Everything Diafra Sakho/west Ham Related (Merged)

[bernie from barrow gurney]

[Dave]

i do wonder if the FA are considering some further punishment for West Ham.

As it cannot sit well with them that a Club has made a profit out of a match in their competition, after being guilty of fielding an illegible player.

[cityexile]

[22A]

i do wonder if the FA are considering some further punishment for West Ham.

As it cannot sit well with them that a Club has made a profit out of a match in their competition, after being guilty of fielding an illegible player.

Think back to the Tevez affair. By being allowed to stay in the Prem, West Ham made more money than they were fined for fielding an ineligible player.

"Word on the street" back then was that the Premiership bosses thought WHU were going down anyway, so simply fined them. If a points deduction had been imposed that would have guaranteed relegation, then WHU would have taken the case to court. After all WHU are "a big club" and it was "only" Sheff U who went down instead.

[Dave]

FIFA passing the buck, no suprise there.

Who will City be playing next Tuesday Port Vale or West Ham?

[reddevon]

I suspect I might get slammed a bit for this, but here goes.

I always felt whilst Senagol had a strong moral case, their legal claim was very weak. Sakho was called up to the provisional squad. Everyone agrees he then got injured. He was then flown home, and West Ham then advised he would be injured for three to six weeks.

On the basis of this, he was not called up to the competition squad. Three weeks later he was fit enough to play for ten minutes.

There is no doubt if he had actually been called up West Ham could not have played him without being thrown out of the cup. If that had happened in this case, I have no doubt W Ham would seek legal recourse under their rules.

This is a typical political FIFA fudge. O dear. Not much we can do here chaps, how do we get out of this one whilst looking supportive to Senagol? O, I know, lets say they broke the rules, but impose a trivial fine that deep down they will be happy with and do nothing about. Sorted.

But Gov? Will this not look like being unfair on Bristol City? O, haha, they are not even a premier league side, as you were.

 

 

Sorry Exile but he was called up on 5/1 along with Mane of Southampton who also was injured. Mane  joined the squad and recovered and played.

 

Saakho (did not recover) but played against us ,when WHU knew the rules, and have been found guilty by FIFA.

 

The only problem is there is nothing in th FA rules which link to the FIFA rule.

[Dogbert]

I always felt whilst Senagol had a strong moral case, their legal claim was very weak. Sakho was called up to the provisional squad. Everyone agrees he then got injured. He was then flown home, and West Ham then advised he would be injured for three to six weeks.

On the basis of this, he was not called up to the competition squad. Three weeks later he was fit enough to play for ten minutes.

There is no doubt if he had actually been called up West Ham could not have played him without being thrown out of the cup. If that had happened in this case, I have no doubt W Ham would seek legal recourse under their rules.

Thing is that he was in the provisional squad of 28, then got called up to the final squad of 23 on January 5th (http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/news/newsid/250/000/6/) at which point he pulled out due to injury and was replaced.

Therefore he was called up for Senegal and not allowed to play.

After that WH claim that as he wasn't in the final final squad then that didn't count (http://www.espnfc.com/african-nations-cup/story/2234996/west-ham-insist-diafra-sakho-is-injuredhit-back-at-senegal-claims) and that should he be fit again they would take advice on whether he could play. Presumably they didn't think to take advice from FIFA.

[samo II]

Suspected West Ham might have got it pretty easy.

But as others have mention; it is what has not happened yet that is interesting.

The FA have basically been told by FIFA that they have latitude to punish West Ham further, and I strongly suspect that is more of a nudge that not.

The MK Dons/Chesterfield scenario may not be exactly the same, but it set a president in that the integrity of the competition is paramount; they could of fined MK but instead made the teams play an unwanted replay.

Suspect that may end up happening here, in all honesty.

[cityexile]

Thing is that he was in the provisional squad of 28, then got called up to the final squad of 23 on January 5th (http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/news/newsid/250/000/6/) at which point he pulled out due to injury and was replaced.

Therefore he was called up for Senegal and not allowed to play.

After that WH claim that as he wasn't in the final final squad then that didn't count (http://www.espnfc.com/african-nations-cup/story/2234996/west-ham-insist-diafra-sakho-is-injuredhit-back-at-senegal-claims) and that should he be fit again they would take advice on whether he could play. Presumably they didn't think to take advice from FIFA.

Ok, an important difference I agree.

In which case they really should have been removed?

There is part of me that simply says they have been found guilty of playing an ineligible player against us, and are up on the deal.

Another part just as strongly just wants to move on!

I sm sure the FA will find some way to protect the team that won the world cup from any fall out.

[red mist]

I wonder what the outcome would have been if the said player was with BCFC, came off the bench and knocked out WHU?

How week is the football league and the FA over this. The Premier League wins again.

We are getting to the stage when the Premier League will be a franchise.

Come on FA there are other clubs who are members and do not break the rules

[reddevon]

Suspected West Ham might have got it pretty easy.

But as others have mention; it is what has not happened yet that is interesting.

The FA have basically been told by FIFA that they have latitude to punish West Ham further, and I strongly suspect that is more of a nudge that not.

