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

[Cort Haus]

Chelsea should clearly be docked points for this, as their manager is fielding a dog without the correct documentation.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by 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.

The onus is on you, I doubt they'd actually take the reverse bet given those odds. But I see you're too chicken**** to put your money where your mouth is...

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've quoted you chapter and verse about the precedents and still you moan and whinge cos as a Newcastle fan you're jealous of our achievements - if it wasn't for your cheating against us, you'd have finished with 2 points less than us and in serious danger of relegation yourselves...

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.

Ooh, Boro - still sore about getting docked points for not turning up to a match! Covered that already Dimran, but you ignored it like everything else I've said that pwns your pathetic argument. Who else Dimran? Last I heard it was 'two other clubs' that were too scared to admit who they were...

Though if we are posting quotes

Nice one

Quote selectively and hope no one bothers to follow your link.

While Wigan and Fulham may now be less keen to start legal action against West Ham over the eligibility of Tevez and his compatriot Javier Mascherano, having secured their Premiership survival.

As in reality will set in when they realise they don't have a leg to stand on and they will look after no.1 as usual...

Mascherano may even get to play in a Champions League final, which seems an incredible stroke of good fortune for a player who was 'unable to settle' in England with West Ham not six months ago.

It also seems a little unfair. Not just to the Hammers, who had to watch their ugly duckling turn into a swan under Rafa Benitez, but also to (dare I say) Chelsea, as he was instrumental in knocking the Blues out of the Champions League. Third time lucky it seems, after Corinthians and West Ham, but Mascherano should never have been allowed to make the switch if the Premier League and FIFA had followed the rules about players playing competitively for more than two clubs in one year.

I noted Mascherano was able to make this move, implying that if you had a beef over Tevez you should also have a beef over the way Mascherano was handled by the FA - but not a peep from you Dimran...

Do I detect a whiff of double standards from you? Hyprocrisy even?

If Whelan is right about Tevez's new contract, then the same must hold true over Mascherano.

Tell me what you think - oh wait you'll ignore this...

While the League did act over the contract irregularities with a fine that dwarfed the £1.5million Tottenham Hotspur were fined for financial irregularities in 1994, many thought it was not enough. Namely Wigan manager Paul Jewell, who made it clear that he believed the Premier League 'bottled it' by not giving the Hammers a points deduction that would have virtually assured them of relegation this season.

Look, look - it's that precedent you have been ignoring all this time!

Of course Paul Jewell didn't think it was enough - because he was scared he would be relegated in our place because his team is ****...

West Ham pleaded guilty at the last moment and that may have been what granted leniency, although that doesn't make the Premier League's decision any easier for Sheffield United fans to take.

New Management in no way responsible for the actions of the previous regime. Just like 1994.

See I can selectively quote as well...

Where's your betting slip Dimran?

[MOBIUS]

Hey Dimran...

More from your article:

In a week where the Premier League will have to answer questions over their involvement in the relegation battle, it has also been revealed that things at the other end of the table haven't gone smoothly either, with Manchester United accused of breaking the rules over Tim Howard's loan-move-made-permanent to Everton, by requesting that he did not play in their crucial fixture a few weeks back.

When loan moves were first introduced between clubs in the same division it was obvious to many, myself included, that there would be problems in the actual working of the laws. The most conspicuous being a player who made a significant impact on the game while playing against his own club, as Francis Jeffers did against Arsenal while on loan at Everton in 2003/04.

Clubs are forced by law now, to excuse the player from having to deal with that situation and they are now banned from a game which would unquestionably present a conflict of interest. The trouble comes when there is no replacement. As an example, if Birmingham (who had three players on loan from Arsenal this season) had been in the Premiership, then they would have had major problems trying to fill out their team-sheet for a trip to the Emirates.

On such small issues, titles can be won and lost. And while Manchester United certainly deserved the Premiership title for their form over the course of the season, Everton's young 'keeper Iain Turner will live long in the memory for handing it on a plate to them. His error contributed to United's remarkable comeback from 2-0 down at Goodison, which they eventually won 4-2, but it was a game he should never have played in.

The questions remain. Why anybody in the Premier League allowed such a state of affairs to occur is beyond me? A team like United who have loaned out England international Ben Foster to Watford this season, seem to get the best of both worlds. Good experience for their goalkeeper, while safe in the knowledge they will be facing an out of sorts reserve when they come to play the game themselves.

