No Masking the Blame on Tevez

Last summer, in the aftermath of the Blades' shambolic end to the season and in the midst of an elongated (and ultimately misguided) managerial search, I poste an article to this blog called Reasons to be Cheerful.

It garnered thousands of hits, was linked on West Ham discussion forums and ended up as the second most read article on A United View. You can read it here.  It won't take long. The post was blank.  No words. No pictures. As a United fan I could see no grounds for optimism.

That this caused so much happiness amongst Irons fans caused me much amusement. They really do hate United and some of the 30+ comments left on the kind of defy logic and seem to be based on fantasy and fallacy. Before I share a selection of the comments it is probably worth remembering a few facts regarding the Tevez case which causes much of the hatred and venom.

To start with. Let’s be clear. There is no mystery, there was no simple mistake. The rules were clear and West Ham lied about breaking them.  At the time of the transfer agreements  for both Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano (right on the transfer deadline in August 2006), and until January 24 2007, West Ham United failed to disclose the third party agreements to the Premier League and deliberately withheld these agreements from the Premier League.

When West Ham signed the Argentinian internationals from Brazilian club Corinthians, the players were contracted to four offshore companies via agent Kia Joorabchian - a fact that, according to the commission, Hammers bosses deliberately concealed from league authorities. Both Scott Duxbury and Paul Aldridge denied the existence of the contracts.

"[West Ham] knew that the only means by which they could acquire [the players] would be by entering into the third party contracts," said the commission. "Equally, they were aware that the FA Premier League, at the very least, may not - and in all probability would not - have approved of such contracts. They determined to keep their existence from the FAPL." – Independent Commission statement.

On April 27th 2007 they were found guilty by a FA Premier League Independent Commission of breaching rules B13 and U18. Rule B13 states that all Premier League clubs should act in good faith, while U18 relates to third party influence. A Premier League Commission fined the club £5.5m, stating that a points deduction would have virtually condemned West Ham to relegation which would have been unfair on the fans and players.

At the time of the fine the Premier League added that if they were found to be breaching the same rules again, a heavier punishment would be in order (points deduction/relegation implied).  The club claimed (and this was accepted by the Premier League) that the agreement was ripped up and Tevez was free to play in the final three games.

Despite legal action between Joorabchian and West Ham over the economic rights of Tevez, the Premier League saw fit to agree to the Argentinean’s move to Manchester United the following August. But if such a valued asset was under West Ham’s ownership they must have been gutted to receive a fee of just £2m from the Red Devils.

Following relegation The Blades pursued action to try and force a more standard punishment on West Ham and also financial compensation. They were unsuccessful in appealing the original decision with both a Premier League independent commission and the High Court. They were even told that the appeal commission could not reverse the original decision, but if they had made it in the first place there would have been a points deduction.

United then took the matter up through the FA's arbitration procedure and there was a ruling in United’s favour in March 2009. Lord Griffiths, who headed the committee, suggested that West Ham had not “torn up” the offending contract after the initial tribunal had required them to do so, but instead simply told the FA Premier League that they had done so whilst executing a verbal side agreement with Kia Joorabchian to confirm to him that they were not intending to simply walk away from that contract. This alleged deceit then enabled Carlos Tevez to play in the final three games of the season. This was a key element in reaching the final verdict.

There was a belief that the Premier League had been further misled, so where was the further investigation and action promised two years earlier? The Premier League remained quiet. By quiet I mean whistling in the corner, eyes darting around, making no contact, hoping no one would chase up the further action required.

The thing is, despite their cheating, despite the ongoing fantasy of their fans where they see themselves as the wronged party, I don't feel any real anger towards West Ham any more. Only despair at their blinkered, partisan and misguided views, which their fans continue to espouse. They were, in the words of the commission, dishonest and deceitful, but it was the Premier League commission's failure to adequately penalise them that still rankles.

A decision partly based on whether it would disproportionately punish fans, whilst welcome in some areas of the game (I am sure Wimbledon fans would have liked this applied by the committee reaching a verdict on their move to Milton Keynes), had no place here. The delay to the hearing which led to the decision not to deduct points, was down to on-going West Ham deceit over the nature of the contracts.

I accept United should have stayed up that season under their own steam. It is not about blame for relegation. It is about fair play, abiding by the rules and trust in the authorities to adequately manage these issues. As members of the Premier League you contractually sign up to abide by the rules. If rules are broken which ultimately lead to financial loss for another member club, then it is perfectly rational for them to pursue financial recompense. The fact is whichever club was relegated would have pursued a claim against West Ham. Fate meant that we ended up being that team. 

It galls me whenever I see other, often much smaller clubs, punished by points deductions for administrative oversights and registration issues. Take last season when AFC Wimbledon were deducted three points for fielding an ineligible player, Jake Nicholson, in the Sky Bet League 2 fixture with Cheltenham Town on 22 March. He came on as a substitute at half-time, before scoring his side's second goal in the 4-3 victory. He had an impact in one game and they were penalised the three points.

Further down the pyramid the Conference board punished Alfreton's failure to register an emergency loan keeper; a blank fax causing the lack of registration. The three point punishment was consistent with deductions issued to Conference North sides Oxford City and Harrogate Town.

Yet the so-called “Greatest League in the World” – the FA Premier League failed to apply such punishment to a more blatant breach of rules, breach of trust and the use of illegal contracts. In a world where reference is made to tarnishing the product, damaging the integrity of the brand, surely an instance that Richard Scudamore described as ranking “up there as the number one act of bad faith that any club has ever done towards me during my time here” deserved a similar, if not stronger punishment?

Scudamore’s further comments only lead to the conclusion that finances are all that matters in the moneyball league, fair play, legality and abiding by the rules are just mere PR puff.

"It is quite simple - you are completely undone by an act of bad faith. If a club, through its executives, chooses to lie straight to your face, there is a great deal of damage that can be done from that.

"Ultimately, the Tevez saga goes down to people not being honest. With any regularity body, if people are not honest there is very little you can do about it and that is why the whole thing unravelled.”

Yet this deceit and wrongdoing doesn’t seem to register with Hammers fans who see only United doing wrong. Their argument perpetuated by members of the London based media, such as Hammers fan Martin Samuel who perpetuated myths regarding the transfer of Steve Kabba from United to Watford. In this instance both clubs were investigated and it was found that there was no case to be answered.

So in this mire of denial, anger and abuse, many amusing statements are made. Here are some of the comments made on this blog and a few responses.

“Reasons to be Cheerful: Reason #1: Payments of the money the Blades swindled out of West Ham for not being good enough to beat the drop will stop after this summer.”

Swindled? I seem to recall West Ham settled the claim as they knew they were guilty and before the tribunal set an amount?

“I found a reason to be cheerful, you'll still be in League 1 for a long time.”

“Unless you end up in League 2 ...”

Well we had a good go last season.

“One Carlos Tevez.”

Yes, you are right, there is.

“Where did all the money go? The money that the blunts stole from West Ham? Fairness in Football!!!!!”

Capital B on Blunts if you don’t mind. And as for stole. Steal according to the Oxford Dictionary is to take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. I think West Ham settled a payment of their own volition and in negotiation, therefore there was permission and legal right.

“What did McCabe do with the blackmail money? He certainly didn't spend it on the team.”

Unfortunately he did, giving it to Bryan Robson and Kevin Blackwell wasn’t the best use, granted. As for Blackmail – “The action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them”. I only wish we had more compromising information on West Ham, however I think West Ham themselves had revealed enough to compromise themselves, once they had stopped lying to the FA Premier League.

“Phil 'handball' Jagielka is doing rather well at Everton.”

He is. Well done to him. Always good to see your young players develop into the international players you thought they would be.

“Karma”

“Total and utter karma”

“You make me happy every day, I revel in your appalling situation, all bought on by your attempt at a contrived result that went wrong. Karma.”

