Do Sheffield United deserve it

[dazza1011]

As the title suggests do you think Sheffield United deserve the money paid to them by West Ham.

simple yes or No answer

[Marc]

i think no. They didn't get relegated because Tevez was playing for West Ham, they got relegated because they were and are a rubbish team who don't deserve to be in the top tier of football. West Ham just had a bad year, overall they are actually quite a good team.

I see Leeds are thinking of sueing WH now as well, because they didnt get some money from 'stay in the premier league' transfer clauses for players who went to Sheff Utd

Actually i think i might sue West Ham as well. I do remember feeling a bit sad for a minute when Man Utd lost to West Ham in that end of season match. Obviously the title celebrations after picked me up, but i still think i would have been 1% happier that day if Tevez wasn't playing. I wonder how much i can get..

[daftmole]

No!! I am a WHU fan so I'm bound to be biased but here are my thoughts:

Tevez may have scored the goals but he alone did not keep us up, the fact that the new signings at the time like Upson and Lucas Neil settled in and we could defend again was just as much factor in keeping us up. One player cannot carry a whole team and to say that Tevez was the reason we stayed up is just derespectful to the other players and clearly came from somebody who has never played or understands football.

We broke some rules about ownership and got fined, should have stopped there.

I now hear Leeds are going to sue us because Sheffield United bought some players from them who had details in their contracts about aditional payments to Leeds if they remained in the Premier League.........and off course Neil Warnock is personally sueing us aswell.........it will never stop!

[blackrod]

Yes and no really. The PL completely bottled it in the first instance and WHU got away with it. They should have been docked points in the first place and gone down because of it. Now, two years later and this debacle continues because of the way the PL handled it. I can understand why Sheff Utd are aggrieved and I think some form of compensation is probably fair but it should never have got to this stage in the first place.
Leeds & Warnock are clutching at straws, give over!

[mooperman]

YES. Like it or not Tevez DID score those goals when he shouldnt have even been on the pitch at all. As a result Sheff Utd who had done there bit with legal players went down because of goals scored by an illeagal player, regardless of how you call it a team victory, would West Ham have had all those wins without him - no chance.

Besides, what we think doesnt matter, what does matter is that West Ham saw fit to give Sheff Utd £15mil or so... what does that tell you....

[dazza1011]

Originally Posted by daftmole

No!! I am a WHU fan so I'm bound to be biased but here are my thoughts:

Tevez may have scored the goals but he alone did not keep us up, the fact that the new signings at the time like Upson and Lucas Neil settled in and we could defend again was just as much factor in keeping us up. One player cannot carry a whole team and to say that Tevez was the reason we stayed up is just derespectful to the other players and clearly came from somebody who has never played or understands football.

We broke some rules about ownership and got fined, should have stopped there.

I now hear Leeds are going to sue us because Sheffield United bought some players from them who had details in their contracts about aditional payments to Leeds if they remained in the Premier League.........and off course Neil Warnock is personally sueing us aswell.........it will never stop!

i didnt know you were a hammers fan ( dazza deletes moley off friends list)

bottom line if you had been given the appropriate punishment for fielding an illegible player ( i.e points deduction ) then none of this would have happened

[Sicknote10]

Yes, West Ham cheated and should have been relegated instead

[BlackCountryBob]

Not really, as I remember it they had to get a draw at home to Wigan on the final day which would have sent Wigan down regardless and they failed so tough.

And the whole ambulance chasing atmosphere which has followed is becoming ridiculous, the players are suing, the manager is suing and now I read Leeds will sue because they missed out on bonus when United went down. It is daft, how about if every club who have been relegated since then sues West Ham because they could have stood a better chance if Seff Utd were still in the league.

Sheffield United had their fate in their hands and they blew it, and inspired run from Tevez closed the gap and brought them back into it but in the end the players, coaches and manager of Sheffield United failed. They failed to get 40 points in the season, they failed to build a sufficient lead over West Ha when Tevez looked like Diego Forlan mk2 and they failed to do what was required when their destiny was in their own hands so all this blaming West ham is fruitless and pathetic; you will note that Charlton and Watford are not also suing.

[blackrod]

BlackCountryBob, I think you are correct in that Tevez didn't single handedly keep WHU up, it was a team effort. However, he should never have been on the pitch in the first place and no amount of teeth grinding by West Ham fans will remove the fact. They broke the rules and should have paid the price with a points deduction, simple. They didn't and the sporting arbitration panel concluded that Sheff Utd had a case for compensation. The PL executives have made themselves a mockery, well done!

[gosties]

I am not sure about the payment as the merits of whether it's deserved almost wholly depend on who you support. In my opinion a player that is ineligible to play should not have played in any games what so ever. Both Mascherano and Tevez were owned by that Kia Joorbian fellow.

Footballer's are supposed to belong to the club they play for under the registration rules supposedly. That also includes player loan's between respective clubs.

I don't also really see much difference in what Man Utd are doing with Tevez with their two-year loan and potential purchase clause. They lease the player from the same Kia fellow but through one of his companies supposedly.

I don't believe that Tevez or Mascherano should have played for West Ham. My opinion only, but if you are willing to pay between 15-35 million depending on reports surely their is something you are hiding.

If the player is ineligible, the FA ought to have stripped West Ham of all the points accrued during his playing period even if it resulted in West Ham being relegated. This whole issue is because the FA and Premier League did not have the nerve to sort it out as and when it happened.

It's a simple issue Tevez is either eligible to play or not eligible.

I have no particular feeling for either of the clubs involved in this 2 year debacle.

[kopchoir]

I vote no only on the basis of the fact the season is 38 games long over them 38 games if your good enough over 38 games to win the league then so be same goes im afriad my old mucker, if your not good enough over 38 games then you go down so i say no but as someone has also said i dont see the difference in man utd doing it either it stinks of big team bias and how much cash man utd brings into the league

[dazza1011]

Originally Posted by kopchoir

I vote no only on the basis of the fact the season is 38 games long over them 38 games if your good enough over 38 games to win the league then so be same goes im afriad my old mucker, if your not good enough over 38 games then you go down so i say no but as someone has also said i dont see the difference in man utd doing it either it stinks of big team bias and how much cash man utd brings into the league

thats another off the friends list

[mooperman]

Originally Posted by kopchoir

I vote no only on the basis of the fact the season is 38 games long over them 38 games if your good enough over 38 games to win the league then so be same goes im afriad my old mucker, if your not good enough over 38 games then you go down so i say no but as someone has also said i dont see the difference in man utd doing it either it stinks of big team bias and how much cash man utd brings into the league

whilst i agree over the 38 games comment its not quite as black and white as that... if you take away Tevez's goals that season and the points that the goals converted into wins then it wouldve been West Ham who were not good enough over the 38 games would it not?

[ed_mcl]

Originally Posted by kopchoir

I vote no only on the basis of the fact the season is 38 games long over them 38 games if your good enough over 38 games to win the league then so be same goes im afriad my old mucker, if your not good enough over 38 games then you go down so i say no but as someone has also said i dont see the difference in man utd doing it either it stinks of big team bias and how much cash man utd brings into the league

Would West Ham have been good enough over 38 games if they hadn't deliberately lied and deceived the Premier League to be able to keep a player that scored vital goals for them?

West Ham would've had draws instead of wins against Man Utd, Bolton and Blackburn had it not been for Tevez's goals, so there's six points they've acquired, which they shouldn't have. That would have left them with 35 points and in 18th position, thus relegated.

[BlackCountryBob]

For gods sake, the vultures are circling.

Fulham Seek Compensation Over Carlos Tevez Affair - Goal.com