While the Premier League have insisted that no clause existed in Howard's contract, as it is against the rules to have one in a permanent deal, the scope for trouble in these kinds of transfers has always been there. In Howard's case a 'gentleman's agreement' was at the root of it so, in a sense, Everton have no-one to blame but themselves; although that will come as no comfort to Chelsea, who essentially conceded the title that weekend by failing to beat Bolton.

So while we got fine �5.5m for creating a situation which 'might allow 3rd party influence', ManU got off scott free for actually acting as a 3rd party influence...

It was Turner's howler that let ManU back in the game - I doubt a more experienced goalie like Howard would have made that mistake. Without that crucial goal ManU may not have had the morale boost to win...

This is a case of actual 3rd party interference that potentially cost Chelsea the title!!!

And yet Dimran the hypocrite hasn't said a thing about it whatsoever - despite my point about loan players, which he ignored.

Feel free to ignore this post as all the others, because shock horror, you might have to concede that this is far more unfair and a far worse crime than West Ham's paperwork irregularities...

Each time you ignore a pertinent point I've made, your pwnage by me gets just that little bit bigger, and right now it's about mushroom cloud sized!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see you're too chicken**** to put your money where your mouth is

Once again, your reading comprehension skills are found lacking. No surprise really, but the idiocy of saying put your money down in a discussion of what should happen is completely ridiculous. So of course you'd harp it as your arguments come up completely hollow.

Ask reds4ever if you think I'm not willing to put money down when I'm confident on what WILL happen, rather than SHOULD.

Perhaps he can also explain to you the differences between the two words as your education has obviously been lacking.

I know this may hard for someone like you to grasp but I do think that West Ham will be in the Premiership next season... I just think it's a shame that they will be and they should have been relegated.

you're jealous of our achievements

Yep, I'm jealous of your cheating asses finished behind Newcastle the last two years since West Ham came back.

I noted Mascherano was able to make this move, implying that if you had a beef over Tevez you should also have a beef over the way Mascherano was handled by the FA

BOTH deals violated the rules. But Mascherano is gone and Tevez is the reason you are still in the Premiership.

As reds can tell you, I'm no 'Pool fan and I'd have liked nothing better than Mascherano not being able to play for the Reds.

it's that precedent you have been ignoring all this time!

I have already gone over why the 'precedence' is **** (and of course the idea of precedence being set in stone is incredibly laughable). Apparently the commission didn't think much of the precedent ether when the commission said normally a points deduction would be in the cards, but they didn't want to relegate poor West Ham. If they thought a point deduction would normally follow, then they really didn't think much of the Tottenham fine, now did they?

And apparently neither does the article writer, who says West Ham got away with murder and a points deduction was the only punishment that fit the crime. A fine being a slap on the wrist.

New Management in no way responsible for the actions of the previous regime.

Slide it under the rug because they changed management. I'm sure then, that if Juventus switched management before last season, you'd be against a points deduction and them being sent down to Serie B then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
So while we got fine �5.5m for creating a situation which 'might allow 3rd party influence', ManU got off scott free for actually acting as a 3rd party influence...

Because when a club is actually FOLLOWING the rules:

Clubs are forced by law now, to excuse the player from having to deal with that situation and they are now banned from a game which would unquestionably present a conflict of interest.

is a far different situation than a club VIOLATING the rules.

Are you really this moronic? No wait, I forget who I'm talking to. Of course you are.

Each time you ignore a pertinent point I've made, your pwnage by me gets just that little bit bigger, and right now it's about mushroom cloud sized!

If this is your "pertinent point", then I'm afraid the only pwnage you've dealt out is complete and utter self-pwnage of monumental proportions.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Dimran

Your arguments are crap, but you do excel at name-calling

"Diddler"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Name calling is the first mark of a person losing the argument (as you pointed out, his argument is crap), so I welcome it .

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by LordShiva




Your arguments are crap, but you do excel at name-calling

"Diddler"

What's that you say, LordSheepa?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Name calling is the first mark of a person losing the argument (as you pointed out, his argument is crap), so I welcome it .

Actually it is because once I realised that you're not interested in exploring the essential argument of this debate by continuing to ignore countless supporting points, I simply lost respect for you and found an apt name to describe your hopeless debating 'skills'...

Anyway, I will be proved right when FIFA finds the FA's independent tribunal acted in an impartial and proper manner.

Who knows, they might even recommend that our fine is reduced...