“Oh deep joy. May you continue unrestrained on your descent into oblivion, it is no more and no less than you deserve. All that ill-gotten dosh and nothing whatever to show for it. It’s really hard to think of a better example of karma in action.”

Karma? In Hinduism and Buddhism this is the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existence. A sort of retributive justice. Given that West Ham cheated and have only suffered financial penalty in the cash fuelled world of the Premier League you could actually argue that karma is yet to exert itself on them. As for us, we got some reward and blew it all. That’s life. That’s football.

“Do they have a word for shaudenfreude in blunt-land?”

Yes, it is spelt schadenfreude. I presume it is the same word you are referring to?

“Can't even get out of League 1 despite our charity payments hitting your begging bowl every year, dread to think where you will be when your wealthy, cockney, top half of the Premier League, still watching the big teams, spending £10m+ on single players, moving to a massive new ground benefactors stop subsidising your shambles of a club. Still at least Avram is is reportedly on his way to make it all better. COYI”

“Every time I think about your nasty little clubs plight I am filled with an enormous sense of satisfaction. Who can you sue to try and get out of this one? It must be someone's fault?”

Acts of charity are voluntary. I don’t recall you being too willing to make this payment. Nice to see the fan here gloating over the Olympic stadium farce that is not just bad for the tax payer but Leyton Orient to. Another example of football’s rules being ignored to the Hammers’ benefit.

And finally it is no one’s fault but ours, well the people running the club. You may well gloat, but with the twists and turs of football, just remember the next team mismanaged could be you.

So then a couple of weeks ago, it finally happened. The Blades were drawn to meet The Hammers in the second round of the Capital One Cup; the first meeting since that Premier League season. No doubt the tie will get the media talking and it got the fans of both clubs talking when the draw was made. United's visit to Upton Park immediately generated plenty of social media comment, but with very different levels of animosity from the respective sets of fans. 

United fans mockingly joked about facing the Shammers, Wet Sham or some variation thereof and the fact at last, some 7 years later we would face each other at last. Hammers fans immediately started with a #BlameTevez hash tag on twitter and seemingly couldn't wait to put the Blades to the sword and give a “warm” East End welcome to United fans.

The interest in the match can perhaps be best summed up by the relatively low ticket sales to United fans. A midweek date doesn't help. Some fans have openly said it just isn’t worth the potential hassle and trouble.  The other factor is many just don't really care about West Ham or the match being against them. If we win, fantastic. If we don’t then, to be honest it is not unexpected given relative league positions. We move on and focus on the league.

So, while Hammers get excited and prepare a hate filled welcome, many United fans will reserve their ire for those who let the situation happen; Richard Scudamore and the Premier League. We don't blame Tevez, many more were culpable and in a greater sense.

Enjoy wearing your Tevez masks lads. The only impact it will have is improving the looks of the average Upton Park crowd and the bank balances of entrepreneurs and street hawkers in the East End.

West Ham, the Olympic Stadium, Don Valley and Legacy

Much has been made of the "Olympic Legacy" in recent weeks. First there was the announcement of the closure of the Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield - training home of Jessica Ennis and one time temporary home of Rotherham United - and then the announcement that the Olympic Stadium was to be leased to West Ham United and the cost of the stadium conversion was to be more extravagantly funded from the public purse than initially expected. Both decisions, however upsetting, highlight the difficulty in creating any sort of lasting legacy from major sporting events.

When Sheffield announced it was bidding for the 1991 World Student Games, the council saw it as a means of regenerating the run-down East End, which formerly housed the city's steelworks and factories. What was claimed to be the largest multi-sports event outside of the Olympics was meant to bring investment, growth and world class sports events and facilities to the city.

When Edinburgh dropped out of the race and Sheffield forged ahead as the UK candidate, it found there was little competition for this apparently prestigious event. Not one city wanted to follow in the footsteps of Duisburg, Zagreb and Kobe. Well, apart from Sheffield. Unfortunately, the city's civic leaders cocked a deaf 'un to the alarm bells everyone else was hearing.

