We can go back and forth on West Ham, Premier League, Tevez and Manchester United all day, but instead of rehashing things I want to ask the well-informed Soccerlens readers some key questions.
Before that happens though, a couple of observations:
- The Premier League will move to protect the validity of their earlier rulings before considering player welfare, club welfare or civil laws. In that scenario, the Premier League will not – can not – accept that Manchester United are dealing directly with Kia and Tevez.
- West Ham are in a double bind. If they are reneging on their agreement with Kia and MSI they open themselves to prosecution and the excuse that “the former owners did this” is not going to float – it’s a business, and the business is liable.
If West Ham let go and allow Tevez to join Manchester United without taking a transfer fee (they are entitled a fee from MSI, as the initial contracts state), they have then accepted that they did not own his economic registration and that will get the Premier League to bust their asses back to the Championship (if they won’t they will open a big can of worms and this time Sheffield United will actually have a case).
- The only difference right now between the Mascherano transfer to Liverpool and the proposed Tevez move to Manchester United is the 27 April Premier League hearing where West Ham were fined for lying to the PL and for violating rule U18. If that’s it, this seems to be a case of the Premier League covering its ass.
Ok, on to the questions:
#1: Why is it so bad for third-parties (read corporations) to own football players?
#2: Can you please point out that section of the Premier League rules where it explicitly or implicitly states that non-club player ownership is ‘not acceptable’?
#3: If West Ham have ‘reneged’ on their agreement with MSI and assumed economic rights for Tevez, doesn’t that hold them liable to a very big lawsuit? Couldn’t MSI sue West Ham to the tune of 20-30m pounds?
Or, put another way, if someone borrowed your car and later, to save his ass from his company boss, claimed (with legal documentation) that the car was his, wouldn’t he be opening himself up for a ass-whopping legal case?
#4: Can West Ham simply cancel Tevez’s registration and and make him a ‘free’ agent, allowing him to join Manchester United?
#5: What exactly was the Mascherano deal between Liverpool, West Ham and the Premier League? Shouldn’t that be re-examined as well?
Looking forward to your answers.
I don’t know the answers to your questions, although I expect others (who also don’t and can’t know) will attempt to tell you.
However, I do suspect that all the current speculation is exaggerated. I can’t see West Ham pushing their luck with regards their claim of ownership if they were clearly in the wrong. That would be suicidal. I’m sure they either have a valid point or are posturing in order to emphasise the legitimacy of their ‘ownership’ or perhaps to stake a claim for compensation from Kia for the £5.5M fine.
I’d imagine there are plenty of ways around the issue of the transfer fee going to Kia. eg. Couldn’t the clubs agree a nominal fee with the bulk of the payment be made in wages, a percentage of which is paid in agency fees? Ok, so now I’m speculating…
Interesting article Ahmed.
awesome post, i m waiting for some good answers…will clear a lot of unanswered questions i have…
This is such a huge roadblock in the plans for Tevez to join Man Utd. I think that all Man Utd fans need to stop assuming Teevz is going to Old Trafford because at this rate, he might not even be egligible to play next season.
#1: I don’t think there is a problem with corporations owning player registration. The problem is with transferance. In any sport, particularly here in the United States, you hav free agents who then dign directly with their clubs. In the event of a new deal or trade, the new club assumes the plaeyrs registration int he form of a new contract.
THe problem here is that if corporatons are owning player registrations, the clubs purchasing the players must be asolutely sure tha they are fully purchasing the player’s registration, not just his services. Is West Ham absolutely sure that MSI did not consider it a “loan?” That is, did MSI assume it was being paid only to give Tevez and his services to West Ham while MSI retained registration?
#2: No comment; not familiar with Prem regulation.
#3,4,5: Depends what was on the contract, which we may never find out. Contract law in every country is different, but in the United States, one cannot just break a deal unless it is justified that terms were not met. In almost all cases, this dispute land up in a court of law.
