Tevez deal VS Mascherano deal

Mr Alan

Posts in a few different threads from UTD fans questioning why there could possibly be a problem with the proposed deal.r

Far as i am aware there is a simple answer. When Liverpool signed Mascherano it was on a loan deal with an option to buy at the end of it. Westham had relinquished their rights to the player.

Whereas with Tevez, his agent is claiming that he owns him and Westham are claiming they own him. The PL won't allow the transfer unless they are sure all the money is going to Westham.

Fair enough.

The two deals are nothing alike. People saying that Liverpool have recieved preferential treatment is ridiculous.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

Posts in a few different threads from UTD fans questioning why there could possibly be a problem with the proposed deal.r

Far as i am aware there is a simple answer. When Liverpool signed Mascherano it was on a loan deal with an option to buy at the end of it. Westham had relinquished their rights to the player.

Whereas with Tevez, his agent is claiming that he owns him and Westham are claiming they own him. The PL won't allow the transfer unless they are sure all the money is going to Westham.

Fair enough.

The two deals are nothing alike. People saying that Liverpool have recieved preferential treatment is ridiculous.

That is painfully simplistic though!

West Ham didn't own Mascherano or own Tevez. They NEVER paid any money for either of them so they CAN'T own either of them.

I see nothing wrong with the Liverpool deal for Mascherano - West Ham didn't own him, they deserved no money for him. West Ham don't own Tevez, so deserve no money for him either.

All they did was rip up the contract they had with MSI - that simply does not mean that he belongs to them though. If i am renting a house from you, and then i rip up the rental agreement, do i own the house? Of course I don't, and it is the same with West Ham.

The only difference between the two deals is that the Mascherano deal was completed before the PL made an ass of the West Ham case. They should let United do a deal for Tevez in the exact same way they allowed Mascherano sign for Liverpool - the actual deals are the same, regardless of what the PL would like everyone to think.

I think the PL are running a dangerous course - if they push it, United, Tevez and MSI could completely screw both the PL and West Ham. The simple fact is the PL can't insure the money for any deal goes to West Ham, because they legally do not own Tevez, and MSI could and probably would sue West Ham for breach of contract, and potentially the PL for criminal fraud.

I think the main question is how West Ham have come to owning Tevez despite having not paid a transfer fee for him....There was a post explaining the intricacies of the deal on the United thread.


The other question is whether or not this is a front by the FA cos they know the made a balls of the Sheffield United issue.



And the 2 deals are very alike, the point is that United are trying to structure it as similarly as possible to the Mascherano deal to ensure it doesnt come under FA scrutiny.

astrofool

Where people have a problem, is that if the Tevez deal was initially a third party involvement, then so was the Mascherano deal, the fact is that the Mascherano deal was put through before either of the deals were scrutinised.

i.e. whats the difference if Mascherano was moving now instead of 6 months ago, himself and Tevez were both on the same illegal loan deal to West Ham.

Also, add the fact that Liverpool got around the three club maximum rule in a year (which is a complete seperate entity entirely), and you can see how people will say that Liverpool got preferential treatment.

astrofool

astrofool wrote:

Also, add the fact that Liverpool got around the three club maximum rule in a year (which is a complete seperate entity entirely), and you can see how people will say that Liverpool got preferential treatment.

I didnt mind that to be honest since West Ham werent using him, no point in him sitting idle for 6 months.



I think this Tevez thing is posturing on the PL's part, and its risky for them.


To the best of my knowledge the Tevez/Mascherano original deal was a season long loan deal with option to buy at set price at the end of the year. West Ham havent paid said money so how could they own him or have any say where he goes??

marco_polo

astrofool wrote:

Where people have a problem, is that if the Tevez deal was initially a third party involvement, then so was the Mascherano deal, the fact is that the Mascherano deal was put through before either of the deals were scrutinised.

First of all it was during the Mascherano deal that the whole dodgy situation was uncovered by the Premier League in the first place (officially in any case, everyone suspected something was not quite right from the off). Given how long the Mascherano deal took it is clear that Liverpool made sure all the t's were crossed and the i's were dotted.

astrofool wrote:

i.e. whats the difference if Mascherano was moving now instead of 6 months ago, himself and Tevez were both on the same illegal loan deal to West Ham.

Technically absolutely no difference. However Sheffield United got relegated in the meantime so everything has turned into a right legal mess.

astrofool wrote:

Also, add the fact that Liverpool got around the three club maximum rule in a year (which is a complete seperate entity entirely), and you can see how people will say that Liverpool got preferential treatment.

But it is a stupid rule anyway and its not like United or Arsenal or Chelsea wouldn't have been given a special dispensation. Now if you are Cork City on the other hand.....

