Respect is a simple, catchy slogan. Trips off the tongue, stays in the memory.
It is a worthy ideal, too, with one small problem. It is not, nor will it
ever be, the most important item on the agenda. What football needs now is
an alternate, less populist campaign. “Stop trying to break people’s legs,
you freaking morons.”
How about that?
The seasons change but football’s reality does not. It is barely seven months
since Eduardo da Silva’s career was threatened by a tackle from Martin
Taylor, of Birmingham City, yet already we have a broken leg for Craig Fagan
in the Barclays Premier League and heaven knows how many near-misses.
Rodrigo Possebon, of Manchester United, was lucky to escape last week, the
next victim may not be so fortunate.
Yet each season, the authorities announce another clampdown to solve a
diversionary problem that could be addressed in one weekend, with a minor
tweak in the rules or the issue of statutory cards. Last year we were
obsessed with diving; now we get the vapours about rude words to referees.
Treating officials with respect is important. Retrospective action for those
who endanger the career of another professional is vital. Who would have
imagined that Eduardo’s injury would not have advanced the game in this
country by one yard? Live and don’t learn; that is the English way.
Debate: What should be done about dangerous tackles? Click
here to have your say
* * * * *
And another thing...
Can I get a witness?
The FA tribunal heard from many expert witnesses before concluding, without
doubt, that West Ham United remained in the Barclays Premier League courtesy
of Carlos Tévez. Such august appraisals as Gary Lineker’s comments on Match
of the Day and a match report in The Daily Telegraph were taken
into account by Lord Griffiths and his panel. Most compelling, it appears,
was the evidence given on behalf of Sheffield United by Graham Taylor and
Frank Clark.
A pity those gentlemen did not share this uncanny knowledge of what precise
factors would definitely win football matches with their players when they
were managers. Nottingham Forest and Manchester City might not have been
steered to the brink of relegation by Clark and England would have qualified
for the 1994 World Cup finals under Taylor.
United pressure tactics
Friday lunchtime: Sir Alex Ferguson applies pressure to Rob Styles, the
referee of the match between Manchester United and Bolton Wanderers, by
drawing attention to the physical approach of Kevin Davies, the opposition
striker. Saturday afternoon: Styles gives a penalty against Jlloyd Samuel,
the Bolton defender, for the best tackle of the match, on Cristiano Ronaldo.
Saturday teatime: Ferguson sympathises with Gary Megson, the opposition
manager, for the grave injustice, which helped to change the game. Turned
out nice again, though, didn’t it?
Paying for failure
Of the 16 players involved for Sheffield United in the final match of the
2006-07 season, ten are still with the club, now mid-table in the Coca-Cola
Championship. Phil Jagielka subsequently made a career with Everton and
Michael Tonge moved to Stoke City, but no others are present in the Premier
League.
One might conclude from this, and because leading clubs have hardly been
beating down their doors, that they were not good enough for that division.
However, in light of the Lord Griffiths ruling, IPS Law is now advising
Sheffield United players on compensation claims against West Ham United.
Commentators take a dim view, but of course the players have a case. And for
those who unthinkingly welcomed the Lord Griffiths decision, it is just
another delightful offshoot of a legal gift that will keep on giving through
future generations.
Relegationlawyers4U are here, as predicted by this columnist last Wednesday.
Happy now?
Beckham still fits the bill
With the emergence of Theo Walcott, there is speculation that David Beckham is
no longer worth his place in the England squad. Why? An experienced
substitute who keeps the ball under pressure is exactly what England need;
requiring more of Beckham was the problem.
If it pleases you, Lord
Cowell, Fuller, Le Bon: one might argue that modern music would be greatly
improved if people called Simon were barred from contribution. Much the same
could be said of football and those with the title of Lord. The psychic
powers of one Lord are known to us, but what of Lord Triesman, the chairman
of the FA (or Lord PleasedMan, as he should be known, because nobody seems
quite as high on newfound importance).
The FA having indulged in a pathetic bout of point-scoring with the Premier
League by denying it prior access to the Griffiths report, Lord PleasedMan
then pronounced on West Ham United’s intention to appeal. He was not happy.
