Why, Tottenham, why?

[Obfleur]

The Arse are going to Champ. league.
All hope is lost. Everything is over.

[sidestreaker]

[Best First]

this topic is just to annoy Pops isn't it?

[snarl]

It's a shafting.

Over half the team had food poisoning, there's an ongoing police investigation.

Apparently Carrick, Tainio and keane were still being sick in the tunnel before kick off and Tainio and Lennon have now gone to hospital.

[Obfleur]

this topic is just to annoy Pops isn't it?

Nope.

[Best First]

It's a shafting.

Over half the team had food poisoning, there's an ongoing police investigation.

Apparently Carrick, Tainio and keane were still being sick in the tunnel before kick off and Tainio and Lennon have now gone to hospital.

its pretty rum.

interesting Tony Saprano quoted boro as a reason for not postponing the game, sounds like teh FA were not much help in issuing a clear line.

still a significant step up this season though mate.

[snarl]

Martin was very magnanimous in defeat, he has true class - Spurs love him already.

His interview in full is on the bbc site. The F.A. (surprise) were tossers and did little to help. From what I hear, Pardew was great and said he's play today or in the evening even though his team had a lot to lose.

I would have taken 5th at the start of the season easily, but having been 4th for half the year, and to lose it to a bunch of slags because we were bocked and then beaten by another bunch of slags....

I think I'm taking it pretty well all things considered!

[Ozz]

A bit offtopic: Is there a website where one can watch goals from Premiership games?

[Best First]

yeah, Tony's magnanimosity (eh?) is obvioulsy rubbing off on you.

love that we fielded 11 english players and 15 out of 16 were born within 30 miles of the ground.

[Obfleur]

love that we fielded 11 english players and 15 out of 16 were born within 30 miles of the ground.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

They should have postponed the game.

[snarl]

A bit offtopic: Is there a website where one can watch goals from Premiership games?

I know of some special ones, but they're mainly just Spurs.

A lot of people make torrents of the SKY hour highlites shown straight after the game, but they're not always easy to find.

Other then that, you have to subscribe to ppv sites / tv channels.

[Best First]

They should have postponed the game.

from what i have read it was the PL nothe FA that were unhelpful, but either way it seems ridiculous that there are not clear guidelines on this sort of thing.

As much as i bloody hate West Ham at the moment and that smug git Pardeew in particular fair play to him for agreeing to postpone given that they have a cup final in a few days.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

It just seems very unfair that your team is unfit to play due to cicumstances that are pretty rare and out of ones controll.
I bet if it wasnt the last day of the season the game would have been postponed.

[snarl]

I bet if it was the big 4 it would have been postponed - I bet ******* David Dein, in his hideously unfair position of power - would have seen to it that Arse weren't shafted had it been them...

***** the lot of them.

I have faith that Levy will [composite word including 'f*ck'] them all over the courts.

[Best First]

i see Tony's calming influence is wearing off...

i love the way Dien's defence of his position is 'Wenger didn't want the job anyway' - like that is in any way the point.

it such an obvious conflict of interests between the PL and the FA.

[Jetfire]

I bet if it was the big 4 it would have been postponed - I bet ******* David Dein, in his hideously unfair position of power - would have seen to it that Arse weren't shafted had it been them...

Eariler in the season Arsenal had 9 of the first team out with 6 of our main reserves injured to.

As it happened Spurs played pretty well (not great) and both West Ham goals were fantastic and pretrty much unstoppable so very little appeared to have changed in retrospect.

And if you don't like Dein, tell your board, along with every other primership club that they shouldn't be voting for him

Naturally I'm overjoyed. Celebrated on Sunday as if we had won the league. Roll on Paris.

Nothing like the prospect of lossing the champions league place with a huge spend out on a ground to your rivals to appreciate being in Europe next season.

[snarl]

Did you get your 9 injuries in the prematch warmup?

Were they all then forced to play?

If not, your comparisson is bollocks, as has been the conduct of your manager recently.

