WHU fined ?5.5M

[Dickovforengland!]

Yes, and they were also aware that liverpool would be his third club this season, didn't bother them too much though did it?

In that case it makes sense though, seeing as he played about 6 minutes for WHU.

 

[Lako42]

does this dispell the myth that WHU get preferential treatment from the powers that be?

 

[Hazzman]

Before anybody mentions Mascherano at Liverpool, the Reds had to pay 8 million to free him from his third party contract, he's now property of Liverpool FC.

West Ham didn't hold Mascherano's regisation (sp?), that's why they got away with 3 clubs rule.

 

[fox58]

I’ll bet their Icelandic owner is happy he bought the club :icon_lol:

 

[Nottingham Fox]

I’ll bet their Icelandic owner is happy he bought the club :icon_lol:

I dont think it's up to him to foot the bill. He wasn't in place when they did the dodgy deal.

 

[Darth Vodka]

I dont think it's up to him to foot the bill. He wasn't in place when they did the dodgy deal.

tough

 

[Jeff]

I dont think it's up to him to foot the bill. He wasn't in place when they did the dodgy deal.

But he should still have been aware of it when he bought the club, that's what due diligence is for.

 

[From Gradel to Grave]

Before anybody mentions Mascherano at Liverpool, the Reds had to pay 8 million to free him from his third party contract, he's now property of Liverpool FC.

West Ham didn't hold Mascherano's regisation (sp?), that's why they got away with 3 clubs rule.

Not disputing that but I thought they spent a lot less than that. Would be interested to know your source.

 

[Matt_B]

Before anybody mentions Mascherano at Liverpool, the Reds had to pay 8 million to free him from his third party contract, he's now property of Liverpool FC.

West Ham didn't hold Mascherano's regisation (sp?), that's why they got away with 3 clubs rule.

Convenient

 

[Dickovforengland!]

Convenient

I think common sense was used here. Do you really think Mascherano shouldn't have been allowed to move given that he played less than ten minutes of football for West Ham?

 

[Nottingham Fox]

But he should still have been aware of it when he bought the club, that's what due diligence is for.

But there was no figure to look at ??

From what I heard on the news the other day, Terence Brown and Paul Aldridge will be responsible for any fine, and should it be be put against West Ham Utd, Mr Magnusson will take legal action against them.

 

[newtonfox]

But he should still have been aware of it when he bought the club, that's what due diligence is for.

he mite of had shit account's and lawyers that missed it but then again i bet he did know and hoped they would get away with it

 

[fcukcov]

But he should still have been aware of it when he bought the club, that's what due diligence is for.

maybe if he had spent as long as milan did doing dd then he would have known. egert positivley rushed through it compared to our good chairman.

 

[Real Sharapova]

I dont think it's up to him to foot the bill. He wasn't in place when they did the dodgy deal.

Sorry to contadict, NF, but it is WHU that have been fined - who owns it doesn't matter. Excellent news for us, £5.5m less for them to spend in the Champo next season.

 

[newtonfox]

Sorry to contadict, NF, but it is WHU that have been fined - who owns it doesn't matter. Excellent news for us, £5.5m less for them to spend in the Champo next season.

we mite even get the odd player from them too :icon_wink

 

[Matt_B]

I think common sense was used here. Do you really think Mascherano shouldn't have been allowed to move given that he played less than ten minutes of football for West Ham?

Yes of course he shouldn't. Rules are fecking rules, and by bending them for one club it yet again perpetuates the thinking that the top clubs are given preferential treatment.

 

[Jeff]

From the Times:


West Ham have said that they will appeal if found guilty and are deducted points, claiming that the rules had been broken by the previous owners. West Ham were taken over by a consortium from Iceland in November and they have considered taking action against Terence Brown, the former chairman.

The new owners claim that they were told that the previous regime handed over the documents when the players arrived from South America. However, the due diligence process undertaken by the Icelandic owners would have been expected to have shown the problems.

Two directors have remained on the board after the takeover. One, Scott Duxbury, was the legal director when the Argentina players were signed and is now deputy chief executive. The Premier League is to focus its attention on Duxbury and Paul Aldridge, the former managing director, over the signings.

In any appeal, Eggert Magnússon, the West Ham chairman, would also highlight a previous case in 1994, when Tottenham Hotspur were deducted points for making illegal payments to their players. Sir Alan Sugar, the chairman at White Hart Lane at the time, successfully challenged the FA ruling by stating that the board could not be held responsible for the actions of a previous administration.

The Premier League has refused to discount the possibility that the penalty could be carried over to another season.

 

[newtonfox]

Yes of course he shouldn't. Rules are fecking rules, and by bending them for one club it yet again perpetuates the thinking that the top clubs are given preferential treatment.

dont it just

 

[Dickovforengland!]

Yes of course he shouldn't. Rules are fecking rules, and by bending them for one club it yet again perpetuates the thinking that the top clubs are given preferential treatment.

The rules are if a player wants to move 3 times it goes to an appeal. It did the panel used common sense and it was allowed.

West Ham haven't been a top club for since before Tony Cottee played for them!

 

[fcukcov]

tevez could also have his contract terminated if the prem league decide to do it.