You can't uneat the apple

Today we learned that Sheffield United had won their tribunal case against West Ham United. Now the Hammers face a damages claim of some £30million (give or take the odd thousand) as a result of a verdict that has stunned not only those followers of West Ham, but the entire footballing fraternity.

The panel's verdict, which was released this morning, read as follows:

"On the totality of the evidence, we have no doubt that West Ham would have secured at least three fewer points over the 2006/07 season if Carlos Tevez had not been playing for the club.

"Indeed, we think it more likely than not on the evidence that we heard, that even over the final two games of the season, West Ham would have achieved at least three points less overall without Mr Tevez. He played outstandingly well in the two wins that West Ham secured in those last two games."


Let's look at this statement a little more closely. The three-man arbitration panel (headed by Lord Griffiths, a gentleman with plenty of experience working in cricket but absolutely none in football) decided that based 'on the totality of the evidence' they had 'no doubt that West Ham would have secured at least three fewer points' during the season in question.

Now unless you're some kind of soothsayer (or have just dropped by on a visit from a parallel universe) that's a statement that simply cannot be supported due to the number of factors involved in playing 38 football matches. How did they reach the opinion that 'at least three points' less would have been won? Are they basing this on one game (the 1-0 win at Old Trafford on the final day of the season, possibly)? Or the entire season (which makes even less sense)? Why three points - not two, or four, or five? They have 'no doubt'? It's a ridiculous comment that simply cannot be substantiated. It would appear that three points is cited for no other reason than that is exactly the number of points it would have taken for West Ham to finish below Sheffield.

Then there's the second part of the statement which pays reference to the final two games of the season. The waters are muddied further here as the Premier League had, under much public scrutiny, sanctioned Tevez's inclusion in West Ham United's final three games of the season - the 3-0 win at Wigan, the 3-1 win against Bolton and, of course, the 1-0 win at Old Trafford. So if anyone is at fault here, it is surely the Premier League who gave the Hammers clearance to play Tevez - not West Ham United who complied fully with the League's demands at that point in time.

But what about Sheffield United's part in all of this? What if they hadn't put out a reserve team for the away fixture at Manchester United because then-manager Neil Warnock was convinced they'd lose anyway? What if the Blades hadn't taken their foot off the gas after opening up a 10 point lead over West Ham in March of that season? Carlos Tevez certainly wasn't culpable for their late-season run of results which went as follows:

Liverpool (a) 0-4; Everton (h) 1-1; Chelsea (a) 0-3; Bolton (a) 0-1; Newcastle (h) 1-2; West Ham United (h) 3-0; Man Utd (a) 0-2; Charlton (a) 1-1; Watford (h) 1-0; Aston Villa (a) 0-3; Wigan (h) 1-2 - a total of eight points from their last 11 games. In the same period, West Ham earned 21 points.

One of the two wins there? 3-0 against a West Ham United team featuring - you guessed it - Carlos Tevez. It's strange how this is never mentioned by Sheffield United - nor the 19 games Tevez went without scoring prior to his debut goal six months and 19 games after he joined the Hammers!

We could talk about Liverpool's decision to field a reserve team at Fulham in order to rest key players ahead of a forthcoming Champions League fixture - a game won by the home side which steered them clear of relegation. I could go on all night - but I'm sure there's no need, the point is clear. There are thousands of factors that led to Sheffield United's relegation - Carlos Tevez's involvement was just one of them.

As a result of this ridiculous ruling West Ham United now face a claim for damages of some £30million (which is almost as ludicrous as the panel's decision given that it includes £4million relating to the sale of Phil Jagielka to Everton which the Blades claim was the effect relegation had on his supposed £8million asking price). It's unlikely that Sheffield United will be awarded anything near that figure but the damage has been done, the seed has been sown.

Whilst the panel's verdict was undeniably a bad result for the Hammers, it's potentially disastrous for English football as a whole. The ruling sets an extremely dangerous precedent which now gives clubs carte blanche to take virtually any decision they disagree with to tribunal anytime vast sums of money are involved. The result of a football match is now no longer certain once the final whistle has been blown - and that's the biggest travesty of justice, and one which holds potentially massive ramifications for the English game.

Of course, West Ham have to hold their hands up - after all, had the full contract details of Tevez (and Mascherano) been revealed at the start of the season all of this could have been avoided. But the club have already been punished for flouting the rules in the shape of a world record fine of £5.5million - and the directive that was 'broken', and which made up the majority of the fine never really was as MSI's purported third-party influence - ie the option to move the duo on from West Ham United at any point for a nominal sum - was never invoked.

This, of course, isn't the point; the club, whether deliberately or by genuine mistake flouted the rules, and some kind of sanction was necessary. However the fact remains that Carlos Tevez was always properly registered to play for West Ham United however much the media claim otherwise (and they are still mistakenly doing so today). As for a points reduction, there is simply no precedent for such a transgression being punishable in this way, nor rule that states it should be so - however much Sheffield United and their hoodwinked supporters argue otherwise.

No doubt there is much more to this affair that meets the eye, and most of it will probably never make its way into the public domain. However the fallout is significant; the image of the two Uniteds, both previously proud clubs with good standing in the football community is now indelibly stained, and the entire grubby affair leaves nobody smelling of roses.

For West Ham United's part the one constant throughout all of this is the club's current CEO, Scott Duxbury, and it is no surprise that his role in the affair - not to mention his future at the club - is being questioned by supporters tonight.

* Like to share your thoughts on this article? Please visit the KUMB Forum to leave a comment.

* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the highlighted author/s and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy or position of KUMB.com.


More Opinion