Season Ticket Price Drop

[94th Minute]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/6716185.stm

Well if Sheffield United get there own way, I can't see the premier league relegating West Ham, especially not this long after the season has ended, that would just be crewl.

So maybe the only way would be a 21 team premership...surely meaning a 23 team Championship, and so one less game being included in the season ticket.

Would the club deal with this by refunding money, or would they just leave it as a higher cost per match? Or am I wasting my time worrying about something that will never happen?

[Nibor]

There is no chance of Sheff Utd being in the Prem next season.

[Eddie Hitler]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/6716185.stm

Well if Sheffield United get there own way, I can't see the premier league relegating West Ham, especially not this long after the season has ended, that would just be crewl.

So maybe the only way would be a 21 team premership...surely meaning a 23 team Championship, and so one less game being included in the season ticket.

Would the club deal with this by refunding money, or would they just leave it as a higher cost per match? Or am I wasting my time worrying about something that will never happen?

Good point. You have to rate Sheff Utd's appeal as at least possible.

Can't see a refund happening because of the admin cost of doing this. Most likely to replace the lost game by designating a cup game like the first round of the league cup free entry for ST holders.

[Andy Horsman]

There is no chance of Sheff Utd being in the Prem next season.

Agreed, despite the ongoing protests/arguments re the eligibility of Tevez, the Premier League will not back down.Even Warnock must have acknowledged deep down, that relegation is, in the Premiership's case, the sum of the performances of 38 games.Personally, although I have a soft spot for the Hammers because of their footballing heritage and Bobby Moore etc,I think they got off lightly and like the Leeds/Boston administration fiascos, which imo bring the game into disrepute, the Tevez saga, at best, will result in a change in the rules.

[Redhyde]

They won't in anyway reinstate Sheffield United

They might promote West Brom though.

[CiderHider]

There is no chance of Sheff Utd being in the Prem next season.

They are delusional if they think for one moment it could happen, is this just their lawyers chatting bolox as they usually do becuase the amount of money involved?

pathetic, just live with the consequences of playing CRAP all season, you don't deserve another pop in teh Prem you stupid imbeciles!

[Nibor]

Agreed, despite the ongoing protests/arguments re the eligibility of Tevez, the Premier League will not back down.Even Warnock must have acknowledged deep down, that relegation is, in the Premiership's case, the sum of the performances of 38 games.Personally, although I have a soft spot for the Hammers because of their footballing heritage and Bobby Moore etc,I think they got off lightly and like the Leeds/Boston administration fiascos, which imo bring the game into disrepute, the Tevez saga, at best, will result in a change in the rules.

I don't understand this argument that they got off lightly.

Let's be clear, the problem here was never that they fielded a player whose registration was invalid. Tevez's registration was _never_ in question.

The problem was that the contract violated league rules in that a third party had an interest in the player. Now, that rule is designed to do two things. First, prevent clubs from fielding players they can't afford. Second, prevent players from being influenced. Although they broke the rules, noone's actually said that they couldn't afford the players or the players were influenced.

Now of course they should be, and were, punished. But this suggestion from Sheff Utd and Wigan that it somehow affected a 38 game season or that West Ham should have been deducted points is ludicrous.

There's never been a mandatory points deduction for this sort of rule breach, in fact I don't think there ever has been a case like this. They have no grounds whatsoever to be telling the FA how it's punishments should be structured.

Fact is, Sheff Utd went down because they were one of the three worst sides over 38 games and no amount of bleating in the papers and handing over cash to solicitors is going to change that.

[Eddie Hitler]

They are delusional if they think for one moment it could happen, is this just their lawyers chatting bolox as they usually do becuase the amount of money involved?

pathetic, just live with the consequences of playing CRAP all season, you don't deserve another pop in teh Prem you stupid imbeciles!

Does nobody remember Swindon being relegated for illegal payments? Tevez was an illegal player and their best one, without him West Ham would have been relegated. And FIFA have weighed in so it's not just the usual closed shop of retired county solicitors having their "independent inquiry" down the pub.

Yes it's unlikely but I could just see Sheff Utd staying up next year. There have already been murmurings about the premier league accepting an odd number of teams next season. You don't start briefing the press like that if there's no chance.

[Nibor]

Does nobody remember Swindon being relegated for illegal payments?

