Blades win relagation compensation from West Ham

They think its all over... got cancelled.


User avatar
TKoN
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow

Postby TKoN » Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:36 am

Adam wrote:I don't know what OJ Simpson has to do with this. Oh, and if you post more shit like that again, I'm switching sides and I'm going to say that West Ham shouldn't have to pay a thing. Take your bollocks out of your mouth and talk sense, man. I'm on your side, don't throw your poo at me because my posts make sense and yours don't.


OJ Simpson was simply used as an analogy and there's no need to get so defensive. I admit that I did get slightly confused I thought you were trying to say that Sheff Utd were in the wrong but as I was saying my rant wasn't what if Tevez hadn't played it was simply that all Tevez's goals should be wiped out as a punishment
TKoN wrote:
Come RCHD your kidding yourself if you think Keegan will stay now.


RCHD wrote: I think he will for a while. Quote me on that.

User avatar
DjchunKfunK
 
Posts: 24153
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:52 pm

Postby DjchunKfunK » Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:41 pm

I have been reading a bit about this recently and it seems the whole case was an argument over whether Shef Utd were relegated because of the goals scored by Tevez or whether it was down to Shef Utd being rubbish.
I was under the impression that it was meant to be a decision over whether West Ham cheated in fielding Tevez and therefore should suffer because of that.

If you start making decisions based on 'what if's and 'maybes' then you are getting into seriously deep water, and as you cannot definitively say whether Shef Utd were relegated through poor performance or through Tevez keeping West Ham up then this is essentially what has happened in this case.

As one of the columists pointed out in The Times today the court rulling is basically saying that your position in the league has nothing to do with your performance, but everything to do with the performance of those around you and therefore it is not your fault if you get relegated.

It certainly sets a dangerous precident for furture cases.

None of this gets away from the fact that West Ham should probably have been relegated in the first place for cheating.
Check out my new gaming blog Player State. Updated every Wednesday.

User avatar
Adam
 
Posts: 27658
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:27 pm
Location: Tottenham

Postby Adam » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:59 am

None of this gets away from the fact that West Ham should probably have been relegated in the first place for cheating.


Exactly. It's nice to see that you've taken to undermining your own posts these days and saving the rest of us a job.

User avatar
DjchunKfunK
 
Posts: 24153
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 4:52 pm

Postby DjchunKfunK » Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:26 am

Eh? My post states that you can't go legislating with such wolley logic as they did in this case. In no way do I start by saying West Ham shouldn't have been relegated and then end it by saying they should.
Check out my new gaming blog Player State. Updated every Wednesday.

Previous

Return to A Question of Sport

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests