245 replies to this topic

[cheeky_monkey]

Derbyshire_snow, on 16 May 2007, 10:38 PM, said:

Try telling that to our fans we have done nothing wrong west ham where not better than us only 1 player was and thats carlos tevez he is an illegal player end of discussion.

Tevez was successfully registered as a West Ham player back in August and at NO point has his eligibilty to play for West Ham been under question.

There was no opening of a 'second' transfer window for West Ham to resign Carlos Tevez, He was always a West Ham United player.

The ownership of Carlos Tevez by a third party was not against Premier League rules.

The CLAUSE in the contract that stipulated MSI could sell Tevez in the TRANSFER window if they paid £2m to West ham (or for a payment of £100,000 in any subsequent transfer window) WAS against premier league rules. This is the rule west ham are charged with breaking.

[The PIT]

cheeky_monkey, on 17 May 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

Tevez was successfully registered as a West Ham player back in August and at NO point has his eligibilty to play for West Ham been under question.

There was no opening of a 'second' transfer window for West Ham to resign Carlos Tevez, He was always a West Ham United player.

The ownership of Carlos Tevez by a third party was not against Premier League rules.

The CLAUSE in the contract that stipulated MSI could sell Tevez in the TRANSFER window if they paid £2m to West ham (or for a payment of £100,000 in any subsequent transfer window) WAS against premier league rules. This is the rule west ham are charged with breaking.

Tevez was succesfully registered without the disclosure of the third party involvement.

2nd point Since the contract was torn up in theory and he was effectively he was resigned outside the transfer window. Theres no proof that the orginal contract was revoked. Indeed the orginal contract couldn't be revoked by West ham or the player. Theres also valid questions about whether the contract was legal in the first place.

Third point shows you haven't really a clue what you're talking about. MSI could instruct the player not to play if it was in MSI interests if they had decided to transfer the player.

Edited by The PIT, 17 May 2007 - 12:05 .

[cheeky_monkey]

The PIT, on 17 May 2007, 01:04 PM, said:

Tevez was succesfully registered without the disclosure of the third party involvement.

2nd point Since the contract was torn up in theory and he was effectively he was resigned outside the transfer window. Theres no proof that the orginal contract was revoked. Indeed the orginal contract couldn't be revoked by West ham or the player. Theres also valid questions about whether the contract was legal in the first place.

Third point shows you haven't really a clue what you're talking about. MSI could instruct the player not to play if it was in MSI interests if they had decided to transfer the player.

1st off everbody knew bout msi involvement from day 1 as it was all over the media at the time...so hardly a secret?

2nd the contract was not torn up..but amended to omit the clause to satisfy the premier league

3rd they didnt do so... it is irrelevant what MSI could or could not have done with regards to transfer because it never happened.

i dont see the point of getting on your high horse about things...West ham performed on the pitch..tht what really counts here...they held thier hands up 2 the PL and waited to be punished..jus beause they were not docked points...its not their fault!

[The PIT]

cheeky_monkey, on 17 May 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

1st off everbody knew bout msi involvement from day 1 as it was all over the media at the time...so hardly a secret?

2nd the contract was not torn up..but amended to omit the clause to satisfy the premier league

3rd they didnt do so... it is irrelevant what MSI could or could not have done with regards to transfer because it never happened.

i dont see the point of getting on your high horse about things...West ham performed on the pitch..tht what really counts here...they held thier hands up 2 the PL and waited to be punished..jus beause they were not docked points...its not their fault!

Not getting on my high horse just pointing out your errors. If you read my previous posts I said quiet clearly my response would be the same who ever went down. neither have I said it's there fault we're talking about failings of the PL and The Commitee.

By the way if the contract wasn't torn up West ham have yet again broken the rules.

Edited by The PIT, 17 May 2007 - 14:30 .

[Derbyshire_snow]

Scudamore is for the high jump by the looks of things anyway apparently paul aldridge the former west ham chief Executive is seing his legal team for dropping him in the sh*t and Alrdridge revealed Him and scudamore had a secret meeting to discuss what to be kept underwraps.

That's According to the mirror and if it is true and i wouldn't be suprised Richard scudamore better never show his face at Bramall lane again as he won't come out alive

[The PIT]

I see the PL are doing the delaying tactics.
West Ham tried muddying the waters helped by Mis-information on United and Watfords website about Steve Kabba's transfer. Watford have confirmed that there wasn't anything written into his contract about his availability to play against the Blades. So we're back to the Gentleman agreement.
At the end of the day United have zero chance of being re-instated which always was going to be the case anyway.
Compensation would give us an unfair advantage over other clubs in the championship which I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about.
At the end of the day the people in charge of PL should all resign as they are the only people who could arrange a left trouser leg up in a brewary that went bust 100 yrs ago and is now a Monastry.

Just found this which isn't surprising http://www.dailymail...amp;ito=newsnow

Edited by The PIT, 23 June 2007 - 15:24 .