West Ham have been fined £5.5m after being found guilty over charges relating to the transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.
But the Hammers have avoided a points deduction which could have ended their hopes of staying in the Premeirship.
It is a total disgrace,apart from the fine West Ham have got away with breaking the rules.Well it did not suprise me the FA do not want to see there beloved West Ham go down.

You could have put money on points not being deducted.

If the FA say they have gone against the rules I wonder how many points they would have lost if all points gained from matches in which they played "inelligible" players had been taken away :huh:

The Premier League have issued the following statement following the Independent Commission's judgement into West Ham United's signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.
"The Premier League would like to thank the Independent Commission, under the Chairmanship of Simon Bourne-Arton QC, for their thorough and professional consideration of this complex matter.
"We fully respect their decision and the detailed judgment will provide further clarity for all clubs.
"Now this issue has been concluded the Premier League looks forward to continuing the otherwise good relationship we have always enjoyed with West Ham United."
Well this statement say's it all for me.Big Stink.

West Ham have been fined £5.5m after being found guilty over charges relating to the transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.
It is a total disgrace,apart from the fine West Ham have got away with breaking the rules..

£5.5 million is some fine though my friend.
Your statement "apart from the fine, West Ham have got away with breaking the rules" :confused: That's like saying, "apart from the 25 years in prison, he got away with murdering his wife with a sharpened Rampant Rabbit"

£5.5 million is a massive amount of money that could, if West Ham are relegated, ruin them!

£5.5 million is some fine though my friend.
Your statement "apart from the fine, West Ham have got away with breaking the rules" :confused: That's like saying, "apart from the 25 years in prison, he got away with murdering his wife with a sharpened Rampant Rabbit"

£5.5 million is a massive amount of money that could, if West Ham are relegated, ruin them!

It's probably equivalent to a month's wage bill.
With Premiership survival being worth £30 million, it's far less serious than a points deduction, and will probably be reduced to £50,000 on appeal

It's probably equivalent to a month's wage bill.
With Premiership survival being worth £30 million, it's far less serious than a points deduction

Hence why I said "if West Ham Go Down"
If they do, and it is very likely, the financial strain on them will be ammense. £5.5 Million ontop of that could, and i say could, seriously put their future in jeopordy.
Agree though that if they stay up, the consequences of the fine will not be too damaging to them.

Agree though that if they stay up, the consequences of the fine will not be too damaging to them.

Probably equivalent to what your lot paid them for Mascherano. Er..you did pay them, didn't you?
;)

Probably equivalent to what your lot paid them for Mascherano. Er..you did pay them, didn't you?
;)

Liverpool don,t have to pay West Ham anything.
He is on loan untill the end of next season, which cost us £1.5 million, payed to Mascherano's owners/agents.
If Liverpool then want to buy him after the loan period, it will cost them £10 million, to be payed to Mascherano's owners/agents.

There is a distinctive pungent aroma of decaying rodent is in the air.

Had it been Sheffield United or Wigan that had broken the rules, I think it fair to assume that points would have been deducted.

Totally agree with you geocol.

Isn't that former truffle-hunter Dave Richards still a 'main man' in the Premiership hierarchy?:suspect:

BTW - I'm still trying to work out how to sharpen a "rampant rabbit" - (as per a comment from LFCMadPaul earlier in this thread)!!

£5.5 million is some fine though my friend.
Your statement "apart from the fine, West Ham have got away with breaking the rules" :confused: That's like saying, "apart from the 25 years in prison, he got away with murdering his wife with a sharpened Rampant Rabbit"

£5.5 million is a massive amount of money that could, if West Ham are relegated, ruin them!

The FA have said that if they do get relegated the parachute payments of £11.5m will more than cover the cost of the fine.

if they do now survive i can see whichever club goes down instead of them launching their own legal challenge!!

There is a distinctive pungent aroma of decaying rodent is in the air.

Had it been Sheffield United or Wigan that had broken the rules, I think it fair to assume that points would have been deducted.

I agree geocol, the fact it is West Ham with Brooking being involved with the FA it does smell a little.Wigan have already complained & the so called great traditional clubs like West Ham getting away with a fine.Ok the fine is large but it will get reduced on appeal.It is the smaller clubs who get hit the most,Bury got kicked out of the FA Cup,that was a financial disaster for them.I am not saying that WH should have been booted out of the PL but a points deduction would have been fair considering the players may have helped them gain points.

