Tevez saga continues

[K-9]

League now contradicting itself a bit is it not after letting Mascherano go to Liverpool without West Ham taking any money!!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/6290492.stm

 

The Premier League has warned West Ham they risk more disciplinary action over the Carlos Tevez saga if they do not receive a transfer fee for the striker.

BBC sports editor Mihir Bose reports that West Ham face action if they do not "assert their rights" over Tevez.

 

Tevez wants to join Manchester United but the deal has reached an impasse.

 

Businessman Kia Joorabchian insists he owns the 22-year-old's economic rights but the Premier League says West Ham must receive any transfer fee.

 

The confusion was created last season when West Ham failed to inform the Premier League they had entered into an agreement with Joorabchian's company when they signed Tevez and fellow Argentine Javier Mascherano.

 

The Hammers were fined

[Drew Peacock]

I'm getting very bored of this whole Tevez thing - total bloody farce.

 

And incidentally, West Ham are c*nts.

[K-9]

Liverpool had to pay a fee for Mascherano by the way.

Not to West Ham though!!

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

i don't understand this deal at all

 

do West Ham own Tevez ?

 

did they buy him from MSI or Corinthians outright ?

 

did Liverpool buy Mascherano from MSI ? Corinthians ? or West Ham ?

 

buy gum this is madness

 

if West Ham do not 100% own his contract he should be ineligible and they should not be allowed to benefit from him financially.

Nor should Man Utd be allowed to buy him unless they buy his contract - totally - from MSI

[ZeroTolerance]

WHU and the EPL find themselves in this absurd situation because they did not deal with it properly in April. They reached a wrong decision then and it is continuing to bite them on the ass.

 

Kia Joorchabian "owns" the rights to Tevez and WHU own his registration. WHU paid Joorchabian a loan fee for Tevez with an option to buy out, which WHU have not exercised.

 

The EPL did not like this arrangement and in response to the April hearing WHU agreed to unilaterally "tear up" the agreement with Joorchabian. However, this was farcical in itself as you cannot do that with a contract - there is a significant body of law around contracts and their enforcement - e.g. if I rent a house I cannot just unilaterally tear up the lease and assert that I own the house

 

If the EPL do not get this solved this will end up in court and Joorchabian will win. There will then be a dispute with the EPL over the player's registration and this will go to FIFA (or potentially the Court of Arbitration in Sport) and the EPL will lose.

 

In my view this will be solved quickly as the MU and Joorchabian get the lawyers involved. The EPL will back down and Tevez will be a Man U player before the start of the season.

 

Sheffield United will then win compensation in the law courts.

[ZeroTolerance]

i don't understand this deal at all

 

do West Ham own Tevez ?

 

did they buy him from MSI or Corinthians outright ?

 

did Liverpool buy Mascherano from MSI ? Corinthians ? or West Ham ?

 

buy gum this is madness

 

if West Ham do not 100% own his contract he should be ineligible and they should not be allowed to benefit from him financially.

Nor should Man Utd be allowed to buy him unless they buy his contract - totally - from MSI

WHU didn't buy Tevez, they loaned him from MSI as did Corinthians.

 

Liverpool's deal is more complicated but is with MSI - and WHU did not get a penny.

 

The basic idea behind these deals initially was that WHU got the services of two players they couldn't otherwise possibly hope to attract and MSI got two prime assets in the shop window.

[K-9]

WHU and the EPL find themselves in this absurd situation because they did not deal with it properly in April. They reached a wrong decision then and it is continuing to bite them on the ass.

 

Kia Joorchabian "owns" the rights to Tevez and WHU own his registration. WHU paid Joorchabian a loan fee for Tevez with an option to buy out, which WHU have not exercised.

 

The EPL did not like this arrangement and in response to the April hearing WHU agreed to unilaterally "tear up" the agreement with Joorchabian. However, this was farcical in itself as you cannot do that with a contract - there is a significant body of law around contracts and their enforcement - e.g. if I rent a house I cannot just unilaterally tear up the lease and assert that I own the house

 

If the EPL do not get this solved this will end up in court and Joorchabian will win. There will then be a dispute with the EPL over the player's registration and this will go to FIFA (or potentially the Court of Arbitration in Sport) and the EPL will lose.