I don't think Liverpool got any special treatment at the time, it's just that circumstances have changed in a bad way for the PL. If they could sneak through a legitimate Utd deal for Tevez on the quiet they would.

PHB

Nobody on here really knows, but Fergie is under the impression that the deals would be the same, so I would imagine the United lawyer has told him as such.

Mr Alan

like it or not, there is one HUGE difference, Westham are claiming onwership of Tevez, whereas they didn't with Masch.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

like it or not, there is one HUGE difference, Westham are claiming onwership of Tevez, whereas they didn't with Masch.

so? Why are the PL accepting that? Just because West Ham say it, it doesn't make it true - so they actual terms of the tevez deal should be very similar to the Mascherano deal, because in reality west ham own/owned neither

PHB

Why are the PL accepting that?

That's the million dollar question It's why it's a joke that West Ham are still in the premiership.

Mr Alan

exactly the Premier League has put themselve between a rock and a hardplace by foolishly accepting that Tevez was a west ham player.

marco_polo

Tauren wrote:

so? Why are the PL accepting that? Just because West Ham say it, it doesn't make it true - so they actual terms of the tevez deal should be very similar to the Mascherano deal, because in reality west ham own/owned neither

Because for his registration to be legal (no 3rd party ownership) and to avoid docking West Ham points they had to "own" him. Every man and his dog knows this is not the case so it makes the situation all the more surreal.

Even the FAI couldn't make some of this this sh*t up.

Mitch Connor

marco_polo wrote:

Because for his registration to be legal (no 3rd party ownership) and to avoid docking West Ham points they had to "own" him. Every man and his dog knows this is not the case so it makes the situation all the more surreal.

Even the FAI couldn't make some of this this sh*t up.

3rd party ownership is NOT illegal.

marco_polo

Tauren wrote:

3rd party ownership is NOT illegal.

Ok well third party influence over players then.

**EDIT** Whatever that means as the Premier League don't even seem to be sure. But whatever it is they sure as hell don't like it

astrofool

millersangel wrote:

exactly the Premier League has put themselve between a rock and a hardplace by foolishly accepting that Tevez was a west ham player.

So you do acknowledge how the two deals are in fact quite similar then? It is the premier league's reaction in both cases that is different (due to them not punishing West Ham accordingly).

millersangel

millersangel wrote:

exactly the Premier League has put themselve between a rock and a hardplace by foolishly accepting that Tevez was a west ham player.

Then the only difference is the timing is it not??

marco_polo

astrofool wrote:

So you do acknowledge how the two deals are in fact quite similar then? It is the premier league's reaction in both cases that is different (due to them not punishing West Ham accordingly).

Exactly! No one is denying that the deals should be very similar to each other.

However your original slant on the matter was that Liverpool got preferential treatment for Mascheranos signing, not that the PL and West Ham were desperately trying to cover their asses for the Tevez transfer.

Mr Alan

Deleted User wrote:

Then the only difference is the timing is it not??

nope, as i pointed out, the difference is Westham didn't claim any ownership whereas Westham only own tevez since they got rid of the agreement in March or whenever it was

Jesus Wept

agents owning players?

*shudders

zing

Tauren wrote:

so? Why are the PL accepting that? Just because West Ham say it, it doesn't make it true - so they actual terms of the tevez deal should be very similar to the Mascherano deal, because in reality west ham own/owned neither

It's not about ownership. West Ham hold Tevez's registration and are stating that as far as they're concerned he's still a West Ham player - i.e. that they haven't canceled his registration or given permission for him to leave. With Mascherano they gave permission for him to leave the club and canceled his registration with them.

I honestly don't know if the whole 'they can't own him as they didn't pay any money for him' thing is valid. Lots of deals are probably brokered with no money up front (youth players in particular) so the fact that no money changed hands yet may not be of any concern to the PL at this point in time. However as far as the PL are concerned West Ham (now) legally hold his registration so it's up to them to continue to hold it or cancel it (and in doing so they are presumably entitled to seek compensation in the eyes of the PL).

However if West Ham don't meet the terms of the deal between themselves & MSI in terms of payments/options to buy, etc.. then that presumably is strictly a legal issue between West Ham & MSI. If it's found that West Ham are in breach of those arangements then I'm sure there are terms & clauses allowing for the agreement to be terminated.

Oh but wait - West Ham claim to have tore up that agreement didn't they.. If they did you can be sure MSI replaced it with a different agreement.