I would not be suprised to see theis become a hug issue, and one that is not addressed before the start of the season. West Ham is potentially looking at more fines, docked points and relegation to the Championship, whiel Sheffield United is building a bigger and better case. The Prem will of course move to cover its ass before anyting else, but there HAS to be lawsuits coming out of this at some point.
If this were Alex Rodirguez and the Yankees we were talking about, this would definitely be making national headline news every hour, and I expect to a degree that this issue will become the Prem’s administrative focal point of the next couple years or so.
If West Ham doesn’t own Tevez, and rather “loaned” him from MSI, they are not entitled to transfer fees or the ability to loan him to any other club.
The best solution in the future is just to outlaw corproate ownership of player registration or to allow it and clearly define the terms for players being sold or loaned by these third parties. Either way, it doesn’t help now, so let us see how this plays out.
#1: Why is it so bad for third-parties (read corporations) to own football players?
Answer: It’s not, and it happens all the time with loan deals. Third party ownership was not the problem though. WH were found guilty of ‘potential’ a breach of Rule U18 – this is the rule that says you cannot allow a 3rd party to influence your policies or performance. The rule wasn’t broken, but given the contract allowed that Kia could decide to sell Tevez on without WH’s agreement, the PL Panel felt there was potential for an undue influence.
#2: Can you please point out that section of the Premier League rules where it explicitly or implicitly states that non-club player ownership is ‘not acceptable’?
Answer: It does not state that anywhere. Third party ‘ownerhship’ is not illegal, providing there’s no right given to the 3rd pty to influence the polices and performance of the team. Liverpool got this bit right. West Ham got it wrong.
#3: If West Ham have ‘reneged’ on their agreement with MSI and assumed economic rights for Tevez, doesn’t that hold them liable to a very big lawsuit? Couldn’t MSI sue West Ham to the tune of 20-30m pounds?
Or, put another way, if someone borrowed your car and later, to save his ass from his company boss, claimed (with legal documentation) that the car was his, wouldn’t he be opening himself up for a ass-whopping legal case?
Answer: They can sue, but they haven’t. What does that tell you? My view is that they know they can’t. One thing that emerged from the April decision was the panel’s view that (ironically) the 3rd party agreement between WH and MSI was legally unenforceable because it was a restraint of trade on Tevez (ie he had no say in any of this). Even if they did sue WH, they could only claim damages for breach of contract. They won’t be able to show that they’ve influenced WH on the pitch since April, so its unlikely they’ll be further punishment from the PL for a breach of Rule U18.
I think it’s important to understand that there are 3 important legal documents here. The dodgy MSI-WH contract which was in breach of Rule U18; the contract between WH and Tevez (which still stands and has 3 years to run); and the registration, which shows Tevez is a WH player (also still valid).
As the first of these seems unenforceable and the other two stand, WH may find themselves legally holding a player they never bought. If Kia thought his contract with WH was enforceable, he would’ve started proceedings for breach of contract instead of wailing to the media.
Your analogy with the car doesn’t work because Tevez is a man not a thing and cannot be ‘owned’ in the same way. This is essentially why the 3rd party agreement might be unenforceable. We use the word ‘own’ in football all the time, but we should be careful – it really means contractually bound to the club, which is not the same thing. If you breach a contract you can be sued damages, but again, why hasn’t Kia done this already?
#4: Can West Ham simply cancel Tevez’s registration and and make him a ‘free’ agent, allowing him to join Manchester United?
Why would they do that? Man U want him, they’ve got him and he’s worth a lot. I think you’ll have to pay to compensate them for giving up their rights. If they gave him away at Kia’s behest, this would surely throw into doubt there claim that they weren’t bound by a contract and make them vulnerable.
#5: What exactly was the Mascherano deal between Liverpool, West Ham and the Premier League? Shouldn’t that be re-examined as well?
It was a loan that turned into a purchase. I’ve not seen it but have read that it was essentially the same as WH’s but it made it much clearer that there could be no influence by a 3rd party, so importantly, no breach of Rule U18.