West Ham Statement:
The club will reflect on the financial penalty that has been imposed and will take advice before commenting on the possibility of an appeal or any further steps that might be taken."
West Ham face Wigan on Saturday and it remains to be seen if Tevez travels to The JJB, as the hearing report also said 'the registration of Carlos Tevez can be terminated' by the Premier League.
If this is right can Tevez still play for WH in there last 3 matches seeing his registration has been terminated??

I have just read this.
The hearing report also said that the Premier League could terminate Tevez's registration, and if West Ham want to play him they will have to re-sign him.
If this is right they cannot resign him until the summer as the transfer window is now shut?

A few points.

Firstly, it comes as no surprise that the old pals' act has seen the Hammers escape a points deduction (as it would if say Arsenal had been found guilty of a similar charge).

However, if anyone has cause to jump up and down, then surely it's Rotherham who were deducted a huge ten points for (I believe) 'administrative errors'. I wouldn't be surprise if their relegation led to the club closing for good. (Okay, okay, I know they were garbage anyway, but..)

And what happened to little Wrexham? Weren't they thrown out of the FA Cup for fielding an ineligable player? What kind of a potential loss did Wrexham incur by the FA's decision?

Lastly, when the Blades were last relegated from the Premier League, wasn't there was an enquiry into Tottenham Hotspur's antics, which if found guilty, could also have seen them deducted points and relegated? (I might in all honesty be getting some facts mixed-up here, but I seem to recall it being to do with the Everton-Wimbledon result which somehow had implications on Spurs).

If the Hammers do stay up at the Blades' expense, then it won't be the first time we've had the rough end of the old pals' act sending unloved, unfashionable United down at the expense of bed-partners like Spurs and the Hammers.

Mike Parry on TalkSport hits the nail on the head. He says the Premier League have 'bottled it', and fined West Ham in the knowledge that they are a 'rich club' and that if it were 'Wigan or Bolton they'd be in the Championship by now.'

He says that relegation is the only, correct form of punishment.

I imagine West Ham will already be preparing the banqueting suite and filling it with champagne and inviting a 'few friends' for their next home game.

.. ..

Lastly, when the Blades were last relegated from the Premier League, wasn't there was an enquiry into Tottenham Hotspur's antics, which if found guilty, could also have seen them deducted points and relegated? (I might in all honesty be getting some facts mixed-up here, but I seem to recall it being to do with the Everton-Wimbledon result which somehow had implications on Spurs).

If the Hammers do stay up at the Blades' expense, then it won't be the first time we've had the rough end of the old pals' act sending unloved, unfashionable United down at the expense of bed-partners like Spurs and the Hammers.


From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Premier_League_1993-94)

"This was soon to be the least of Tottenham's worries, as the Football Association announced that they were investigating financial irregularities which had occurred at the club during the 1980s under the chairmanship of Irving Scholar. The hammer blow was delivered when Tottenham were found guilty on all the charges and received the heaviest punishment ever imposed on an English club; they were fined £600,000 as well as having 12 league points deducted for the 1994-95 season and being banned from that season's FA Cup. Chairman Alan Sugar quickly appealed against the ruling, backing up his argument with the fact that the people responsible were no longer at the club."

The Wimbledon Everton thing was separate - wasn't Bruce Grobelaar accused of throwing the match in the match fixing trials?

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FA_Premier_League_1993-94)

"This was soon to be the least of Tottenham's worries, as the Football Association announced that they were investigating financial irregularities which had occurred at the club during the 1980s under the chairmanship of Irving Scholar. The hammer blow was delivered when Tottenham were found guilty on all the charges and received the heaviest punishment ever imposed on an English club; they were fined £600,000 as well as having 12 league points deducted for the 1994-95 season and being banned from that season's FA Cup. Chairman Alan Sugar quickly appealed against the ruling, backing up his argument with the fact that the people responsible were no longer at the club."

The Wimbledon Everton thing was separate - wasn't Bruce Grobelaar accused of throwing the match in the match fixing trials?

