Tottenham ask to replay the west ham game
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
From: Belfast
As a Liverpool fan and with a neutral perspective, I think that a fooking ludicrous request.
Fair enough Spurs had several players with food poisoning, but they still fielded a team and played the match with 11 men. You can't ask for a reply every time you put out a team that isn't 100% fit.
Fair enough Spurs had several players with food poisoning, but they still fielded a team and played the match with 11 men. You can't ask for a reply every time you put out a team that isn't 100% fit.
Trending Topics
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
From: Central Scotland
Hearts tried that up here last season cause the Super Gers got an alleged dodgy penalty against them 
If that was the case there would be games getting replayed every week,what goes around comes around.Deal with it!
If that was the case there would be games getting replayed every week,what goes around comes around.Deal with it!
10K+ Poster!!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,089
Likes: 2
From: Handcuffed to the Mrs' Bed ;-)
Can't see the hammers going for it, and rightly so, they shouldn't. Spurs fan's and the team probably feel some injustice. But, the only far way to play the game, would be to say it's the 2nd leg of a tie, with the hammers going in to 2.1 up.
its a gas gas gas
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,543
Likes: 0
From: Burnage but now shitty uxbridge
if there was a dilliberate attempt to food poison the spurs team then fair enough, but the chances of that being found out are slim.
i do think tottenham deserved 4th place over the whole season but when the going got tough spurs got cold.
if they did get a rematch, then souness should be given the newcastle job again and birmingham should have about half the season to play again as they both had far worse injury cases than spurs and have paid a far worse price
i do think tottenham deserved 4th place over the whole season but when the going got tough spurs got cold.
if they did get a rematch, then souness should be given the newcastle job again and birmingham should have about half the season to play again as they both had far worse injury cases than spurs and have paid a far worse price
10K+ Poster!!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,089
Likes: 2
From: Handcuffed to the Mrs' Bed ;-)
The Club has sent the following open letter to Dave Richards, Chairman of the FA Premier League.
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 footballs 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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 Jols 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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 Charters 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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
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 footballs 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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 Jols 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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 Charters 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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
Member No: 39
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,263
Likes: 0
From: UK
IIRC a few years ago a premiership club [might have been Blackburn] asked for a match to be postponed because most of their 1st team players had flu. The request was turned down as they could field a team of 11 players, if they refused to play, they'd be deducted points & their opponents would be given the 3 points. Can't remember what the outcome was though.
Wanna be whore...
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
From: Essex
I hope they do replay it, beat the hammer(sorry hammers fans), finish 4th then Arsenal piss the champions league final. Then what they gonna do complain about it not being fair rules are different from last year, when Everton got into the champions league as well as Liverpool, who finished below them 
What will we have to do then, replay the champions league final?
What will we have to do then, replay the champions league final?
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
From: Belfast
You seriously can't expect that game to be replayed. You simply can't do that. At the end of the day, Spurs played the match against West Ham fairly, 11 V 11, regardless of who was ill etc. That was Jol's picked team, if players weren't 100% then he should have knew better not to play them.
F*cking deal with it and stop being sour losers.
F*cking deal with it and stop being sour losers.
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
From: Belfast
It's just Spurs and sour grapes!
If I'm honest, Spurs fucked themselves over by loosing points to the likes of West Brom. The battle for fourth wasn't lost by Spurs on the last day...far from it, to be in a CL spot you need to be consistant throughout the season, Spurs weren't.
Soak it up ya bitter c*nts. 
If I'm honest, Spurs fucked themselves over by loosing points to the likes of West Brom. The battle for fourth wasn't lost by Spurs on the last day...far from it, to be in a CL spot you need to be consistant throughout the season, Spurs weren't.
Soak it up ya bitter c*nts.
Wanna be whore...
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
From: Essex
Originally Posted by Alloy
It's just Spurs and sour grapes!
If I'm honest, Spurs fucked themselves over by loosing points to the likes of West Brom. The battle for fourth wasn't lost by Spurs on the last day...far from it, to be in a CL spot you need to be consistant throughout the season, Spurs weren't.
Soak it up ya bitter c*nts.