I actually thought we got murdered 2-1. We had some decent chances but we were ****** up bad by Wham at times. Dawson and Carrick could hardly move, so the whole team had to defend on the 18 yard line from the 1st minute. They looked ok as they just about got a load of last ditch blocks in.

I look at the Wham game with the opinion that it was massive, not only in potential, but in opposition terms. West Ham V Spurs is close to Arsenal v Spurs - it is the kind of game that we have been playing to our full ability in this season, check our performances in both games against Chelse, Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal this year.

But the performance against Wham was just guts and fortune. In footballing terms, we were fortunate not to be ****** by 30 mins in. We were getting battered.

As for Dein at the F.A.? That'll be why your gaffer is allowed to continue to call us liars and cheats.

In short, your lot are *****. If Henry leaves, you'll be out of the CL quicker then you can say Jack Robinson.

I would ******* love to have you and the Hammers in the wafer next year.

[Best First]

As it happened Spurs played pretty well (not great) and both West Ham goals were fantastic and pretrty much unstoppable so very little appeared to have changed in retrospect.

there's no way you can say that most of the spurs players on the pitch having had little or no sleep and no food in their bodies didn't make adifference - don't be ridiculous.

And if you don't like Dein, tell your board, along with every other primership club that they shouldn't be voting for him

so... you are quite happy fro a conflict of interests to exist as long as it benefits you? No one from the PL should sit on teh FA board.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

ive never understood the whole Dien affair - in any other walk of life someone cannot sit on an 'independent board' whilst representing a company.

it would be like a court Jury being made up of your friends. and your on trial.

[Hound]

So who thinks Spurs should be allowed a replay?

[Jetfire]

As it happened Spurs played pretty well (not great) and both West Ham goals were fantastic and pretrty much unstoppable so very little appeared to have changed in retrospect.

there's no way you can say that most of the spurs players on the pitch having had little or no sleep and no food in their bodies didn't make adifference - don't be ridiculous.

Only 4 of those who started on the pitch re affected apparently. Spurs had enough cover. No different to a team being injured. If they were poisoned on purpose then I'd warrent they deserv a replay.

And if you don't like Dein, tell your board, along with every other primership club that they shouldn't be voting for him

so... you are quite happy fro a conflict of interests to exist as long as it benefits you? No one from the PL should sit on teh FA board.

No, I'm not happy for a conflict of intrest. EVery board in the country has been happy with what Dein has done at the FA. Dein's job description and posistion. Just about every board in the PL voted him in and many have commentated how much of an advantage it has been to have someone represent them in the F.A. If the F.A didn't have someone representing the clubs then it's highly possible, as in any company that isn't represented by their clients become out of touch, unaccountable and irrevelent.

Other than idle speculation there isn't a single incident where Dein has brought any advantage to Arsenal in favour of another club.

[snarl]

Your info is all wrong. You're paraphrasing the 'shitting bollocks', spewed by those two pillars of *****, the Sun and Mirror.

10 of the 17 members of the squad were injured.

10 out of 17 = 7 players.

How is there cover? I'd like that explained.

At any rate, the majority of PL chairmen have backed us in our quest to get the game replayed.

Read this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... nrep09.xml and Levy's letter.

It's a ******* disgrace the way we were treated.

I actually think Chelsea would have got the shaft had it been them as well. Liverpool, Arsenal and Man U get away with murder from the FA.

[Jetfire]

Hmm, from the same link also supports what I was saying eariler: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.j ... gwes08.xml

"Of the players who had suffered overnight food poisoning only Michael Carrick seemed particularly drained in a game played in good spirit given the knife-edge occasion. For that, the players and referee Chris Foy deserve credit."

Most sources pointed out that Spurs originally asked for the game to be delayed until 7pm on the same day. When the police wouldn't sanction that. Then Spurs asked for another day. The F.A. did allow them a 5pm kick off. But with Spurs claiming that they could play on the day it probably didn't do them any favours in requesting the day get moved beyond end of the premiership season. Boro got treated more harshly a while back.

Back to the F.A. bias, I'll point to our fine's and bannings of several players because one of them screamed at a man utd striker. Hardly carrying favour with the F.A. and you've still not produced a whit of evidence for an Arsenal bias.



