TEVEZ- Now just what the f...

[Leedsunited]

Oh, I know they're pretty much undeniably screwed either way the courts slice the proverbial apple. I was more interested in whether their Premiership status could be jeopardized if the courts find that the contract with Joorabchian was still valid even after WHU 'canceled' it.

Probably, but the FA has a choice. Relegate a fairly big London club, for a fairly small northern one. Can't see it happening.

[TheGreatFire]

Don't forget WHU changed ownership after this whole tevez/mascherano deal went down which is primarily why they were not docked any points last season and remain in the Premiership as I've heard the explanation.

Should the high court rule against WHU, do the new owners have any responsibility despite the deal not being of their own doing? I'm not too intimate with UK laws.

[Andy Bennett]

As far as I'm concerned the point is simple. Can someone own the 'economic' rights to a footballer to play football, (the image rights and whatnot are another matter altogether), other than a football club owning his contract. If this Kia dude wants to pay money to an individual footballer for some imagined rights that's his affair. If Tevez wants to accept a contract to play for WHU for a period of time that's his affair.

The football authorities MUST enforce the football contracts that exist otherwise we're left in a position where player 'A' can play for one team one week and another team the next week. If the football authorities then try to stop the player moving from one team to another against the, (economic), interests of money men and player 'owners' how can that not be deemed to be a contract in restraint of trade. It will make a mockery of all the investment that clubs put into players and will stop it cold.

Do we really want players to be owned, (like some sort of slave), by 'investors' and not the clubs who at least put something into the game? Do we want our best players to be shipped off next week to Dubai to play in the 'world series of soccer' or some bullsh1t, instead of the EPL, LaLiga, CL, etc.?

[Mac_Howard]

As far as I'm concerned the point is simple. Can someone own the 'economic' rights to a footballer to play football, (the image rights and whatnot are another matter altogether), other than a football club owning his contract.

Apparently, yes. Unfortunately the separation of financial ownership and registration is common and sanctioned by FIFA in South America and other parts of the world. It's the Premiership that is out of step here not MSI.

That's why FIFA has passed it on. There is nothing wrong with MSI's position in FIFA's eyes.

Even worse, we may also have a difference of opinion between the civil courts and CAS. The business world sees nothing wrong with joint ownership and is reluctant to allow any special arrangements simply because it's sport. That's why MSI will go to the High Court, where they'll get a more sympathetic hearing, rather than CAS who think sport should be handled differently.

[bsas]

Apparently, yes. Unfortunately the separation of financial ownership and registration is common and sanctioned by FIFA in South America and other parts of the world. It's the Premiership that is out of step here not MSI.



This "owning" of football players by third parties is indeed something to worry, but let's not forget that it can often be a blessing for the player, who can manage to take out his family from poverty thanks to the first contract payments, when there's no guarantee he will become a world class player. I don't know if Carlitos was straight away "bought" by Kia before any club, but it would be a sufficient reason for him to show his gratitude by abiding to his conditions and not just straight away buying out his contract.

[Andy Bennett]

This "owning" of football players by third parties is indeed something to worry, but let's not forget that it can often be a blessing for the player, who can manage to take out his family from poverty thanks to the first contract payments, when there's no guarantee he will become a world class player.
I'm not doubting there can be advantages for some individuals, including the player, but that's a different matter. As I said, what's to stop players 'owners' from insisting that Tevez, (for example), plays for ManU this week and Chelsea next week. The registration issue then becomes a legal matter to be solved by legal means, i.e. go to court to force the EPL to accept the situation or be sued for loss of earnings from the move.

[Andy Bennett]

Apparently, yes. Unfortunately the separation of financial ownership and registration is common and sanctioned by FIFA in South America and other parts of the world. It's the Premiership that is out of step here not MSI.

Ask yourself a few questions... where is football more successful? where is there more money invested in football? where do all the top stars end up, Europe or South America?

That's why FIFA has passed it on. There is nothing wrong with MSI's position in FIFA's eyes.

Even worse, we may also have a difference of opinion between the civil courts and CAS. The business world sees nothing wrong with joint ownership and is reluctant to allow any special arrangements simply because it's sport.

I think I know as much about business as anyone else on here and I can assure you that business HAS no belief system. They just want the money. There is nothing in business per se that means it allows or disallows joint ownership of anything, let alone another human being.

The point is that it's precisely because it IS a sport that the courts should allow special conditions and should refer the matter back to the sporting bodies.

That's why MSI will go to the High Court, where they'll get a more sympathetic hearing, rather than CAS who think sport should be handled differently.
I fear you're right but we'll see.

[narduch]

Don't forget WHU changed ownership after this whole tevez/mascherano deal went down which is primarily why they were not docked any points last season and remain in the Premiership as I've heard the explanation.

Should the high court rule against WHU, do the new owners have any responsibility despite the deal not being of their own doing? I'm not too intimate with UK laws.

If I buy a company that broke the law in the past, I would still be responsible for any damages that would be forthcoming. West Ham can not use the change in ownership as an excuse.

The thing that I want to know is what if the High Court and/or the CAS rule against West Ham? What does the EPL do? Do they go back and punish finally punish them?

[leg_breaker]

Simple way to solve this: rule that MSI's ownership is illegal, and that the player is owned by West Ham, who then sell him to United. Problem solved, everybody wins, except the scummy agents.

[Leedsunited]

Simple way to solve this: rule that MSI's ownership is illegal, and that the player is owned by West Ham, who then sell him to United. Problem solved, everybody wins, except the scummy agents.

Who could say that? FIFA won't. The CAS can't rule on that, and MSI is the complainant in the High Court.

What will likely happen is that MSI prove in court that their agreement with Tevez is valid. Man Utd pay the money to West Ham who give it to MSI. Then the FA go apeshit and this could all end up dragging on a long time.

[narduch]

Simple way to solve this: rule that MSI's ownership is illegal, and that the player is owned by West Ham, who then sell him to United. Problem solved, everybody wins, except the scummy agents.

That sounds like a fairly corrupt solution to me.

Of course, if the EPL handled this properly in the first place, none of this mess would have occurred. But at least this mess is exposing the EPL and West Ham for the dirty way this was handled in the first place.

[CityBlues]

Trouble follows Tevez, even at Boca Juniors he left on shaky terms. There is something seedy about him.

[Andy Bennett]

Simple way to solve this: rule that MSI's ownership is illegal, and that the player is owned by West Ham, who then sell him to United. Problem solved, everybody wins, except the scummy agents.
Exactly!!!

Y'see, this is what I can't get past... HOW can someone own a footballers contract that isn't a football club. How can MSI, or anyone else, own the 'economic rights' to a player that doesn't have a team for him to play in. It's a nonsense.

More to the point, what does 'economic rights' MEAN in the absence of a team to actually let him on the field?

Like I said originally, this agent fella can own the image rights or whatever but to allow him to decide whether Tevez plays for this team or that one makes an absolute mockery of the whole way that football has been organised for the past 100 years.

Change was necessary to allow players to make the money their skills earned but this is nothing to do with that and is all about a few scum-bags milking the game for what they think they can get out if it.

I know that people don't like Abramovich but at least he puts his money where his mouth is and actually buys a team. If they win, they win... if not, then not. Let this Kia fella do the same. If he wants to own the playing rights to footballers let him buy or start his own team and let it enter a league.

[Andy Bennett]

That sounds like a fairly corrupt solution to me.

Of course, if the EPL handled this properly in the first place, none of this mess would have occurred.
They did. The fact that it differs from the way a few banana republics handle things doesn't mean they did it wrong.