Ally Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I'm going to sue West Ham for my sandwich not having any salad cream on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Ken Bates is a fucking bellend like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 interesting from warnock about him and the players being able to sue themselves...i.e. a breach of the rules (proven) cost him his PL manager status and the 1st team squad their status as players the players that got relegated will have taken a forced pay cut no doubt fuck west ham...they deserved more at the time, hope they get reamed now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Could this financially fuck West Ham? What with all the litigations that are being rumoured, and the Icelandic banks going under then they must be worried about what this could do to them. Worst case scenario (worst for them anyway, quite good for us)? Yes. They've already got some pretty nasty debts from throwing money around on wages to get them out of the shit when they nearly went down. If all of the claims go to court & West Ham end up losing or settling out of court they could be looking at an additional £10-20million debt, on top of what they've agreed to pay Sheffield United already. With their wage bill already at a massive level they've got to lose their top wage earners to just break even again, with a potential £25million to pay out to Sheffield United over the next few seasons + whatever comes from these court cases they may be looking at having to find upwards of £50million to cover wage debts & whatever they're sued for. Their owners have no more money to throw at the club and thanks to the credit crunch there's not much likelihood of a new buyer appearing for them. Oh, and the Tevez affair still isn't over. West Ham may simply reach the point at which administration really is the best option for the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. fail Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. fail Wtf are you on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. fail Wtf are you on. doesn't work, was a one for one relegation - if it hadn't been SU went down it would have been WH there are 20 teams in the league, the other 18 can't reasonably get involved as it's a direct vs an indirect effect...they'd have had to play a team regardless who it was, the chelp is between 2 teams....anyone else would be laughed out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. fail Wtf are you on. doesn't work, was a one for one relegation - if it hadn't been SU went down it would have been WH there are 20 teams in the league, the other 18 can't reasonably get involved as it's a direct vs an indirect effect...they'd have had to play a team regardless who it was, the chelp is between 2 teams....anyone else would be laughed out No they won't, the law has recognised that West Ham would have been relegated without Tevez. Any effect West Ham had on any party could not have happened in their eyes. You could argue Sheff utd would be easier to play than West Ham. I bet you that someone will try this on or a similar case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. fail Wtf are you on. doesn't work, was a one for one relegation - if it hadn't been SU went down it would have been WH there are 20 teams in the league, the other 18 can't reasonably get involved as it's a direct vs an indirect effect...they'd have had to play a team regardless who it was, the chelp is between 2 teams....anyone else would be laughed out No they won't, the law has recognised that West Ham would have been relegated without Tevez. Any effect West Ham had on any party could not have happened in their eyes. You could argue Sheff utd would be easier to play than West Ham. I bet you that someone will try this on or a similar case. sorry btw, sounded aggressive perhaps wasn't meant to be see what you're saying that it COULD be tried but it won't be to me you can only prove CT's goals relegated SU as it was direct...any goals he scored against other teams are meaningless and didn't he leave for manu the next season anyway? we live in a sue culture, granted, but what i'm saying is your suggestion would never see the light of day because then you'd be down to legal action over dodgy red cards at both ends of the table etc... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. fail Wtf are you on. doesn't work, was a one for one relegation - if it hadn't been SU went down it would have been WH there are 20 teams in the league, the other 18 can't reasonably get involved as it's a direct vs an indirect effect...they'd have had to play a team regardless who it was, the chelp is between 2 teams....anyone else would be laughed out No they won't, the law has recognised that West Ham would have been relegated without Tevez. Any effect West Ham had on any party could not have happened in their eyes. You could argue Sheff utd would be easier to play than West Ham. I bet you that someone will try this on or a similar case. sorry btw, sounded aggressive perhaps wasn't meant to be see what you're saying that it COULD be tried but it won't be to me you can only prove CT's goals relegated SU as it was direct...any goals he scored against other teams are meaningless and didn't he leave for manu the next season anyway? we live in a sue culture, granted, but what i'm saying is your suggestion would never see the light of day because then you'd be down to legal action over dodgy red cards at both ends of the table etc... Exactly, I think the fact that this has happened now will change the culture of football. How is West Ham playing Carlos Tevez and staying up any different to a ref giving a penwhen they shouldn't have and that meaning you lose a game and go down. I think this could royally fuck football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. fail Wtf are you on. doesn't work, was a one for one relegation - if it hadn't been SU went down it would have been WH there are 20 teams in the league, the other 18 can't reasonably get involved as it's a direct vs an indirect effect...they'd have had to play a team regardless who it was, the chelp is between 2 teams....anyone else would be laughed out No they won't, the law has recognised that West Ham would have been relegated without Tevez. Any effect West Ham had on any party could not have happened in their eyes. You could argue Sheff utd would be easier to play