EDIT: Interestingly there's been nothing from West Ham with regards to the player being tapped up by other clubs so they presumably have given permission to other clubs to speak to him.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

nope, as i pointed out, the difference is Westham didn't claim any ownership whereas Westham only own tevez since they got rid of the agreement in March or whenever it was

but they don't own him - ripping a contract up does not give them ownership - if anything, declaring the contract null and void places him completely in the ownership of MSI.

You can keep saying it, but it doesn't change anything. West Ham saying they own him, does not mean they do. They never bought him, so how can they own him?

Actually, screw it. I now own your house. Get out of it and send me the keys. I say i own your house; ergo it must be true, right?

Mr Alan

no but i can only presume the premier league was satisfied at that time that Westham were his owners

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

no but i can only presume the premier league was satisfied at that time that Westham were his owners

thats what they say, yeah, but i honestly doubt is actually the case, otherwise why were west ham fined 5.5million and why did the appeal panel say they would have docked points? Why was there a contract that needed to be ripped up and why does anyone think JUST ripping up a contract is actually legal?

I hope MSI and Man United take both West Ham and the PL to the freakin cleaners over it, resulting in the PL getting sued for millions by Sheffield United and West Ham getting relegated. Its all the freaking deserve for this crap.

yom 1

Tauren wrote:

thats what they say, yeah, but i honestly doubt is actually the case, otherwise why were west ham fined 5.5million

Ok after months of reading all the bull**** over the tevez deal and sheffield united I gave up on the matter and pretty much ignored the whole affair in the end, so sorry if this is wrong!!

But I thought the whole saga started from the fact that West Ham did not disclose the third party ownership. Third party ownership isnt illegal and they only received a fine because of non disclosure, it had nothin to do with them proving they owned him. Therefore it has no reason to hold up the transfer if it was pursued in the same way as Liverpool's deal for Mascherano as West Ham released his registration. So to me it seems the problem here is that they wont release Tevez's registration without compensation. And thats whats holding the deal up.

Mitch Connor

yom 1 wrote:

Ok after months of reading all the bull**** over the tevez deal and sheffield united I gave up on the matter and pretty much ignored the whole affair in the end, so sorry if this is wrong!!

But I thought the whole saga started from the fact that West Ham did not disclose the third party ownership. Third party ownership isnt illegal and they only received a fine because of non disclosure, it had nothin to do with them proving they owned him. Therefore it has no reason to hold up the transfer if it was pursued in the same way as Liverpool's deal for Mascherano as West Ham released his registration. So to me it seems the problem here is that they wont release Tevez's registration without compensation. And thats whats holding the deal up.

what they did not disclose was the fact there was a clause in the original contract they said MSI could remove Tevez from the West Ham squad during any transfer window - meaning they could affect squad selection, which is against the rules.

They ripped up this contract, and they claimed ownership of Tevez as a result; which anyone with any understandong of contracts will tell you is a pile of crap.

The fact is MSI own the economic rights to Tevez, so West Ham have no right to claim any money for Tevez at all.

smcelhinney

I feel sorry for the poor kid, who just wants to play football for Man Utd.

There..

zing

smcelhinney wrote:

I feel sorry for the poor kid, who just wants to play football for Man Utd.

There..

I don't think he knows who he wants to play for. A few weeks ago it was Inter, then Real - now Utd. You've got to wonder how much say he has in where he plays.

PHB

Kia whatever is sest to get FIFA involved as he thinks the premierleague is covering their tracks. Both United's and Kia's lawyers both agree there is no way in hell West Ham have control over the player, and what West Ham did was basically me having a mortgage, ripping it up, and saying the house is mine. The PL are gona look like idiots by the end of this, I just hope Tevez can move quickly.

Ha!

The Premier League has warned West Ham they risk more disciplinary action over the Carlos Tevez saga if they do not receive a transfer fee for the striker.

BBC sports editor Mihir Bose reports that West Ham face action if they do not "assert their rights" over Tevez.

Tevez wants to join Manchester United but the deal has reached an impasse.

Businessman Kia Joorabchian insists he owns the 22-year-old's economic rights but the Premier League insists West Ham must receive any transfer fee.

The PL is selling West Ham down the river

MooShop

found this article good explaining the case from different sides

tevez case

Mitch Connor

PHB wrote:

Kia whatever is sest to get FIFA involved as he thinks the premierleague is covering their tracks. Both United's and Kia's lawyers both agree there is no way in hell West Ham have control over the player, and what West Ham did was basically me having a mortgage, ripping it up, and saying the house is mine. The PL are gona look like idiots by the end of this, I just hope Tevez can move quickly.

Ha!



The PL is selling West Ham down the river

that really is the funniest part of it all!

