World Football Thread XVII : Champions League Final and beyond..

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Joe Kick Ass


The arrangement was illegal mate.

That setup simply isn't allowed...that's why you had to (apparently) "rip up" the agreement. True story.

Ahhh, the 'arrangement'...

Changing your tune a bit now aren't we...

The overall arrangement may have been breaking the rules - however they were correctly registered and hence are not inelligible.

Big difference that, and I guess if you don't know what the **** you're talking about - I can see how you might feel pissed off with West Ham...

Anyway, it's not like anybody actually believes West Ham now own the player.

What about Liverpool, do they own Mascherano now???

Please go away and actually take some time to understand what has happened here before you make another post.

Until then stick to making stupid predictions about how this Welsh region or that is going to stuff the English at Rugby Union...

Playing players you don't own, and don't have the right to play.

No, but we do (assuming Eggy's telling the truth this time...).

FIFA'll send you down anyway.

Well let's see shall we...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
That's why I specifically used the word 'catalyst', because their abilities as world class players have not deminished therefore I don't blame them.

That's the most tortured attempt to get out of being caught I've ever seen.

Now, follow me closely, if they had arrived and been totally **** - then I would be blaming them...

For 3/4 of the time Tevez has been in our team, he basically did **** all for us - as I repeat for the umpteenth time Imran, it is only in the last couple of months he has come good for us.

So you aren't saying that Tevez wasn't ****, but you are saying he did **** all for you for 3/4th of the time?

I have that correct, don't I?

Still, it says something that the only straws you can grasp at are stupid semantics as to who I actually blame for this debacle...

Hey, you were the one who said how could WH possibly mean to screw themselves over by signing them, I quote:

ooh let's cheat by colossally shooting ourselves in the foot and destroying our entire season

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you aren't saying that Tevez wasn't ****, but you are saying he did **** all for you for 3/4th of the time?

I have that correct, don't I?

That is what I said, yes.

But you obviously don't understand the context.

First Pardew didn't play him, then he was played in totally the wrong position while also acclimatising to the way the game is played here.

Finally when Curbishley took over after a while he had this amazing idea - why not put Tevez (cos Mascherano had left by then) who is an attacker into an attacking position...

What a ****ing masterstroke!

So. Oh clever one. I blame the managers and NOT the player!

Hey, you were the one who said how could WH possibly mean to screw themselves over by signing them, I quote:

ooh let's cheat by colossally shooting ourselves in the foot and destroying our entire season

I have answered this countless times so far, if you are too ****ing thick to understand this now then I shall never get this through that thick head of yours...

Anyway, what is your view on the precedent set by Spurs?

So far you have completely avoided what is the central crux of this entire argument.

[Joe Kick Ass]

They weren't eligible, in that players under such ownership may not be registered.

Unless you lie about it.

ala West Ham.



The punishment is the issue, not the verdict. We already know they're guilty...

[Joe Kick Ass]

Such ownership is not permitted in the PL...players in such circumstances aren't allowed to play.

For the vast majority of the season, Tevez played under exactly such an arrangement.

"West Ham pleaded guilty to both breaches of Premier League rules."

eh?

"The commission concluded that a deduction of points "would normally follow from such a breach of rules"."

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is what I said, yes.

Just checking.

I have answered this countless times so far

Translation: I don't have an answer so I'm going to claim I've answered it and then insult you... maybe a "Mission Accomplished" banner will be next.

Anyway, what is your view on the precedent set by Spurs?

The final decision was bull****. The original decision was the correct one. As it was the final decision in the Italy ref fixing scandal, the first decision should have been followed.

Unfortunately the idiotic precedent is used here even though the commission said a deduction of points would normally follow such a breach of rules.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by LordShiva
This thread is boring now

Kind of.

I'd rather wait for the final ruling, but I hope West Ham get drop-kicked into next week. If not, I hope every team in the PL makes sure they go down next season.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Anyway, what is your view on the precedent set by Spurs?

The final decision was bull****.

Dimran the expert...

Look dickheads, if you're so sure there is overwhelming evidence that we should have been docked points despite my exhaustive explanations to the contrary that neither of you have seen fit to address - have the guts to do something concrete about it instead of whining in my ear like hyperactive gnats.

Despite FIFA stepping in to investigate any wrong doing, apparently William Hill bookies have quoted 10-1 that West Ham will be docked points, which are pretty ****ing awesome odds if you're so certain...

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and pony up a £1000 bet each...?

So put up, or shut up you ****ing whingeing whining cry-baby cretins...

End of conversation.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


Kind of.

I'd rather wait for the final ruling, but I hope West Ham get drop-kicked into next week. If not, I hope every team in the PL makes sure they go down next season.

10-1 odds for some easy money?

Aren't you a Spurs fan? If you are you should know exactly where we're coming from.

Unless you're still sore after 'flugate' last year...

Bring it on! If anything, it is all this adversity that gave us the champions league form that catapaulted us out of relegation...

[MOBIUS]

BTW, here is some background to the chief whinger: David Whelan...