Totally different.

Tevez was an illegal player and their best one, without him West Ham would have been relegated.

No he wasn't either. His contract broke regulations, his registration was fine and although he had a bit of form in the last few weeks he wasn't that important to the season overall. West Ham would have been relegated with or without him if Sheff Utd weren't shit.

And FIFA have weighed in so it's not just the usual closed shop of retired county solicitors having their "independent inquiry" down the pub.

All FIFA have said is "we'll read the report". They'll do nothing, if they were going to they would have by now.

Yes it's unlikely but I could just see Sheff Utd staying up next year. There have already been murmurings about the premier league accepting an odd number of teams next season. You don't start briefing the press like that if there's no chance.

They have nothing to lose by doing so any may think it will increase pressure.

The truth is that even if this arbitration makes the FA have some sort of revelation and realise they were thoroughly wrong (which it won't) they still will not reverse the decision.

[Eddie Hitler]

Totally different.

No he wasn't either. His contract broke regulations, his registration was fine and although he had a bit of form in the last few weeks he wasn't that important to the season overall. West Ham would have been relegated with or without him if Sheff Utd weren't shit.

All FIFA have said is "we'll read the report". They'll do nothing, if they were going to they would have by now.

They have nothing to lose by doing so any may think it will increase pressure.

The truth is that even if this arbitration makes the FA have some sort of revelation and realise they were thoroughly wrong (which it won't) they still will not reverse the decision.

Agree there's no way West Ham will be relegated, but if I could get outside odds on Sheff Utd staying up I would have a couple of quid on it. They'd have to be good odds though!

[scootered]

But Major Richard Sharpe is leading an assault on Parliament over the issue and he's yet to lose a battle!!

[havanatopia]

I don't understand this argument that they got off lightly.

Let's be clear, the problem here was never that they fielded a player whose registration was invalid. Tevez's registration was _never_ in question.

The problem was that the contract violated league rules in that a third party had an interest in the player. Now, that rule is designed to do two things. First, prevent clubs from fielding players they can't afford. Second, prevent players from being influenced. Although they broke the rules, noone's actually said that they couldn't afford the players or the players were influenced.

Now of course they should be, and were, punished. But this suggestion from Sheff Utd and Wigan that it somehow affected a 38 game season or that West Ham should have been deducted points is ludicrous.

There's never been a mandatory points deduction for this sort of rule breach, in fact I don't think there ever has been a case like this. They have no grounds whatsoever to be telling the FA how it's punishments should be structured.

Fact is, Sheff Utd went down because they were one of the three worst sides over 38 games and no amount of bleating in the papers and handing over cash to solicitors is going to change that.

Very fair points Nibor despite going off track on the thread!!

As far as that is concerned; If anything the ST would go up as there would be one game less and so lower revenue take.

p.s. you most certainly cannot blame the Blades for having a go though. I think many clubs would.

[CiderHider]

Does nobody remember Swindon being relegated for illegal payments? Tevez was an illegal player and their best one, without him West Ham would have been relegated. And FIFA have weighed in so it's not just the usual closed shop of retired county solicitors having their "independent inquiry" down the pub.

Yes it's unlikely but I could just see Sheff Utd staying up next year. There have already been murmurings about the premier league accepting an odd number of teams next season. You don't start briefing the press like that if there's no chance.

Well, If somone has "advised" them, poorly i know, to get all stroppy with the FA and cry like a little girl who has wet themselves then thats fair dinkum.

I would have advised them to take it on the chin, like a man and get on with life.

Yes, i recall thre Swindle saga, good times.

[redcityman]

Agree there's no way West Ham will be relegated, but if I could get outside odds on Sheff Utd staying up I would have a couple of quid on it. They'd have to be good odds though!

But if this was to happen the only ones being punished for West Hams underhanded behaviour or Sheffield Uniteds inablility to win enough games' would be championship clubs,still nothing unusual the top clubs shitting on the lower clubs.

[Chivs]

I don't understand this argument that they got off lightly.

Let's be clear, the problem here was never that they fielded a player whose registration was invalid. Tevez's registration was _never_ in question.

