Premier League, West Ham

West Ham are making noises of disgruntlement this evening, but secretly the club will acknowledge how lucky they are to avoid any form of points deduction.

PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor believes the Hammers’ predicament has been crucial to the result of the hearing, “If West Ham were in a comfortable mid-table position I think there would have been points deducted as a deterrent for the future.”

The commission took into account West Ham’s guilty plea but their judgment smacks of a reluctance to stir the relegation pot and to avoid an appeal which would stretch beyond the end of the season and potentially alter which sides went down to the Championship.

A fine of £5.5m suggests the offences are severe, yet it will appear miniscule if Premiership survival is assured. The new television deal means even the weakest clubs will take home £30m, and the fine – equivalent to about one player of mid-table standard – will become no more than a expense on West Ham’s financial records.

And even if Alan Curbishley cannot save the club, owner Eggert Magnusson can delve into his deep pockets and pay off the fine.

Therefore, the punishment does not fit the crime. If a fellow struggler is relegated instead of East London club, the debate will elevate onto an entirely new level; Wigan owner Dave Whelan has already expressed his doubts and exasperation. Naturally, West Ham supporters do not give a hoot.

Nevertheless, Magnusson’s predecessor Terry Brown and former managing director Paul Aldridge broke the rules, apparently knowingly, and player of the season Carlos Tévez’s transfer and contract has come under intense scrutiny. He has excelled recently with four goals, and single-handedly has kept West Ham in with a chance of avoiding the drop – but should he have been allowed to play?

The punishment has been labelled as disproportionate: Bury were thrown out of the FA Cup after fielding an ineligible player despite bringing it to the Football Association’s attention themselves while AFC Wimbledon were originally deducted 18 points for a similar offence, reduced to three on appeal.

The offence is an embarrassment for the Premier League – a league perceived as the most honest league in the world, which helped in securing the lucrative new TV deal – and though a record fine takes the headlines, the commission’s decision appears to be based more on sentiment than reason.

Tévez is eligible to play in the remaining matches, but the irregularities in bringing him to Upton Park have led to this fine and had they been realised last August, would surely have prevented him from signing and playing.

A fine does not hinder West Ham on the pitch nor helps the other sides in the relegation dogfight despite wrongdoing. Tévez has elevated the club into a position whereby avoiding Championship football looks a distinct possibility even though his contract could be torn up by the Premier League according to the panel.

Taylor, though, thinks the fight against the drop should be about results: “I think with a relegation battle blowing up it’s fair justice and something West Ham will be relieved about - particularly if they stay up. Fans of other clubs may not be happy with the verdict but if you need to stay in a division because another club has been deducted points it’s not the sporting ethos you would want.”

So where does the line need to be drawn? Tévez is only one of eleven outfield players and the new owners have said they would not have accepted the terms of his and Javier Mascherano’s contract had they been in charge when he arrived from Corinthians. However, having breached two rules and used Tévez to good effect recently, do the sides around the Hammers have a right to call foul?

Do West Ham deserve to lose points? Share your views by leaving a comment below.

---

Related Articles