Fed up with the endless stream of half truths and wilful misrepresentations coming from the mouth of Wigan chairman Dave Whelan? Fancy getting your own back and making a few bob at the same time? Read on....

Many Hammers are already boycotting Whelan's chain of tacky sports shops as a response to his continued insistence that Carlos Tevez was ineligible for selection during the successful fight against the drop. Despite the Premier League maintaining that the player has been correctly registered at all times, Whelan has continued to perpetuate the myth that the player registration was somehow invalid.

Whelan, of course, is no stranger to being "economical with the truth". In 2003 clothing manufactured by child slave labour in Burma was found on sale in his JJB shops some months after Whelan had given his personal, but false, assurance that no such stock was carried. After a a brief campaign Whelan agreed not to do further business with Burma.

However, it was in the murky world of illegal price-fixing that JJB came into its own. The company was found guilty of being part of an illegal price-fixing cartel which operated in 2000-01 and the Office of Fair Trading levied a fine of over £8m for JJB's role in the scam. This fine was reduced to £6.3m on appeal.

JJB was the only solvent company to appeal against the fine and, ironically, it is this action that has left them open to compensation claims. Legal powers enabling the well-known consumer action organisation Which? had not been granted in time for claims to be launched against the other members of the cartel, which included Manchester United FC, Umbro and the FA. However, by the time JJB's avenues of appeal had been exhausted in February 2007, when leave to take the case to the House Of Lords was refused, Which? had been given the requisite powers to enable them to take action.

Which? has now launched a compensation claim on behalf of football supporters ripped-off by the dodgy antics of Whelan's company. Negotiations are currently taking place but it's not too late to join in with the fun. All you need is to have bought an England home or away kit between April and June 2000 and you could be well on your way to getting your hands on some of JJB's illegally gained profits.

It may not even be necessary for you to have bought the shirt at JJB - Which? are looking at claiming compensation from JJB irrespective of which of the illegal cartel shops are involved. For full details of how to make a claim please visit the Which? website at www.which.co.uk.

Personally I boycotted JJB years ago when I watched one of those business programmes on TV and found out how abysmally he treats his staff.

I hope Hutchings does a repeat of his last spell in 'management' at Bradford, and takes Wigan into a slow and agonising relegation next year...

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Unless you're still sore after 'flugate' last year...

Lasagnagate, I think you'll find.

Except that the Lasagna was cleared, which didn't stop the Totts bleating about David Dein-lead conspiracies to deliberately poison their team. They wanted to go to court to find a judge to award them a CL spot.

[MOBIUS]

Don't you mean Trotts...

[Colon™]

Chelsea confirm Mourinho arrest
Chelsea have confirmed that boss Jose Mourinho was arrested and cautioned by police over a row about his dog.

A spokesman for Mourinho said: "The incident occurred because of a misunderstanding over documents required for veterinary regulations.

"Mr Mourinho would like to make it clear that his pet dog was bought in England from a reputable breeder and has had all its necessary inoculations.

"Full co-operation will be given over any animal health issues."

Mourinho, 44, was attending Chelsea's player-of-the-year awards when he was called to his home on Tuesday, according to reports.

The Portuguese manager of the Stamford Bridge club is believed to have refused to allow the police to take the Yorkshire terrier.

Scotland Yard confirmed the dog was to be seized under the Animal Health Act of 1981 and Rabies Order Act of 1974.

"A 44-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of obstructing police and was taken to a west London police station," said a police spokesperson.

"He subsequently received a caution for obstructing police."

Story from BBC SPORT:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/6660485.stm

Published: 2007/05/16 11:31:09 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Now I'm definitely supporting Chelsea next year.

[MOBIUS]

Only if Mourinho's still the manager...

[Imran Siddiqui]

So put up, or shut up

Ah, the bleatings of a person who has lost the argument. If you are so sure, deary, why don't you put 1000 pounds on the other side, that West Ham won't be docked points.

Of course, once again, you miss the point of the argument, which isn't will they or won't they, its SHOULD THEY. You know, like an argument about should AC Milan be able to play in the Champions League, even after the Italian courts said they could. Though missing the point is your speciality.

I do love how West Ham supporters are trying to solely focus on Wigan and others in the bottom 4 and say it is just them that are whining, ignoring that other Prem sides are joining them in the fight against West Ham. IIRC, 'Boro has just joined up with them and others are soon to follow.

Though if we are posting quotes:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=430116&root=england&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1&cc=5901

Two weeks ago the Premier League decided to punish the millionaire-backed Hammers for their indiscretion over the contracts of their Argentine duo with a paltry £5.5million fine. And in a move that will shock nobody, the club decided last week to avoid an appeal against it.

Quite simply they know they got away with murder, so there's no use in dragging up the corpse for everyone to see, especially now that Premiership football has been assured for next season.

The fact is that a points deduction was the only punishment worthy of the crime. A fine was never going to cut it, and word from insiders at the Premier League was that they were worried about possible repercussions if the Hammers did stay up. And now they have. The irony is that no-one would have batted an eyelid if they had gone down, along with the £30million loss of revenue that goes with it. £5.5million of pocket-change was certainly never going to bother Eggert Magnusson or his financial friends.