Tuesday, August 21, 2007

West Ham Can't Refuse Arbitration

The FA have told West Ham that they must face arbitration with Sheffield United. Apparently arbitration is immediately triggered when one club calls for arbitration against another. So we now face the ridiculous prospect of a repeat of the disciplinary committee of last season because of the Blade's misunderstanding of the whole issue.

Sheffield United thought they had new evidence only to be told that their evidence was available to the original disciplinary committee. Instead of backing down gracefully they are insisting on this mockery. So we go through the whole farce again - talk about double jeopardy.

The FA have given West Ham 14 days to nominate a delegate for the three member panel.

2 Comments:

At 3:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not just double jeopardy, but triple or quadruple! How many times must West Ham suffer proceedings? The club has already paid a fine (the largest ever levied) for concealing the original third party arrangements in the contracts of Tevez and Mascherano. They admitted guilt, and adhered to advice of the EPL about subsequently playing Tevez. They've been throuh a furhter arbitration panel, and a high-court challenge already, and matters should have been finally settled by now. The difference in Sheffield United's current challenge is that they are contending that West Ham are somehow the cause of their being relegated. This is unprovable in any court. It is not even clear that 'but for' Tevez' goal against Manchester United (to use legal speak), Sheffield United would not have been relegated. Had Tevez not scored, another Hammer may well have. When will Sheffield United take responsibility for their own performance: they lost their last match. they were relegated. finito.

 
At 9:46 AM, Blogger RapidHammer said...

In a legal sense it would not be "double jeopardy" because paying a fine doesn't deliberate from being liable for damages of an aggrieved party. Though I think that Sheffield doesn't have a case because the won't be able to give proof that the damages of their relegation have been caused by the "third party agreement" concerning Tévez and Mascherano: 1) West Ham haven't played "ineligible players"; it was never formally forbidden by the FAPL to play them; 2) Sheffield were relegated because of their insufficient performances on the pitch not because of a "third party agreement" which b.t.w. never has been executed.
What I think is that Sheffield are trying to get some compensation from West Ham or the Premier League in an out of court settlement and want to impose pressure upon West Ham through the arbitration proceedings.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Add to Google Add to My Yahoo!