Where's your betting slip Dimran?

[Imran Siddiqui]

you're not interested in exploring the essential argument of this debate by continuing to ignore countless supporting points

You mean like the "supporting point" about loans? The one which makes you look like a complete moron because avoiding a conflict of interest is FOLLOWING the rules, while having third parties involved otherwise is VIOLATING the rules?

It goes to show that you have no freaking clue what you are blabbering about when you say a team following the rules is doing something just as bad as a team violating the rules!

I will be proved right when FIFA finds the FA's independent tribunal acted in an impartial manner.

So when FIFA allowed Milan to go to the CL, accepting the appeals court ruling, you thought that was ok? If an official body says something they are always right? I wonder if you'll apply this logic in other actions involving governmental official bodies. Or just when it benefits you.

[MOBIUS]

The independent tribunal didn't break any rules in their verdict. Indeed they took into account precedent like any good lawyer would.

Funny how a lawyer talks about what SHOULD happen when the tribunal came to a fair and proper verdict? Why are you so agitated little Dimran, the independent tribunal did their jobs and followed procedures correctly...

That is justice, from a legal perspective - isn't it?

Where's your betting slip Dimran? (I may even make this sig material! )

[Colon™]

*groin*

You've convinced me West Ham should have been docked points, Mobius.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny how a lawyer talks about what SHOULD happen when the tribunal came to a fair and proper verdict?

You are seriously this dense? Seriously?! So no one can EVER criticize a tribunal or court for making a decision that they don't agree with? If the Supreme Court of the US makes a ruling that is fair based on their readings of the Constitution and consistant with some precedents, no one can criticize the decision and offer a contrary possible ruling?

Man, in MOBIUS's world, I'm guessing once the official speaks the issue is closed forever. I'm guessing that most lawyers, as well as plenty of discriminated groups, are glad that is not the case.

Of course there is still question as to whether it was a proper verdict at all. Just because some official says so, doesn't necessarily make it so. But I guess I don't have the same unwaivering faith in officials as you may.

I may even make this sig material!

So you can show people in other threads how thick you are?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Funny how a lawyer talks about what SHOULD happen when the tribunal came to a fair and proper verdict?

You are seriously this dense? Seriously?! So no one can EVER criticize a tribunal or court for making a decision that they don't agree with? If the Supreme Court of the US makes a ruling that is fair based on their readings of the Constitution and consistant with some precedents, no one can criticize the decision and offer a contrary possible ruling?

Man, in MOBIUS's world, I'm guessing once the official speaks the issue is closed forever. I'm guessing that most lawyers, as well as plenty of discriminated groups, are glad that is not the case.

Of course there is still question as to whether it was a proper verdict at all. Just because some official says so, doesn't necessarily make it so. But I guess I don't have the same unwaivering faith in officials as you may.

Which is precisely why FIFA are looking into it to make sure it's kosher - you're getting a second opinion Dimran!

Just cos you don't like the outcome - how ****ing arrogant is that?

Look, any sensible person will realise the punishment of docking points does not fit the crime when everything is taken into consideration. You're not impartial because you appear to have an irrational hatred of West Ham, (being the more successful club for at least the last 50 years, that plays more attractive football) I as a West Ham fan am not impartial either - so that is why the FA got an independent and impartial panel to make the ruling.

They fined us and slapped our wrists. West Ham conquered all, stayed up against all odds and will be playing in the Premiership next year. End of story.

I may even make this sig material!

So you can show people in other threads how thick you are?

Methinks he doth protest too much!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just cos you don't like the outcome - how ****ing arrogant is that?

Yep, like those arrogant bastards who were against Plessy v. Ferguson.

How dare they not wholeheartedly agree with a decision they believed was wrongly decided?

We all know that the officials always make the correct decisions, right?

any sensible person will realise the punishment of docking points does not fit the crime when everything is taken into consideration

So, article writers, posters on this thread... basically just about everyone except West Ham supporters and the commission are being slagged... hmmm

You're not impartial because you appear to have an irrational hatred of West Ham,

That is the only way you could possibly make your argument, right? Paint me as partial . I could give a flying fart about West Ham prior to this cheating. I'm sorry if I get mad about cheaters.

They fined us and slapped our wrists.

It is nice you are admitting, finally, that it was a slap on the wrist.

Methinks he doth protest too much!

Considering how your "arguments" have turned people against you?