hammer 74
4:58 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Willtell
we went into the tribunal agreeing to abide by any decision made with no further recourse. read this which includes statements from the CAS:
West Ham's hopes of avoiding a huge payout in the Carlos Tevez affair have suffered a serious setback.
The Hammers are drafting a "statement of appeal" to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, yet the Lausanne court will not be able to hear the case.
Its secretary general, Matthieu Reeb, told BBC Sport: "As things stand, CAS would not be able to hear this case.
"We would need agreement from Sheffield United and for Football Association rules to allow an appeal to CAS."
Sheffield United are unlikely, to say the least, to give agreement to an appeal that could overturn the decision of the independent tribunal.
And the FA actually has a rule that stipulates there cannot be an appeal from the verdict of an independent tribunal.
We do not accept that one player's contribution can be placed over that of the team as a whole
West Ham statement
Rule K5c states that by signing up to arbitration, "the parties shall be deemed to have waived irrevocably any right to appeal, review or any recourse to a court of law".
|
Willtell
4:53 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
hammer 74
You miss the essential points I was making 74. The Tribunal has no legal power to enforce a £30m payment. If WH said no we can't pay what do you suppose would happen?
I'll tell you. Sheffield Utd would have started High Court proceedings.... but honestly it doesn't matter. We both agree it was a poor decision. Essentially you are disagreeing with what I originally posted but it was correct in essence.
We would have gone into administration had we accepted a £30m extra payment on our accounts....
|
13 Brentford Rd
4:46 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
The whole thing still stinks!
We were fined 5.5m plus the 20 odd million we foolishly gave away to Sheff utd just because some senile old git decided that we would have gone down without Tevez.
So around 25m plus our name dragged through the mud.
Sound fair?
Can anyone name a punishment that is similar within the history of football or even sport generally?
For what, a minor breach of a rule regarding 3rd party ownership, our new owners at the time even alerted the FA about it themselves.
The thing that still pisses me off the most though is why the fuck did we not sort out the paperwork or just not play Tevez after the first hearing when we had a chance to put this to bed?
Utter incompetance by all at the club from the old owners to the new and Duxbury, to to just give in and give them a shit load of cash at the end too was spineless.
|
hammer 74
4:44 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
No, it was an independent tribunal to which the PL/ FA and CAS had no control, recourse or terms of appeal to. The tribunal could have awarded Sheffield United £60m if they wanted to, there was no need for High Court.
|
Willtell
4:42 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Well I apologise too. I had assumed the "out of court settlement" was a reference to the High Court as it would be for a £30m claim.
|
hammer 74
4:41 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
"So we took the view that we were going to delay the accounts pending the negotiations with Sheffield, and then they would be published." - the reason why they were delayed was due to the discussion with Sheffield over the actual compo paid?
|
hammer 74
4:39 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
My apologies, that seems to be suggesting we were in discussion with G&S at the time which we were not.
|
Willtell
4:38 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Scott Duxbury: Part Two
Filed: Monday, 29th June 2009
KUMB: The club's accounts have been held back twice now. What's the current situation?
Scott Duxbury: I think they are due to be published mid-to-end of August. The reason why they were delayed in the first place was that in order for our accounts to be audited and us to be confirmed as a going concern you need to declare all liabilities - and where you're not sure, you need to give an estimate of what you believe it will be.
So when we were negotiating with Sheffield, if we had put a figure in there as to what we believe that liability will be clearly it would hinder our negotiations somewhat. So we took the view that we were going to delay the accounts pending the negotiations with Sheffield, and then they would be published.
|
hammer 74
4:36 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Willtell
'out of court settlement' is just paper talk for a deal. you said a minute ago you were referring to a high court case, which was not the case at all. make your mind up man.
no, you are wrong. in company accounts you do not need to include any possible losses resulting from any court case or private action until that case is resolved. if you can show me the legality that suggests you are correct, then please do so.
|
atb trev
4:36 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Burns - The points deduction is discussed so much because many people thought the rule break was severe enough for such a punishment. Indeed, the original PL hearing stated that they would have deducted points if it wasn't for some mitigating circumstances - one of which was we were virtually relegated anyway.
If we weren't so shit at the time we may have got a points deduction so our inability to gain any points may have been our saviour.
|
Willtell
4:34 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Hammer 74,
We reached an "out of court settlement". That was the court case I referred to and you questioned. Anything else is irrelevant detail even though it's important to your pedantic obsession with being right.