If I'm honest, Spurs fucked themselves over by loosing points to the likes of West Brom. The battle for fourth wasn't lost by Spurs on the last day...far from it, to be in a CL spot you need to be consistant throughout the season, Spurs weren't.
Soak it up ya bitter c*nts.
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 0
From: Belfast
Yeah, but what I mean is, Spurs often tripped up in matches where they should easily bag three points, West Brom being the main one that stands out...now, if Spurs had of gained those three points that day they wouldn't be in this situation.
I tend to think that arsenal won the race for fourth, rather than Spurs loosing it.
P.S. I wanted Spurs to get it, they definitely deserved it as they played some lovely football and are a good side to watch in general...however, you CANNOT go requesting a game to be replayed that was already fair and evenly matched. Every time you make a mistake you can't go back in time to fix it, you gotta learn from it.
How can Spurs see fit to ask for such a request, how fair is it going to be? It's simply not, Arsenal earned their place.
I tend to think that arsenal won the race for fourth, rather than Spurs loosing it.
P.S. I wanted Spurs to get it, they definitely deserved it as they played some lovely football and are a good side to watch in general...however, you CANNOT go requesting a game to be replayed that was already fair and evenly matched. Every time you make a mistake you can't go back in time to fix it, you gotta learn from it.
How can Spurs see fit to ask for such a request, how fair is it going to be? It's simply not, Arsenal earned their place.
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
From: middlesex
thats a joke, if they get away with it everyone will be trying it on, they lost tough shit end of story, we have been without some of our top players for more than just one poxy game thats why you have back up, LOSERS 
#######NEWS FLASH######
Grame Souness ex Newcastle manager and Steve Bruce of Birmingham City have both filed via a letter to the FA to ask them to try and get their jobs back LOL reason being both suffered this season by NOT being able to field their strongest teams throughout the season due to too many injuried players at one time!
"I'm for ever blowing bubbles pretty bubbles in the air"
better luck next year..................... NOT
Goooooooner for life
Grame Souness ex Newcastle manager and Steve Bruce of Birmingham City have both filed via a letter to the FA to ask them to try and get their jobs back LOL reason being both suffered this season by NOT being able to field their strongest teams throughout the season due to too many injuried players at one time!
"I'm for ever blowing bubbles pretty bubbles in the air"
better luck next year..................... NOT
Goooooooner for life
Gotta be honest i dont see the point of appealing against it seasons over now end of, im still happy we finished 5th its been a lot better than previous years.....
I been saying all season that the uefa cup would be our best chance of european success, CL a bit far for us at this particular time but who knows maybe next season, maybe season after (hopefully)
As for you mouthy Gooners and Hammers fans have your laugh and enjoy it, every dog has his day
I been saying all season that the uefa cup would be our best chance of european success, CL a bit far for us at this particular time but who knows maybe next season, maybe season after (hopefully)
As for you mouthy Gooners and Hammers fans have your laugh and enjoy it, every dog has his day
Originally Posted by DanRSturbo
The Club has sent the following open letter to Dave Richards, Chairman of the FA Premier League.
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 footballs 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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 Jols 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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 Charters 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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
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 footballs 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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 Jols 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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 Charters 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 FAPLs 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 FAPLs 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
10K+ Poster!!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,089
Likes: 2
From: Handcuffed to the Mrs' Bed ;-)
Quite funny that franco i must admit.
This is the latest
We have received an initial report from the Health Protection Agency and Tower Hamlets Environmental Health regarding the outbreak of gastro-enteritis amongst our players prior to the game against West Ham last Sunday.
"The information received so far is inconclusive, but more importantly, the results shown as yet are inconsistent," commented Dr Charlotte Cowie, Head of Medical Services.
"Despite there being the presence of Noro virus in one sample, it is not present in another sample from an equally affected individual.
"Therefore, it would be incorrect to make any assumptions at this stage as to the origin or timing of this and, if anything, it serves to sustain our level of uncertainty. I should also like to stress at this point we are awaiting the results of numerous further tests. It really is far too premature to draw any conclusions from such an initial set of results."