We have agreed on an out of court settlement with the Blades over the Tevez dispute.
As many have pointed out, the fact that we strike this deal make us look as we accept the guilt in this matter, in the eyes of some. A common (and condenced) comment on different forums have been “let’s not give those dubble standard mothers nothing, rather take a point reduction or even a relegation than accept that we did anything wrong”.
Let’s do a yes or no quiz and see.
1. I’d like to have the owner situation sorted before the end of the next transfer window.
2. I’d like to see the focus moved away from these kind of things and onto football
3. I think that knowing the economic frames within wich we can work increases the ability to perform a decent planning for the future.
4. I think the squad will feel at ease when they know they play for a club not under a threat to be hit by a huge economic blow.
5. I honestly don’t give a flying **** what the rest of the populistic w***’s say about us!
If you find yourself agreeing to most of the statements above I trust you agree with me that an out of court settlement is for the best, just as I said back in November.
Strangely enough I don’t have a big problem with the guilt part of it. The way this was handled back in the winter/spring of 2007 suggest that there were indeed some shady things going on. My biggest issues are how this has been handled by us (pleading guilty – what were we thinking) and the hypocritical theater that ex Blades boss McC***t had us take part of. The way the entire issue was let to be boiled down to – was Tevez worth 3 points or not – and placing this question in the lap of one (of my former (!) favourite) football journo (suddenly turned expert) in the Griffiths tribunal is truly a disgrace. Those things really are annoying, however I feel we must let this go.
Our present economical situation is uncomfortable, so having to pay £15-25 million, or whatever the final figure turns out to be, is not an optimal situation. But I truly believe that to let this drag on, jeopardizing a takeover, would be much more costly. A solution to our economical problems can only be provided by a new owner. BG is economically cripled and must become part of our history. Maybe he (or rather the Hansa creditors) can be forced to take on some of the settlement money by reducing the asking price of the club and thereby leaving some more of the new owners money to invest.
16/03/2009
The inevitable discussion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I agree. But as possibly a representative of "the rest of the populistic w***'s" I can't help but question one small part of your argument. If this was not a court case and no compensation involved, what do you honestly think would be the answer in a survey among WH fans to the question: Was Tevez worth three points?
You can't put a question likt that. If you don't have a good goalkeeper, you will not get any points at all. So is he worth all points you can get? Nope, because it's a teamgame. So if anybody else but Tevez had played those first 19 (!) games before he scored, would that have been better value? I guess so. But from the moment he scored that wonderful freekick against Tottscum? Well, that was a game we lost in the end as well. But after that? Yes, certainly as he played a vital part in some ot those games (even if not alone). But then again, if another goalscorer had scored in - lets's say 6 of those 19 games Tevez did not score - we may have had maybe four-nine points more and the situation may never had occured. And some of those losses was vital as well. As they were vital for Tevez to find his feet in the English game.
And as we all now, but few -non Hamemrs - want's to hear. We had stayed up even if Tevez hadnät scored that goal against ManU. And Sheffield United would have lost to Wigan anyway.
Hopefully this is my last comment to this subject. As it is HISTORY! ;-D
You're a lot of things Hakan, but populistic w****r is defenitely not one of them! Not a w****r at all, come to think of it.
The best thing with this settlement is that we can get on with other stuff so I really shouldn't answer. But there is the Wes Brown argument (or was that Fletcher) - there are stats that say that our point average with Tevez on the pitch was lower than without him. Not exactly proof of anything, but was it really beyond any doubt Tevez the deciding factor? Why only look at those last games?
But if one decides to, the performance of the ManU team in that last game was that of an all star game - talented laughing and uncaring rubbish - certainly worth at 3 points.
Fair points. But I maintain that at the time, in the last three games, the consensus was that Tevez made the difference between relegation and survival. Over the whole season the Tevez/Mascherano situation certainly cost you more points than it won you.
Regarding the statistics I guess I should count myself lucky that Carlitos doesn't start more games at his present club.:)
We may well have lost points getting Tevez in shape for the english game, not an investment ManU have to consider.
I still fail to understand why one should pull the last games out of the context of the entire season. It's like a win in those games were worth more points than a win in November. Last time I looked that was not the case.
Did I like Tevez in those last games - yes I did! His goal against ManUre, and the way he celebrated it was outstanding, but that's beside the point.
I admit that I'm a bit, or perhaps rather more than a bit, confused as to what period of Tevez' possible influence is the more crucial in the courts. The whole season or just the last three games? And does it really matter at all whether he played well or not?
So, anyway, I'll try to get on with my life. Until we hear from Neil Warnock...
Whether the compensation is justified or not, I think West Ham will be happy that they have not had to pay the full cost of relegation like Sheffield United have, and also it finally puts and end to the saga, so they can now focus on a strong finish to the season.
Post a Comment