“If it goes through the courts, it is going to drag on and on,” he said.
Yes, much as it has done already despite a verdict from a Premier League
commission, after a process that all Premier League clubs had signed up for,
a High Court hearing and arbitration tribunal. The FA could have said the
matter had already been dealt with. It did not. It sought its moment of
power and can now expect a succession of legal hospital passes once the full
ramifications of the judgment unfold, a situation that even in infancy
appears to cause Lord PleasedMan some discomfort. Oh dear.
In search of net balance
In hindsight, Reading should have let Watford equalise the “ghost goal”
erroneously awarded at Vicarage Road nine days ago. In reality, such
decisions require speed of thought not always present in the heat of a
match. And if it is down to the players to correct refereeing mistakes,
where is the line to be drawn? Does a goalscorer who knows that he was
offside put one through his own net to compensate? This is as fraught with
potential confrontation as the practice of giving back the ball after an
injured player is treated. There are too many grey areas.
Unfinished business
Responding to the Tévez tribunal verdict, Neil Warnock, the former Sheffield
United manager, said that he had a relegation season on his CV that was not
down to him. Warnock is in 22nd place in the Coca-Cola Championship with
Crystal Palace, so it might have had more to do with him than he is letting
on, but either way, there is still one matter outstanding.
On April 26, 2007, two days before Sheffield United collected three points
against Watford in the Barclays Premier League, the local newspaper, the Sheffield
Star, quoted Warnock on the availability of Steve Kabba, a striker he
had sold to the opposition for £500,000 in January. “Steven can’t play,”
Warnock said. “I actually checked myself yesterday to make sure - you can’t
afford to take any chances.”
As he is such an advocate of transparency in transfer matters, Warnock should
enlighten us on who told him Kabba could not play, a fact that was also
reported on the official media outlets of both clubs, and would have been
illegal. Warnock could use his newspaper column to provide this information.
After all, to do otherwise would suggest some form of cover-up and I am sure
such a high-minded campaigner for justice would never be party to that.
Gone for a burton
The National Football Centre in Burton upon Trent has again become low
priority at the FA. Deep down, everyone at Soho Square knows that it is in
the wrong place. The national team cannot have a home at Wembley and a base
in Staffordshire; it makes no sense.
Contract killing
This is the science bit, as folk say on skin cream advertisements, so bear
with me. Below is a verbatim excerpt from Lord Griffiths’s summing up of the
Tévez tribunal verdict.
“Ultimately, however, we have not found it necessary to come to a conclusion
whether the cause of Sheffield United’s relegation was (a) the number of
points achieved by West Ham with Mr Tévez’s assistance or (b) Sheffield
United’s poor performance. At most, Sheffield United’s poor performance was
an equally effective cause. This is insufficient to displace the causation
of another effective cause. The law is summarised in Chitty on Contracts
(29th ed), Vol 1, paragraph 26-038 under the heading ‘Two Causes’: If a
breach of contract is one of two causes, both cooperating and both of equal
efficacy in causing loss to the claimant, the party responsible for the
breach is liable to the claimant for the loss. The contract-breaker is
liable so long as his breach was ‘an’ effective cause of his loss; the court
need not choose which cause was more effective.”
Still with it? Now pay attention, because this is important stuff, for Lord
Griffiths has brilliantly established, using inapposite contractual law,
that your league position is nothing to do with you and can be argued to be
solely the work of those around you; as if in a league table, a club have no
governance over their status in that table. Now isn’t that a healthy
precedent? Welcome to football’s brave new world, everybody. Page 46 of 47,
if you are interested.
New name, old problems
The Uefa Cup will be renamed the Europa League and revamped from next season.
While it still has the lousy third-placed teams from the Champions League
parachuted in midway, however, it will remain about as well respected in
sporting circles as dominoes night at the Royal British Legion.
Tévez affair: the final word
And I know that at the bottom of this column online there will be the
inevitable posts that attribute my stance on the Tévez tribunal verdict to
an allegiance to West Ham, but they miss the point. Your club scarf is
handed in at the door in exchange for a press pass on your first day in this
job. My view, published immediately after the Premier League commission
reported, was that West Ham should not have been deducted points, but should
have been relegated, if justice were to be done. I still believe that is
what should have happened at the time. Scott Duxbury should no longer be an
executive of the club, either.