Ta for the article. As for the Wombles / Toffees debacle, I thought it was Hans Segers who was under the microscope? But then, I recall a programme on Grobelaar's activities around this time too!

£5.5 million is a massive amount of money that could, if West Ham are relegated, ruin them!

Ruin them? don't talk daft. Yes it is a lot of money, but its no more than they can afford with the backing the have "possibly" at their disposal.

Anyways, as I said on another forum..

Basically the FA don't have the balls to deduct points from one of the fashionable teams.

The fine is a massive one, lets face it. But a points deduction should have been made. Anyways it is irrelevant as they are still going down. So I'm happy with the outcome.

Wimbledon were 2-1 up at half time at Goodison.
Two late goals by Graham Stuart (ironically) "won" them the game.

I can picture the goals that Segers conceded in my mind now. Absolutely pathetic. Virtually threw them into the net..

Robbie - just to clarify one point, it's the Premier League who have made this crazy decision (not the FA. I'm listening to TalkSport who are now going over the matter along with fans of clubs like Wigan who also deem the Premier League to have 'bottled' the decision).

Robbie - just to clarify one point, it's the Premier League who have made this crazy decision

All part of the same "back scratching" regime if you ask me.

But agreed with an earlier response, if WHU do somehow survive, i can see legal action being taken by other teams who go down.

Ta for the article. As for the Wombles / Toffees debacle, I thought it was Hans Segers who was under the microscope? But then, I recall a programme on Grobelaar's activities around this time too!

You're right - same match fixing investigation, different goalkeeper.

Wimbledon were 2-1 up at half time at Goodison.
Two late goals by Graham Stuart (ironically) "won" them the game.

I can picture the goals that Segers conceded in my mind now. Absolutely pathetic. Virtually threw them into the net..

it was 2-1 at half time with our first goal coming from the penalty spot.
the last 2 goals came from a 30 yard screamer from barry horne (after he mugged vinnie jones) then stuart adding his 2nd with 10 minutes to go.

the fact is if sheff utd had beat chelsea we would have gone down but it annoys me a few bitter blades fans allege foul play to cover up their own teams failings.

so if your going to picture the goals at least make sure you have seen them first ;)

Had it been Sheffield United or Wigan that had broken the rules, I think it fair to assume that points would have been deducted.

If it had been Sheffield United or Wigan who had got a £5.5 million pound fine and then got relegated, there is every chance that there would be no Sheffield United or Wigan playing anymore football whatsoever!

Don't be silly LFC maybe Wigan with there crowds but us no chance.According to the PL West Ham have been ordered to cancel Tevez's contract.And they are hurrying to get him signed to be able to play for them in the last 3 matches,I thought the transfer window had shut or is it just been left open for Brooking's Babies.Bent I say the FA & PL.

Don't be silly LFC maybe Wigan with there crowds but us no chance..

It's not just about crowds tosh.
If for example Sheff U did go down, they would lose millions through TV revenue etc
They would have to slash the wage bill, leading to their top players leaving.
They would have virtually no money to spend on new players.
They would have to trim the squad down.
Ontop of that they would have £5.5 million pounds to hand over in fines (example of WHU)
When was the last time Sheff U could just hand over £5.5 million pound, never mind handing it over after just being relegated ?
It wouldn't look too good for them being succesfull in the future would it ?

If it had been Sheffield United or Wigan who had got a £5.5 million pound fine and then got relegated, there is every chance that there would be no Sheffield United or Wigan playing anymore football whatsoever!

What an absolutely nonsensical statement. :loopy:

If it had been Sheffield United or Wigan who had got a £5.5 million pound fine and then got relegated, there is every chance that there would be no Sheffield United or Wigan playing anymore football whatsoever!

No no no no, do you know nothing?

According to the PL West Ham have been ordered to cancel Tevez's contract.And they are hurrying to get him signed to be able to play for them in the last 3 matches,I thought the transfer window had shut or is it just been left open for Brooking's Babies.Bent I say the FA & PL.

If Tevez is shown to be a "free agent" he will be allowed to sign. But will his agents be prepared to let him do that?

It's not just about crowds tosh.
If for example Sheff U did go down, they would lose millions through TV revenue etc

Ok.. And? Plenty of clubs outside the prem survive WITH OUT parachute payments.

They would have to slash the wage bill, leading to their top players leaving.

