Quantcast
1 Comment

The Carlos Tevez saga revisited

The memory of Carlos Tevez and the court case that saw West Ham pay £18m in compensation to Sheffield United remains an incendiary issue between the two clubs and both set of fans making Saturday a grudge match.

Tevez’s arrival with Javier Mascherano  at West Ham on transfer deadline day in August 2006 started an unfortunate chain of events. The discovery of the third-party agreements concerning the players that came to light in January 2007 resulted in an independent Premier League commission’s decision to impose a record £5.5m fine rather than a points deduction which caused Kevin McCabe, the Sheffield United chairman to seek legal action after they were relegated that season.

Sheffield United had wanted compensation of up to £45m in lost income but in the end, came to an out-of-court settlement with West Ham that saw the Hammers agree to pay £18m in instalments. The final payment was paid in the summer of 2013.

About Sean Whetstone

I am Season Ticket Holder in West stand lower at the London Stadium and before that, I used to stand in the Sir Trevor Brooking Lower Row R seat 159 in the Boleyn Ground and in the Eighties I stood on the terraces of the old South Bank. I am a presenter on the West Ham Podcast called MooreThanJustaPodcast.co.uk. A Blogger on WestHamTillIdie.com a member of the West Ham Supporters Advisory Board (SAB), Founder of a Youtube channel called Mr West Ham Football at http://www.youtube.com/MrWestHamFootball, I am also the associate editor here at Claret and Hugh. Life Long singer of bubbles! Come on you Irons! Follow me at @Westhamfootball on twitter
 

One comment on “The Carlos Tevez saga revisited

  1. It has always bugged me that West Ham paid that compensation when we had breached rules and not laws. The FA Premier League, not West Ham, imposed a fine instead of a points deduction and were therefore culpable in any claim made by Sheff Utd. Had this of gone to the court room I cannot see how West Ham could have been found guilty of RECEIVING an incorrect punishment. My only guess is they employed a very poor (and probably cheap) legal team.

Comments are closed.