The MK Dons/Chesterfield scenario may not be exactly the same, but it set a president in that the integrity of the competition is paramount; they could of fined MK but instead made the teams play an unwanted replay.

Suspect that may end up happening here, in all honesty.

 

Problem is Samo is that THE MKD/Chesterfield scenario is in the FA rules but FIFA have passed the buck to the FA knowing there is nothing in the FA rules to punish WHU with, making the FA look d*cks.

[WhistleHappy]

The least they can do for cheating us out of our Valentines Day FA Cup chances would be for WHams owners to pull a few rabbits out of their hat and give City fans a chance to enjoy a decent Valentines Night instead.

Send City some AnnSummers vouchers to distribute to our ST holders.. (Rabbits out of hats ..pun ) If they won't even do that much for us they can shove their love toys where the sun don't shine..

So Karren ( have a word with the boss ) and on the 14th it could be Up Ours so to speak instead of....

Up Yours Karren and yer cheating cockney bubble blowing club.

(and don't forget to include battery's!)

Reckon AS vouchers would be preferable to non existant 'food vouchers' anyway!

Nobody getting good vibes for this idea then? I thought you'd all be buzzing by now tbh

[Rich]

Without reading through every post to check if this has been mentioned, my wife asked what the outcome would be if WHU had scored a late winner at MUFC. Different outcome, I'm sure. 

[samo II]

Problem is Samo is that THE MKD/Chesterfield scenario is in the FA rules but FIFA have passed the buck to the FA knowing there is nothing in the FA rules to punish WHU with, making the FA look d*cks.

They could have requested they sling West Ham out, but chose not to; I think that might be a face saving measure in case the FA decide to take a different road.

 

My personal position is that this devalues the cup; it says that clubs can break the rules, drop a little coin (despite still profiting, of course) and then progress. 

 

Imagine if West Ham went on to win it; what would that say about the integrity of the competition?

 

After such an exciting round (one of the most shocking for decades), following it with this stinks.

[Ashtonboy]

Without reading through every post to check if this has been mentioned, my wife asked what the outcome would be if WHU had scored a late winner at MUFC. Different outcome, I'm sure. 

No, they would still have won 1-0.

[Slack Bladder]

Let's just walk away with our heads held high.

 

This cup run is tarnished for WHU, everyone knows what they are like for bending rules on players.

 

I don't want the club to makes fools of themselves like the blue few.

[Guest]

FA, pull your finger out and put this one to bed.

 

We can then move on.

[reddevon]

I've changed my mind after sifting through the Rules of Association 2014/15 of the FA

 

Under Rule (F) - page120 - POWERS OF INQUIRY OF THE ASSOCIATION
1 The Association shall have the power to monitor the compliance by each Participant with
the Rules, the Laws of the Game, the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA and the rules
and regulations of each Affiliated Association and Competition to which a Participant is
subject and/or inquire into any incident, facts or matters which may constitute misconduct
under these Rules. It is for The Association to determine in its absolute discretion the
manner in which it conducts an inquiry.
2 In carrying out its functions under Rule F1, The Association shall have the power to require
of any Participant upon reasonable notice:
(a) his or her attendance to answer questions and provide information at a time and
place determined by The Association; and
(b) the provision to The Association of documents, information or any other material
of any nature held by the Participant; and
© the procurement and provision to The Association of documents, information
or any other material of any nature not held by the Participant but which the
Participant has the power to obtain.
It is for The Association to determine the nature and extent of any material
required for disclosure in accordance with (b) or ©.
Where a Participant is interviewed by The Association pursuant to sub-paragraph (a)
above, such interview may be recorded by any method determined by The Association in
its absolute discretion to be appropriate, including tape-recording.
A copy of any such recording shall be provided to the Participant as soon as practicable
after the interview.
3 Any failure by a Participant to comply with any requirement under Rule F2 may constitute
Misconduct under the Rules and The Association may bring a charge or such charges as it
sees fit.

Also

 

INTEGRITY MATTERS IN RELATION TO MATCHES AND COMPETITIONS
5 (a) A Participant shall not, directly or indirectly, seek to influence for an improper
purpose the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of, or occurrence in, a
football match or competition.

 

I'm sure Steve's lawyers are onto it and we will see a victory over that evil lot from Upton Park!
 

[Rich]

No, they would still have won 1-0.

Very clever, have a blood orange.

[downendcity]

[grove park city]

Without reading through every post to check if this has been mentioned, my wife asked what the outcome would be if WHU had scored a late winner at MUFC. Different outcome, I'm sure. 

Good point there would be an immediate bye to the final for Manchester Utd  would not be put back on the shelf to be buried cos its only little old Bristol City , FIFA are corrupt so they will line their own pockets with petty cash West Ham Utd still make a profit  get another payday chance of a Cup Final win . The entire system stinks .

Matt Smith misse's out on a Wembley Final due to League rules even if City had signed him full time ,what would happen if City said stick your rules he's our player and he plays ??

