|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 12:18:22 GMT -1
Post by Mrs H on Mar 17, 2009 12:18:22 GMT -1
Former Sheffield United manager Neil Warnock is considering suing West Ham now that the two clubs have concluded their legal dispute over Carlos Tevez.
The Blades agreed a settlement with the Hammers on Monday after claiming compensation for the part Tevez played in keeping the London club up in 2007.
Warnock, whose side went down, told the BBC he would be "seeking legal advice".
He added: "We worked so hard that year. The club was going forward. You do feel bitter without a shadow of a doubt."
Then why were you 10 points clear and fucked it up?
BBC Sport understands West Ham have agreed to pay the Blades about £20m in compensation, which will be paid in installments over a five-year period.
And if West Ham are sold within a certain timeframe, a further bond of £5m will be payable to Sheffield United.
Warnock, now boss of Crystal Palace, said he could think about his own position now that the clubs have sorted their issues.
"It's just been a matter of finalising all those details first before you think about your personal losses," he told Radio 5 Live.
In April 2007, West Ham were fined £5.5m by the Premier League for breaking rules over third-party agreements when taking striker Tevez and fellow Argentine Javier Mascherano to Upton Park.
But they were not docked points and, ultimately, went on to ensure their Premier League survival, with Tevez playing a key part with his goals, including three in the last two games.
Warnock spent seven-and-a-half years as Blades manager before resigning three days after they were relegated on the last day of the 2007 season following a defeat at home by Wigan.
As the Blades were losing that day, Tevez scored West Ham's winner at Manchester United - the club the forward went on to join.
Players from the Sheffield United team that were relegated also intend to pursue their compensation claim.
"We understand, but have not been informed officially, that the club's dispute with West Ham has been settled," Chris Farnell, the lawyer representing the players, told The Times newspaper.
"However, the players' claim will continue independently. We have made correspondence with West Ham's lawyers as recently as the end of last week."
However, West Ham have told BBC Sport that they have not received a claim from the players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dickhead
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 12:55:45 GMT -1
Post by C@V on Mar 17, 2009 12:55:45 GMT -1
Ha!
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 13:01:28 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 13:01:28 GMT -1
;D
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 15:12:22 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 15:12:22 GMT -1
listening to ssn people's ignorance on this matter still amazes me... ... if you're not smart enough to understand the issues involved you should not comment on them
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 16:47:17 GMT -1
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Mar 17, 2009 16:47:17 GMT -1
This could, and probably will, go on for ever! It also shows that our game is now all about MONEY. Sheff Utd would have earned £40-50 million IF they had stayed up, but now they are happy to accept £20 million?? WTF? Next thing, the Tea lady will be sueing for loss of earnings. I actually feel sorry for West Ham now - i know the broke rules but it was the Premier League who fined them and they paid up. It's the fucking premier League that should be sued now...not West Ham.
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:02:20 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 17:02:20 GMT -1
I actually feel sorry for West Ham now - i know the broke rules but it was the Premier League who fined them and they paid up. It's the fucking premier League that should be sued now...not West Ham. thats not why they're paying up, which was precisely my point. West Ham gave assurances to the Premier League when they decided to fine them, that Tevez was no longer third party owned but now actually owned by West Ham. On that premise Tevez was believed to be eligible to play the rest of the season., which he promptly did. The reality however is that he was still owned by a third party, as he still is, and was not eligible to play out the season at West Ham! - The premier league took no action over this, hence why it went to tribunal and why we were judged to be allowed compensation. A previous tribunal had found that in relation to the initial breach of rules the Premier League had dealt with the situation by fining West Ham its the subsequent breach after this fine is what we're recieving compensation for and what the fa nad premier league FINALLY announced they'd investigate last month. The simply reality is NOT that we'd have stayed up had West Ham had not played Tevez - Which is essentially what most people WRONGLY assume is the issue! (see Mrs H) The issue is that in every other league and in every other sport for fielding an ineligible West Ham WOULD have be docked points or THROWN OUT of the league - In the Premier League they weren't, yet DESPITE THIS they continued to commit THE SAME BREACH after PROMISES THAT THEY WOULD NOT and then recieve NO FURTHER PUNISHMENT from the Premier League, to the deteriment of other clubs. The fact we got relegated is almost irrelevant, its the financial loss incurred by West Ham's breaches of the Rules that is important.
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:17:18 GMT -1
Post by Golden_Boy™ on Mar 17, 2009 17:17:18 GMT -1
The trouble is, what about everyone else who played WHU that season - you could argue that every team in the PL were equally handicapped because of Tevez playing.
It's impossible to quantify the number of points that a player personally contributed to a team.
Saying that, I do think the fairest thing is for WHU to have lost all the points they gained while Tevez played, as happens with ineligible players in the lower leagues. If it had been an unfashionable club, a Wigan or a Blackburn (no offence intended), I have no doubt the PL would have done just that.
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:20:38 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 17:20:38 GMT -1
To be frank, thats not our problem.
The Premier League failed to protect us (and everyone else) so we've taken it into our own hands.
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:24:39 GMT -1
Post by Golden_Boy™ on Mar 17, 2009 17:24:39 GMT -1
Indeed so.
If only you beat Wigan eh ;D
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:26:16 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 17:26:16 GMT -1
then Wigan would currently be recieving an out of court settlement from West Ham.
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:32:25 GMT -1
Post by Golden_Boy™ on Mar 17, 2009 17:32:25 GMT -1
then Wigan would currently be recieving an out of court settlement from West Ham. Well, yes, that most likely would have happened..but you'd have been in the Premiership for the next season... so why would you care about that?? To quote your goodself from earlier: "To be frank, thats not our problem."