In order to not get relegated, West Ham chose to lie, and now teh PL are insisting they continue to lie, so that the PL aren't seen as the bunch of incompetent halfwits and corrupt morons they really are.

Come on MSI - bring this to court, screw them all!

Tauren

Tauren wrote:

Come on MSI - bring this to court, screw them all!

This would be a disaster for the PL. Theyd have to relegate West Ham and then face possible arbitrary action for fraud surely???

The Rooster

Tauren wrote:

In order to not get relegated, West Ham chose to lie, and now teh PL are insisting they continue to lie, so that the PL aren't seen as the bunch of incompetent halfwits and corrupt morons they really are.

Come on MSI - bring this to court, screw them all!

Thats it exactly.

In order to allow Tevez to play the last few games of the season West Ham had to declare that MSI held no interest in the player. West Hame did this. However, the Premier League should have sought written confirmation from MSI also to confirm. I dont think it was corruption on the PL's part, just very slack controls in the interests of expediency.

West Ham need to pull out all the stops to prevent this going to court, i.e. come up with a compromise that satisifes MSI but continues the lie for PL purposes - because if it goes to court its hard to see how Tevez could be deemed to have played legally for West Ham in those last few games.

PHB

West Ham need to pull out all the stops to prevent this going to court, i.e. come up with a compromise that satisifes MSI but continues the lie for PL purposes

Except that United won't allow any sort of bankhanders, cause they don't want to get screwed like West Ham did.
Kia and United have no interest in allowing West Ham to continue the fascade, and it could have very bad repruccussions for United. That's why I think West Ham are screwed, and I could see Sheffield getting their compensation

The Rooster

PHB wrote:

Except that United won't allow any sort of bankhanders, cause they don't want to get screwed like West Ham did.
Kia and United have no interest in allowing West Ham to continue the fascade, and it could have very bad repruccussions for United. That's why I think West Ham are screwed, and I could see Sheffield getting their compensation

Perhaps, but obviously payments would be structured as compensation rather than backhanders! I think if United wanted to buy him rather than take him on loan first, then West Ham could be taken out of the loop easily enough (ManU pay £20m or whatever to WHam - registration moves, cash moves, PL are happy. Then WHam pay compensation to Kia for breaking contract, of £20m). A loan deal complicates all that.

United do have to recognise that the Hammers hold his registration. The only way to get around that it pay West Ham, or go to court. The possible downside for ManU in going to court is that Tevez could get suspended for playing illegally again.

Killme00

The Rooster wrote:

The possible downside for ManU in going to court is that Tevez could get suspended for playing illegally again.

How could Tevez be banned...he was cleared by the PL to play...he did nothing wrong


The people to blame for this fiasco are the PL and WHU for their underhand and blatant disregard. I dont think many other clubs would get away with this in any other league.

Mitch Connor

The Rooster wrote:

Perhaps, but obviously payments would be structured as compensation rather than backhanders! I think if United wanted to buy him rather than take him on loan first, then West Ham could be taken out of the loop easily enough (ManU pay £20m or whatever to WHam - registration moves, cash moves, PL are happy. Then WHam pay compensation to Kia for breaking contract, of £20m). A loan deal complicates all that.

United do have to recognise that the Hammers hold his registration. The only way to get around that it pay West Ham, or go to court. The possible downside for ManU in going to court is that Tevez could get suspended for playing illegally again.

The PL have stated that if any transfer fee was paid to West Ham, a significant proportion of this fee would have to remain with West Ham - otherwse they could be seen to be covering up the 3rd party ownership (Fancy that, Tevez might not be owned by West Ham....shhhhhhhhhhh don't tell the PL)

The Rooster

Tauren wrote:

The PL have stated that if any transfer fee was paid to West Ham, a significant proportion of this fee would have to remain with West Ham - otherwse they could be seen to be covering up the 3rd party ownership

The Premier League never said that, it was a reporter who said that.

If West Ham get the fee, and the money is lodged to their bank account, I believe the Premier League will be happy. They wont care how West Ham spend that money. The problem with that scenario is United can't/won't pay a big up-front lump sum that gets West Ham out of the way.

The Rooster

Killme00 wrote:

How could Tevez be banned...he was cleared by the PL to play...he did nothing wrong

Many players have been banned for playing illegally - whether they knew or not is not relevant.

In any event nobody believes that Tevez ever thought West Ham owned him. He knew and West Ham knew the real story.

I'm not saying he will be banned, just that it can't be discounted in a worst case scenario

keltoms

What they should do is let Man United put the supposed loan or transfer fee for Tevez into an Escrow Account (- an independent 3rd party, holding the money) and allow Man Utd to register the player.

