As reported by the Daily Mail (and if you can't believe the Daily Mail, who can you believe?):
The arbitration panel "agreed that West Ham should have been docked points for the lies and deceit in concealing the fact that Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano were part-owned by a third party when they signed for the club...
' We would have given much more weight to deliberate deceit by West Ham officials which concealed the existence of third party arrangements'.
They recognised, in essence, that Sheffield United and not West Ham should now be preparing for the new Premiership season....
They even concluded that the same third-party agreement that should have been terminated in April, and so allowed Tevez to play in the all-important final three games of the campaign, was probably still in existence....
They added: 'It is obvious that the possibility of the third parties' ability materially to influence was not entirely excluded. Indeed it may still exist...
If we had been considering this matter afresh we probably would have reached a different decision to that of the commission. However, the fact that we may disagree with the decision, or that others may have genuine and passionate criticisms of it, is insufficient to warrant intervention'."
CHEATS!!!
0
Comments
Now anyone else in the Premier League can cheat and use this precedent to escape any meaningful sanctions.
football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2117923,00.html
They have specifically drawn attention to the fact that they "probably would have reached a different decision to that of the commission".
And then say "the fact that we may disagree with the decision".
Their conclusions absolutely tell that they feel the wrong decision was made by the first commission. "
It is evident that the findings should, in the name of justice, be overturned and a fresh judgement made.
How can they then say it 'is insufficient to warrant intervention'."??????
Absolute lily-livered whitewash.
Oggy, I don't disagree with your sentiments but this appeal tribunal clearly had a brief which was to determine whether the FAPL's disciplinary processes had been adherred to. It's a technical argument over procedure rather than an attempt to overturn a judgement even if they might have come to a different conclusion. It seems that they could have only thrown back the original decision if they felt that it was perverse. The fact that the original tribunal came to a large financial punishment decision was not outside the range it could have chosen seems to have been enough for them not to throw out the original judgement.
I am not a great lover of the blame culture but in this case, the failure to arrive at the normal "points deduction" punishment seems to be entirely down to mal-administration by the FAPL. Perhaps if Sheff Utd were to turn their guns on Scudamore and his self-righteous bull-shit, at least there will be some minor satisfaction in that. Heads should roll at the FAPL in my opinion. Furthermore there should be a tightening of the process in future so that it doesn't take months to sort these kind of things out. A tightening of the position regarding TP ownership and a punishment regime which sets out minimum mandatory points deductions.
I have just been involved in an appeal process where, like this one, we could only look at whether the original process had been handled within the rules and that the decision taken was in accordance with the rules and not at odds with them. Where appeals can overturn orginal decsions is usually if something came to light which was not known at the time of the original decision. I don't think that was the case here.
West Ham cheated, the PL are just inept idiots.
Nevertheless, West Scam must count themselves extremely fortunate to have escaped appropiate punishment - and to be dealt with by such a bungling incompetant body as the FAPL, assuming of course that there is no 'bad smell' of behind the scenes cartel arrangements and corruption.
Agreed and I think the chances of there being a "behind the scenes" stitch up is about 99%.
- the delay in finalising the original panel decision
- the fact that the panel "sought guidence" from the FAPL
- the weight given to the mitigating circumstances
leads me to the view that West Ham were able to put the case that if they were given a points deduction, they would seek legal redress. Whereas once the original decision was made, the FAPL have a much more robustly defendable position. They also held off making the decision hoping the Hammers would be relegated already. I just hope that somebody within the FAPL blows the gaff on what actually went on.