"There is an argument to say we can claim three points from West Ham.
"We went down there and lost 3-1, Tevez scored two and it cost us £700,000 because that was one place in the league. It will make two or three clubs look at it and say they have lost income.
"If Sheffield United are successful and get a claim, then why shouldn't we?" - Phil Gartside, chairman of Bolton Wanderers Football Club.
Well, why shouldn't they?
The surprise is that Bolton are the first and that it's taken a whole week for the full implications of last Wednesday's judgement against West Ham to raise its greedy head. If Sheffield United are due to receive £30m in compensation because the ineligible Carlos Tevez was judged to be worth three points to the Hammers then why shouldn't Bolton have a go as well? Why shouldn't we all? Here's an idea that is bound to appeal to a lawyer somewhere: every supporter who watched a match involving Carlos Tevez in the spring of 2006 to sue West Ham for fraud. Well, why not? Because if Bolton can, why shouldn't we?
For this is the ghastly, corrupting can of worms that the independent tribunal tore open when they reached their conclusion that Tevez was worth an additional three points to the Hammers eighteen months ago - a conclusion not reached upon fact or any basis on law but - and this is absolutely true - based upon a headline in The Daily Telegraph and Gary Lineker's summing-up of West Ham's final-day win over ManYoo for Match of the Day. Never mind the evidence, let's call in the experts.
F365 has no great sympathy for West Ham, who clearly flouted the rules, but it is a frightening exercise of justice when a judgement of such far-reaching consequence and expense can rely on such capricious and subjective evidence. Never mind the notion that a single player has been deemed more critical to the outcome of a match than the other 21 professionals he shared a pitch with, apparently multi-million-pound judgements can be meted out on the basis of newspaper headlines and flippant farewells.
Yet it is the wider consequence - now about to be demonstrated by a cash-hungry Bolton - of that judgement that should make football shudder. Law is written by precedent and in declaring that West Ham's survival was secured by the work of a single player the Independent Tribunal has laid down a frightening precedent that threatens to override the fundamental principle that results are sacrosanct. Bolton may be the first, but they will not be the last club to test the boundaries of the ruling.
Nor, in such ligitious times, may the precedent be limited to the effect of ineligible players. What West Ham have been found guilty of is essentially cheating. So, if, say, a player cheats to win a penalty what is to stop any club suffering as a consequence from pursuing legal redress? After all, if Sheffield United are successful and get a claim, then why shouldn't everyone else.
PG
Your Comments
goon
"west ham should be fined irrelevant of who got relegated and no club should benefit. the fa should be fined for letting illegitimate players play with out checking their credentials. i don't understand how they were allowed to play in the first place. they were illegal players. they might aswell have played with 14 people on the pitch."
stevejones
"treeman, you're right it's irrelevant how many points Tevez was worth because he was always eligible to play."
MrScudamore
""At no point were West Ham United charged with playing an ineligible player ¿ both Tevez and Mascherano were registered on 31 August. All the required documentation was received by the Premier League and the usual confirmations received and sent ¿ a process you are all very familiar with. Registration is definitive as to the status of the player. At no time has Mr Tevez¿s registration been revoked or terminated and at all times he has been eligible to play for West Ham." "
thierryhenry
"The whole point about a player cheating to win a penalty is invalid becuase, that player was ELIBLE to be on the pitch. I think that this is what it boils down to."
treeman
"It's IRRELEVANT how many points he was worth! The fact is, he was an ineligible player. When MK Dons got all those points deducted for all the games Jermaine Darlington had played, they weren't saying Darlington had won all those points singlehandedly. They were saying MK Dons deserved zero for every game they played with an ineligible player. It's like if an athlete takes drugs, but it's found that the drugs didn't enhance his performance, he still gets banned. It actually makes me furious that there was a legal debate as to how much Tevez was "worth" in points to West Ham when it clearly should not matter. "
The_Daddy
"I simply don't understand even the Blades' ruling.. How anyone can say that one player had that much influence on the final positions? Nobody seems to take into account the fact that both Tevez and Mascherano could have unsettled the squad (more than likely) with their arrival and without them other players may have done better.. "
slowtowrite
"charlie32. Let me get this right. You are comparing an injury to Ashdown, of typical occupational risk, whilst in the care of the FA, which West Ham agreed to, with no case of the FA acting negligently to West Ham willfully and deliberately providing misleading information, being warned of their behaviour, and continuing to act in a misleading way. Obviously comparable. As for PG, the idea that fans can sue if Bolton can is some of biggest arse I have ever heard. What are you suing for? Upset because your team lost? That the result might not stand? I have never heard of any ticket purchase promising cover for any such event. The idea that 1 man can not affect the result is along the same lines as a match could not be bought off without all the players conspiring. They both amount to tilting the odds in your favour against unsuspecting opposition. "
charlie32
"If this is the case that there will be a legal free for all then West Ham should stop wasting money on protesting about the Tevez verdict and go straight for the FA jugular after all it is their arbitration panel that has come up with this decision. The Hammers should look for compensation over the loss of Dean Ashton for the entire 2006/07 season. Surely they could argue that this damaged their Uefa, League and FA cup runs which resulted in one win. Last season a half fit Ashton scored more goals than Tevez so would have made a greater contribution than Tevez did. Something tells me the FA wouldn't like to pay out £35-£40 million that I just made up out of thin air for West Ham's relegation due to not having a fit striker - The FA judgement seems to say West Ham would have been relegated without Tevez so they can say Ashton would have kept them up."
footyman22
"It would be funny but i think even Man U should also claim compensation as it was a Tevez goal which played party pooper on the last day and took gloss of the celebrations..A real can of worms..filthy lousy grimy greedy & shameless worms..and if you look at the matches in which Tevez played.. I think West Ham owe money to almost half of the league..Ridiculous!!!"
All comments on this story