Yossi

Pompey and Chelsea are rumoured to be the other 2

Nothing. They were out of contract. Hence the yearly sum (convaluted loan) paid to Kia Joorabchian. That's how he makes his money (for doing diddly squat). Joorabchian 'gave' WHU Tevez's registration (because he had to - Tevez can't play without a club 'owning' his registration) in return for a yearly fee.

It is thought Kia won't go for your suggestion, because although he'll get money up front, he loses out longer term. This should explain it better (not my words BTW but the author explains it better than I seem to be doing!): It's a common misconception that this all blew up when the Mascherano transfer uncovered the previously hidden clauses in the two players' contracts. What actually happened was that when Everton first tried to take Fernandez on loan they submitted a contract containing a clause that would force them to buy the player for ?12m if he played 3 consecutive games. The Premier League spokeswoman (Ms Purdon) told them that this would breach the notorious rule U18 but if Everton simply didn't send that bit of the paperwork in everything would be ok. (This was identical to the advice Ms Purdon claims not to have given West Ham by the way). Wisely, Everton decided that this didn't seem to be too safe a way to proceed and, pointing out that Portsmouth had been subject to identical terms when the player had been on loan there, they did the equivalent of asking to speak to someone in charge when put through to a call centre. Alarmed that the Portsmouth deal seemed to have escaped their notice, the PL then wrote to all clubs asking whether there were any similar clauses in any of their contracts. Looking to shift Mascherano out at that point Eggy found the offending clause in his and Tevez's paperwork and came clean. As for ripping up the contract, legally speaking, as far as West Ham are concerned the contract ceased to exist when the club communicated its intention to withdraw from the deal. From MSI's point of view they would only be in a position to sue once we'd actually done something to put them at a disadvantage. In this case if we were to sell Tevez without passing on the money that would be the point at which MSI could sue for the breach. With hindsight, the PL made a pig's ear of things by insisting that we withdraw totally from all contact with MSI. This gave the impression that all third party contact would be illegal - which it isn't. If they had simply insisted that we issua a notice of our intention not to comply with the clause allowing MSI to sell Tevez without our permission, it would have been a simple matter of MSI seeking the all clear for the player to talk to Man Utd - much as most agents ought to do anyway. Having cancelled the whole contract at the behest of the PL West Ham have the player's registration (only clubs can hold registrations). As such the rules provide that transfer fees be paid to the club holding the registration. MSI hold a bit of paper showing that they own the "economic rights" to the player (ie the right to any transfer fee). West Ham can't pay that money over without resurrecting the contract they tore up. Easiest way out - Man Utd pay us whatever Tevez is worth. MSI sue us for breach of contract. Either it all goes to court and the enforcability of the offending clause is fully tested and we either keep the money of pay MSI depending on the result or, possibly more likely, they sue for breach of contract and we settle out of court splitting the transfer fee with MSI.

The saga continues. Kia Joorabchian's assets or those of the company he fronted (MSI) have been frozen and he is wanted by Brazilian authorities for money laundering. The Brazilian authorities have asked Interpol for help in bringing him in. Meanwhile, Kia insists Tevez will fly back on Tuesday and have his medical at Carrington on Wednesday. Which West Ham deny...

My favourite player I have seen 'live' and the reason for my hatred of Kamara.

No problem. I understand that we're getting some stick over it, and will a way into the future, and I hope it comes across that i'm not defending what the club did. Cos you can't defend the indefensible. Besides which as football fans, I think we all know that no set of supporters can hate a club chairman/board as much as that club's own fans. The guy that did this deal was a complete Kunt. All I have tried to do, is explain the contract as it stood originally and as it stands now. Or at least, how I understand it after reading all the documents I have managed to read on it anyway.

Wrong. Only one club can own a player's registration at any one time. A player can be owned by whomever, not just a club. A business (such as MSI) can own a player. A person can own a player. A group of mates could own a player if they wished. I think something along those lines happened at QPR. As long as the owner(s) of a player have no influence over the club then it is perfectly acceptable.

Yes. But only with MSI's agreement! Just as MSI can sell him to Man Utd, but only with West Ham's agreement. Both, as detailed within the contract! Which is perfectly acceptable in the rules!

It didn't have to be done before the game with you. It had to be done before the game with Wigan. If the clause in question hadn't of been deleted we would still have been in breach of Rule U18. The commission said that the 'influence' that MSI could have had because of the clause, they never used. But according to the rules that was irrelevant. Which is why it had to be done straight away. The options available to WHU were to get rid of the clause or not play Tevez.