Trying to answer your questions :-
1) It is not ‘bad’ for third parties to ‘own’ a player, that happens all the time with loans. What is against the rules is for a third party to be in a position to exercise influence over the player, e.g. to be able to stipulate he shouldn’t play against specified opposition or in certain competitions, or, as in the West Ham case, that the third party, not the club or player, determines when and to whom he is ‘sold’ or ‘loaned’.
2) It doesn’t, see above, which is rule 18, I think.
3) West Ham’s lawyers, and the PL’s advisors, were of opinion after the disciplinary hearing, that the ‘third party’ parts of the original contracts were probably unenforceable, as a clear restraint of trade. Hence the PL’s view that, provided West Ham unilaterally cancelled the contract, West Ham were not accepting the player was any longer under ‘third party influence’ and were no longer in breach of rule 18, so he could play the last few games of last season. Obviously, it having been a one sided cancelling of the contract, Kia J and MSI are in a position to seek enforcement of the terms of the contract, or compensation for breach of contract, under the law. But it isn’t a foregone conclusion they would win any case, if the PL and West Ham’s lawyers were correct in thinking the contract was unenforceable.
4) Yes, West Ham could simply cancel Tevez’s registration and make him a free agent, etc., but, if they were to do so, the PL has made is clear they would take that as evidence that, in effect, the unilateral tearing up of the contract was a sham, and further disciplinary action would be taken against West Ham. As West Ham would have nothing to gain by ‘freeing’ Tevez, and, potentially, a lot to lose if they did, e.g. points deduction next season, it is hardly surprising that they are toeing the PL’s line on this.
5) The Mascherano deal was a loan deal, with West Ham releasing the player, because they didn’t want him, and, importantly, before the Disciplinary hearing which finalised the PL’s views on the Tevez/Mascherano original contracts. It was also more complex than the Tevez case because there had to be special permission from FIFA for him to play for three different clubs inside 12 months.
I’m sure West Ham would dearly love to see the back of all this fuss and bother, but, clearly, not at the cost of cutting their own throats with the PL.
Apparently, the Premier League does not ‘recognise’ non-club player ownership – at least that’s what being said in some places.
Comparing car ownership to club ownership of players highlights such a limited understanding of the laws governing football. The only legal document held is that of Tevez’s registration with West Ham. The agreement with Kia Jorabchian was ILLEGAL under Premiership law, hence West Ham were fined. West Ham have terminated the illegal agreement as advised by the Prem League. You tell me how Jorabchian can prosecute West Ham for an agreement that was illegal? It would be thrown out immediatley! The only grounds left are for compensation for Sheff Utd, which is very, very slim. Get it??
craig – it’s an ‘analogy’.
definition: An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity.
ok, on to the rest – the agreement between West Ham and Kia may be deemed illegal, but the agreement of ownership between MSI and Tevez was not questioned, nor can it be deemed illegal by the Premier League.
we’re talking about diff agreements, mind you – and I haven’t yet gotten into the dubiousness of the Prem League rulings (see previous articles for that).
2 reasons wht third party ownership is bad
1, money goes out of the game i.e if man u pay 30 million to msi then the money has gone if man u pay the 30 million to west ham then west ham can buy other players and some of this money will trickle down to lower leagues where clubs survive on selling players
2, you could have a company owning players from differant clubs and when the clubs with players owned by the same company play each other the possibilty of the company can influence a match
Ahmed – Your analogy does not work I’m afraid. The agreement of ownership between Kia and Tevez may not have been questioned, BUT, and this is the bit you’re missing, under Premiership law his agreement with Tevez is not possible and is illegal so by registering Tevez with West Ham HE as much as West Ham have broken Premiership rules. He (as much as West Ham) has been ill advised at the least or very foolish. It’s just there’s not any way he can be procecuted because he has only broken football law. If he takes West Ham to court (which he won’t) he will be told that what he did was not possible under Premiership law.