The problem was that the contract violated league rules in that a third party had an interest in the player. Now, that rule is designed to do two things. First, prevent clubs from fielding players they can't afford. Second, prevent players from being influenced. Although they broke the rules, noone's actually said that they couldn't afford the players or the players were influenced.

Now of course they should be, and were, punished. But this suggestion from Sheff Utd and Wigan that it somehow affected a 38 game season or that West Ham should have been deducted points is ludicrous.

There's never been a mandatory points deduction for this sort of rule breach, in fact I don't think there ever has been a case like this. They have no grounds whatsoever to be telling the FA how it's punishments should be structured.

Fact is, Sheff Utd went down because they were one of the three worst sides over 38 games and no amount of bleating in the papers and handing over cash to solicitors is going to change that.

And I don't uderstand your argument (quite a common theme these days ).

Tevez's registration was fine as you point out. However, he was playing whilst not holding a correct contract under the PL rules. How does this NOT make him ineligible? There are many different ways a player can be ineligible, not just under the registration rule.

I used to be Club Secretary of a Sunday Pub team. We unknowingly played an ineligible player. He was registered correctly but unknown to me he was under contract with a Saturday team. This made him ineligible for us. The punishment? We lost 2 points for every game he played in. This meant we went from 2nd to bottom with -2 points!

West Ham knew they were breaking the rules (by playing an ineligible player) and yet their punishment was minimal.

Once again, the Premier League have set a dangerous precedent that they will come to regret.

[Nibor]

As far as I'm aware the issue with the contract didn't make Tevez ineligible just meant that his club had broken a rule.

[Loderingo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/6716185.stm

Well if Sheffield United get there own way, I can't see the premier league relegating West Ham, especially not this long after the season has ended, that would just be crewl.

So maybe the only way would be a 21 team premership...surely meaning a 23 team Championship, and so one less game being included in the season ticket.

Would the club deal with this by refunding money, or would they just leave it as a higher cost per match? Or am I wasting my time worrying about something that will never happen?

No chance. Can you imagine the protests from Man U, Chelsea etc at having to play 2 more league games

[Guest DanC]

They are delusional if they think for one moment it could happen, is this just their lawyers chatting bolox as they usually do becuase the amount of money involved?

pathetic, just live with the consequences of playing CRAP all season, you don't deserve another pop in teh Prem you stupid imbeciles!

To be fair to Sheff Utd if we were in there position we would do exactly the same.

[Steve Watts]

They won't in anyway reinstate Sheffield United

They might promote West Brom though.

Why would they promote WBA? If the decision was reversed it would likely be a retrospective points deduction, which would take effect last season and therefore relegate West Ham and save Sheff Utd.

I don't think any change will happen at all, but if it were to then this is the most likely i should have thought. Of course, West Ham would then appeal and the whole thing would likely see the start of the season delayed. Which backs up the claims that it won't happen.

Back to the original question though.... IF Sheff Utd were saved and we had a 23 team league then some sort of refund will be offered i'd have thought. The suggestion of free entry to a cup game would be a non starter due to the 45% cut to go to the away side (if indeed we even get a home cup tie next season)

[Guest DanC]

Back to the original question though.... IF Sheff Utd were saved and we had a 23 team league then some sort of refund will be offered i'd have thought. The suggestion of free entry to a cup game would be a non starter due to the 45% cut to go to the away side (if indeed we even get a home cup tie next season)

Would they just not reinstate Southend to the Championship, Chesterfield League One, Boston League Two, Altrincham Conference etc etc.

[Steve Watts]

Would they just not reinstate Southend to the Championship, Chesterfield League One, Boston League Two, Altrincham Conference etc etc.

I think it would be easier to have a 23 team championship with a four down and three up to the prem next year... either way, i don't think it'll happen anyway.... kinda highlighted by the fact that the tribunal has been set for after the release of the fixture list...

[RedTop]

I don't understand this argument that they got off lightly.

Let's be clear, the problem here was never that they fielded a player whose registration was invalid. Tevez's registration was _never_ in question.

The problem was that the contract violated league rules in that a third party had an interest in the player. Now, that rule is designed to do two things. First, prevent clubs from fielding players they can't afford. Second, prevent players from being influenced. Although they broke the rules, noone's actually said that they couldn't afford the players or the players were influenced.