 

In my view this will be solved quickly as the MU and Joorchabian get the lawyers involved. The EPL will back down and Tevez will be a Man U player before the start of the season.

 

Sheffield United will then win compensation in the law courts.

 

And then the whole Mascherano to Liverpool transfer will have to be done aswell. Could be another lengthy one like the whole Bosman affair.

[vanderark14]

FIFA need to step in here. Players should only be owned by clubs and nobody else. agents should be f*ckin outlawed

[bland_flabbis]

The EPL did not like this arrangement and in response to the April hearing WHU agreed to unilaterally "tear up" the agreement with Joorchabian. However, this was farcical in itself as you cannot do that with a contract - there is a significant body of law around contracts and their enforcement - e.g. if I rent a house I cannot just unilaterally tear up the lease and assert that I own the house

 

You can do it if both parties agree or if the contract isn't legally valid in the first place. As far as I understand it they just changed the agreement, with Joorabchian's consent, so that West Ham had complete control over Tevez until the end of the season. That's completely acceptable under the rules because it's only illegal if a third party has the ability to influence the team (which they don't in that scenario).

 

However, in all likelihood the original contract could have been ripped up in any case because the Commission identified certain trade regulations which it violated, making it unenforceable in law.

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

You can do it if both parties agree or if the contract isn't legally valid in the first place. As far as I understand it they just changed the agreement, with Joorabchian's consent, so that West Ham had complete control over Tevez until the end of the season. That's completely acceptable under the rules because it's only illegal if a third party has the ability to influence the team (which they don't in that scenario).

 

However, in all likelihood the original contract could have been ripped up in any case because the Commission identified certain trade regulations which it violated, making it unenforceable in law.

 

 

if this is the case, West Ham's agreement is over surely.

 

The easiest thing for the FA to do now is to say West Ham have no control over the player now, lest this goes to the courts

[bland_flabbis]

if this is the case, West Ham's agreement is over surely.

 

The easiest thing for the FA to do now is to say West Ham have no control over the player now, lest this goes to the courts

 

Well I wouldn't take my word for that, someone who knows more about the specifics could explain it I'm sure, but it was some kind of agreement which took away Joorabchian's 'influence' over the team for a limited period of time.

[ZeroTolerance]

You can do it if both parties agree or if the contract isn't legally valid in the first place. As far as I understand it they just changed the agreement, with Joorabchian's consent, so that West Ham had complete control over Tevez until the end of the season. That's completely acceptable under the rules because it's only illegal if a third party has the ability to influence the team (which they don't in that scenario).

 

However, in all likelihood the original contract could have been ripped up in any case because the Commission identified certain trade regulations which it violated, making it unenforceable in law.

 

I don't think this is true at all.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission was not a court of law, for all the fuss there is nothing really that unusual about the loan arrangement.

 

The issue is really over the players registration and whether, due to a technical breach of EPL rules, whether WHU were eligible to register him i.e. should they have been docked points for fielding an ineligible player? IMHO the Commission ducked the correct decision because they thought WHU were doomed anyway, they applied a large fine and avoided being the reason that they were relegated. That cop-out is still biting the EPL on the ass. They relied on WHU's assertion that they had terminated the arrangement with MSI to clear any doubt over Tevez's registration.

 

Football players are employees contracted to companies (which in most cases are football clubs ) and that company owns the rights to that player for the period of the contract unless it sells those rights to another company. That company is then allowed to show the cost of acquiring that contract in it's balance sheet as an asset which it depreciates over the period of the contract.

 

Sometimes those companies (clubs) agree to loan their employee to another company for the payment of a fee, normally a percentage of wages but can also include a loan fee - but he does not become the property of the other club without further agreement.

 

Just because MSI is not a football club does not invalidate the contract. Basically MSI agreed a contract with Tevez (and presumably pay his wages) to acquire his rights and then they loaned him to Corinthians. He then reverted back to MSI who then loaned him to WHU. WHU did not pay a transfer fee for him (they paid

[bland_flabbis]

I don't think this is true at all.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission was not a court of law, for all the fuss there is nothing really that unusual about the loan arrangement.