At last some sensible points have been made about West Ham, Teves et al and about time too. This has been hyped up out of all proportion by the media, in particular the Daily Mail. However, for those that have actually bothered to read the transcripts of both hearings, it is quite clear that proper procedure was followed from the outset by the PL.
However, if we step back from WHU for a minute and lets examine who is kicking up a fuss.
Firstly David (Mr Clean) Whelan, chairman of Wigan. This is the chap whose company seriously breached trading regulations regarding price fixing. He was fined £7M or so, and his company still haven’t paid for reasons that I don’t understand as the fine goes back a couple of years. This is the same person who I believe owns (or has an interest in) Wigan Warriors, the Rugby League club that plays at the JJB. For the last year or two Wigan Warriors have breached the salary caps that are imposed in the sport. Apparently this was deliberate and they have been dealt with. They have also been charged AGAIN this year for similar offences. Isn’t this CHEATING to obtain an unfair advantage over the opposition?
Secondly, Kevin McCabe of Sheffield Utd. Yes, the very same one whose manager of the day fielded a weakened team against Man Utd for ‘tactical’ reasons and complained bitterly when Liverpool done the same when they played Fulham. He also sold a player called Kabba to Watford and both clubs announced publicly that he would not be selected for Watford when the two teams met. A clear breach of the regulations, but does he care? ‘Not my fault guv’ he says.
This is not about football, it is about Sky money. It is about greed, pure and simple
The original process was agreed by the 20 teams in the Premiership, the correct process was followed, and West Ham were fined. End of story. West Ham’s fate was in the hands of the other teams in the Division at the time of the original tribunal. It was their fault they blew it. They should have won more games shouldn’t they instead of whinging to the media every 5 minutes.
Whelan and McCabe are odious people. it is they who are bring the game into disrepute, not West Ham.
Ahmed, great article and great questions.
Craig, you are not answering the question. #2: Can you please point out that section of the Premier League rules where it explicitly or implicitly states that non-club player ownership is ‘not acceptable’?
There is no part of premiership law that states it is not acceptable. There never has been, its just newspaper crap telling everybody (which they sadly believe) that its wrong. Its all to do with the ability to influence games and i will now post an interview in which jorbachian states the following…
Kia in his own words
This is from an article by Alex Bellos that appeared in The Guardian in September 2006.
“The transfer of Mascherano and Tévez is a permanent transfer for an undisclosed price and undisclosed terms. It is not a loan or anything like that. There is no clause for them to play or not to play. That is totally the manager’s choice. If Alan [Pardew]
doesn’t think they are good enough to play any game, or for tactical reasons, then that is his choice.â€
That quote is from Kia Joorabchian. Either the man is an out and out liar or he was telling the truth. Which is it? If he is telling the truth then we are in the clear, if he is lying then how do you believe anything he says now?
There was no influence held over the players, the guy says so himself and what he now says just sounds like a man worried that he will be losing his investment.
We have heard all the headlines, the supporters of other clubs who are so bored by their own team that they are jumping on the West Ham bandwagon. Fact is we are NOT GUILTY whichever way you look at it. Doesn’t matter what comes out of the mouth of opposistion supporters who don’t know the facts.
I do apologise Craig, i didn’t mean to direct that question at you.
“If he takes West Ham to court (which he won’t) he will be told that what he did was not possible under Premiership law”
.mr craig ham..for your information, civil courts do not recognise ” premiership laws”.You can not tear a contract without the conscent of your partner in question,no matter what: it is illegal,ironically.