Any change in attitude came from the drip, drip discovery of other abuses of
the rules governing third-party arrangements, most particularly the hideous
gentlemen’s agreements surrounding loan deals made permanent, such as Tim
Howard’s move from Manchester United to Everton.
This culminated in finding out that Sheffield United in all likelihood had
such a deal in place regarding Steve Kabba, a player who had been sold to
Watford, and that Fulham had demanded that LuÍs Boa Morte should not play
against them that season, despite selling him to West Ham for £5 million. My
belief that West Ham did wrong has never altered; my presumption that
Sheffield United, and their allies, had moral certitude on their side did.
The majority of football clubs are investment or advertising opportunities for
very rich men these days: West Ham and Sheffield United are no exception. So
I am unconcerned about whether West Ham are £30 million up or down. In
business, these are the breaks. I do like football, though. And this is why
it does not matter whether Lord Griffiths and his band of fools award
Sheffield United £30 million or 30 quid. They have established the principle
that a tribunal can arbitrate the outcome of football matches based, not on
facts, but on projections, supposition and hearsay, and this will return to
haunt the sport. It is a pyrrhic victory and, over time, the cost will not
be borne at Upton Park, but by every league and club in the land.
"continuing to play Tevez while the agreement with Joroobchian was evidently still in place"
Pure conjecture - KJ taking WHU to court for blatently NOT honouring the private agreement carries far more weight than notes of a phone call. High court, overturned, 5 minutes.
Andy, London, UK
Nigel, 41/11 = 3.73pts = ave impact per player; assumes only 11 players played all season, and that each contributed equally.
Apparently the ave points per game involving Tevez was 1 pt; ave points per game not involving Tevez was 1.25 pt
Seems he was more detrimental to west ham.
Adam, Brighton, UK
So a wrong has been done, is it so wrong to want to right it now...football will not 'continue to pay for this in years to come' unless people continue to cheat. The root cause of all this is not SU, is not the lawyers, but WHU and the reason we have courts isn't to annoy but to find justice.
glyn, bridgnorth, uk
martin & his fellow west ham fans are missing the point,. west hams cheating was carried out in order to gain an unfair advantage upon the field of play. when this was discovered & inaptly punished,they proceeded (according to their own lawyer) to repeat the process. a second charge is unavoidable.
mick , sheffield,
Loans are not the same. No one lies. In fact Boa Morte DID play against Fulham because WHU owned him outright and could do as they pleased. Which is the point really.
Your argument is like saying George Graham should not have been banned because you’ve just discovered other people took bribes too
Marion, London ,
Why does Winter's opinion carry any great weight? Who cares about Taylor 's views on anything? Is Sheffield the most ignorant city in England? From the comments posted one could draw that conclusion, although it would be as dubious as the conclusions drawn by Mr Griffths QC & friends!
Peter, Hayes, Middlesex
So SU will not go to the CAS! So much for justice, it was money that motivated them all along. Hypocrites, to the high court with them. Mr Samuels is a voice of reason in a sea of press sensationalism and hypocrisy. If our northern friends want their delusions reaffirmed go read the SportsMail!
William, Essex, UK
Kat, the key issue is third party influence, not ownership. Players can be openly owned by third parties. Look at the variety of financial interests that owned Viduka when he was at Leeds Utd for instance. Your 'gentlemen's agreement' is by definition third party influence. Do you and get it now?
Bill, London , UK
There is no evidence that the third party agreements remained in place. The only concrete evidence is (1) the letter notifying MSI of the termination of the agreements; and (2) the 2m fee to West Ham to secure the release of Tevez from his Hammers contract . All else is conjecture!
SJ Chandos, London , Great Britain
YOU SAY:
Warnock is in 22nd place in the Coca-Cola Championship with Crystal Palace, so it might have had more to do with him than he is letting on.
FACT:
Crystal Palace were 17th when Warnock took over last year and they got to the play offs on a tiny budget.
CONCLUSIONS:
You're wrong. Again.
