Sorry, but this is the latest headache inducing nonsense on Sky Sports .....

 

"I can confirm the companies (MSI and Just Sports Inc) have begun High Court proceedings against West Ham," said Shear.

"This afternoon [Tuesday] a High Court writ was served on the football club's solicitors.

"The companies seek the court's intervention to compel West Ham to release the registration of Carlos Tevez in accordance with contracts entered into between the parties. "

"We are asking the court to intervene so that Carlos Tevez can be registered to play with Manchester United as soon as possible."

 

And if MSI win such a case, who then owned Tevez all along ...... ?

Even if MSI are only interested in increasing the commercial value of Tevez (the only bit of him they own, allegedly), wouldn't they be applying undue influence on a football club matter ?

Glad when this tevez disappears under is acne and back to south america the freak. Good player though just bored of reading the same twaddle every day for 2 month

What a farce this whole situation is! The whole situation stinks. Was talking to a Sheff Wed fan on sat though and he thought it was hilarious, cant thibk why. But even he was in agreement that Sheff UTD have been well and truly shafted.

i'm pleased its going to a proper court, not some matey matey sports affair

 

the truth has much more chance of coming out this way

as see it:

 

west ham old owners did wrong, new owners tried to fix it, authorities took pity on new owners so fined them instead of relegating them, msi now saying west ham 'fixed' the problem illegally.

 

west ham should now be thrown out of the league, not just the division.

 

disgusting behaviour!

and when theyve chucked the happy hammers out of football, the prem league bosses should fall on their swords too

 

incompetent b'stards

and when theyve chucked the happy hammers out of football, the prem league bosses should fall on their swords too

 

incompetent b'stards

 

Couldnt agree more

Couldnt agree more

 

Couldn't agree more also. Casino - The voice of reason strikes again....

 

But having dealt with Scudamore's smug brother on a regular basis.....they don't think they have handled the thing poorly at all. To which I said "Boll*cks" and walked out of the room leaving him a huge ?1m deficit in his sales for the month!!

Edited July 25, 200719 yr by Doctor Tongue

The latest reports seem to suggest that the way West Ham appeased the Premier League last season was to tell them that the agreement between MSI and West Ham had been torn up. Did the Hammers really think that MSI would just give up on their claim to ?30m? And more importantly did the Premier Leage?

The latest reports seem to suggest that the way West Ham appeased the Premier League last season was to tell them that the agreement between MSI and West Ham had been torn up. Did the Hammers really think that MSI would just give up on their claim to ?30m? And more importantly did the Premier Leage?

This is the wrong way round. The PL told WHU one way of resolving the issue would be for WHU to terminate the MSI agreement. WHU did this.

 

If that wasn't legal then is that WHU's fault or the PL's?

 

One of the reasons WHU took that action is because they were advised the agreement was unenforceable in UK law anyway.

 

Apolgies for boring you further ::::::::::

This is the wrong way round. The PL told WHU one way of resolving the issue would be for WHU to terminate the MSI agreement. WHU did this.

 

If that wasn't legal then is that WHU's fault or the PL's?

 

One of the reasons WHU took that action is because they were advised the agreement was unenforceable in UK law anyway.

 

Apolgies for boring you further ::::::::::::

 

If that was the case, would they take the steps of actually terminating it? Surely they'd simply ignore it.

 

Also, I don't see how the agreement (if it was legally standing) could be terminated by one party without the other's consent, or at least their knowledge.

 

The other issue is what the player actually wants...

If that was the case, would they take the steps of actually terminating it? Surely they'd simply ignore it.

 

Also, I don't see how the agreement (if it was legally standing) could be terminated by one party without the other's consent, or at least their knowledge.

 

The other issue is what the player actually wants...

They had to actually terminate it to satisfy the Premier League. Otherwise Carlitos would not have been allowed to play against Wigan, yourselves, and Man Utd.

 

Contracts are terminated unilaterally all of the time. All that usually happens is that the two parties concerned then come to some agreement where the party who breached the contract compensate the other. Sometimes an agreement cannot be reached and the party that has lost out sue the offending party for breach of contract. Exactly what MSI appear to be doing now to WHU.

 

It is documented in the original independent commission and the arbitration panel that this was a possible outcome of WHU terminating the agreement. It was said that if the situation arose it would be between WHU and MSI, the PL weren't interested in it as long as WHU fulfilled their obligations to the PL. Which they have/had by terminating the agreement.

Isn't it a bit like me telling the building society that I'm going rip up my mortgage with them? Oh and by the way I'm not moving out of the house - it's mine now.