With little of the anticipated government support, a result of Tory antipathy towards the red flag waving Labour firebrands running the council, a lack of corporate sponsorship and little media interest; Sheffield was faced with a hefty bill for hosting the games. There were originally three financial projections for staging the event; ranging from £17m to £27m, with each costing being matched to an equivalent income from sponsorship, ticket sales and grants to produce a 'nil cost'. By July 1991, when the games were held, it was obvious there would be a massive shortfall.

The original facilities, including a swimming pool, sports centres and Don Valley cost £147m. Following four attempts at re-profiling the overall debt totals £658m. Sheffield Council will continue to repay £25m a year until the debt is paid off in 2024. An amount included to the council tax bill of every Sheffield household.

Athletics events were held at the stadium in the following years, with several high profile meets attracting large crowds - although these tailed off from capacity over time. With major athletics meets a once a year events and other local/regional events sporadic, other sports and uses were considered to bring in much needed income; amongst them Rugby, Cricket, Concerts and Football.

They then hit the major issue, who wants to watch a sport where the action is taking place some 15-20 metres in the distance across an athletics track? Sheffield Eagles moved there, but struggled to attract the crowds, high profile concerts were arranged but were sporadic and you had other one-off events such as Darren Gough's Benefit Match with astroturf placed over the track as part of the outfield. Sheffield FC played there briefly and then it became the temporary home of Rotherham United in their hiatus between Millmoor and New York. Ask any Rotherham fan if they enjoyed their experience.

Over time the facilities become decrepit and worn. A visit to any of the arenas and buildings developed for the Universiade 22 years ago, highlights a degree of wear and tear and faded paintwork that is quite saddening. What was once new and exciting is now faded and aged. As funding falls, event numbers reduce and so does the maintenance. One sports hall has already been demolished as part of the refurbishment of the adjoining school.

At Don Valley the maintenance levels have slipped to the extent that there is considerable money needed to be spent bringing facilities up to standard, in order to then bid further money to win events. If you are going to attract an athletics meet, you need a working scoreboard. It has become a vicious circle of self-fulfilling failure. No funds, no maintenance, no bids, no events, no money……

There have been times when the possibility of both senior Sheffield football clubs moving there has been mooted. It was suggested that the stadium capacity could be built up to 45,000, with additional tiers of seating and a roof added to the three open sides. A municipal version of the San Siro for red and blue to share. Neither set of fans would want it. Bramall Lane is the right size, fit for purpose and the oldest professional football ground still in use and whilst a Blade is in ownership, the prime land adjacent to the city centre ought to be safe for football. Across the city a majority of Wednesday fans would not entertain leaving Hillsborough.

So Sheffield finds itself paying the price for winning the prize in a one horse race that no-one wanted to win and putting so much focus on delivering the event, they forgot about what happens to them after. Roll forward to the London Olympic bid, plenty of talk about Legacy, but little in the plans for the Olympic Stadium that would ensure it would be financially viable after the event.

What becomes of former Olympic sites and venues has caused much consternation. Many continue to find sporting use, although the extent to which they are utilised varies greatly. Some are retrofitted and used in ways benefiting the wider community in ways far removed from their original use; turned into prisons, housing, shopping malls, gyms, churches. Others sit unused and unwanted, decaying reminders of heroic achievement and sporting excitement. Others, like the fate awaiting Don Valley, are simply demolished. Prime examples of misguided planning and broken promises of the benefits that the Games would bring.

Take Beijing's iconic Birds Nest Stadium; it lays idle, too big and cavernous for any sensible sporting use for much of the year. The same could legitimately be said of World Cup stadia. Many of the Korean World Cup stadia sit half/quarter empty week after week. Some of the South African World Cup stadia sit alongside existing multi-sport stadia in the same city or suburb. The Peter Mokaba Stadium, with a capacity of 40,000, sits in Polokwane, a rural city without a professional football team. On that basis, should we be that upset about the fate of Don Valley?

