"Now it appears West Ham can only proceed on a point of law, if one can be found."

Having already proved that in the High Court, I think it is SU. who should be a little concerned. The legal battle has already been won by WHU, should the matter go back to the courts I think your chairman already knows the likely outcome!

We shall see.
Only time will tell........
Pointless arguing about it between ourselves on here, but i think we will get compensation and WHU are now concerned.

"Now it appears West Ham can only proceed on a point of law"

And there is at least one. Griffiths should have thought harder before applying Chitty's Contract Law to the causation argument (see judgment transcript).

It is being torn apart as we debate.

From what I understand, West Ham were actually found guilty of using an incorrect comment. I understand that the clause within the Tevez contract with West Ham (and probably at the moment with Man U) is in many contracts.

Such as those last season between Man U and Everton for the loan of Howard, and Man U and Watford for the loan of Foster.

The mistake West Ham made was, when asked if this clause was in the contract, they said no. So they were accused of lying about something that was NOT against the rules!

Regarding Tevez's impact on results - West Ham averaged more points per match without him playing, ie 1.25 points per game when he didn't play, and 1.00 when he did. So his impact was minimal.

Lastly, the tribunal had to test whether ONLY Tevez playing for West Ham influenced the final league positions. This means that if Liverpool played an under strength team (against Fulham), or a referee gave (or didn't) give a penalty wrongly, or Foster and Howard weren't allowed to play against Man U (they couldn't because of the third party loan agreements)etc - West ham had no case to answer - well ........

come on hammer fans your team was guilty of using tevez after being fined £5.5 million , The premier league turn a blind eye but we are not, the only way this should have been sorted was to take tevez`s goals away , but its too late now. just 1 rule for london clubs and 1 for the rest ,just look at mansfield for example

Sorry blade4ever, I think you just want one of his goals taken - er Old Trafford ?

While Wigan and Sheff U KNEW West Ham could not beat Man U at Old Trafford, they tried to arrange a draw to 'short out the Londoners' and it misfired :-)

Please accept this - there was nothing wrong with Tevez's registration.

West Ham are only accused of not confirming that a perfectly legal clause was in the Tevez contract. And they got fined £5.5m for saying the wrong word. Tevez was always registered to play for West ham :-)

West ham could not find the fee to sign tevez so where did the money go when he signed for Man utd ,and talking about the match fix with us and wigan be careful what you say there stevie you may get man utd in trouble too , just tell me 1 thing why was Richard scudamore in the same directors as old egg head your so called paymaster at old traford that day ????????

blade4ever - Tevez is currently on loan - Man U have not bought him.

We made 'Joorbain whatever' buy Tevez's registration back off us so that he could loan Tevez to Man U

yeah what ever we have have proof of the truth but please my question