Neither. It is not West Ham's story that MSI are not involved. West Ham state that they own Tevez's worldwide registration and MSI own his economic rights. Remember: the only thing that was wrong with the original contract was that MSI could sell Tevez whenever they wanted during a transfer window without the need for West Ham's agreement. This giving MSI 'influence' over the football club. The fact that MSI own Tevez's economic rights is not an issue. It is perfectly acceptable under Premier League rules. Just like was said earlier, when a player leaves a club on a bosman (i.e. his contract with his club runs out), the club no longer own his registration. In essence, the deal that brought Tevez (and Mascherano) to the club was a convaluted loan. West Ham got Tevez's registration for 4 years. However, when that time elapsed instead of the player being a 'free agent' his registration passed back to MSI. Which enables MSI to then sell him to another club in the traditional manner, or more likely, sell him to another club in another convaluted loan. The deal on the table from Man Utd is a convaluted loan. Nothing wrong with it. To 'own' Tevez you need to own both his worldwide registration and his economic rights.

I give up!

Tevez signed a 4 year contract on 31st August 2006.

So you think West Ham won the World Cup then

He's worthless to us if he rufuses to play though isn't it. All the while he is at West Ham we will have to pay his wages and Kia's loan fee...

WHUFC didn't set the punishment, what do you want Magnusson to do? Say 'awfully sorry Mr Scudamore but the previous owner was a bit of a shady character and broke the rules, you have punished the club I now own, but I think the punishment was too light, please relegate us'? In my opinion, the argument that Tevez almost singlehandedly kept us up, is bullsh1t. Going by that it's easier to argue he got us into the mess in the 1st place. For sure we won 7 in 9 at the end of the season. What about the 8 straight games we lost when he was in the side? Did he singlehandedly mastermind that too?

For him to play for any club, they must own his registration. Man Utd pay Tevez for his services. Man Utd pay Kia Joorabchian for enabling them to use his services. WHUFC won't want to hold onto a player that doesn't want to play for them. So WHUFC will compensate KJ for the loss of the original (against the rules) clause that is no longer in place. KJ will pay WHUFC for his registration in order to make money from loaning him to Man Utd (or A N Other). In reality, KJ and EM will come to an arrangement between themselves.

We own Tevez's world wide registration. Kia owns Tevez's economic rights. For Tevez to play for Man Utd, they will need to 'own' that registration. However, they won't be 'buying' Tevez in the traditional manner. Man Utd will pay Kia (through his companies MSI/JSI) a fee for Tevez's loan. Probably around ?9m a year. So you see, the actual 'transfer' fee (for the registration) won't be a lot of money.

It stank to me. Now we have been punished for the stink...

1. WHU were happy for the Mascherano deal to go through and therefore wouldn't have made an issue about letting go of his registration. 2. At that time, the clauses that have subsequently been found to break Rule U18 were in place. Meaning that WHUFC had no option but to let Joorabchian do as he pleased with Mascherano. 3. After the original independent commission the offending clauses were removed. This now means that Joorabchian cannot sell Tevez without WHUFC's agreement as we own his registration. This is why currently Joorabchian and Magnusson are locked in talks. I'm 99% sure they will come to an agreement of sorts, thus avoiding going to court.

Not at all. Kia is simply doing part of his negotiating with Magnusson in the press.

red ginger - red ginger? How amusing!

Absofcukinglutely. What WHUFC did was against the rules and they knew it. It was all done by that red ginger Brown and his dodgy criminal (allegedly) yes man, Aldridge. The only good thing is that both of them are gone, and gone for good. I only hope that behind closed doors, Magnusson and his legal team are putting together a decent case against T Brown.

MSI have always owned Tevez's economic rights. And still do. Which isn't against PL rules. All WHU did is rip up the clause that 'could' have allowed MSI to exert influence over WHU and/or Tevez. Even if they haven't done this (which i'm 99.99%) sure they have (at least in their eyes anyway), then do I think we deserve a points deduction? Still unsure. Probably yes. Then again, we could easily have had one already. It's not straightforward is it, because no where in the rules does it state what a suitable punishment for breaking rule U18 should be. If we had of been deducted points, I wouldn't have grumbled, put it that way. Though, how many points is another matter. What do you think Sheff Utd would have said if the independent commission had deducted WHU 2 points?

Very good! Can I change my username?! I feel like one of them idiots who walks around in a replica shirt with the name of an ex player on their back

There is nothing at all in that article that suggests anything has changed!