Fifa

[CoveBaySheep]

If you ask me Man U clearly have little comfidence in the impartiality of the Premier League, and clearly believe West Ham don't own the rights for Tevez.

 

If Fifa decide in favour of Man U, what will this mean to Sheff Utd- it would also mean that the premier league and West Ham will have acted inproperly.

 

I think this is going to be the new Bosman and is going to do the rounds for years to come.

[NPRC]

Will it be known as a Tevez?

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

good to see this finally getting sorted out

 

West Ham and the EPL haven't a legal leg to stand on here and thus West Ham are not entitiled to a penny.

 

they do not own Tevez, they have not paid a transfer fee for them, an despite their claims to have ended the orginal contract with MSI, any one woh's ever signed a contract will tell you, you can't just rip up a contract without both parties agreeing to it

 

MSI stil own Tevez, the EPL have him registered as a player.

 

If West Ham & the EPL had any brains they'd back off now, lest fifa rule in favour of man utd & MSI, thus leading to west hams relegation ( or worse for lying, i'm sure knacker of the yard would be intrested) and the EU courts get involved,

[ZeroTolerance]

A coupl of points to add:

 

1. IMHO the PL have inserted themselves into this affair in a wholly inappropriate manner. The PL is there to manage the affairs of the league, deal with player registrations, etc, etc. They should have no voice in what agreements clubs come to between each other, what are the correct value of transfer and to whom should funds be paid. I am not surprised that Man u have gone to FIFA.

 

2. Nobody has done anything illegal, so this will not become a police matter. The contracts in question were legal but breached PL rules, lying to the PL is a matter for the PL.

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

who knows what sort of "interesting" deals have been done by this new West Ham board, let alone those done by MSI ?

 

if reports in London are to be believed ( ok, possibly total football gossip) , the new admin at West Ham don't quite have the money they said they did and, although i do not know what the legal term is for it, it's reportedly similar to the situation at Exeter, which lead to the 2 directors being jailed for fraud.

[CoveBaySheep]

who knows what sort of "interesting" deals have been done by this new West Ham board, let alone those done by MSI ?

 

if reports in London are to be believed ( ok, possibly total football gossip) , the new admin at West Ham don't quite have the money they said they did and, although i do not know what the legal term is for it, it's reportedly similar to the situation at Exeter, which lead to the 2 directors being jailed for fraud.

 

sounds like Man u in the 80's when the boy whos name i can't remember tried to buy the club, did keepy ups in the centre circle and proclaimed himself as the saviour of old trafford.

we then discovered he had about a pound fifty in total and bought some non-entity team like Bournmouth(Or York can't remember that bit either)

 

Mind you i thought old egg head was the second richest person in Iceland after Bjork

[KGB]

sounds like Man u in the 80's when the boy whos name i can't remember tried to buy the club, did keepy ups in the centre circle and proclaimed himself as the saviour of old trafford.

we then discovered he had about a pound fifty in total and bought some non-entity team like Bournmouth(Or York can't remember that bit either)

 

Mind you i thought old egg head was the second richest person in Iceland after Bjork

 

 

I believ that you are referring to Michael Knighton. He bought Carlisle.

[Guest LondonScottish]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/6905709.stm

 

No wonder the guy is hitting out at the move. He'll be getting millions in his back pocket at West Ham see f*ck all. The guy seems a complete and utter prick, money grabbin' b*st*rd.

 

 

So does he not own the player? Did he not buy him and all his rights in South America, and put him in the shop window at a low level EPL club in the hope that a major club would come in for him??

 

Can't see why you see him as a "complete and utter prick, money grabbin' b*st*rd." Business is business. Its obviously still his asset, and West Ham's story is hanging by a thread.

[Baggy89]

Couple of points, Eggert Magnusson and the current board had no involvement in the transfers of Tevez and Mascherano that was Terence Brown and the previous board.

The fraud issue at Exeter was to do with the two guys paying themselves a couple of grand a week while defaulting on payments of staff players and the IR, although I think one got done on false representation (or something like that, claiming he had funds when he didn't), possibly the one who had been done for fraud previously. They were also falsifying gate receipts i.e. saying there was 1000 less than there was at a game and pocketing the difference.

Apparantly the businessmen owning players in South America is farily common practice, and has there not been a few cases of it occuring in England previously QPR rings a bell in my head.

[ZeroTolerance]

Couple of points, Eggert Magnusson and the current board had no involvement in the transfers of Tevez and Mascherano that was Terence Brown and the previous board.

 

True, but

 

1. This is part of the reason why they "got off" with a fine in April

 

2. It doesn't get you out of any obligation relating to they contracts. This is why you to Due Diligence before buying a company.

[E-P-K]

True, but

 

1. This is part of the reason why they "got off" with a fine in April

 

A few days after the fine was issued to West Ham, There was a phone in on Radio 606 . The caller worked for a company in the city of London that specializes in company take overs.

