When diminutive Argentinian Carlos Tevez stepped off the plane from Buenos Aires and surveyed his new surroundings at Upton Park, little did he know the shock waves his arrival would send through the very foundations of football.

And after two-and-a-half years of complicated legal action, West Ham United finally agreed a settlement with Sheffield United to bring to an end one of the longest running sagas in the English game.

The exact figure of compensation paid to the South Yorkshire club still remains shrouded in secrecy – rumours have placed the amount between £15m and £25m – but the majority of Sheffield United supporters are just grateful to see a conclusion.

Rumours of further legal action from other clubs continue to circulate, and United chairman Kevin McCabe’s campaign has been described as a hollow victory as it has the potential to open up a legal minefield that could disrupt the whole structure of the game.

No-one has been more critical of United’s stance than Martin Samuel, who started a one-man crusade against Bramall Lane officials when writing for The Times and carried it on after his "transfer" to the Daily Mail.

Self-confessed West Ham supporter Samuel seems to take particular exception to the appeal’s conclusion that Tevez made a significant contribution to the Upton Park club’s survival in the Premier League that season.

“On the totality of the evidence, we have no doubt that West Ham would have secured at least three fewer points over the 2006-7 season if Carlos Tevez had not been playing for the club,” read the statement.

Stands to reason, really. It is hard to imagine Scott Parker curling in a top-corner free-kick and laying on two more assists against Tottenham, or Mark Noble having the strength or vision to score the winner against Manchester United on the last day of the season.

Who else could have scored seven goals in nine games?

How many West Ham players, after joining halfway through the season, can be voted the club’s "Hammer of the Year" but be deemed not to have made a significant contribution to the club’s fortunes?

Another of Samuel’s favourite lines, and a view commonly shared by a wide majority of the footballing community, is that United’s fate was sealed themselves by their negative tactics away from Bramall Lane. As Samuel writes: “How can a single player at another club be responsible for Sheffield United having the worst away record in the Premier League that season?”

But why let facts get in the way of a good story?

An examination of United’s results from that season shows that they gained 11 points away from home with three wins and two draws. Hardly setting the goal trail alight, granted.

But Watford, relegated along with United, only gained 10 points with two wins and four draws, Charlton had one win and five draws and Fulham had a similar record to United, recording one win and eight draws.

Samuel’s recurring theme throughout his articles is that it is impossible to determine how a season will pan out because of the influence of a particular player. Quite how he came to the conclusion that Barnsley were “17th and safe” before the injury to Iain Hume, therefore, is hard to ascertain.

And Samuel’s vendetta against United exists not only in the minds of the club’s supporters. Kevin McCabe himself expressed his opinion in a club statement released in January, after yet another article about United.

“For some time now Mr Samuel - whether at The Times, his past employers, or at the Daily Mail where he now works - has pursued a crusade against Sheffield United,” McCabe said. “As usual his reports are without foundation and I suggest he concentrates his time on reporting the truth rather than spurious allegations.

“I gather Martin is a West Ham supporter so, maybe, in some clumsy way, he believes his regular attacks on the Blades helps to protect their wrongdoings over the Tevez affair.”