 

I'm just going on what was reported, the Commission isn't a court of law, but it identified trade regulations which the contract violated. The quote was that the contract was "invalid as being in restraint of trade". It's not the Commission's place to make that ruling, but the implication is that if it did go to Court the contract could have been ripped up. Anyway that's a bit of a moot point because West Ham and Joorabchian came to an agreement between themselves in any case.

 

The issue is really over the players registration and whether, due to a technical breach of EPL rules, whether WHU were eligible to register him i.e. should they have been docked points for fielding an ineligible player? IMHO the Commission ducked the correct decision because they thought WHU were doomed anyway, they applied a large fine and avoided being the reason that they were relegated. That cop-out is still biting the EPL on the ass. They relied on WHU's assertion that they had terminated the arrangement with MSI to clear any doubt over Tevez's registration.

 

The ineligible player argument is really a red herring as far as I'm concerned. Registration and contracts are completely separate issues, a player is only ineligible if he isn't registered. You can't retrospectively go back, decide that Tevez shouldn't have been granted registration due to the breach of rules in his contract and then deduct points for fielding an ineligible player. If the Premier League agree to his registration (even on the basis of a contract which breaches the rules) then he's eligible until they decide to cancel it. It couldn't work any other way, you'd be charging clubs for breaking rules they didn't know they were breaking if you start going back and retrospectively revoking the registration of players.

 

Incidentally, under no circumstances would Tevez have been stopped from playing for West Ham. A high proportion of contracts involving foreign players have some irregularity which is determined before registration and sent back to the clubs to sort out. If the Premier League had known about the third party influence back in August they would simply have told West Ham to sort the contract out (as ultimately happened in April) and he would have been registered and played on regardless. So the idea that West Ham gained an unfair advantage on the field is a complete non starter. Surely a points penalty should only be used to "even up" points which a team has gained unfairly by breaking rules? If West Ham didn't gain an advantage on the field of play then a points penalty isn't proportionate in my view. We'd be saying that the Premier League season was played out, with no team gaining an unfair advantage on the pitch, West Ham finished above Sheffield United, but because of some off the field offences Sheffield United should stay up and West Ham should be relegated. I'm sorry, but that isn't what football should be about, we shouldn't have results being overturned by courts and independent commissions, these offences should be dealt with by fines (and West Ham received a massive one).

[ZeroTolerance]

I'm just going on what was reported, the Commission isn't a court of law, but it identified trade regulations which the contract violated. The quote was that the contract was "invalid as being in restraint of trade". It's not the Commission's place to make that ruling, but the implication is that if it did go to Court the contract could have been ripped up. Anyway that's a bit of a moot point because West Ham and Joorabchian came to an agreement between themselves in any case.

 

Some of the basics of contract law:

 

If a contract is voided (because it is invalid in some way) then both parties are restored to their original positions i.e. as if Tevez had never gone to West Ham. This would be the same if the contract had been frustrated or deemed impossible to perform.

 

To have a valid contract you must have "valuable consideration". So for WHU to have taken ownership they would have had to pay compensation (i.e. cash) to MSI for Tevez, they did not do so.

 

You can't just unilaterally "tear up a contract". The normal term for this - if the circumstances around termination are not covered in the contract - is BREACH OF CONTRACT. This generally lands you in court.

 

Basically, either 1) the contract is invalid and Tevez still belongs to MSI or 2) WHU are in breach of contract and must pay compensation to MSI to an extent agreed between the two parties or in a court of law

 

The ineligible player argument is really a red herring as far as I'm concerned. Registration and contracts are completely separate issues, a player is only ineligible if he isn't registered. You can't retrospectively go back, decide that Tevez shouldn't have been granted registration due to the breach of rules in his contract and then deduct points for fielding an ineligible player. If the Premier League agree to his registration (even on the basis of a contract which breaches the rules) then he's eligible until they decide to cancel it. It couldn't work any other way, you'd be charging clubs for breaking rules they didn't know they were breaking if you start going back and retrospectively revoking the registration of players.