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:36:11 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 17:36:11 GMT -1
ah, but it didn't happen and the fact wigan or fulham or whoever would be in the same position as us now, proves the injustice of what occured.
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:57:17 GMT -1
Post by Lollipop on Mar 17, 2009 17:57:17 GMT -1
Seems Leeds are getting in on the act too. Lol, Bates is never far from trying to make some cash.
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 17:59:44 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 17:59:44 GMT -1
Leeds? - i'm guessing you'd have got more money for Killa and Hulse if we'd stayed up?
... this all goes to show the ineptitude of the Premier League in the first place.
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 18:04:51 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 18:04:51 GMT -1
Another thing which has by-passed people, is that warnock et al maybe suing Sheffield United for a share of the compensation not west ham
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 18:05:50 GMT -1
Post by Lollipop on Mar 17, 2009 18:05:50 GMT -1
Leeds? - i'm guessing you'd have got more money for Killa and Hulse if we'd stayed up? ... this all goes to show the ineptitude of the Premier League in the first place. Yep and yep! Leeds United chairman Ken Bates has confirmed that the club are seeking advice regarding a compensation claim, following the settlement'of the Carlos Tevez affair.
Sheffield United, who were relegated from the Premiership in 2007, have reached an out of court settlement with West Ham United regarding the involvement of Tevez during the latter stages of the 2006/07 season.
The Sheffield club had argued that Tevez was ineligible to play and an independent hearing ruled in favour of their claim for compensation, following relegation, from West Ham. The figure awarded to the Blades has not been disclosed publicly.
Sheffield United's relegation in 2007 saw Leeds United miss out on contingency payments in relation to Premiership survival for the transfers of Rob Hulse, Matthew Kilgallon, and Ian Bennett.
"We sold a number of players to Sheffield United with contingencies," the chairman told Yorkshire Radio. "When they got relegated on the last day of the season we missed out on a substantial sum.
"That's what we lost and if they are being compensated for their loss we believe we should be compensated for our loss.
"There are other clubs in the same boat who have similar claims.
"Ours is the biggest claim and it would be nice to collect that and strengthen our squad.
"We are currently taking advice on it and won't be commenting further at this time."
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 18:07:15 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 18:07:15 GMT -1
Leeds? - i'm guessing you'd have got more money for Killa and Hulse if we'd stayed up? ... this all goes to show the ineptitude of the Premier League in the first place. Yep and yep! Leeds United chairman Ken Bates has confirmed that the club are seeking advice regarding a compensation claim, following the settlement'of the Carlos Tevez affair.
Sheffield United, who were relegated from the Premiership in 2007, have reached an out of court settlement with West Ham United regarding the involvement of Tevez during the latter stages of the 2006/07 season.
The Sheffield club had argued that Tevez was ineligible to play and an independent hearing ruled in favour of their claim for compensation, following relegation, from West Ham. The figure awarded to the Blades has not been disclosed publicly.
Sheffield United's relegation in 2007 saw Leeds United miss out on contingency payments in relation to Premiership survival for the transfers of Rob Hulse, Matthew Kilgallon, and Ian Bennett.
"We sold a number of players to Sheffield United with contingencies," the chairman told Yorkshire Radio. "When they got relegated on the last day of the season we missed out on a substantial sum.
"That's what we lost and if they are being compensated for their loss we believe we should be compensated for our loss.
"There are other clubs in the same boat who have similar claims.
"Ours is the biggest claim and it would be nice to collect that and strengthen our squad.
"We are currently taking advice on it and won't be commenting further at this time."i hope you get compensation
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 18:09:29 GMT -1
Post by Lollipop on Mar 17, 2009 18:09:29 GMT -1
Yep and yep! Leeds United chairman Ken Bates has confirmed that the club are seeking advice regarding a compensation claim, following the settlement'of the Carlos Tevez affair.
Sheffield United, who were relegated from the Premiership in 2007, have reached an out of court settlement with West Ham United regarding the involvement of Tevez during the latter stages of the 2006/07 season.
The Sheffield club had argued that Tevez was ineligible to play and an independent hearing ruled in favour of their claim for compensation, following relegation, from West Ham. The figure awarded to the Blades has not been disclosed publicly.
Sheffield United's relegation in 2007 saw Leeds United miss out on contingency payments in relation to Premiership survival for the transfers of Rob Hulse, Matthew Kilgallon, and Ian Bennett.
"We sold a number of players to Sheffield United with contingencies," the chairman told Yorkshire Radio. "When they got relegated on the last day of the season we missed out on a substantial sum.
"That's what we lost and if they are being compensated for their loss we believe we should be compensated for our loss.
"There are other clubs in the same boat who have similar claims.
"Ours is the biggest claim and it would be nice to collect that and strengthen our squad.
"We are currently taking advice on it and won't be commenting further at this time."i hope you get compensation
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 19:41:34 GMT -1
Post by IWEDFM on Mar 17, 2009 19:41:34 GMT -1
I'd rather Wednesday were skint (which we are) than have £10/15/20m brought about through prostituting the clubs soul and dragging it's name through the absolute gutter in court rooms like United have, becoming a detestable embarrassment to the rest of the football world along the way
They were the ones that blew a 10-point gap between themselves and West Ham
They were the ones that lost to Wigan at home on the final day of the season
They deserve fook all
|
|
|
FFS!
Mar 17, 2009 19:44:55 GMT -1
Post by El Morto La Hoja! on Mar 17, 2009 19:44:55 GMT -1
shame none of thats happened and our name still has more worth than yours
|
|