In the meantime, Tevez's agent Kia Joorabchian, the Premier League, West Ham Utd. and Sheffield United can all fight it out in the Courts as to who owns what, who did what etc. etc. and after which the money in the Escrow Account goes whichever way the Courts decide.

It will not matter to Man United as to who gets their money, as long as Man United get Tevez.

This way Tevez can carry on with his footballing career. Otherwise, he will not be playing Club football for a long long time

tvnutz

Apparantly Tevez's agent is threatening to hand over documents to Sheffield United that could totally screw West Ham over. Not sure exactly what they are,but they might prove West Ham lied.

And it does really seem that the Premier League are digging themselves into a hole and are continuing to dig deeper and deeper! What is wrong with them? Lawyers for both United and Kia seem confident WHU have no rights to the player yet the PL still keep insisting WHU get a transfer fee...what are they at?

Chucky the tree

Tauren wrote:

so? Why are the PL accepting that? Just because West Ham say it, it doesn't make it true - so they actual terms of the tevez deal should be very similar to the Mascherano deal, because in reality west ham own/owned neither

Wouldnt tevez have signed a new and different contacting stating in his own by west ham after it broke that the transfer was dodgy?

Revelation Joe

The Rooster wrote:

Thats it exactly.

In order to allow Tevez to play the last few games of the season West Ham had to declare that MSI held no interest in the player. West Hame did this.

No, they had to declare that there was no third-party interest in team matters i.e. that MSI could not unilaterally withdraw Tevez from a West Ham squad.
That was the part of the contract that caused the problem with the PL and which was renegotiated.
Tevez is still registered as a West Ham player and signed a contract which is still binding

Revelation Joe

Have any of you considered that the reason that Tevez hasn't yet signed for Man Utd is that West Ham just don't want to sell him?

Mitch Connor

Revelation Joe wrote:

Have any of you considered that the reason that Tevez hasn't yet signed for Man Utd is that West Ham just don't want to sell him?

wow - its like you cut right to the heart of the issue and all the legal mumbo-jumbo. well done.

Mitch Connor

Revelation Joe wrote:

No, they had to declare that there was no third-party interest in team matters i.e. that MSI could not unilaterally withdraw Tevez from a West Ham squad.
That was the part of the contract that caused the problem with the PL and which was renegotiated.
Tevez is still registered as a West Ham player and signed a contract which is still binding

the contract they ripped up, NOT renegotiated.

The contract which also apparently states he was on loan for one season, then they could buy him for £40million.

The season is up and they have not paid 40million.

West Ham don't own him, so have no right to sell him.

Revelation Joe

Tauren wrote:

wow - its like you cut right to the heart of the issue and all the legal mumbo-jumbo. well done

Well, I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere...why should they want to sell one of their best players?

the contract they ripped up, NOT renegotiated.

The contract which also apparently states he was on loan for one season, then they could buy him for £40million.

The season is up and they have not paid 40million.

West Ham don't own him, so have no right to sell him.

The contract must have been renegotiated in some form or another, otherwise, Tevez wouldn't have a contract, but he does.
Whether the original was replaced by a different one or whatever, Tevez is still under contract to West Ham.

marco_polo

Revelation Joe wrote:

Have any of you considered that the reason that Tevez hasn't yet signed for Man Utd is that West Ham just don't want to sell him?

Nice work there you should contact the relevant parties involved and let them know you have it all sorted out.

The don't want to hand over his registration.To sell him they would have to own him.

PHB

Revelation Joe wrote:

Whether the original was replaced by a different one or whatever, Tevez is still under contract to West Ham.

Not in any legal sense of the word

marco_polo

Revelation Joe wrote:

Well, I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere...why should they want to sell one of their best players?

He's not their player!

The contract must have been renegotiated in some form or another, otherwise, Tevez wouldn't have a contract, but he does.
Whether the original was replaced by a different one or whatever, Tevez is still under contract to West Ham.

I doubt it was his playing contract that was renegotiated. Tevez's playing contract would be seperate to any other ownership/loan agreements West Ham have with MSI.

Revelation Joe

PHB wrote:

Not in any legal sense of the word

But none of us know what was igned by who and when. How do you know that the contract isn't 'legal' ?
The only people who know for sure are West Ham, Tevez, his agent and the Premier League and two of those are 100% sure it's in order.

marco_polo

Revelation Joe wrote:

two of those are 100% sure it's in order.

Yeah right :rolleyes:

Answer me this, If they are so sure then why have Man United not been censured for tapping up Tevez.

Surely West Ham ought to have complained to the PL by now about this as they have not given permission for "their" player to talk to Utd.