 

Incidentally, under no circumstances would Tevez have been stopped from playing for West Ham. A high proportion of contracts involving foreign players have some irregularity which is determined before registration and sent back to the clubs to sort out. If the Premier League had known about the third party influence back in August they would simply have told West Ham to sort the contract out (as ultimately happened in April) and he would have been registered and played on regardless. So the idea that West Ham gained an unfair advantage on the field is a complete non starter. Surely a points penalty should only be used to "even up" points which a team has gained unfairly by breaking rules? If West Ham didn't gain an advantage on the field of play then a points penalty isn't proportionate in my view. We'd be saying that the Premier League season was played out, with no team gaining an unfair advantage on the pitch, West Ham finished above Sheffield United, but because of some off the field offences Sheffield United should stay up and West Ham should be relegated. I'm sorry, but that isn't what football should be about, we shouldn't have results being overturned by courts and independent commissions, these offences should be dealt with by fines (and West Ham received a massive one).

 

This I largely agree with. As far as I can see Tevez was technically always eligible to play for WHU. However, had West Ham been honest about the arrangments either in Jan when it first came up or in April at the hearing they would have been forced to cancel his registration i.e. his continuing eligibility is as a result of "bad faith" on the behalf of West Ham United. On this basis a points deduction would be a potentially reasonable sanction.

[bland_flabbis]

If a contract is voided (because it is invalid in some way) then both parties are restored to their original positions i.e. as if Tevez had never gone to West Ham. This would be the same if the contract had been frustrated or deemed impossible to perform.

 

To have a valid contract you must have "valuable consideration". So for WHU to have taken ownership they would have had to pay compensation (i.e. cash) to MSI for Tevez, they did not do so.

 

You can't just unilaterally "tear up a contract". The normal term for this - if the circumstances around termination are not covered in the contract - is BREACH OF CONTRACT. This generally lands you in court.

 

Basically, either 1) the contract is invalid and Tevez still belongs to MSI or 2) WHU are in breach of contract and must pay compensation to MSI to an extent agreed between the two parties or in a court of law

 

Of course if the contract was ripped up then the situation would have reverted back to what it was before - i.e. West Ham wouldn't own the player. Like I say though, that's a bit of a moot point because the two parties came to a different agreement which is (presumably) valid. Just like the agreement with Liverpool and Mascherano was a different agreement to the one with West Ham. I wasn't trying to argue that West Ham actually own Tevez, including his economic rights, just pointing out that the original contract wasn't enforceable according to the Commission.

 

This I largely agree with. As far as I can see Tevez was technically always eligible to play for WHU. However, had West Ham been honest about the arrangments either in Jan when it first came up or in April at the hearing they would have been forced to cancel his registration i.e. his continuing eligibility is as a result of "bad faith" on the behalf of West Ham United. On this basis a points deduction would be a potentially reasonable sanction.

 

I don't think so, when it was finally unearthed the offending part of the contract was changed and Tevez didn't miss any games as a result. If it had been unearthed in January (or August when he first signed) there's no reason to think it would have been any different. Like I say, there are numerous contracts with foreign players which have to be sent back to clubs before registration is granted and they rarely delay registration to the extent that players miss games. If West Ham had been honest from the start, the likely scenario is that it would have been sorted out in August in the same was as Mascherano's contract was sorted out by Liverpool in January.

[Westendorfer]

Sky is reporting tonight that MSI have threatened to hand over certain documents to Sheffield United unless West Ham agree to release Tevez.

 

This is either a remarkably confident bluff, or they really are playing hardball now.

[ZeroTolerance]

Of course if the contract was ripped up then the situation would have reverted back to what it was before - i.e. West Ham wouldn't own the player. Like I say though, that's a bit of a moot point because the two parties came to a different agreement which is (presumably) valid. Just like the agreement with Liverpool and Mascherano was a different agreement to the one with West Ham. I wasn't trying to argue that West Ham actually own Tevez, including his economic rights, just pointing out that the original contract wasn't enforceable according to the Commission.

 

OK so we're agreed then.

 

I don't think so, when it was finally unearthed the offending part of the contract was changed and Tevez didn't miss any games as a result. If it had been unearthed in January (or August when he first signed) there's no reason to think it would have been any different. Like I say, there are numerous contracts with foreign players which have to be sent back to clubs before registration is granted and they rarely delay registration to the extent that players miss games. If West Ham had been honest from the start, the likely scenario is that it would have been sorted out in August in the same was as Mascherano's contract was sorted out by Liverpool in January.

