One thing I don't understand about all of this. When a player comes to the end of his contract with a club, they do not hold on to his registration. Following the Bosman ruling such a player can choose to move to whichever club he wants.

 

So surely one of 2 things must apply right now:

 

1. Tevez signed a 2, 3, 4 or 5 year contract with West Ham last summer and West Ham are well within their rights to demand a fee for his registration

 

2. Tevez and West Ham do not have such contract (either because none was ever signed or because the agreement was for only 1 year) and Tevz is free to go play for whoever he wants

 

Am I looking at this too simplistically?

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

so he's either there 3 more years, or you'll be getting a nice fee

 

owt else, and it just aint right

 

cos surely WHU wouldn't choose to give him away

so he's either there 3 more years, or you'll be getting a nice fee

 

owt else, and it just aint right

 

cos surely WHU wouldn't choose to give him away

I give up!

whys it all so complex.

 

 

either

 

1. west ham own tevez and msi are not involved. (this is west hams story)

 

or

 

2. msi own tevez and loaned him to west ham. (this is MSI's story)

 

 

yes or no?

I give up!

 

you may as well, cos i'm not as fcuking gullible as you

 

Might be a bit out of touch on this one.. but what did West Ham fan and (alleged) top sports journo Martin 'Fat Boy' Samuels have to say on this one...

 

Any other team bar West Ham or our Red friends down the road and there would have been a points deduction.

whys it all so complex.

either

 

1. west ham own tevez and msi are not involved. (this is west hams story)

 

or

 

2. msi own tevez and loaned him to west ham. (this is MSI's story)

yes or no?

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.

why did the deal have to be ripped up when it did, if the only problem was that kia could sell tevez during a window

 

it had to be done before the game with us

 

why the rush?

so if tevez is on a 4 year deal which i beleive is true, then west ham can sell him to manure. yes?

 

then who gets the transfer money? west ham or msi?

 

if west hame the fair enough.

 

if msi then why did west ham even bother with a contract?

why did the deal have to be ripped up when it did, if the only problem was that kia could sell tevez during a window

 

it had to be done before the game with us

 

why the rush?

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.

so if tevez is on a 4 year deal which i beleive is true, then west ham can sell him to manure. yes?

Yes.

 

But only with MSI's agreement!

 

Just as MSI can sell him to Man Utd, but only with West Ham's agreement.

 

then who gets the transfer money? west ham or msi?

Both, as detailed within the contract!

 

Which is perfectly acceptable in the rules!

so at the end of the day, its a joint ownership of tevez.

 

which i thought was still illegal because only a single club can own a premier league player?

Yossi,

 

this is meant genuienly....

 

 

thanks for trying to explain this without it becoming a slanging match.

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's bent,but if you are a london club with sir trevor bent one it's ok,nothing will come of it because it's not NORTHERN

so at the end of the day, its a joint ownership of tevez.

 

which i thought was still illegal because only a single club can own a premier league player?

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.

Yossi,

 

this is meant genuienly....

thanks for trying to explain this without it becoming a slanging match.

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.

 

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...

If West Ham own him, I would expect Momo Watkins getting a letter from the league charging Utd with tapping him up.

Must have missed that

Yossi,

 

this is meant genuienly....

thanks for trying to explain this without it becoming a slanging match.

 

ditto that....

 

but my is still mashed...

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.

 

 

Thanks Yossi for trying to explain this fcuk up. What I don't understand though, is how the current deal between WHU & MSI doesn't still break rule U18 because WHU cannot sell their registered player to another club without the consent of MSI. Surely MSI therefore still has 'influence' over WHU with regards to Tevez?

 

Anyway, this all makes my head hurt and the most simple solution would be for the PL to outlaw 3rd party ownership for the coming season, not that it will happen though...

The only possible solution I can see is if West Ham buy the "economic rights" from MSI and then immediately sell Tevez's registration & economic rights to United.

 

Kia gets his ?30m.

 

West Ham sell him to Utd in the normal way. They receive the transfer fee.

 

The transfer fee is merely transferred to another party (Kia) then being conveniently ignored by the PL.

 

Rememebr the PL state the fee should go to West Ham - well it kind of does . It also gives the PL another chance to behave like the chicken sh?t organisation it is (i.e. Winchester White's valid point)

Surely MSI therefore still has 'influence' over WHU with regards to Tevez?

but why would msi ever sell the rights?

The only possible solution I can see is if West Ham buy the "economic rights" from MSI and then immediately sell Tevez's registration & economic rights to United.

 

Kia gets his ?30m.

 

West Ham sell him to Utd in the normal way. They receive the transfer fee.

 

The transfer fee is merely transferred to another party (Kia) then being conveniently ignored by the PL.

 

Rememebr the PL state the fee should go to West Ham - well it kind of does . It also gives the PL another chance to behave like the chicken sh?t organisation it is (i.e. Winchester White's valid point)

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.

Does anyone else find the whole story as boring as fcuk?

Does anyone else find the whole story as boring as fcuk?

 

Not exactly boring, just mind-numbing .... as some of the others on here have said.

But woe betide any unfavoured Premiership club which next breaks any league rule. They'll be penalised every which way by the Premier League - to 'make up' for the current WHU debacle.