Let´s forget all this legal mumbo jumbo about legal advisors, and get down to basic facts. It´s a fact that The present board is being crucified for the past boards deeds is it not? So Harvey ian and co are not passing the buck, just stating facts.
Now facts tend to get distorted, as Steve from Sheffield has shown in his statement inferring that West Ham are pleading ignorance of the clause, or he´s giving that impression, even after the initial hearing.
The truth is they are pleading ignorance of the clause prior to The signings. A bit different wouldn´t you say?!
That has been the problem with this saga all along,people distorting facts and making them say what they want them to.
Unlike the last board, the new, i believe has been open in the fact it was they that bought attention to the matter. And just because a certain person decides to claim things in the press with no substance(Why?) doesn´t make WHU guilty. Some are quick to see dirt regardless of the source.

jd, Helsinki,

Can' t wait to read Samuels' take on this - no doubt it will be The Blades' fault; I bet we hid their copy of the rulebook.

Richard, The Hague, Netherlands

Now even Neil Warnock has left Sheffiled Utd. Its long overdue and too late a saga to go back to Sheffiled Utd are mid table in the Championship they dont deserve to be in the Premiership, Neil made such a big fuss but now hes gone and left hes not said anything about the Tevez saga, maybe he thinks he can get into the PL with Crystal Palace good luck to him they have better players than SU.

Indy, Hornchurch, UK

Re Ian's comments, and anyone who wants to conveniently pass the buck onto the previous regime, the bottom line is that it is the legal body which committed the offence and is punished, not the individuals. West Ham's owners paid a fortune (£85m?) for the club, the Tevez deal had been all over the papers, they must have spend hundereds of thousands on due diligence, if they weren't aware of the illegality and it's consequences then they have a law suit against their advisors.

Harvey, Bournmouth, England

It's unbelieveable that West Ham can still plead ignorance as the orginal Premier League hearing examined the sequence of events in great detail. In a nutshell, West Ham officials (Duxbury and Aldridge) were told in advance by the FAPL that it was against the rules to have a third party influence which is why they drew up "side agreements" which were then deliberately not disclosed to the FA.

Three independent arbiters having looked at all the evidence, came to the conclusion that:-
‘What we believe to have occurred here is that Messrs Brown, Aldridge and Duxbury were anxious to complete the registration of these players by the deadline of 31st August. They knew that the only means by which they could acquire them would be by entering into the third party contracts. Equally, they were aware that the FAPL, 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.’

Steve Diaper, Sheffield,

West Ham were guilty of the illegal signing of Tevez & Mascherano, it is quite possible that they were unaware of the rules and they were quite rightly fined £5.5 million and that should be the end of it. However they then proceeded to cover up the continued illegal ownership and lied to the Premier League about the players' true status. For that they should be relegated. There have been instances abroad recently where teams have been relegated years after the offence was committed.

Ian, Leeds,

West Ham blatantly cheated - broke the rules & got away with it. Sheff U didn't - & were punished.
WHU didn't know the rules? Don't make me laugh.
The Premiership authorities knew the rules too & played their part & I hope against hope that Joorabchian reveals all & both WHU & the Premiership receive a just punishment.
Corruption needs to be exposed - I hope all the facts are revealed & justice done. Only then will West Ham lose the tag 'Premier League United.'

James Edwards, Leatherhead, England

The trouble is, and i reply to a previous poster, that there were two regimes involved, and to tar both with the same brush is unjust.

It was also stated that West Ham benefitted from the use of Tevez, which to a degree is true. But how much emphasis do you put on West hams survival because of Tevez and Sheffields demise because of their own poor performance. Remember both had to get a result on the day.

West Hams previous regime did wrong, whether through ignorance or other will remain unknown.And although it tarnished the face of football to some degree, Sheffields continuous hounding of the matter has done far worse. Make no mistake, this is not being done on moral grounds but on the grounds that is the rule of the world,MONEY!

ian, Helsinki, Finland

The Joorabchian argument relates to the period after West Ham had admitted and been fined for this offence. To now try to divert attention back to the original offence seems a somewhat desperate tactic.
If it is shown that some form of contract was still in place at the end of the 2006-07 season then West Ham deserve the strongest possible punishment.