 

Interestingly, He pointed out that any fine or charge that is appled to the company after the take over is complete, That was a result of the previous owners.

 

Will be clawed back from the previous owner.

 

So West Ham may have been fined a record amount of

[Baggy89]

True, but

 

1. This is part of the reason why they "got off" with a fine in April

 

2. It doesn't get you out of any obligation relating to they contracts. This is why you to Due Diligence before buying a company.

 

Exactly, the players didn't actually have contracts with West Ham though, they have/had contracts with Joorbachian and MSI, West Ham in turn had a contract with Joorbachian and MSI. As I also said I'm sure there have been cases of businessmen buying players for clubs before in England, so would it even have come up as an issue during due dilligence? It is afterall only the PL that say you cannot do this.

[ZeroTolerance]

Exactly, the players didn't actually have contracts with West Ham though, they have/had contracts with Joorbachian and MSI, West Ham in turn had a contract with Joorbachian and MSI. As I also said I'm sure there have been cases of businessmen buying players for clubs before in England, so would it even have come up as an issue during due dilligence? It is afterall only the PL that say you cannot do this.

 

Tevez does have a contract with West Ham for 4 years, although it contains provisions allowing him and MSI to terminate the contract during a transfer window with the payment of a defined amount of compensation to WHU - in the case of this window

[Baggy89]

Tevez does have a contract with West Ham for 4 years, although it contains provisions allowing him and MSI to terminate the contract during a transfer window with the payment of a defined amount of compensation to WHU - in the case of this window

[paulkaneatemyhamster]

Tevez does have a contract with West Ham for 4 years, although it contains provisions allowing him and MSI to terminate the contract during a transfer window with the payment of a defined amount of compensation to WHU - in the case of this window

[ZeroTolerance]

Ahh wisnae aware of that, sems like it must be a fair mess of different contracts with different clauses, was this the one that WHU "ripped up"?. I had asumed it was just a loan agreement between MSI and WHU.

The bit WHU "ripped up" was the one that allowed MSI to transfer Tevez without WHU's consent. This behaviour is contrary to all the fundamental principles of contract law and will potentially get messy in court if not otherwise resolved.

 

The Maschareno deal with Liverpool is different as MSI cannot transfer him within the 2-year loan period and the proposed deal with Man U will be the same.

[K-9]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/6906353.stm

 

West Ham now say that the original deal was torn up without any objections at the time and that the only contract left is the player's 4 year contract with West Ham. Kia Joorabchian may have f*cked up royally and may end up with nothing!!

[ZeroTolerance]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/6906353.stm

 

West Ham now say that the original deal was torn up without any objections at the time and that the only contract left is the player's 4 year contract with West Ham. Kia Joorabchian may have f*cked up royally and may end up with nothing!!

Meaningless posturing.

 

Legally you have up to 3 years after the event to raise contractual disputes.

[CoveBaySheep]

Meaningless posturing.

 

Legally you have up to 3 years after the event to raise contractual disputes.

 

 

Litigation in England is 6 years (5 in Scotland)- even then the time only starts from the point a contractural error was spoted.

 

i expect MSI were quite happy biding their time knowing they have full contractural control.

 

an employer cannot amend a contract with out the signed consent of the contractee (Remember Steven Pressley's strike with Hearts when they ammended the players contract so that a contract could be cancelled with a player if they were injured/ill for a period greater than 6 Months), unless the amendment relates to changes in legislation.

 

therefore i don't see how West Ham have got off with it so far.

[DandyDons1903]

I don't fully understand the situation as I can't be arsed reading everything. However, if FIFA rule in favour of Man Utd, will this not open the door in Europe for more of this kind of player ownership? IMO, it's a bad thing for players to be owned by 3rd parties. The rights to a players registration should be owned solely by the club he plays for in my mind.

[E-P-K]

I don't fully understand the situation as I can't be arsed reading everything. However, if FIFA rule in favour of Man Utd, will this not open the door in Europe for more of this kind of player ownership? IMO, it's a bad thing for players to be owned by 3rd parties. The rights to a players registration should be owned solely by the club he plays for in my mind.

 

 

 

Media Sports Investments currently own over 10 players including Carlos Alberto who has just signed for Werder Bremen.

 

I am a bit suprised that the media has not picked up on the fact that Roman Abramovich reputedly owns 15% of MSI.

[ZeroTolerance]

Media Sports Investments currently own over 10 players including Carlos Alberto who has just signed for Werder Bremen.

 

I am a bit suprised that the media has not picked up on the fact that Roman Abramovich reputedly owns 15% of MSI.

 

I would be surprised if Abramovich had a stake in a company largely owned by Boris Berezovsky, this would likely put him in in Putin's bad books.

 

 

Edit: Of course I am forgetting that Abramovich and Berezovsky were partners in Sibneft before the latter fell out with Putin