In more positive news for Spurs they are goona get loads of money for future buys from new shirt sponsors:

[snarl]

Right, well that isn't the link that I posted, but there you go. I disagree with that guy's opinion anyway. His report is that of a ****. We were ******* pissed all over. we could have been battered out of site by 30 mins in. I was shitting myself as much as my players had earlier in the game, we got absolutely abused.

Dawson - ******. But just stayed on anyway.

Tainio and Lennon - hospitalised.

Spurs' doctors said the players would need "AT LEAST 3 hours rest" but wanted to postpone the match.

Now, instead of trotting out some cock conjecture from some dick sports journo, here is Jol:

"We would like to have postponed the match for one day, but that wasn't really possible. West Ham are playing in the FA Cup final next week, they didn't want to postpone the match and I understand that."

Jol said that Premier League officials had offered Tottenham a two-hour delay to the kick-off, which they declined as it would have made little difference, while the police would not consider a delay of more than an hour.

Aware that Middlesbrough were docked points after they refused to play a game against Blackburn in 1997, Jol added that it was "better to take a gamble than a sanction".

Four reserve players were called into the squad but, after warming up, all the players who had been sick said they wanted to play. "Dawson was very sick but played 90 minutes,"

Jol said. "Carrick [substituted midway through the second half] couldn't go on though. One of the problems was they couldn't take food or any fluids before the match."

Before the game, the F.A. sent one of England's team doctors to the Marriot. They then decided that Spurs were not going to get a postponement before said doctor even arrived.

No people at the F.A. even went to the scene despite them knowing for hours of the situation.



UEFA have said they would have sanctioned the postponement. FAPL said Spurs could postpone it if they wanted, but they would face the consecquences.

I dont see the Boro comparisson - I think your mind is all wrong. WE PLAYED PRECISELY BECAUSE BORO GOT SHAT ON WHEN THEY POSTPONED THEIR GAME.

Did Arsenal not get a game postponed under dubios circumstances only the other day in the lead up to their CL semi against Valencia? I ******* THINK THEY ******* DID YOU KNOW.

Wenger is able to get away with blatent defamation whereas the Allardice and Warnocks of this world get piss over if they pass their comments.

These things cannot be proven, but their is a whiff of badness about them. Dein's position is a load of ****. Tell me in which way it is not a conflict of interest?

---------------------------------------------------

Mr Dave Richards
Chairman
The FA Premier League,
30 Gloucester Place
London
W1U 8PL

9 May 2006

Dear Dave

Re: Protest and request for the match between West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur FC on 7/5/06 to be replayed

As you are aware, Sunday could have been a momentous day for our Club and our fans. It was the first time since the inception of the UEFA Champions League that we were in a position to qualify for European club football’s most prestigious competition. After such a successful League campaign, the excitement and expectation of our fans was simply enormous. Our match at West Ham was effectively a Cup Final.

However, we believe that our chances of success were significantly reduced by the exceptional circumstances brought about by the sudden illness of the majority of players in our First Team squad in the early hours of Sunday morning. In being given no viable option to postpone the match other than a 2-hour delay to kick-off, our players were denied the possible opportunity of competing in the Champions League, while our fans have been left with a sense of suspicion and injustice at the way subsequent events unfolded.

We contacted the FAPL early on Sunday morning and, after a series of conversations, the FAPL called for the England Team Doctor and the FAPL Company Secretary to attend our Team Hotel to assess the situation. We believed that the FAPL were examining the situation in good faith and were seeking to obtain all relevant information before coming to a decision. Indeed, in those early conversations the FAPL’s Chief Executive had given us every reason to believe the match could be postponed to allow our players some extra time to recover from a lack of sleep, vomiting, diarrhoea and dehydration.

At this time, myself, Board members and other key decision makers joined the players at their hotel. Whilst waiting for the opinion of the England Team Doctor, who was yet to arrive at our Team Hotel, I was contacted from a distance by the FAPL and told that we had to play the game that day or suffer the consequences. This, by implication, may have meant a significant loss of points and the denial of participation in any European competition – a situation I could not sanction. This threat was made by the FAPL despite the fact that West Ham United, acting honourably and fairly as would be expected from that club, had consented to the postponement of the match provided that any re-match did not interfere with their FA Cup Final preparations.

The FAPL’s Chief Executive then said he would consider the match being delayed to later on Sunday evening, but unfortunately the Police would not sanction a kick off time beyond 5pm. Our medical staff advised that a delay of at least 3 hours would be necessary to have any impact on the players and therefore it was Martin Jol’s view that, in the absence of a postponement or a much later kick-off, we had no choice whatsoever but to proceed to play at 3pm. What puzzles us is why the FAPL were prepared to sanction a 4 hour delay but not a 24 hour delay. If the integrity of all matches kicking off at the same time was your primary concern, why sanction a delay of any kind?

Our next issue was team selection. Martin Jol and his staff, having originally selected their squad of 17 players for the match, were then left in the invidious position of choosing between starting the match with their original 17 players, 10 of whom were feeling very unwell, or drafting in Reserve Team players, the majority of whom have not played for the First Team this season or are untried and untested at First Team level. In any case, having ended their season, our Reserve Team players were scattered across various parts of London and the South East, would not have been prepared to play in a Premier League (or any other) match at such short notice and would rarely, if ever, have played together.

This was an impossible position for our coaching staff to find themselves in on the morning of what was our most important match for many years. Playing a make-shift, inexperienced and ill-prepared team in such a high profile game could have turned the match into a farce, resulting in an embarrassment for the players, the coaches, the Club, our fans and the Premier League competition as a whole.

To add insult to injury, the FAPL’s announcement that our game would not be postponed was made live on Sky TV from the pitch side at Highbury. In light of the obvious sensitivities and the competition for 4th place between Arsenal and Spurs this was, to say the least, an unfortunate choice.

We simply do not understand why the FAPL failed to appraise itself of all of the facts before turning down our request that the fixture be postponed under rule E 13.4. We were surprised that the FAPL’s Chief Executive did not make the short journey from Highbury to the Team Hotel at Canary Wharf to assess such a serious issue first hand. We also fail to understand why the England Team Doctor, having been sent to the Team Hotel, was not even consulted before an announcement was made (in fact, he did not even arrive at our hotel before the decision was made or even before our players had to leave the Team Hotel to travel to Upton Park for the match). As a result we played the game with players who were unwell but who were desperate not to let their fans and colleagues down. Clearly, our governing body put us in an impossible situation and gave a significant advantage to Arsenal in competing for that 4th position.

With this in mind we contacted those Premier League Chairmen and Chief Executives we were able to locate to establish what fellow members feel is an appropriate way forward given the unorthodox decision made by the FAPL prior to receiving objective information on the situation. We now have confirmation from a majority of Premier League clubs that they would support a replay and in similar circumstances would expect the game to have been postponed. This is a gesture made by fellow clubs which supports the Charter’s aims of running a professional league in a manner in which all of its member Clubs are treated equally and in a professional, fair and objective way. Additionally, from comments made by Sepp Blatter in the media in the past 24 hours, even FIFA would support the idea of a postponement provided the match was played on or before 15 May 2006.

We therefore formally request that you order that the game be replayed.

It is regrettable that we have been put in this position, but we feel let down by the FAPL’s abdication of its responsibility to consider the request for a postponement fairly and after due consideration of all relevant factors. Where such significant commercial and competitive interests are jeopardised it is only reasonable that our governing body ensures we play on a level playing field and supports us by making decisions based on the facts of the situation which has to include all relevant information. We feel sure that the FAPL, along with most reasonable minded people, would not have wanted such a controversial outcome to the final day of the Premier League season. Furthermore, the FAPL was inconsistent in its approach in being prepared to consider the kick-off to be delayed but not allowing the match to be played on a different day.

