How did we get here?

West Ham United signed Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano on the last day of the transfer window in August 2006.

Five months later, Liverpool began attempts to sign Mascherano, but it was discovered that the midfield player’s documentation was deemed "unsatisfactory".

The players were owned by third-party companies, who it appeared potentially could move the players to another club whenever it wanted. Thus, West Ham may not have had full control over the players.

West Ham legal issue sets perilous precedent

Ruling of Lord Griffiths on Carlos Tevez could lead to all kinds of recriminations, with opinions becoming hard facts

• Forget Tevez - loan system leaves game open to abuse

• It was Tevez's third party so cry if you want to, but a solution would be better

Multimedia

• West Ham Fanzone: let's look at the evidence

• Is ruling rough justice on West Ham?

Related Links

• Q&A: Tony Evans

What did the Premier League do?

West Ham were charged by the Premier League for breaching their rules of ownership of players. They were fined £5.5 million but did not suffer a points deduction.

They ruled that Tevez could play in the final three matches of the season if West Ham terminated his contract with the third-party companies. West Ham informed the Premier League that they had done, allowing Tevez to play in the remaining three games.

How did this affect Sheffield United?

West Ham avoided relegation on the final day of the season at the expense of Sheffield United. The Yorkshire club were unhappy as Tevez played a crucial role in West Ham's survival, scoring in a 1-0 victory away to Manchester United on the final day of the season. Sheffield United estimated that being relegated to the Coca-Cola Championship cost them £30m.

How did Sheffield United arrive at this estimate?

The club estimated the difference in income and expenditure based on being in the Premier League compared with the Championship.

Clubs in the Premier League can expect to receive between £25m and £30m more income from the television deal, as well extra commercial revenue. The club also took into account the sales of players that may have stayed had they remained in the top-flight.

What action did Sheffield United take?

They requested that an arbitration panel look at the original process. The panel said they had "much sympathy" for their grievances, but argued the Premier League commission's decision to fine West Ham, rather than dock points, was not unreasonable enough to be considered incorrect.

However, the three-man panel chaired by Sir Philip Otton, offered some hope to the Bramall Lane club by concluding that had it been sitting in judgment originally, it would not have reached the same decision.

"This tribunal would in all probability have reached a different conclusion and deducted points from West Ham," the panel said. "We would, for example, have given much more weight to the deliberate deceit by West Ham officials, which concealed the existence of the third-party arrangements.

This led Sheffield United to began a compensation claim, which come under FA rules. The dispute was considered by a three-man panel, made up of Lord Griffiths, a former president of MCC, Sir Anthony Colman, a former High Court judge, and Robert Englehart, QC.

What have the arbitration panel ruled?

They ruled in favour of Sheffield United in their claim for compensation from West Ham. The panel are expected to begin deliberations next week about how much money the Championship club can expect to receive.