Im no lawyer so i cant ramble out articles and clauses but this is what i understand from the whole situation. Basically west ham “legally” still own tevez’s registration but in “reality” kia joorbochian still owns tevez’s economic rights. But the premiere league in its Sheffield united ruling said that they didn’t. So if west ham do cancel his registration or don’t receive a substantial amount of the transfer money, it shows they still don’t own tevez’s right and this leaves them vulnerable for demotion from premiere league and the league can face a serious law suit from Sheffield united because it shows west ham lied and the league knew about it. So to cover its own ass, the premiere league isn’t allowing tevez’s contract to be canceled or de-registered. BUT (now here is the fun part) now tevez wants to leave and the club cant just let him go.(explanation:read above) and if west ham dont allow him to leave, kia will inturn testify(as he has threatened to) to the court for the blades and hand in paperwork which proves third party agreement which will once again screw the club and the league. SO BASICALLY the hammers and screwed either way. Either they cancel his contract and get screwed by the league or they dont and joorbochian testifies for sheffield united and west ham get screwed again.
In awnser to question 1, the FA are worried that if a third party company owns a players that could make him influence the result fo a game for there own benefit, e.g. Making Tevez miss a penalty, or score an own goal.
Craig – I don’t know much about the legislation of the Premier League, but what happens when FIFA or the FA enters the case?
interesting post, and the article referred to in it.
There’s much tussle going on, but it seems, Tevez is joining us soon enough:
http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=476608&CPID=8&clid=1&lid=4161&title=Tevez+set+for+Red+Devils+medical
don’t know how to link directly – sorry.
and it did it by itself…:-)
Hi guys,
I suggest you have a look at this link once –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2007/05/more_twists_to_come_in_tevez_a.html
I am not exactly clear what happens when the FA or FIFA enter into this WHU-MSI-Premier_League dispute.
Great questions and some very good answers. Keep them coming!
Ultimately, West Ham will do what it must do to stay in the PL, even if it means letting Tevez go for free and paying additional fines. They can’t risk being relegated and providing Sheffield United with a case.
Answer #2:
“Everyone accepts and understands the logic of a rule that commits the Members to behave towards each other and the FAPL in good faith. Equally, on the face of it, Rule U18 has a clear and, we would have thought, 22 unobjectionable object, namely to prohibit any member 23 from entering into an agreement whereby a third party has the potential to influence its policies or performance, such third parties not being a member of the FAPL and answerable to its rules or otherwise accountable to it.”
Source? http://www.premierleague.com/public/downloads/publications/PL270407final.txt – this is the transcript of the WHU investigation. these words can be found from page 3 line 18 to page 4 line 2.
Answer #4
Only reason WHU cannot make Tevez a free agent is because the PL will then accuse them of covering up for Kia, which would make them liable. I also have a suspicion they are counting on the PL to get some money from the Tevez deal. I say the only reason because clubs can release players and allow them to join other clubs, see Roy Keane.
Answer #5
I do not know what the exact details between the Mascherano to Liverpool deal were, but I can assure everyone the deal does not need reexamination because the PL took several weeks to make sure the deal was fair. If somehow it turns out it was not fair it will go down as the incompetence of the PL for letting it go through.
I hope I can get back to you with the other ones
Unless you’ve been reading with your EYES WIDE SHUT this is obvious!! WHU is in trouble and everyone knows and sees it. We all knew there was somthing up when out of the blue they landed Tevez and Masch … so let’s not pretend now. WHU just can’t admit anything, it’s called double jeopardy. No matter what they do they loose. If they were smart they would have just let Tevez go, RIGHT? Sure, but they couldn’t hide the fact that the transfer fee would be going to the agent, so they acted like they didn’t want to sell him, praying to God he would want to stay so they can get through the season. In the end … Tevez to United, WHU to Championship League, WHU fined … DONE!!
I actually found the document for #2: http://www.premierleague.com/en/files/publications/7192_Rules.pdf (you need a PL account)
Then go to page 155 and read rule 18.
To be frankly honest, if tevez didnt score that goal against manutd on the final day to keep west ham up ( if anyone else would have scored it) there would be no fuss. Sheffield wouldn’t brag on and on. they couldnt win vital games, though, say helo to the championship. I say the premier league should let the transfer go through and end the whole thing. MSI should give west ham half the value of Tevez which is still a good deal for them and stop there. The only thing im worried about is what will happen if tevez will want to move on from MAN UTD. Will the premier league but in all the time blocking the transfer? Will Sheffield jump out of nowhere and start butting in too? It seems that the Tevez deal was a really bad move for West Ham in the first place and they should run away from it as soon as possible, get rid of Tevez, hopefully the transfer to Man Utd will be all legal and this whole saga will end.