Ok.. this is true, but it is also true it is written in to their contracts SHOULD we go down, their contracts will be reduced in regards to wages. As said If we are in prem, we will pay prem wages, if we are in championship we will pay championship wages.

They would have virtually no money to spend on new players.

We would have enough

They would have to trim the squad down.

We have too big a squad at moment, so no probs there

Ontop of that they would have £5.5 million pounds to hand over in fines (example of WHU)

Was we not already refering to this?

When was the last time Sheff U could just hand over £5.5 million pound, never mind handing it over after just being relegated ?

When can any club (barring chelsea) just hand over £5.5 million

It wouldn't look too good for them being succesfull in the future would it ?

And this has what to do with surviving?

it was 2-1 at half time with our first goal coming from the penalty spot.
the last 2 goals came from a 30 yard screamer from barry horne (after he mugged vinnie jones) then stuart adding his 2nd with 10 minutes to go.

the fact is if sheff utd had beat chelsea we would have gone down but it annoys me a few bitter blades fans allege foul play to cover up their own teams failings.
so if your going to picture the goals at least make sure you have seen them first ;)

Incorrect. Had we beaten Chelsea then Ipswich would have been relegated. Your 'win' ensured your survival. A point wouldn't even have been good enough for you even though we lost at Chelsea.

Given the following set of results, Blackburn 0 Ipswich 0, Everton 2 Wimbledon 2, Chelsea 3 Sheffield United 2, the final table would have been:

Ipswich Town 42 9 16 17 -23 43
Sheffield United 42 8 18 16 -28 43
Everton 42 11 9 22 -22 42
Oldham Athletic 42 9 13 20 -26 40
Swindon Town 42 5 15 22 -53 30

If you're going to quote a possible table, at least make sure you've worked it out first ;)

I think West Ham will be relegated irrespective so a points deduction would then be no punishment. Hopefully, they will go down and then have the fine on top.
Rather akin to the 'penalty' plus 'sending off' syndrome. Those who believe the penalty is sufficient see the team get off Scot-free when the ensuing spot-kick is saved. Not bothered whether it is West Ham or any other infringer, I hope it proves to be a double-whammy!

Oh, and guess what? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/6594613.stm)

This stinks.

I think West Ham will be relegated irrespective so a points deduction would then be no punishment. Hopefully, they will go down and then have the fine on top.
Rather akin to the 'penalty' plus 'sending off' syndrome. Those who believe the penalty is sufficient see the team get off Scot-free when the ensuing spot-kick is saved. Not bothered whether it is West Ham or any other infringer, I hope it proves to be a double-whammy!

My point exactly.
Had WHU got a ten point deduction they would have been relegated.
If WHU get religated anyway, without a deduction, it would mean that the deduction was irrelevent. This would result in them 'totally getting away with breaking the rules'.
A fine of £5.5 million ensures that whatever the outcome of WHU's season, they have been punished.
If it's so important to you all that points are deducted, wouldn't it have been wiser for the points deduction to have occured at the beggining of next season ?

No no no no, do you know nothing??

So are you suggesting that Sheff U are such a big club that they could easily cope financially with religation from the premiership plus a £5.5 million pound fine ?



If Tevez is shown to be a "free agent" he will be allowed to sign. But will his agents be prepared to let him do that??

No, Tevez will be at one of the top four premiership clubs next season without a doubt.



Ok.. And? Plenty of clubs outside the prem survive WITH OUT parachute payments..

And plenty never recover. I may have been a little strong in suggesting that it would finish Sheff U as a club, but as for them going back up to the premiership, or even challenging for a play-off place would be totally out of the question.



Ok.. this is true, but it is also true it is written in to their contracts SHOULD we go down, their contracts will be reduced in regards to wages. As said If we are in prem, we will pay prem wages, if we are in championship we will pay championship wages..

And your top players, with interest from other, more financially rewarding benifits, would accept that. My friend, you know as well as i do that in todays game, if a player wants to go, he will regardless of the contract. Also, do you think that with religation, and £5.5 million pound to recoup, Sheff U could even afford to reject a half decent offer for a player ?



We would have enough?

Enough for what ? Players with the calibre to return you to the summit of English football ? I think not.



We have too big a squad at moment, so no probs there?

