have been in effect relegating them.
but they didn't field inelgible players, there never was and never has been a problem with the player registrations
the rule they breached is U18 which is mainly used for stopping investors having interests in more than 1 club, in this case it was a contract between west ham and msi which allowed them to move the players on at anytime without the consent of west ham
when swindon were relegated 2 divisions is was down to illegal payments but they'd been involved in some other shite as well just before with their chairman (i think?) and manager at the time lou macari involved in putting money on swindon to lose a game, also iirc it was reduced to being relegated 1 division after an appeal, spurs were also docked points and banned from the fa cup for 1 season for making illegal payments, both completely different scenarios
in my mind west ham have done very little wrong, the actual transfers might sound dodgy with the fact the players were owned by msi but all the paperwork and player registrations were in order and the way they obtained the players was perfectly legal, the only problem was the agreement between the club and msi