Tevez Affair Again

[ZeroTolerance]

Sky Sports News are reporting that MSI have served a writ against West Ham United for breach of contract in the High Court.

 

This follows FIFA declining to get involved.

 

This is going to get messy

[The Proclaimer]

I think it's safe to assume that West Ham are royally f*cked in all of this. The fact that it's MSI who've pushed it through to the High Court and not West ham suggests that West Ham haven't got a leg to stand on

 

 

And while we're on the case again, what exactly was the difference between the Mascherano transfer to Liverpool and this one?

[K-9]

I think it's safe to assume that West Ham are royally f*cked in all of this. The fact that it's MSI who've pushed it through to the High Court and not West ham suggests that West Ham haven't got a leg to stand on

Why do you say that?

 

Many different panels have now viewed this case, all the way to FIFA and none have said that MSI soley own the player. Why should the courts say any different?

 

I would say the opposite and say that MSI have f*cked up and are getting desperate now.

 

West Ham know the are going to lose Tevez but are trying to get a few quid for the player they effectively paid 5.5 million for with the fine. If they get cash then great but if ruled they get nothing then at least one of their rivals is going to suffer since they will not get player til later. Even better since it is Man Utd!!

[ZeroTolerance]

Why do you say that?

 

Many different panels have now viewed this case, all the way to FIFA and none have said that MSI soley own the player. Why should the courts say any different?

 

I would say the opposite and say that MSI have f*cked up and are getting desperate now.

 

West Ham know the are going to lose Tevez but are trying to get a few quid for the player they effectively paid 5.5 million for with the fine. If they get cash then great but if ruled they get nothing then at least one of their rivals is going to suffer since they will not get player til later. Even better since it is Man Utd!!

 

1. None of the hearings has ruled on the ownership of Tevez in any meaningful way. They have considered the compliance (or not) of WHU with Premier League rules and whether their punishment for breach of those rules was appropriate.

 

2. None of the hearings has any jurisidiction over the contractual arrangements between MSI and WHU.

[ZeroTolerance]

And while we're on the case again, what exactly was the difference between the Mascherano transfer to Liverpool and this one?

 

In broad contractual terms very little.

 

In terms of the specific issue with Premier League rules around 3rd party agreements, the loan of Maschareno to Liverpool by MSI does not break any PL rule because MSI cannot terminate the loan agreement within its 2 year term.

 

The Tevez (and original Maschareno) transfer to WHU contained a provision which allowed MSI to terminate the loan agreement within any transfer window with payment to West Ham of a defined amount of compensation - in the case of this window

[robbo]

In terms of the specific issue with Premier League rules around 3rd party agreements, the loan of Maschareno to Liverpool by MSI does not break any PL rule because MSI cannot terminate the loan agreement within its 2 year term.

 

but liverpool have supposedly bought over mascheranos deal paying 10 mil for him at xmas

[ninja-lewis]

Tevez contract made public:

 

[vanderark14]

Tevez contract made public:

 

 

brilliant.