You would need all the squad players you could get after all your top players had fled the sinking ship. Why do you think so many managers and football pundits have stated the fact that getting promoted to the premiership is amazing, but being religated is far worse in comparison.


Was we not already refering to this??

Yes but you seem to think that a small club like Sheffield United, with already limited funds and religation looming, could survive a fine as big as stated and still be totally fine, even stating above that you would have 'enough' money for new players.



When can any club (barring chelsea) just hand over £5.5 million?

Erm, i would say Manchester United could probably get away with shelling out £5.5 million without it crippling them too much, along with Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham etc etc



And this has what to do with surviving?

Everything. With all the above disadvantages, it wouldn,t be such a suprise to see happen to Sheff U what has happened to other so called 'big clubs' such as Leeds, Man City etc, where once religated, the financial burden was such that consecutive religation seasons followed. Something that couldn't be ruled out if Sheff U were religated along with a £5.5 million pound fine.

So are you suggesting that Sheff U are such a big club that they could easily cope financially with religation from the premiership plus a £5.5 million pound fine ?

I have no doubt we could yes. Whilst yes it is a massive fine, it is still very affordable for ANY prem team should they need to aquire such a sum.

And plenty never recover. I may have been a little strong in suggesting that it would finish Sheff U as a club, but as for them going back up to the premiership, or even challenging for a play-off place would be totally out of the question.

What teams for instance?

Place in Play offs? why would that be out the question?? Look at colchester mate..

And your top players, with interest from other, more financially rewarding benifits, would accept that. My friend, you know as well as i do that in todays game, if a player wants to go, he will regardless of the contract. Also, do you think that with religation, and £5.5 million pound to recoup, Sheff U could even afford to reject a half decent offer for a player ?

We could afford to reject such offers previously without parachute payments, not saying we would this time around.

Enough for what ? Players with the calibre to return you to the summit of English football ? I think not.

Differing opinions mate

Why do you think so many managers and football pundits have stated the fact that getting promoted to the premiership is amazing, but being religated is far worse in comparison.

I don't get this comment..

Yes but you seem to think that a small club like Sheffield United, with already limited funds and religation looming, could survive a fine as big as stated and still be totally fine, even stating above that you would have 'enough' money for new players.

There wouldn't be a major issue.

Erm, i would say Manchester United could probably get away with shelling out £5.5 million without it crippling them too much, along with Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham etc etc

I never stated it would cripple any team, but all teams would miss it except chelsea.

Everything. With all the above disadvantages, it wouldn,t be such a suprise to see happen to Sheff U what has happened to other so called 'big clubs' such as Leeds, Man City etc, where once religated, the financial burden was such that consecutive religation seasons followed. Something that couldn't be ruled out if Sheff U were religated along with a £5.5 million pound fine.

Tottally different scenarios. Leeds' debt was so immense from amount shelled out in transfers/wages/loans that it has crippled them.

if your going to correct me at least make sure your table is right!
you havent done your sums right. thats obvious just glancing at it..

my point was valid. there was an insinuation that corruption gave everton the victory that ensured sheff utd were relegated. had we lost we would have gone down and the blades stayed up. i got an irrelevant fact wrong, sorry for not being as anally retentive as you!

i cant remember who it was, and i cant be assed to look back, talked bollcoks about evertons goals when they blatantly had never seen the highlights of the match!



Incorrect. Had we beaten Chelsea then Ipswich would have been relegated. Your 'win' ensured your survival. A point wouldn't even have been good enough for you even though we lost at Chelsea.

Given the following set of results, Blackburn 0 Ipswich 0, Everton 2 Wimbledon 2, Chelsea 3 Sheffield United 2, the final table would have been:

Ipswich Town 42 9 16 17 -23 43
Sheffield United 42 8 18 16 -28 43
Everton 42 11 9 22 -22 42
Oldham Athletic 42 9 13 20 -26 40
Swindon Town 42 5 15 22 -53 30

If you're going to quote a possible table, at least make sure you've worked it out first ;)

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: at the bold part

Preacher, his post was obviously said in jest

I have no doubt we could yes. Whilst yes it is a massive fine, it is still very affordable for ANY prem team should they need to aquire such a sum..

