Do you remember the good old days of playground logic. You know the sort of thing that went: Colchester beat Leeds in the F.A Cup and Leeds beat Real Madrid therefore Colchester are better than Real Madrid. That's what the decision by the Court For Arbitration in Sport to back Sheffield United's claim for damages in relation to the whole saga surrounding the signing by West Ham of Carlos Tevez looks like.
Sheffield United have claimed all along that if Carlos Tevez had not being playing then West Ham and not Sheffield United would have been relegated - how does that work, somebody please explain that one to me. Firstly, football is an art not a science, because one player doesn't score a goal that doesn't automatically preclude any other player from scoring. Secondly, if West Ham hadn't signed Tevez they would probably have signed another player to stand-in for Teddy Sheringham. Is it Carlos Tevez fault that Sheffield United were so abject in their post Christmas 2006 performances?
The Blades' appeal against the Premier League's refusal to deduct points was rejected by an FA arbitration panel chaired by Sir Philip Oton, but that panel concluded that it would have reached a different decision to the Premier League's, had it been in judgment – a verdict which gave the Blades hope. The club turned its attentions to a compensation fight through a second FA tribunal, chaired by Lord Griffiths, which has now concluded it had "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."
Well we might have won at least three points more in the games he played in as well!
Based on this ruling in their favour, Sheffield United are now pursuing a claim for some £30 million of your English pounds - why? Sheffield United players, seeing a potentially huge cash cow wave it's wonga laden udders in their direction, are considering compensation for loss of earnings. What the f**k is that all about, you play crap and then sue another team because they weren't as crap as you!
Of course Sheffield United and their ex-manager Neil Warnock have welcomed the decision with all the enthusiasm of a paedophile who has just discovered his newest safe house overlooks the local junior school playground. Football is not inclusive, this ruling has been thought up along similar lines to the age old question, "If your Granny falls down the stairs whilst living alone, does she make any noise when she hits the bottom stair?" It's ludicrous.
Of course those who support this verdict cannot answer the very first question that was posed by a caller on Talksport when the original decision by Sheffield United to pursue this line of vindictiveness was announced. "If they take away the points awarded for the games when he scored, can we have points for the games where he played and didn't score," because if you follow the logic that his influence is only worth 3 points over 38 games then surely his lack of influence when not playing must be worth more.
Don't even try and work that one out!
5 comments:
For me, there are just two basic questions. Firstly, did West Ham break any transfer rules? Secondly, if they did, what would constitute an appropriate punishment?
Well according to the times Tevez being in the side was worth 2.98 points, so if they deducted 2.98 points then Sheffield United would still go down!
...can I send you the bill if the coffee causes irreparable damage to my laptop?...I've just spat a mouthful all over the place whilst I read
"Sheffield United players, seeing a potentially huge cash cow wave it's wonga laden udders in their direction, are considering compensation for loss of earnings. What the f**k is that all about, you play crap and then sue another team because they weren't as crap as you!"...hahahahahahaha
...and please don't do these post marathon's...it's killing me! :-)
Sorry about the laptop! Thanks for taking the time to read them all - and Shy and Lucy, it's much appreciated. I will try not to condense my verbosity in future.
Post a Comment