Contracts are terminated unilaterally all of the time. All that usually happens is that the two parties concerned then come to some agreement where the party who breached the contract compensate the other. Sometimes an agreement cannot be reached and the party that has lost out sue the offending party for breach of contract. Exactly what MSI appear to be doing now to WHU.

 

Aye of course.

 

But

 

If it was terminated in, let's say April...

 

Then why are MSI only complaining now and weren't then?

 

Well, we know why, they want their asset at Man Utd and were just happy in April that he was playing, but what I'm getting at is this thing has more layers than an onion...

They had to actually terminate it to satisfy the Premier League. Otherwise Carlitos would not have been allowed to play against Wigan, yourselves, and Man Utd.

 

Contracts are terminated unilaterally all of the time. All that usually happens is that the two parties concerned then come to some agreement where the party who breached the contract compensate the other. Sometimes an agreement cannot be reached and the party that has lost out sue the offending party for breach of contract. Exactly what MSI appear to be doing now to WHU.

 

It is documented in the original independent commission and the arbitration panel that this was a possible outcome of WHU terminating the agreement. It was said that if the situation arose it would be between WHU and MSI, the PL weren't interested in it as long as WHU fulfilled their obligations to the PL. Which they have/had by terminating the agreement.

 

 

yossi good explanation as usual.

 

west ham had a clause in a contract that deemed unfair/against the rules.

 

but for the player to be allowed to play in those last games this was deemed ok as long as west ham did something that the PL acknowledged could well be illegal ? illeagal may not be the right word (or spelling !) but if a likely outcome is you getting taken to court for your actions it seems like it is illegal.

 

the more this comes the more it smells like a lesbian anchoives fanny after a month in the jungle with only old kippers and dead goldfish to wash with.

 

and the more that comes it seems the PL have bent over backwards to help west ham out.

It'll be interesting to see how much WHU get for Tevez.

 

The hammers are the luckiest club in the country, though. Lucky for them they're loveable cockneys from 'that' London

Isn't it a bit like me telling the building society that I'm going rip up my mortgage with them? Oh and by the way I'm not moving out of the house - it's mine now.

 

Simplistically put, but from what Yossi says, correct.

 

 

This is even worse now...West Ham never put the contract right at all. They simply breached it. So in effect he continued to play when the agreed and signed contracts were actually in breach of PL rules. And the PL knew about it.

 

It is truly terrible that he was able to play on.

 

It's plain to see that the PL had just one course of action - insist the contract was put right and agreed by all parties (still dodgy seeing as he'd played in breach for months) or disallow Tevez from playing.

 

But they said 'change the contract without the consent of MSI, keep playing the lad, and pay up in court next year when MSI sue you' - it stinks.

yossi good explanation as usual.

 

west ham had a clause in a contract that deemed unfair/against the rules.

 

but for the player to be allowed to play in those last games this was deemed ok as long as west ham did something that the PL acknowledged could well be illegal ? illeagal may not be the right word (or spelling !) but if a likely outcome is you getting taken to court for your actions it seems like it is illegal.

 

the more this comes the more it smells like a lesbian anchoives fanny after a month in the jungle with only old kippers and dead goldfish to wash with.

 

and the more that comes it seems the PL have bent over backwards to help west ham out.

 

aye, exactly what I was thinking

 

sounds to me like the PL said if you break this contract you'll be right by us but if MSI don't like it then that's your problem, not ours

 

now, what will happen is a judge will rule that West Ham acted improperly, and rule that the money goes to MSI

 

the PL will turn round and say "well west ham did what we asked, we wanted west ham to get the transfer fee but the judge didn't, but that's nothing to do with us, as you were then"

Aye of course.

 

But

 

If it was terminated in, let's say April...

 

Then why are MSI only complaining now and weren't then?

 

Well, we know why, they want their asset at Man Utd and were just happy in April that he was playing, but what I'm getting at is this thing has more layers than an onion...

You think between April 27th and now WHU and MSI haven't had any communication...?

so to clarify, because the contract has been 'torn up', msi just sue for breaking the contract.

 

worst that could happen? msi get tevez back, west ham carry on as usual, maybe with another fine for breaking a contract?

 

but this is much better than not breaking the contract back in april and taking punishment from the premier league (ie relegation)

 

 

what a farce.......

what a farce.......

I concur wholeheartedly

They had to actually terminate it to satisfy the Premier League. Otherwise Carlitos would not have been allowed to play against Wigan, yourselves, and Man Utd.

 

Contracts are terminated unilaterally all of the time. All that usually happens is that the two parties concerned then come to some agreement where the party who breached the contract compensate the other. Sometimes an agreement cannot be reached and the party that has lost out sue the offending party for breach of contract. Exactly what MSI appear to be doing now to WHU.