But if a team is relegated, they are NOT a prem team are they ?
History has shown that relitevely small clubs DO suffer the season after relegation. Add to this a massive fine and IMO some wouldn,t recover sufficiently enough to mount a challenge of a return to the summit.


We could afford to reject such offers previously without parachute payments, not saying we would this time around..

The money paid for a fine of that size would need to be recouped my friend. Do you think that the club could just pay the cheque and carry on as normal ?
Any decent bid for any of your decent players would probably have to be accepted in those circumstances.


I don't get this comment..


What i meant was, when a team is promoted to the premiership the financial rewards are great, but when a team is relegated, the financial implications are far worse by comparison.


I never stated it would cripple any team, but all teams would miss it except chelsea..

Some teams would 'miss it' far more than others.

This whole debate is about whether or not WHU should have had points deducted instead of a massive fine, yeah.

What i was originally meaning is - West Ham will probably be religated anyway whether they had got points deducted or not, making the deduction a non-punishment. Now if they are religated and they have a massive fine to pay also, then they have been punished severely.

As i've asked before - wouldn't it have been far more sensible for the F.A/Premiership to have punished West Ham after the current season ?
This way a points deduction (which is what you seem to deem appropriate) would have been far more fitting.

Don't want to go over this too much because it eventually becomes too time consuming..


What i was originally meaning is - West Ham will probably be religated anyway whether they had got points deducted or not, making the deduction a non-punishment. Now if they are religated and they have a massive fine to pay also, then they have been punished severely.

I firmly believe WHU will still go down, but this is not the point. They still have the chance to stay up, which they should not have. Points should be deducted from each game said players played in. If that means it takes them down to 0 points the so be it. But authorities don't have bottle to punish fashionable teams.

As i've asked before - wouldn't it have been far more sensible for the F.A/Premiership to have punished West Ham after the current season ?
This way a points deduction (which is what you seem to deem appropriate) would have been far more fitting.

Points deductoon should not be deemed appropriate for the following season, UNLESS they carry on breaking the rules.

I'm surprised a "suspension" of points has not been given too..

So Tevez is cleared to play.

West Ham have not only been caught red-handed with the loot, found guilty and sent to prison, they're allowed to keep the loot and also been given the key to the prison cell lock.

In other words, slap on the hand and 'don't do it again' (or slap on the back and 'Don't worry Hammers, we'll look after you').

West Ham have been fined £5.5m after being found guilty over charges relating to the transfers of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.
But the Hammers have avoided a points deduction which could have ended their hopes of staying in the Premeirship.
It is a total disgrace,apart from the fine West Ham have got away with breaking the rules.Well it did not suprise me the FA do not want to see there beloved West Ham go down.

Its one rule for one and one rule for another.
Rotherham officials and players must be seething after west ham didn,t lose any points, after doing a lot worse than Rotherham. Its a disgrace and what takes the biscuit is hes allowed to carry on playing for West Ham.

PFA Chielf Executive Gordon Taylor said that if WH had been in mid table the hammers would have had points deducted,this is crazy WH have been let off after breaking all the rules regarding the buying of players.
AFC Wimbledon were originally deducted 18 points for a similar offence, reduced to three on appeal.Like I said one rule for one team & poor Rotherham get 10 points for going into administration.I can see trouble ahead if WH do not get relegated.

The team i recently wrote about Lancaster city had points deducted now they have 0 points imagine how they feel lol.

Among the reasons for the decision not to deduct points was the club's guilty plea and the fact that they are under new management and ownership.
Eggert Magnusson said that he would have never done the deals the way they were if he had of been chairman at the time.

my point was valid. there was an insinuation that corruption gave everton the victory that ensured sheff utd were relegated. had we lost we would have gone down and the blades stayed up.

I think the difference is where the emphasis is. I see it as the alleged corruption was in order to save Everton, not to relegate us (which I think we both agree on); whether it was corrupt or not is a different matter. I agree that there are some who saw it as a means to relegate us, but clearly that's rubbish.

Back on track, the Bubbles have been bleating about the size of the fine, and the fact that it's the biggest ever. Aside from the fact that I'm sure that they can swallow up that sort of money, and/or Egghead could pay it from his own funds, have they all forgotten that Tottenham's penalty was changed twice?