I simply think the transfer should go through for the sake of letting the case go and a bit of a relief for all the sides involved.
Sorry if you dont make much sense of what i wrote but that how i see the case. If im wrong i do apologise, please correct me.
Andrei – can’t you copy-paste?
ok hang on, read your previous comment.
Rule U18 has a clear and, we would have thought, unobjectionable object, namely to prohibit any member from entering into an agreement whereby a third party has the potential to influence its policies or performance, such third parties not being a member of the FAPL and answerable to its rules or otherwise accountable to it.â€
thanks for this bit. I think I missed it when analysing the rulings last month.
TrevorH has this spot on it’s not about right, wrong or justice, it’s about money. What TrevorH missed out was there were two parties involved in the recent arbitration, Sheff Utd but also Fulham. Ask yourself why Fulham got involved? Was it because they felt serious wrong doing had occurred at Upton Park or was it because WHU finished above them thus denying them an extra £500K from a lower placement in the final league table.
The weekend after WHU were fined they played Sheff Utd and lost, funny how they never bleated about a points deduction then, that only started after they lost to Wigan on the last day of the season! I also don’t understand why it should be 3 points, why not 1 or 2, oh yeah 3 means WHU would be relegated.
As several people here have stated the crux of this issue is about third party influence although the media, Kevin McCabe and Dave Whelan would have you believe it’s about illegal player registration. What perplexes me is both Tevez and Mascherano hardly played for the first three months of the season and there was never a point when they were withdrawn from playing. So where is the third party influence, fair enough Tevez is now being influenced to move but what effect does that have on results! If you want to see third party influence then take a closer look at Tim Howard and Ben Foster not being allowed to play against Man Utd or the Steve Kabba transfer.
As for third party ownership I’ll give you a comparable situation, take Leeds Utd, they borrowed money to purchase players so those players were part or fully owned by finanacial institutes and when the money troubles started those institutes wanted a return on their money and forced Leeds to sell. Where’s the difference with what Kia is trying to do with Tevez?
Do you really think Eggert Magnusson would be so stupid as to have lied to the Premier League, no I very much doubt it, he took the 5.5m punishment that Kia and Terrence Brown bestowed on him when he took over the club. There was talk that had WHU been in a better league position they would have fought the case as it was believe the Premier League were on rock ground for starters, but the obviously pleaded guilty and as such it was deemed that a fine would suffice. Remember that the offence actually had no precedent for a points deduction so as such they were fined, also remember Chelsea were fined 300K of tapping up Ashley Cole when there was precedent and rules stating a points deduction.
The reason for Kia not starting legal action is because he doesn’t have a case and all his comments in the media reek of a man clutching at straws, he’s simply trying to pressure Magnusson into releasing Tevez but that’s not going to happen.
@ Mach
I feel you need some updated information.
1.Ben Foster – The EPL rules didn’t allow him to play against Man United. There wasn’t any third party influence there !
2.Tim Howard – No particular clause was inserted in his contract with Everton. It was based on a “verbal” agreement between the 2 clubs. Man United actually wanted that clause to be inserted but Scudamore intervened to avoid any more controversies.
Please don’t drag my beloved Man United into this 😀
Gautam and Mach – I actually believe that the reason Howard could not play against Man Utd is because he was still ‘on loan’; his permanent deal had only been agreed but could not take place before the next transfer window opened, which was July 1st. Therefore Tim Howard missed the Man Utd for the same reason as Ben Foster.
Andrei, I wasn’t sure about that actually. When I first heard of the deal, I also thought that it would be a permanent move only when the season ends(or rather when the next transfer window opens) but I have read some conflicting reports about it. If I remember correctly, I had read about Scudamore on BBC.