And while we are on the subject of being right, I was right about having to include a provision in our accounts for subsequent losses due to the tribunal ruling. That was why we were more than a year overdue filing accounts.
|
hammer 74
4:25 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Willtell
A date was set for Griffiths to decide the compensation. The tribunal had made their decision about our 'guilt' and were due to reconvene at a latr date to decide the figure.
The only High Court case involved was the one that Sheffield United brought against the PL when they tried to challenge their decision not to deduct us points.
There's nothing tedious about being correct, you should try it sometime.
|
Willtell
4:20 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
hammer 74 3:48
The Tribunal did not award compensation to Sheffield United iirc. That would have required a High Court decision....
That's the court case I am talking about Mr Tedious...
|
Mr. Burns
4:09 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
WHU(Exeter) 4:03 Tue Aug 26
Good point, I've never really looked at it that way.
|
Texas Iron
4:06 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Blame Duxbury ...did everything wrong when he was legal counsel to the club...the Football league /Pre gave him every option to get the paperwork sorted but he didn't...
We also got grasses by Joorabchian....football slavemaster...with "oral cuddles " Luxury as a supposedly trained lawyer should have known better...
Griffin and Winter hammered the final nails in the 25Millionquid coffin...
If wed been given a 3 point penalty early on...we probably would have been able to get an extra point or two to recover...the delay in judgement and no 3 point penalty set up the scenario for appeal by McCabe ...
Even worse was SUFC really relegated themselves with poor run of form in the last few games...
You couldn't make this up...but it happened...only at West Ham...
|
hammer 74
4:05 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Exe
I think that is a big point, and also the reason why so many PL clubs knocked MSI back before us. Duxbury et al thought they could be clever and get the deal through. They were not clever enough.
|
WHU(Exeter)
4:03 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Burnsy....I thought that as well, that the contract was set up in such a way that could really only work against us, rather than for us, (the 3rd party influence).
I suppose the counter argument would've been that unless there was that kind of set up going on, then we wouldn't of landed the pair in the first place, hence the advantage?
|
hammer 74
3:48 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
*tribunal
|
hammer 74
3:48 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
"My point is that we could easily have gone into administration. Had we had an owner as rich as McCabe, we would not have lost the court case." - there was no court case, it was an independent tribunal. As a successful businessman you will know the difference.
"These things take a couple of years before going to court but at no time had we committed a crime that warranted a points deduction so should have won the case easily." - what court case are you referring to? are you confused between the PL ruling about breaking the rules and sheffield united taking us to an independent tribunal? it did take several years to go to court.
"McCabe's ridiculous £40m claims had to be included in our accounts as a provisional loss." - there is no legality for that. the only time any loss has to be taken into account is when that loss is actual, not threatened. at the time of the coyrt case G&S were not in discussion to buy the club so therefore they would not have had to take it into account as it was already realised, as a 20m loss that we offered.
"When that £40m loss was added to the Icelandics overspending we would have been forced into administration. That's a fact comma" - that is not a fact.
"A rich owner able to underwrite the £40m claim and thereby effectively remove it from our accounts, would have given us time to front it out with McCabe or let it go to court." - there could not have been a further appeal or court case, we entered into an independent tribunal and agreed in doing so that we would completely abide by its findings and rulings.
|
Willtell
3:23 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
, 1:45 Tue Aug 26
"Willtell we acquired the Argies under the ownership of Brown. The Icelanders bought him out in November 2006. The rest is history but we were not that season facing administration."
Brown did the original Tevez & Mascherano deal in summer 2006 I know comma. I was in Greece and read about it in a 2 day old Sun!
My point is that we could easily have gone into administration. Had we had an owner as rich as McCabe, we would not have lost the court case. These things take a couple of years before going to court but at no time had we committed a crime that warranted a points deduction so should have won the case easily.
McCabe's ridiculous £40m claims had to be included in our accounts as a provisional loss. When that £40m loss was added to the Icelandics overspending we would have been forced into administration. That's a fact comma.
A rich owner able to underwrite the £40m claim and thereby effectively remove it from our accounts, would have given us time to front it out with McCabe or let it go to court. I doubt we would have lost in court but McCabe had us by the short & curlies....
|
clack
3:09 Tue Aug 26
Re: Carlos Tevez affair still cuts deep
|
Dan M - depends how you read it, don't you think?
Tevez performance in last 3 games added 3 points to their total over the season?
But I agree he's definitely muddied the waters there.
What also isn't mentioned much is that Curbishley didn't give a very good witness account, which pissed the WHU team off, and then went for a meal with Warnock immediately after giving his evidence, which really pissed them off even more (perhaps the beginning of his rift with Duxbury?)
|
| 