Originally, it was a 12 point penalty, £600,000 fine and a year's ban from the FA Cup. That became 6 points, £1.5m fine, and the Cup ban, which then became a £1.5m fine only.

A points deduction hasn't even been considered in this case.

Granted, a lot of that argument was about the fact that it was a previous set who had made the illegal payments (as is West Ham's argument), but the difference for me is that in Tottenham's case they were talking about instances from at least 5 years before the investigation. In this case, one of the players who has brought about this 'punishment' is still able to play for the club, and the investigation relates to this season.

As Tosh says, should they stay up, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility, there will be serious trouble emanating from the club finishing 18th.

Not quite verbatim quote from Pig Jewell, but this is valid:

"One of my players is suspended for the West Ham match. Why can't I play him, and just expect a big fine?"

Mark Lawrenson has also just mentioned something on Football Focus which had utterly escaped me. Albeit for different reasons, Middlesbrough were deducted 3 points, which eventually cost them their place in the Premiership.

I agree with what others have said, and that the decision should have been made at the season's end.

Good old FA!
Best in the world :roll:

No wonder we cant do sod all in the international stakes..

Good old FA!
Best in the world :roll:

No wonder we cant do sod all in the international stakes..
It wasn't the F.A.

It's one rule for the Premiership clubs and another for the rest.

My club (Rotherham United) were punished with a 10pt deduction for going in to a Company Voluntary Arrangement because previous regimes had built up too much debt and the new regime (who saved the club from liquidation by doing it) had no other choice, this penalty of which was introduced to stop big clubs like Leicester from purposely wiping off all their debts by going into administration with the same regime in place.

We have broken no rules.

On the other hand, West Ham United break league rules and then hold their hands up to the fact and simply get a fine, ok it's a lot of money but it's still ********.

Its because West Ham are an assest to the Premier League, with a millionaire at the helm.
It sucks i know.

Its because West Ham are an assest to the Premier League, with a millionaire at the helm.
It sucks i know.

My assertion is simply that Brooking has his fingerprints all over this, just as when Leicester had no points deducted when in administration and could trade, and then gained promotion to the top flight, which had nothing to do with Lineker.

My heart goes out to the Miller earlier in the thread whose club could go out of existence but for a tenth of the 'punishment' meted out to the Burst Bubbles. West Ham will carry on regardless, but Roth will struggle. An illegal player can continue to play, and maybe keep them in the Premiership.

It's a disgrace.

It's one rule for the Premiership clubs and another for the rest.

My club (Rotherham United) were punished with a 10pt deduction for going in to a Company Voluntary Arrangement because previous regimes had built up too much debt and the new regime (who saved the club from liquidation by doing it) had no other choice, this penalty of which was introduced to stop big clubs like Leicester from purposely wiping off all their debts by going into administration with the same regime in place.

We have broken no rules.

On the other hand, West Ham United break league rules and then hold their hands up to the fact and simply get a fine, ok it's a lot of money but it's still ********.

I don't know what to say mate. You don't have a Lineker or a Brooking. Just like at Wrexham, Bury and others.

Has nobody also thought about the fact that West Ham had budgeted for Maschereno's wages (which Liverpool will now be paying), which will be substantial? Take his wages off the fine, or consider him as to still be on the books. The fine is effectively less.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/6620393.stm

Basement clubs consider suing.

They best start ringing their Baristers then West ham are two nil up and Tevez has got both of them

At the time of the judgement the Premiership winners had not been decided. Rather than have Man U facing a team with nothing to play for in their last game, no points were deducted from West Ham.

At the time of the judgement the Premiership winners had not been decided. Rather than have Man U facing a team with nothing to play for in their last game, no points were deducted from West Ham.

Which has what to do with the price of fish?

Which has what to do with the price of fish?

He's implying that the prem league didn't want to discourage West Ham from going to Man U looking for a win. ie The prem league wanted Chelsea to win the league and to give them every chance kept West Ham 'alive'.

A bit of a stretch (putting it mildly) if you ask me.

He's implying that the prem league didn't want to discourage West Ham from going to Man U looking for a win. ie The prem league wanted Chelsea to win the league and to give them every chance kept West Ham 'alive'.

A bit of a stretch (putting it mildly) if you ask me.

It was a rhetorical question .....