Will Pickle, Didsbury, Lancs
Yes, it's got nothing to do with you being a West Ham supporter, obviously. Is that why you've tried everything to ignore the new evidence that your team lied to the PL - AGAIN - and therefore 30m quid is actually a lot loss than you deserve?
Andrew, Durham,
Kat from London. You're absolutely right that there is a difference between breaching a technical law by having a player owned by an agent and another team insisting, in a cosy gentleman's agreement, that your player can't play against them. I suspect however that you fail to grasp the significance.
Justin, West Midlands,
Regarding the point of fans voting Tevez as player of the year - a lot of people boycotted the vote which meant the figures were skewed.
We voted Gabbidon in 2005-06 but nobody could argue he single-handedly won any of our matches on the way to the FA Cup Final - so why is it different for Tevez?
Mick, East London,
Perhaps WHU should pay equivalent of 1 year's parachute payment to SUFC to help them get promoted. That way WHU "pay" for lying to the tribunal, but SUFC only get their Premier league place back if they to perform on the pitch, which, let's face it, is the real reason they got relegated!
Nigel, Chalfont, UK
Fair points about dangerous tackles, but what about a player like Paul Scholes? He's put in some truly horrific tackles, but there is not a bad bone in his body, he just cannot time a challenge.
How is a campaign or a ban him going to make Scholes (or whomever) able to time it better in future?
Matt, Dubai,
Kat - it's not a 'gentlemen's agreement' when MU hold a gun to Everton over Howard..& MU had two keepers out on loan in the premiership guaranteeing them four games against a 2nd choice keeper..how many points should have been deducted from MU? Keep it up Martin you're only scratching the surface!
ian, Wokingham, england
Where a tackle was proved to be intentionally dangerous and causes a serious injury, have the offender banned for the amount of time it takes for the injured player to return to first team action. Use video evidence to do it. Have a minimum ban period and then extra games until the player returns.
Darren, Norwich, UK
Your stance on Tevez, (that you cannot categorically prove a subjective argument), isn’t really valid, you have to go on the evidence i.e. his value, player of the year, goals, everyones opinions bar WHU fans, not 'you cannot pove im wrong so im right' logic.
Ricky, Mansfield, UK
Martin, you run the risk of undermining your Tevez case by having a pop at Taylor and Clark. Understanding what influences a football match AND having those resources available to you, are two different things. If Taylor could have picked a Tevez, he would have, and England would have qualified.
sandy mclellandf, teddington, uk
in 'United pressure tactics', Martin has it spot on. Ferguson seems to have certain referees wrapped around his little finger. Managers should be forbidden from contact with match officials prior to a game. Managers who continue to do so should be reported by the official in his match report.
John Mc Cumiskey, Larnaca, Cyprus
I find Martins comments so biased its untrue, infact since reading this whole fiasco hes totally changed my view on the debate to side with Sheffield United. Come on Martin take those Claret glasses off, Tevez is a superstar, champions league player, not some squad player at West Ham. Good Decision
Steve , Newcastle, England
He may leave his supporters scarf at the door but I think he is probably still wearing his West Ham shirt. What misinformation he continues to spew out on the Tevez affair, none worse than his obsession with Kabba, which he reported to the PL himself. Result? PL says 'no case to answer'. Apology?
Neil Parkin, Birmingham,
it's ok for you to point out the rough tackles, but not fergie?
though ronaldo had a 2-footed challenge from chelsea and possebon got a gash from boro, he should probably have kept quiet about davies?
united should have had penalties in every game so far, but this one. you missed those.
jem, london, uk
Martin,you are back to good form......good piece all round again.
The Tevez - West Ham issue is a tricky one, but the buck should stop with the Premier league,if they had sorted it out then,we would not be having this problem. As for Neil Warnock...well it's laughable isnt it? No comment!
Goonter, London,
It is obvious that Martin S supports West Ham and equally obvious they should have been deducted points (like Boro in 1997) and (like Boro) been relegated - no need for a pathetic fine.
I was at OT on the last day of the season that West Ham stayed up - again obvious that Tevez kept them up
Chris, Wilmslow,
It would be nice If you tried to take your problem with Sheffield United out of the equation and thought about it from a neutrals perspective. Seems that everyday since SU won their case you have taken it upon yourself to condemn SU for what they are doing. What did SU do wrong with the Tevez saga?