In other major cities, sporting clubs are taken away from their traditional homes so that multi-team cities such as Sydney see multiple cricket, rugby and AFL teams housed at the former Olympic Stadium. In Melbourne the Etihad Stadium hosts multiple AFL sides, that previously had their own identity and ovals, alongside T20 cricket, Rugby Union and some A League football. Yet you cannot see that happening here. There is a preference for a clear differential of identities between clubs and homes. Yes some Rugby Union clubs have and do share with football, but that only lasts for a spell before rules Premier Rugby rules on primary tenancy take hold and difficult decisions/negotiations take place.

We have known for some time that a hefty wedge of public money would be needed to pay for the costs of retro-fitting an Olympic Stadium that really should have been made for football from the start. What is unexpected, is that all but £15m of the money is coming from the taxpayer - directly or indirectly - prompting criticism that West Ham have got their new home on the cheap with prime development land in east Ham to sell. Those defending the terms of the deal claim that there is further protection for the public purse from a one-off windfall back to LLDC in the event the club is sold in the next 10 years, but this is surely small fry compared with the long term boost this move will give the football club.

The total bill for the stadium has now risen to £600million, although that figure is irrelevant as there will always be an element of sunk cost in major projects such as this i.e. the cost which you have to incur to ensure a stadium is built and fit to serve its primary purpose. It is the cost of extending the roof and adding retractable seats (which could be as much as £190m) that is the real problem.

You then have the issue of what this move does to other clubs in the area. Why should one club move in on the doorstep of another, destroying any chance of further growth and forcing an owner to consider a move to a new location outside of their municipal boundaries? I have seen Hammers fans deriding Leyton Orient as a "Small club with 3,500 fans" like they are irrelevant in the World of multi-million pound tv deals and Scudamore's golden cash cow. Others choose online forums and comments sections to goad the London and wider British public about how we are funding their new stadium.

It isn't the municipal subsidisation of football clubs that rankles, I have nothing against clubs who choose to do that and plenty of clubs play in municipal stadiums, no doubt at subsidised rents, in Serie A and Ligue 1 in particular. Manchester City benefited from Manchester Councils' decision to offer them the City of Manchester stadium, with a retro-fit design built in to original plans. Many clubs in Spain are loaned monies by local authorities, although the backlash may now start with EU focus on a region that is facing great economic hardship, but is happy to subsidise football clubs. For me that is the decision for the local authorities and in a one club town I am sure it is easier to justify. What cannot be justified is central government taxes funding a Premier League club's move to a Municipal Stadium, in a last, desperate attempt to deliver on a  misguided promise.

The failure to recognise when massive mistakes are being made is symptomatic across central and local government, local development agencies, sporting organisations and civic leaders. Their inability to put it right, without great financial expense and with a vulnerability that can easily be exploited should be a matter of great shame.

The people of Sheffield will be paying for a non-existent asset, an empty space where the largest modern day athletics stadium in the UK once stood. The annual running costs for which are less than 0.3% of the conversion costs of the Olympic Stadium.

Along with the rest of the UK taxpayers, they will also be funding the move of a football club with owners worth £800m into a stadium the annual rental charge for which will be recovered in the gate receipts of a single Premier League game.

Meanwhile the football club on the edge of the Olympic site will potentially lose out on the next generation of fans to a club who will no doubt pump out ticket offers, get into the local schools and offer the added attraction of Premier League football.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The South gets taxpayer investment, the North is largely forgotten about. The big club receives a subsidy towards future potential growth and success, the little club is left in the cold. A good quality sports facility faces the bulldozers, another is gifted to a club in the richest league in the World. Welcome to modern Britain, where words are promised and not delivered on. Where the legacy benefits the rich, at the expense of the many whose facilities deteriorate before their eyes, then vanish forever. What a legacy that is.