The Appeal Panel Findings

The first part of the appeal looked at the original disciplinary board's decision to fine West Ham and not deduct points. The appeal panel did say that,

"... this Tribunal would in all probability have reached a different conclusion and deducted points from WHU."

However to overturn the original decision it would have to find the decision 'unreasonable'. The panel did not find the decision 'unresonable' and came to the conclusion that the original decision "fell within the parameters of the options open to the Commission."

In the second part of the appeal Sheffield Utd and Fulham contended that Carlos Tevez should have been deregistered by the league after the original disciplinary hearing. In ruling against this the appeal noted that in fact there was never any third party influence on West Ham,

"There (was) no attempt by the third parties to influence WHU's policies or performance. This is still so at present."

The panel also acknowledged that West Ham had written to the lawyers of MSI terminating the offending private agreement between the two parties. However the appeal board noted that,

"WHU also sent to the FAPL a letter from the manager of the club, Alan Curbishley, ... which made it clear that Tevez had declined to countersign the termination letter, and was not even prepared to do so in order to acknowledge that he had received it."

In conclusion the appeal board decided that the FAPL had not acted 'unreasonably' in not terminating Tevez's registration.


At the time of writing Sheffield Utd are saying that they are speaking to their 'professional advisers'. Let's hope they now see sense.