Dave, Sheffield, UK
If Reading should have let in a goal at Watford, Ronaldo show have deliberately missed the penalty given for 'the best tackle of the match'.
Alan, London,
Kat, a "gentlemans agreement" is one way of putting it.3rd party interferance is the legal way of putting it and these deals only went through because the selling party insisted that these clauses be included.It is abuse of the rules and all matters are equal in a court of law. Guilty is guilty.....
harry boulton, manchester, uk
The Silva tackle was an accident, this is not 1974, we may as well stop tackling a la Platinis awful "idea".
I think the record in the premier league is pretty good.
dave murray, london,
Martin,
1. The WHU board lied to the original tribunal to reduce punishment. Police reopen cases when new evidence comes to light. This is no different.
2. Tevez' impact is immaterial but: WHU got 41pts; 41/11 = 3.73pts = ave impact per player; Tevez = Player of Year = above average, no?
Nigel, Chalfont, UK
In ensuring 'justice' for one club all of football has lost out here. This will form case law to which any club can refer when aggrieved at any incident on or off the pitch 'out of their control' - this could result in a mass of farcical litigation in future, as clubs scramble to avoid relegation.
DE, Baintree,
Martin S is right to suggest that the National Football Centre should be near to the National Stadium - trouble is, the FA got the decision wrong and demanded a new stadium at Wembley instead of in the Midlands, a central location suitable for everyone. London attitudes ruled.
Austin, London,
It does not matter whether Kabba played again, the third party influence in Tevez's contract was never excerised either. It's a fact West Ham earned more points per game whenTevez didn't play but Sheffield Utd aren't interested in facts just grabbing money and blaming others for their relegation.
KP, London,
Why cant you understand the difference between a gentlemans agreement between two clubs agreeing a player cant play against the other, and a player owned by an individual (i.e. a third party) clearly breaching Rule u18 and under precendent set with AFC Wimbledon, should have been deducted points.
Kat, London,
Brilliant article. MS remains the best around in my view, despite being West Ham. Pete shows the average level of insight and intelligence I came to expect from Sheffield's finest fans in three years of living there. Awful team. Awful fans. Awful chairman. Bramall Lane is a waste of a good Tesco's.
Chris, Worthing, England
Surely the National Football Centre should be somewhere like Staffordshire, which is (roughly) in the middle of the country, making it accessible for everybody.
Martin, Liverpool,
If proven that Tevez playing had an effect on SU's league position, then I've sympathy. But the effect of Tevez over the SEASON suggests this is not the case.
SU have argued for a points deduction as justice. Isn't the norm to apply it the following season (or now)? Great, we'll still beat Sp*rs.
Jimmy, Exeter,
Of course it wasn't just Henry Winter and Gary Lineker. West Ham supporters elected Tevez "Player of the Year" for "single-handedly saving them from relegation". Were you not amongst those supporters Martin? Kabba never played again for Watford that season. The plaers aren't suing.
Wrong again.
Robert Carlisle, London, UK
Clamping down on the cloggers and encouraging the entertainers also helps National football standards. We need players who are happy with the ball at their feet not those who seek to remove other peoples. I would add to any ban given to players the next game against the offended side to help redress
jonners, weybridge,
West ham were punished with a record fine of 5.5 million and for many fans, the argument seems to be, thats it they paid for the 'crime'. But surely they are missing the point, West Ham then kept on telling more and more lies to the PL , press and WH fans, oh and why did employ Joroobchian?
Mark Symms, Reading, UK
Yet again Martin Samuels is spot on. And I say that as a long time Daily Telegraph reader who is now actually embarrassed and angry at the fact that Henry Winter has contributed to this entire West Ham / Sheff Utd farce. When the lawyers start deciding football results we should all despair!!
Scott M, London - Chelsea,
The particulars rulng were farcical, but then again so were the particulars of the original panel, which set some equally dangerous precedents. West Ham should now be reinvestigated by the FA for continuing to play Tevez while the agreement with Joroobchian was evidently still in place. Yes Martin?
liam, London,