PDA

View Full Version : TEVEZ- Now just what the f...


Pages : [1] 2

Leedsunited
06 Jul 2007, 05:35 PM
Please make me understand how he has agreed personal terms with Man Utd when Eggy says he isn't going anywhere? My head hurts....

Plxix
06 Jul 2007, 06:09 PM
The man can't get any rest. Here's to hoping Tevez in a Man United jersey :)

sendorange
07 Jul 2007, 06:40 AM
There's something rotten about it all. Although I'm sure it will be swept under the carpet again, most likely West Ham getting a cut of the transfer fee from MSI.

Teso Dos Bichos
08 Jul 2007, 04:28 PM
Please make me understand how he has agreed personal terms with Man Utd when Eggy says he isn't going anywhere? My head hurts....

West Ham do not own Tevez. Anyone with a brain knew that from day one.

taffhammer
08 Jul 2007, 04:48 PM
West Ham do not own Tevez. Anyone with a brain knew that from day one.

we don't own him.we have his registration.

yours, pinky and the brain.

Alan_V
09 Jul 2007, 03:09 PM
I read that Tevez was given permission to talk to other teams before the West Ham thing was settled. I would imagine, that once the discussion w/Utd had started, Magnusson couldn't take the permission back.

tigerdave
11 Jul 2007, 01:07 PM
This, boys and girls, is what happens when you make a deal with the devil.

RichardL
11 Jul 2007, 02:21 PM
This, boys and girls, is what happens when you make a deal with the devil.
no, the devil has better lawyers with so many to choose from

tigerdave
11 Jul 2007, 02:32 PM
My point is, West Ham should have known better than to deal with Joorabchian especially when he was eyeing a takeover of the club. The whole transfer involving Tevez and Mascherano could be viewed as one massive conflict of interest. Now that he didn't get to take over WHU like he wanted to, he can really stick it to them if he chooses. But back to the matter at hand, one of two things are going to happen. Either A) WHU sells Tevez's registration to United for a massive transfer fee, then gets the pants sued off them by Kia for breach of contract when they tore up the third-party agreement unilaterally, or B) They sell him on a free with a hefty fee going to Kia, which will essentially prove Sheffield United's case for them and will probably get WHU fined, docked points, or relegated. And that, folks, is why you don't deal with third-party owners.

jmartin1966
11 Jul 2007, 03:16 PM
How did the Mascherano transfer to Liverpool get worked out? That might provide a road map. I imagine West Ham were paid something not to cause a problem.

Leedsunited
11 Jul 2007, 03:24 PM
How did the Mascherano transfer to Liverpool get worked out? That might provide a road map. I imagine West Ham were paid something not to cause a problem.

I'm pretty sure that this was initially a loan deal. With dispensation from FIFA as a third party cannot control a player. Given the current issues with Carlos then I'd say this might be investigated further.

The interesting thing will be to see if WHU pocket the transfer fee, and pay out to MSI. If they do then surely they lied about tearing up the third party agreement. Kia, said the other day that he did not authorise this and didn't recieve a fee. I'm not saying I want the decision reversed, I hoped that WHU should have recieved at least some form of punishment that followed case history. That not been done there are a lot of questions relating to the new board of WHU that need answering. I'm not anti-WH but it does seem, unless something new comes up that there has been some lies told.

tigerdave
11 Jul 2007, 03:44 PM
How did the Mascherano transfer to Liverpool get worked out? That might provide a road map. I imagine West Ham were paid something not to cause a problem.

I believe West Ham simply canceled his registration, which meant Kia was free to ship Mascherano off wherever. I don't think that Mascherano can be used as a starting ground for Tevez, however, because Tevez single-handedly kept the club up while Mascherano hardly saw the field. So naturally West Ham are going to make a bigger fuss over their best player than someone who had no impact. Either way West Ham decide to go with the situation, however, my suspicion is that they are (or will soon be) in deep, deep trouble with the EPL and perhaps the FA as well.

Andy Bennett
11 Jul 2007, 06:46 PM
The important point is how can someone other than a professional football club own the rights to a professional footballers contract? What do they use him for... the gardening?

If this Kia character has told lies simply to get around the registration requirements he should be banned from being involved in football in ANY sense by FIFA, worldwide.

What happens to WHU is another matter altogether.

Leedsunited
11 Jul 2007, 07:10 PM
The important point is how can someone other than a professional football club own the rights to a professional footballers contract? What do they use him for... the gardening?

If this Kia character has told lies simply to get around the registration requirements he should be banned from being involved in football in ANY sense by FIFA, worldwide.

What happens to WHU is another matter altogether.

Didn't Kia have shares in Corinthians as well? FIFA must have ratified his commercial control over Tevez and Mascherano. I'd like to see how WHU/Kia are going to get out of this one, as they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they pay anything to MSI (Kia's company) then they effectively lied to the tribunal and the FA have warned them that further or more serious punishment would follow this. Will be interesting.....

Andy Bennett
11 Jul 2007, 07:54 PM
TBH I'm on WHU's side on this one. As much as anything because at least they're a bloody football club.

FIFA should just make it clear that only a football club can hold a footballers contract.. not some faceless corporation. If that means he loses a sh1t-load of dosh, so much the better as far as I'm concerned. If people want to put their money into football that's fine but there must be some rules on how it's done.

tigerdave
11 Jul 2007, 08:29 PM
TBH I'm on WHU's side on this one. As much as anything because at least they're a bloody football club.

FIFA should just make it clear that only a football club can hold a footballers contract.. not some faceless corporation. If that means he loses a sh1t-load of dosh, so much the better as far as I'm concerned. If people want to put their money into football that's fine but there must be some rules on how it's done.

I agree. However, that is not the climate we're in right now. In the current set of events, I think it's pretty clear West Ham knowingly broke the rules, and it now appears that they may have knowingly circumvented them to avoid the drop. There's no sympathy from me for that.

Teso Dos Bichos
11 Jul 2007, 09:14 PM
With dispensation from FIFA as a third party cannot control a player.

FIFA were involved because Mascherano was ineligable to play for Liverpool as he had already played for Corinthians and West Ham that year. Liverpool argued, correctly, that it discriminated against players from leagues that operated at different times of the year and therefore overlapped during that time period.

tigerdave
24 Jul 2007, 05:34 PM
Looks like this is headed for the High Court and/or the CAS.

I wonder if the EPL might drop WHU if whatever court finds that Kia indeed owns Tevez after all this time. Or might that be a bit of double-jeopardy or whatnot?

Leedsunited
24 Jul 2007, 06:09 PM
Looks like this is headed for the High Court and/or the CAS.

I wonder if the EPL might drop WHU if whatever court finds that Kia indeed owns Tevez after all this time. Or might that be a bit of double-jeopardy or whatnot?

Might be totally wrong, but it seems West Ham are in a pretty inescapable position.

They either accept the money themselves, and get taken to court by MSI.
Or they allow Man Utd to pay MSI, in which case this would possibly prove that West Ham lied to the disciplinary hearings.

tigerdave
24 Jul 2007, 06:17 PM
Might be totally wrong, but it seems West Ham are in a pretty inescapable position.

They either accept the money themselves, and get taken to court by MSI.
Or they allow Man Utd to pay MSI, in which case this would possibly prove that West Ham lied to the disciplinary hearings.

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.