than West Ham. I bet you that someone will try this on or a similar case. sorry btw, sounded aggressive perhaps wasn't meant to be see what you're saying that it COULD be tried but it won't be to me you can only prove CT's goals relegated SU as it was direct...any goals he scored against other teams are meaningless and didn't he leave for manu the next season anyway? we live in a sue culture, granted, but what i'm saying is your suggestion would never see the light of day because then you'd be down to legal action over dodgy red cards at both ends of the table etc... Exactly, I think the fact that this has happened now will change the culture of football. How is West Ham playing Carlos Tevez and staying up any different to a ref giving a penwhen they shouldn't have and that meaning you lose a game and go down. I think this could royally fuck football. ah, i see personally i reckon they'll close shop with people up top realising what you outline can't be allowed to happen...sweetener to the players and staff involved at SU and it all goes away guaranteed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 All Northern fans who go to away games should sue West Ham for the difference in ticket cost for the games, and the difference in travelling cost between their club and sheffield, and their club and London. * *by the way I am only joking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Potentially anyone could sue west ham for any points west ham got against them last season as they wouldn't have been in the premier league and therefore you may have lost revenue for places, relegation. Teams that went down last season could sue. You could pretty much sue them for anything they have done in the premier league that has cost you money last season. They should have just relegated them as now they've opened a can of worms that could be never ending. fail Wtf are you on. doesn't work, was a one for one relegation - if it hadn't been SU went down it would have been WH there are 20 teams in the league, the other 18 can't reasonably get involved as it's a direct vs an indirect effect...they'd have had to play a team regardless who it was, the chelp is between 2 teams....anyone else would be laughed out No they won't, the law has recognised that West Ham would have been relegated without Tevez. Any effect West Ham had on any party could not have happened in their eyes. You could argue Sheff utd would be easier to play than West Ham. I bet you that someone will try this on or a similar case. sorry btw, sounded aggressive perhaps wasn't meant to be see what you're saying that it COULD be tried but it won't be to me you can only prove CT's goals relegated SU as it was direct...any goals he scored against other teams are meaningless and didn't he leave for manu the next season anyway? we live in a sue culture, granted, but what i'm saying is your suggestion would never see the light of day because then you'd be down to legal action over dodgy red cards at both ends of the table etc... Exactly, I think the fact that this has happened now will change the culture of football. How is West Ham playing Carlos Tevez and staying up any different to a ref giving a penwhen they shouldn't have and that meaning you lose a game and go down. I think this could royally fuck football. there's a massive difference. it has been proved that tevez played when he shouldn't, which almost certainly relegated sheffield united. reff mistakes in games while unfortuate are inevitable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 In the latest twist to the Carlos Tevez saga, Fulham have submitted a claim for £700,000 in compensation from West Ham over lost prize money because they finished below the Hammers in the Premier League in the season Tevez played at Upton Park. (The Independent) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby_solano Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 i like tevez, brilliant player, but the f.a/premier league should probably introduce some regulation outlawing 3rd party ownership of players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 This will really just escalate. Ken Bates has already stuck his oar in, and for once I'd say rightly so, his claims are quite justified. The problem now falls with where you draw the line. Its been joked that can the burger seller sure over lost revenue because of smaller crowds in the season after the Premier League relegation. Personally, I'd say some claims have more merit than others. Bates for example does, the fact Leeds are in a poor financial state bares little relevance, but I think they will still claim the bonuses, and really should be awarded them. Claims from players over lost wages is slightly less valid, as West Ham could quite easily argue that these players may have been sold to a lower division and therefore losing wages. All in all it could really mess up West Ham financially and could lead to them having to sell players, as its no certainty that they will be allowed to draw a line under the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 In the latest twist to the Carlos Tevez saga, Fulham have submitted a claim for £700,000 in compensation from West Ham over lost prize money because they finished below the Hammers in the Premier League in the season Tevez played at Upton Park. (The Independent) That doesn't make any sense. How could they have finished below West Ham twice in one season? Especially seeings as finishing below them would have meant they went down. Bizarre. What do you mean twice? I believe West Ham went from third bottom to 5th (or even 6th bottom - did Wigan come behind too?). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 In the latest twist to the Carlos Tevez saga, Fulham have submitted a claim for £700,000 in compensation from West Ham over lost prize money because they finished below the Hammers in the Premier League in the season Tevez played at Upton Park. (The Independent) That doesn't make any sense. How could they have finished below West Ham twice in one season? Especially seeings as finishing below them would have meant they went down. Bizarre. It makes perfect sense, West Ham finished 15th Fulham finished 16th. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yeah, just deleted my post, must have misread part of it last time. I also thought WHam ended 17th. Stand corrected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now