Ahmed –
Rules: Section U
“CLUB CONTRACTS
18. No Club shall enter into a contract which enables any othe party to that contract to aquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in League Matches or in any of the competitions set out in Rule E.10.”
As John said :
“It does not state that anywhere. Third party ‘ownerhship’ is not illegal, providing there’s no right given to the 3rd party to influence the polices and performance of the team.”
Good news is Tevez can still transfer to another club in the Premier League, even if Kia owns him…
If you look at this link –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2007/05/more_twists_to_come_in_tevez_a.html
it says the same thing i.e. Kia owning Tevez wasn’t illegal.
It’s written by Mihir Bose who is a respected sports journalist.
not sure abt the validity of this news and if it is, what impact may it be on the tevez saga..joorabchian arrest warrant issued by a judge in Brazil on money-laundering issues tied to his MSI company and Corinthians
Arrest order for Joorabchian
http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=476614&CPID=8&clid=1&lid=2&title=Arrest+order+for+Joorabchian&channel=football_home&
Well Well it is getting worse every day [:)]
what’s this about the Premier League putting sanctions on West Ham if they cancel Tevez’s registration?
It’s gotten a lot worse, true, and there will be quite a few Man Utd fans hating Sheffield United right now.
The Mascherano transfer is still relevant, I feel. The issue here is that the Premier League doesn’t want the 27th April ruling to be declared faulty.
Possible scenario – United pay West Ham a transfer fee, MSI sue West Ham and settle outside court, United sign Tevez after 2 years, that money is then used to bribe Brazilian officials and keep Kia out of prison.
Great stuff for united to be involved in…
Kia’s pending arrest might put another spanner in the works.
United should pay £5m to West Ham for each of the two years for his registration and then pay £20m to Kia for the economic rights – case closed, except for Sheffield United of course but wont that deal mean that West Ham recieve the money while he is under their registration and Kia recieves the money that he wanted for the player’s economic rights, Tevez goes to United and everyone is happy except for Sheffield United who wont have a case so what can they do?
And also if Tevez was paid for using laundered money does that mean his contract with Kia is null and void
Arrest order for Joorabchian:
http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=476614&CPID=8&clid=1&lid=4161&title=Arrest+order+for+Joorabchian
Well Liam Then West ham will also not have any better title that Kia over Tevez .. West Ham should have entered into contract under 100% Common Belief that the Document of Title is good … But We all know West Ham knew abt this well before entering the contract so it is also Void 🙂
I think the laundered money story is what he did with Corinthians over a period of two years. That article says that the arrest warrant, now submitted to Interpol, is the result of two years of investigation.
I believe he’s been laundering money off Corinthians or whatever, but I doubt buying Tevez had much to do with it.
Oh well, things are getting murkier and murkier. It’s a mess.
The final question is does anyone here know whether Carlos Tevez will become a Manchester United player soon enough? I am doubtful. So unlike United to be involved in such a controversy.
With this warrant, if he does get jailed and then Kia cannot be contacted, what will happen to the whole transfer Saga?
I am really hopeful next week things become more clear.
I fear that the outcome may be United pulling out of the deal and it’s a shame because the only other players who could have signed that would have been as good as Tevez would have been Torres and Saviola seeing as they were the 2 big strikers who were available. An upside would be that Rossi wont be sold but I was starting to really look forward to seeing Tevez in a reds shirt, lets just hope that United can find a legal way to complete the transfer or find another world-class striker to buy.
IN response to post no.4,
I want to know who exactly loaned out Mascherano to Liverpool, Kia or West Ham. Who did they buy him from?
Whatever it is, why does it have to be different from Tevez’s case?
I think the only reason why West Ham are doing this is because they had already let go of Mascherano before the ruling and in now can make money out of that deal now. So they wanna make up for the fine and make a hell load with Tevez’s valuation.