 

It is documented in the original independent commission and the arbitration panel that this was a possible outcome of WHU terminating the agreement. It was said that if the situation arose it would be between WHU and MSI, the PL weren't interested in it as long as WHU fulfilled their obligations to the PL. Which they have/had by terminating the agreement.

 

Legally bollox Yossi, contracts cannot be, by their very nature, unilaterally cancelled. They can be unfunfilled (leading to specific breach), ignored (leading to specific breach) or terminated (but only with the consent of the other party). In fact one can only sue for specific breach of contract where the contract exists, not after it has been terminated (mutually), but can be after it has naturally expired.

 

If the PL have told WHU to terminate the contract and they do that then fine, but the act of WHU merely clicking their heels 3 times whilst repeating "I decline thee, I decline thee" does not, and under modern contract law (ie since the mid 17th century) has not, constituted a cancellation of contract.

 

However it must be noted that in the UK a contract is only legally binding if there is no breach of Tort law contained within (ie you pay me ?50,000 to kill your wife, and I dont do so, you cant sue me for not fullfilling my promise of reward), and if such breach is found within then the contract may be dissolved. However in this case all promise and reward would be dissolved too, in that specifically the rights of Tevez would revert to the state before the contract took place (ie owned by MSI). The contract therefore between WHU & the PL regarding Tevez registration is also declared null & void at the time of the original dissolution (as this was part and clause of the original contract between WHU & MSI). At this point WHU have no claim to the player whatsoever without another contract between themselves & MSI.

 

In short all 3 parties have acted shamefully, and at increasing great expense (both financially and at the patience of fans) have ended with a protracted legal argument that the losers will be Sheffield and Tevez himeself, who it appears may not be playing for anyone next season.

 

Legally bollox Yossi, contracts cannot be, by their very nature, unilaterally cancelled. They can be unfunfilled (leading to specific breach), ignored (leading to specific breach) or terminated (but only with the consent of the other party). In fact one can only sue for specific breach of contract where the contract exists, not after it has been terminated (mutually), but can be after it has naturally expired.

 

If the PL have told WHU to terminate the contract and they do that then fine, but the act of WHU merely clicking their heels 3 times whilst repeating "I decline thee, I decline thee" does not, and under modern contract law (ie since the mid 17th century) has not, constituted a cancellation of contract.

 

However it must be noted that in the UK a contract is only legally binding if there is no breach of Tort law contained within (ie you pay me ?50,000 to kill your wife, and I dont do so, you cant sue me for not fullfilling my promise of reward), and if such breach is found within then the contract may be dissolved. However in this case all promise and reward would be dissolved too, in that specifically the rights of Tevez would revert to the state before the contract took place (ie owned by MSI). The contract therefore between WHU & the PL regarding Tevez registration is also declared null & void at the time of the original dissolution (as this was part and clause of the original contract between WHU & MSI). At this point WHU have no claim to the player whatsoever without another contract between themselves & MSI.

 

In short all 3 parties have acted shamefully, and at increasing great expense (both financially and at the patience of fans) have ended with a protracted legal argument that the losers will be Sheffield and Tevez himeself, who it appears may not be playing for anyone next season.

 

I bow to your legal expertise!

 

I'l re-iterate I'm no expert - all I have said on this thread and others is my understanding of the ins and out of the case from what the Premier League and WHU have stated (in their opinions).

 

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you) why would the lawyers employed by the billionaire owner of WHU instruct WHU to terminate the agreement (on the basis that they would be able to because the agreements wouldn't be enforceable anyway in UK law)?

Edited July 25, 200719 yr by Yossi

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you) why would the lawyers employed by the billionaire owner of WHU instruct WHU to terminate the agreement (on the basis that they would be able to because the agreements wouldn't be enforceable anyway in UK law)?

 

because it got them out of a bit of a sticky situation in april

I bow to your legal expertise!

 

I'l re-iterate I'm no expert - all I have said on this thread and others is my understanding of the ins and out of the case from what the Premier League and WHU have stated (in their opinions).

 

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you) why would the lawyers employed by the billionaire owner of WHU instruct WHU to terminate the agreement (on the basis that they would be able to because the agreements wouldn't be enforceable anyway in UK law)?

 

 

whenever you take legal advice they will go through various options and there outcomes.

 

in this case one i imagine the conversation went

 

biscuit man 'what happens if i say the contracts is ripped up ?'

Premier league 'that will do for us and he can play'

Lawyer 'you could be sued for breach of contract, and tevez could end up being given back to them and they could sue you.

biscuit man 'so we stay up and earn ?30m or we get relegated and then i put 5p on a packet of custard creams ?'

PL 'That will do for us'

biscuit man 'lets do it'