Now of course they should be, and were, punished. But this suggestion from Sheff Utd and Wigan that it somehow affected a 38 game season or that West Ham should have been deducted points is ludicrous.

There's never been a mandatory points deduction for this sort of rule breach, in fact I don't think there ever has been a case like this. They have no grounds whatsoever to be telling the FA how it's punishments should be structured.

Fact is, Sheff Utd went down because they were one of the three worst sides over 38 games and no amount of bleating in the papers and handing over cash to solicitors is going to change that.

But the point is, Nibor, that West Ham brazenly lied through their teeth in order to field Tevez. If they had told the truth about his contract, they would never have been allowed to play him. And without Tevez, who can seriously doubt that West Ham would have finished in a bottom three position.

The result of the 'punishment' is to send the message that liars and cheats prosper. West Ham should have been relegated. They deserved it for treating the league, and their fellow 19 Premiership teams, with contempt. If I were a Sheffield Utd fan I would feel very aggrieved and they have a right to be. It's all very well saying that you should get relegated if you finish in the bottom three, but if one team manages to scrape clear by breaking the rules then that doesn't mke sense. Shef Utd would almost certainly not have been one of the three worst-performing teams if West Ham had told the truth and not been allowed to field Tevez.

I don't think for a minute that Sheffield Utd will win their appeal and be allowed to stay in the Premiership, but that does not make it right. We will be playing Shef Utd next season, while West Ham will have retained their status by cheating. And it stinks.

[Nibor]

But the point is, Nibor, that West Ham brazenly lied through their teeth in order to field Tevez. If they had told the truth about his contract, they would never have been allowed to play him. And without Tevez, who can seriously doubt that West Ham would have finished in a bottom three position.

They lied to get his signing complete by an arbitrary deadline because they couldn't conclude negotiations any other way. He wasn't ineligible at any point and what they did although it was dishonest and broke a regulation did not actually constitute what the regulation was designed to prevent - namely buying a player you can't afford and are subsidised for (which is dodhy ground anyway considering loans) or buying a player who is subject to influence from people who may be involved in matchfixing or other shady dealings.

There are quite a few people who can and did argue during the season that signing the Argentinians and resulting dressing room upset and poor performance cost Pardew his job.

The result of the 'punishment' is to send the message that liars and cheats prosper. West Ham should have been relegated. They deserved it for treating the league, and their fellow 19 Premiership teams, with contempt.

I think a £5-6m fine is sufficient for what is essentially a minor violation of a regulation.

If I were a Sheffield Utd fan I would feel very aggrieved and they have a right to be.

So would I, but by their shit performance and nothing else.

It's all very well saying that you should get relegated if you finish in the bottom three, but if one team manages to scrape clear by breaking the rules then that doesn't mke sense. Shef Utd would almost certainly not have been one of the three worst-performing teams if West Ham had told the truth and not been allowed to field Tevez.

I disagree entirely, I think West Ham would have been better off without either signing and Tevez certainly didn't make the difference in the small number of games he played. Sheff Utd were one of the worst three sides and would have been if neither Argentinian was playing for West Ham.

I don't think for a minute that Sheffield Utd will win their appeal and be allowed to stay in the Premiership, but that does not make it right. We will be playing Shef Utd next season, while West Ham will have retained their status by cheating. And it stinks.

Setting the punishment for breaking a regulation (which is NOT fielding an ineligible player) is the job of the FA. I can't for the life of me understand how these clubs are getting so much support for essentially making an excuse for playing badly all season which amounts to telling the FA what an appropriate punishment is. You're also ignoring the fact that the FA had all of the true information in January and still cleared the player.

[wayne allisons tongues]

If west ham were mid table they would of been docked part. The tribunial admitted that in west hams situationa points deduction was not fair on the fans or the current board, so they were going to be fined heavily instead. I think this is what is annoying all the other clubs around west ham in the league.

[Guest DanC]

What really gets to me is AFC Wimbledon were docked 18 points and thrown out of the Fa Trophy for failing to get international clearance for Jermaine Darlington which was down to a administration error. However this was later reduced to 3 points.

So how is it fair that West Ham clearly broke the rules and were fined 5 million whilst now they are still in the Premier league they stand to make 60 million next season from being there.

Just seems unfair that AFC Wimbledon were punished harshly over nothing really and West Ham were let off lightly.