United pulling out is a huge possibility too. But I dont think United will pull out until they realize there is no way Tevez can move. Because, as far as United are concerned, any ruling by the Premier league doesnt matter. They wont bother who they are paying the money to as long as they have full rights over the player, will they?
Why else would they be proceeding so confidently having set up a medical even for next week and Alex stating we will get him registered as soon as possible.
1. Because third parties have nothing to do with football. Football clubs do.
2. Presumably this is the bit about no party other than a club and player can determine the conditions of the contract.
3. Yes, but let’s not forget that this is not West Ham’s fault… at least not anymore. Granted they did the wrong thing when negotiating Tevez’s contract (no one other than the FA would try and deny that). But the FA are the one’s at fault for the short-sighted decisions about this player. Surely they realized that they needed to sort this out because the issue would only arise again when another club came to the realization he’s one of the best young talents in the world and tried to buy him? Did they think he was going to retire at West Ham!? Let’s not forget that the decision, poor as it was, they made was made far later than it should have been.
4. They can’t (because he has a contract) but the FA or, need be, the courts could. Maybe I’m biased as a United fan, but this seems like the best result – seeing as the original contract was sour anyway.
5. The deal was ignorance. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, who can argue now that the Tevez-to-United transfer is not the MOST talked about transfer of the season?
This is even more sensational than the Beckham-to-USA transfer (although for different reasons of course)
Gautam – Sorry but can you explain how the EPL rules don’t allow him to play against Man United?
‘Tim Howard – No particular clause was inserted in his contract with Everton. It was based on a “verbal†agreement between the 2 clubs’ You obviously don’t understand contract law very well as ‘verbal’ agreement can be legally binding thus making it third party involvement.
I have no particular beef with Man Utd but what really gets me about the whole affair is my club WHU are being painted as cheats, liars etc, yet in principle the same thing occurs with almost every other club. The big clubs are painted whiter than white as they generate the most money, news etc, imagine your a jouralist and you upset Sir Alex, suddenly your paper has limited access to interviews etc, so issues involving the bigger sides tend to get looked over the ‘Ashley Cole affair’ being a prime example.
I also thought ‘tapping up’ was illegal yet it goes on all the time, take Rick Parry who let it be know through the media that Liverpool were interested in Yossi B, his comments turned the player who was about to sign a new 5 year contract and then offers just £1m for a player worth at least £6m. Move on a few weeks, WHU have a player who won’t sign a new deal and wants to move and Liverpool, WHU know they have to sell as he’d be a free agent in the summer so slowly Liverpool offer a little more each time and finally get their man for roughly £4m.
I wonder if there would be as much of a problem if Tevez had a contract that said that he not MSI could negotiate with any team he wanted that he could opt out at any point in return for signing for a lesser fee with Westham. I think that in many ways what they are trying to avoid is player freedom not third party influence. How can the player be a third party. Since MSI are Tevez’s agents they negotiate on his behalf and to his benefit. The only way you can say they were not working to his benefit was if he were being sold to a worse team. Therefore, when they speak of a third party they really speak of Tevez himself. They say that a player has no rights under contract that only teams can make decisions on players.
The real issue is player power vs team power. I find it ridiculous that players cannot decide to join another team without having so many barriers placed in front of them. That players cannot decide to join another team without being called a traitor yet teams can dump a player for whatever reason even arbitrary reasons. It is ridiculous that being able to decide which club you wish to play for and when you want to end your contract is considered third party influence.
Think about it if you wish to leave your company for another but the law says that your contract can only be terminated by your contractor and not you. That only your company can negotiate with another to allow you to move. That if they decide that they want you to leave they can sell your contract to whom ever they wish with little or no input from you. That for me is slavery not when a person has an agent who negotiates on his behalf and in return for that gets the transfer fee rather than a percentage of the players salary for life in cases as much as fifty percent for foreign nationals.
Another thought. Tevez is just an advanced case of free agency. Rather than being a transfer he signs for a signing on fee but retains his economic rights under certain conditions. Westham signed him under conditions that would have allowed him to retain his rights.