 

This is the part that is as clear as mud i.e. was the offending part of the contract change or did WHU just claim that they were not bound by it? I don't think that either the PL or WHU are being entirely clear on these matters and MSI has been barely involved in proceedings.

 

One thing I'm pretty confident of is that MSI will have a very clear contract in place - these guys are not amateurs. Tevez will be a Man U player and West Ham will not see a penny.

[ZeroTolerance]

Sky is reporting tonight that MSI have threatened to hand over certain documents to Sheffield United unless West Ham agree to release Tevez.

 

This is either a remarkably confident bluff, or they really are playing hardball now.

 

I doubt that it's a bluff. As I said in my previous post these guys are not amateurs and this type of contract is not that unusual.

 

Ultimately, no club took on the risks (and rewards) involved in developing the players. MSI did. They have

[fatshaft]

I doubt that it's a bluff. As I said in my previous post these guys are not amateurs and this type of contract is not that unusual.

 

Ultimately, no club took on the risks (and rewards) involved in developing the players. MSI did. They have

[Nespa]

would love to see the hammers going down! ....but dont like Neil Warnock right enought so not sure what would be best!!

[Tommy]

would love to see the hammers going down! ....but dont like Neil Warnock right enought so not sure what would be best!!

 

 

Warnock's gone hasn't he ?

[The Hobbit]

Yeah, Bryan Robson got the gig. Another reason not to like the Blades.

[Nespa]

Warnock's gone hasn't he ?

 

good shout mate! forgot that Robson took over! Ma heid's up ma arse today!

 

f*ck the Hammers then!

[K-9]

Any "explosive evidence" handed in which "could relegate West Ham" would also incriminate the players owners who will have had to have lied during procedings and would almost certainly mean a lengthy world ban for the player himself.

[Tommy]

good shout mate! forgot that Robson took over! Ma heid's up ma arse today!

 

f*ck the Hammers then!

 

 

 

 

Aye, nae a fan of michael jackson either so when they sing about

blowin bubbles i'm happy to see them relegated.

[Guest LondonScottish]

Any "explosive evidence" handed in which "could relegate West Ham" would also incriminate the players owners who will have had to have lied during procedings and would almost certainly mean a lengthy world ban for the player himself.

 

 

 

Why?? Don't remember the player giving evidence.

[K-9]

Why?? Don't remember the player giving evidence.

If his owners have lied and he turns out to have been playing illegaly, then he will undoubtedly be in trouble along with his owners and West Ham.

[ZeroTolerance]

Any "explosive evidence" handed in which "could relegate West Ham" would also incriminate the players owners who will have had to have lied during procedings and would almost certainly mean a lengthy world ban for the player himself.

 

The player's owners were not involved in the proceedings nor was the player.

 

I have never seen a player punished for being fielded ineligibly, that is the responsibility of the club that fields him.

 

Correction: I can think of one instance where a Brazilian player had provided a forged Portugese passport as proof of his not requiring a work permit to play in the UK. I think Arsenal were invovled in that one and the player did receive a ban.

[ZeroTolerance]

If his owners have lied and he turns out to have been playing illegaly, then he will undoubtedly be in trouble along with his owners and West Ham.

 

The owners have not lied. If anyone has it is West Ham United.

 

The player himself has done nothing wrong. It is not his responsibility to determine his eligibility to play or to process his paperwork - that is between the Club, the League and the FA. Tevez is merely a piece of property in all of this.

[boboisared]

The player's owners were not involved in the proceedings nor was the player.

 

I have never seen a player punished for being fielded ineligibly, that is the responsibility of the club that fields him.

 

Correction: I can think of one instance where a Brazilian player had provided a forged Portugese passport as proof of his not requiring a work permit to play in the UK. I think Arsenal were invovled in that one and the player did receive a ban.

Was Edu. But there was a lot of players in the English league at that point with fake passports & were shipped out quietly while being first team regulars for their team, another example was Sylvinho (also of Arsenal). I can't remember any of the others, just know about that one as they are my team down there.