[downendcity]

I've changed my mind after sifting through the Rules of Association 2014/15 of the FA

 

Under Rule (F) - page120 - POWERS OF INQUIRY OF THE ASSOCIATION

1 The Association shall have the power to monitor the compliance by each Participant with

the Rules, the Laws of the Game, the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA and the rules

and regulations of each Affiliated Association and Competition to which a Participant is

subject and/or inquire into any incident, facts or matters which may constitute misconduct

under these Rules. It is for The Association to determine in its absolute discretion the

manner in which it conducts an inquiry.

2 In carrying out its functions under Rule F1, The Association shall have the power to require

of any Participant upon reasonable notice:

(a) his or her attendance to answer questions and provide information at a time and

place determined by The Association; and

(b) the provision to The Association of documents, information or any other material

of any nature held by the Participant; and

© the procurement and provision to The Association of documents, information

or any other material of any nature not held by the Participant but which the

Participant has the power to obtain.

It is for The Association to determine the nature and extent of any material

required for disclosure in accordance with (b) or ©.

Where a Participant is interviewed by The Association pursuant to sub-paragraph (a)

above, such interview may be recorded by any method determined by The Association in

its absolute discretion to be appropriate, including tape-recording.

A copy of any such recording shall be provided to the Participant as soon as practicable

after the interview.

3 Any failure by a Participant to comply with any requirement under Rule F2 may constitute

Misconduct under the Rules and The Association may bring a charge or such charges as it

sees fit.

Also

 

INTEGRITY MATTERS IN RELATION TO MATCHES AND COMPETITIONS

5 (a) A Participant shall not, directly or indirectly, seek to influence for an improper

purpose the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of, or occurrence in, a

football match or competition.

 

I'm sure Steve's lawyers are onto it and we will see a victory over that evil lot from Upton Park!

 

 

I hope he uses different lawyers than  acted on Ashton Vale!

[downendcity]

They could have requested they sling West Ham out, but chose not to; I think that might be a face saving measure in case the FA decide to take a different road.

 

My personal position is that this devalues the cup; it says that clubs can break the rules, drop a little coin (despite still profiting, of course) and then progress. 

 

Imagine if West Ham went on to win it; what would that say about the integrity of the competition?

 

After such an exciting round (one of the most shocking for decades), following it with this stinks.

 

 

Something you don't often see Samo - the word integrity used in connection with football and it's governing bodies.

[cityexile]

Some OTIBers famous!

http://kumb.com/story.php?id=128239

[downendcity]

Thing is that he was in the provisional squad of 28, then got called up to the final squad of 23 on January 5th (http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/news/newsid/250/000/6/) at which point he pulled out due to injury and was replaced.

Therefore he was called up for Senegal and not allowed to play.

After that WH claim that as he wasn't in the final final squad then that didn't count (http://www.espnfc.com/african-nations-cup/story/2234996/west-ham-insist-diafra-sakho-is-injuredhit-back-at-senegal-claims) and that should he be fit again they would take advice on whether he could play. Presumably they didn't think to take advice from FIFA.

 

But on a similar basis, Chesterfield had verbal agreement that their player could play against MKD, but that wasn't enough so they were ordered to replay the tie.

 

WHam assumed they could play Sakho, once Senegal announced their final squad, but it's their fault if they didn't get the point clarified for the avoidance of doubt. Ignorance of the law is never proof of innocence.

 

As I've said previously, FIFA have fudged the issue by issuing the fine as they have passed the buck to the FA for any meaningful sanction is to be made. The odds on the FA having the balls to do anything - about the same as Cambridge beating Man U last night I guess.

[samo II]

Something you don't often see Samo - the word integrity used in connection with football and it's governing bodies.

I know, right?

 

Just seems such a shame having an exciting weekend of shocks, and a good performance by us overshadowed by this mess.

[Redarmy987]

We should defo seek compo. We should seek for the money we would of got from a reply (had game stayed 0-0) also had we won the replay (prize money and money from 5th round tie)

[reddevon]

[DingleRed]

Hold your horses people (note to NLBR, that's a metaphor)...

 

I suspect that FIFA have no jurisdiction to oust a team from a member's (i.e. the FA) Cup competition.

 

However, I suspect the FA will either be expected to now expel West Ham, or BCFC will have every right to raise a complaint that West Ham should be replaced.

 

Whether we bother is another question!?

 

This still has legs.

 

As far as I can work it out from the FIFA rule, FIFA can only REQUEST (not instruct) the FA to take action and for WHU to forfeit the match.

 

So, we then have to look at precedence here and what FA has done in similar circumstances. There may be no direct precedence.

 

No doubt the FA will be very mindful of this and legal repercussions. That said, FIFA has found WHU in breach of their rule and there is very clear guidance from FIFA on what the outcome should be.

 

Justice should be seen to be done!! We set out to win this game (ask Cotts) and we didn't as a direct result of a rule breach. A replay is a minimum punishment for WHU. We should still be in the FA Cup. Whether or not it's a game too far has nothing to do with this.

[WessexPest]

So, in  sum:

 

Extreme dodginess goes down and the result is a net profit.

 

I'm not sure if that's more East End (of London) or more FIFA...