Finally, whilst our primary concern here is for our own Club, the situation we find ourselves in highlights what could have been an even bigger issue for a Club facing relegation from the FAPL. Similarly, it is hard to believe that, faced with an identical issue on the morning of a Champions League Final, a club would not seek a postponement (with the opposing team consenting) and that, given the importance of such an occasion, such a request would not be granted by UEFA in the interests of fairness and good sporting practice. In our view, and regardless of the outcome of our case, the FAPL’s decision making process and lines of communication in such a situation need thorough and urgent review in order to ensure that no other club is similarly disadvantaged in the future.

Yours sincerely

DANIEL LEVY
Chairman of Tottenham Hotspur

[Getaway]

I think there should have been a postponement, but that this should have been till after the FA Cup Final as West Ham should not be disadvantaged over Liverpool, however, as Jol and Tottenham did choose to play the game(I know that they may have had points docked, however, the perculiar circumstances would probably have prevented the points docking) it would be again unfair to West Ham to replay a game which they won fair and square.

I think this is one that Tottenham will have to take on the chin. At the beginning of the season you would have been delighted with 5th place, a UEFA cup spot and clear signs that the next season looks very bright for you.

[Obfleur]

I had no idea when I made the topic, that all this **** was going on.

[Best First]

Jets - The notion that the PL are a "client" of the FA is utter bollocks - the FA is there for the good of the game and its interets, as a money making orgnaistaion are often going to contradict those of the regulating body (that's the FA) ergo having a member of this money making machine sitting on the board of the regulatory body represents a conflict of interests. The same would be true no matter which senior PL exec sat on the committe. Not having him on the board does not preclude consulting them , it just removes the PL from a decision making process that has the ability to benefit them in a bias fashion.

Stating that PL boards are al happy with what Dien is doing by way of saying their is no conflcit of interests is an interesting tack...

In terms of Spurs to behonest i think asking for a replay now is a bit unfair on the rest of the league, esp West ham (who i note were not metoned ion an explicit fashion in the above letter). Given that the game has already been played i think you should now be looking at some form of financial compensation from the PL.

It svery similar to the boro situation though, where we were given the impression we had permission to postpone, and then latter thoroughly buggered for it.

[snarl]

I think that it is going to be compensation - but if we want to press for it, Levy has to show that all other viable options have been persued.

Regardless, West Ham's final league position would be totally uneffected by them losing.

[Jetfire]

Jets - The notion that the PL are a "client" of the FA is utter bollocks - the FA is there for the good of the game and its interets, as a money making orgnaistaion are often going to contradict those of the regulating body (that's the FA) ergo having a member of this money making machine sitting on the board of the regulatory body represents a conflict of interests. The same would be true no matter which senior PL exec sat on the committe. Not having him on the board does not preclude consulting them , it just removes the PL from a decision making process that has the ability to benefit them in a bias fashion.

Thats one perspective. The other one is that if the F.A have no input from Pl clubs then it's possible to assume they would be to detached from the game to serve it or understand some of the more delicate requirements. Technically none of his responsibilities should interfear or casue a conflict of intreast as there are areas in which he can-not have infulence over.

Stating that PL boards are al happy with what Dien is doing by way of saying their is no conflcit of interests is an interesting tack...

No serious allegations have ever been made and any comments about his work with the FA from other clubs have always been very positive. If there was even a hint that it was an Advantage to Arsenal most of the other big clubs would cause a huge stink ove rit.

In terms of Spurs to behonest i think asking for a replay now is a bit unfair on the rest of the league, esp West ham (who i note were not metoned ion an explicit fashion in the above letter). Given that the game has already been played i think you should now be looking at some form of financial compensation from the PL.

It svery similar to the boro situation though, where we were given the impression we had permission to postpone, and then latter thoroughly buggered for it.

I'm of the opinion if they were purposely poisoned than a replay should be considered if West Ham agree. I think Jol and Spurs shot themselves in the foot by letting them play at all.
The game showed that they competed and were able to play, abit at a possibly lower fitness level. If Spurs felt they sould have been granted a replay they shouldn't have risked playing them if they were susposed to be so badly ill.