steevio_uk
Premier League
- 7 October 2003
- West Ham
Thanks for the kind words and understanding mate.
To shorten this dramatically and I would hope your answer is short and concise also, I will just mention a couple of things:
Firstly, I think there is a bit of misunderstanding in terms of this argument based on what effect Tevez had on our survival.
I am not saying he didn't have a massive effect after January, because he did and without him, to all intents and purposes we would have got relegated in our run in.
But my point is that the entire argument of how effective he was or wasn't is just complete folly because it is not a legal argument, but one of sementics in which I would argue that Sheff Utd throwing away a 10 point lead and losing at home to a dreadful Wigan team were as much to blame for their relegation.
I am not arguing over what meant more, I am simply saying the argument is void because it is full of stipulations and is ultimately pointless anyway given that Carlos Tevez was eligible to play for West Ham at all times anyway.
All I am doing is going into detail on how daft the argument is and how it is being used by Sheff Utd solely for the purpose of sympathy and public interest to help their cause.
Secondly in terms of the punishment.
How many points would you have deducted West Ham then?
(Obviously given that this was a case without precedent and you would have not had the benefit of hindsight.)
If we had been fined £2.5m and deducted 2 points, nobody would have batted an eyelid. That is until we stayed up by 3 points at which point Sheff Utd would have STILL demanded a more severe punishment.
Indeed Sheff Utd never once spoke of their disgust in the matter until as the weeks went on and their own form dropped severely, it became apparent that they were in deep trouble so was natural to look for a way out.
We have been found guilty and punished. There is nothing more that can happen.
Even their own arbitration with one of their own elected members on it ruled the original arbitration followed exact procedures in coming to the decision.
Now they want to sue West Ham... it is becoming farcical.
There is no precedent for this case and therefore no obligation for a points deduction. People have become obsessed with saying the punishment should have been the minimum that sent us down.
Sheff Utd want whatever punishment keeps them in the league and if we had stayed up by 5 points, people would be saying we should have been deducted 6 etc etc, ad infinitum.
It really does come down to a moral argument of convenience saying that we should have been deducted points when all the legal procedures conclude that we shouldn't have been.
I am most upset that our name has been tarnished through all this with some of the noises coming from Wigan, Sheff Utd and the press being nothing short of slanderous.
I know it will be difficult to reply in short, but as you say this would go round in circles over a few matters of moral disagreement that have no general bearing on the legalities of the case.
To shorten this dramatically and I would hope your answer is short and concise also, I will just mention a couple of things:
Firstly, I think there is a bit of misunderstanding in terms of this argument based on what effect Tevez had on our survival.
I am not saying he didn't have a massive effect after January, because he did and without him, to all intents and purposes we would have got relegated in our run in.
But my point is that the entire argument of how effective he was or wasn't is just complete folly because it is not a legal argument, but one of sementics in which I would argue that Sheff Utd throwing away a 10 point lead and losing at home to a dreadful Wigan team were as much to blame for their relegation.
I am not arguing over what meant more, I am simply saying the argument is void because it is full of stipulations and is ultimately pointless anyway given that Carlos Tevez was eligible to play for West Ham at all times anyway.
All I am doing is going into detail on how daft the argument is and how it is being used by Sheff Utd solely for the purpose of sympathy and public interest to help their cause.
Secondly in terms of the punishment.
How many points would you have deducted West Ham then?
(Obviously given that this was a case without precedent and you would have not had the benefit of hindsight.)
If we had been fined £2.5m and deducted 2 points, nobody would have batted an eyelid. That is until we stayed up by 3 points at which point Sheff Utd would have STILL demanded a more severe punishment.
Indeed Sheff Utd never once spoke of their disgust in the matter until as the weeks went on and their own form dropped severely, it became apparent that they were in deep trouble so was natural to look for a way out.
We have been found guilty and punished. There is nothing more that can happen.
Even their own arbitration with one of their own elected members on it ruled the original arbitration followed exact procedures in coming to the decision.
Now they want to sue West Ham... it is becoming farcical.
There is no precedent for this case and therefore no obligation for a points deduction. People have become obsessed with saying the punishment should have been the minimum that sent us down.
Sheff Utd want whatever punishment keeps them in the league and if we had stayed up by 5 points, people would be saying we should have been deducted 6 etc etc, ad infinitum.
It really does come down to a moral argument of convenience saying that we should have been deducted points when all the legal procedures conclude that we shouldn't have been.
I am most upset that our name has been tarnished through all this with some of the noises coming from Wigan, Sheff Utd and the press being nothing short of slanderous.
I know it will be difficult to reply in short, but as you say this would go round in circles over a few matters of moral disagreement that have no general bearing on the legalities of the case.