Mike Vale, Milton Keynes, England

As a West Ham fan, this fiasco, and the signing of Lee Bowyer, are recent low points for me. West Ham have breached a rule, probably more through naiivity/incompetence of our former management team than malicious intent to gain advantage.

Personally, I don't understand why any executive couldn't see that if Man U and Arsenal et al. weren't jumping on the opportunity to sign Tevez and Masche, and we were the biggest club prepared to take them, that something was up!

I also think the bottom line is that they caused more trouble than they solved and Tevez's good performances at the end of the season only sought to partially rectify the immeasurable disruption they caused to the start of our season, eventually costing Pardew, who was stuck them them, his job.

Had the Premier League honestly thought that we would string so many wins together at the end of the season and stay up, they probably would have acted more harshly, but doesn't the fact that we proved oursleves on the pitch by winning games show we did deserve to stay up? Sheff Utd, had their fate in their own hands on the last day and blew it!

The only teams who have honestly benefited are probably Man U and Liverpool who got a free look at both players and rode on the back of our naiivity to sign both players relatively cheaply and in a legal way.

If I were Sheff. Utd, I would be probably doing the same, but I agree with former comments that they would be better off focusing on the situation they are in rather than pursuing this weak case as no court is going to set a precedent for legal action in this way. Should Arsenal sue for not getting the penalty against Liverpool last week - that cost them a few million?

The Premiership is not a strong league below the top 6 and let's not forget that Sheff. Utd only got 38 points in the season they went down, 3 of which were in beating West Ham in one of only 10 wins, so head to head the evidence is not damining. Over the course of a season they were not good enough. We had gone down with 4 more points than that 3 seasons before and last season we actually finished 15th, 3 places above Sheff Utd. with 2 more wins. This season probably 36 points will be enough to stay up, so it is swings and roundabouts.

I think most football fans would say West Ham deserve their Premiership status more than any Championship club or Premiership club from Wigan downwards at the moment and we haven't played well at all this year. I really hope this saga will die as we have been punished and new unrelated owners brought in. West Ham really need to concentrate on football and getting our injury list down otherwise we will be down next season!

Matt, London, UK

West Ham admitted their breach of the rules and were punished accordingly. There were no precedents for this case, and no explicit punishments in the rules. The whole disciplinary process and punishments were entirely in accordance with the FA and Premier League rules. Sheffield United were unhappy with the punishment but...tough. Perhaps had they concentrated on the actual playing of the game they would have stayed up, or even made a serious run at getting back up this season. If they are allowed to win a case like this the whole of sport will be laid open to court challenge after court challenge. Never mind the sour grapes we get from managers after defeats - it will become a case of,"if we lose, we sue."

Roy Allen, Hong Kong,

West Ham are as guilty as sin!!

They lied and cheated their way to Premiership safety last season and the shady way in which they conducted their affairs has sullied and stained football greatly.

West Ham should be made an example of and if the Premiership hierarchy had any scruples, then they would relegate the Hammers and make an example of the club.

West Ham have conducted themselves very poorly and should be ashamed. To all those concerned, you have let your club and English football down very badly!!

Steven Leach, Swindon, Wiltshire

The maxim "Ignorantia juris haud excusat" immediately springs to mind.

West Ham knew they broke the rules and they have already admitted as much.

It is difficult to see many premiership clubs supporting them by admitting similar ignorance of the rules of the league in which they ply their trade. It would be the equivalent of asking the Referees' Association for support regarding misunderstanding of the offside rule.
No Premiership CEO is going to make what is tantamount to an admission of their own incompetance. Even those who are incompetant should be smart enough to realise this is an issue to keep well away from.

Roy Koerner, Northumberland, UK