Tevez deal VS Mascherano deal

marco_polo

PHB wrote:

This is getting funny Luckily money laundering in Brazil won't affect his position in England, it'll just make it a little more difficult to work with Kia.

Personally I think the solution will be something along the lines of,
Everybody accepts that West Ham 'own' Tevez, West Ham 'loan' him to United for two years, with an option to buy. Kia takes West Ham to court for breach of contract, get's all the amount United are paying, minus 5.5 million to cover the fine they got, and everybody is happy, United get Tevez, West Ham get their fine covered and no points deduction, the PL go on pretending, and Kia gets his money. The only people who gets screwed are Sheffield United

The lack of an extradition agreements between the UK and Brazil makes the arrest warrant largely illrelevant, except to hightlight just was a dodgy bunch Kia/MSI actually are.

I can't wait for the "explaination" that will come out at the end of all of this.

zing

marco_polo wrote:

And why did West Ham let Mascherano leave for next to nothing in that instance? Did they donate a £15m player to liverpool out of the goodness of their hearts?

They agreed to terminate his contract which effectively made him a free agent. I've no idea why they decided to do that for a player of his quality but then we are tallking about a club who wasn't playing him at all and he was just rotting on the bench. I think they were incredibly stupid to a) not play him in the first place and b) cancel his contract as he clearly is a very talented player. It was most likely a financial decision - probably didn't want to have to end up paying so much for a player that they clearly didn't rate.

A free transfer is a completely different scenario so I am not sure how the point remains the same.

The point is that players can be signed without the signing club paying a penny and then sold on for a fee. Why does it matter that one is a free transfer and another isn't ? The sale of the player is a completely different transaction to the purchase/signing and the two should not be mixed up together. As I've said none of us know how the Tevez deal is structured financially so it could well have been a no money up front deal - particularly if Joorabchian thought he was in pole position to buy West Ham at the time.

Yes from a footballing point of view the PL insist that he is WHs player because hold his registration. However the original agreement between West Ham and MSI clearly does not involve West Ham Having any "economic rights" to the player.

Isn't that pretty much the whole problem though? If West Ham have to give all the money from the transfer over to MSI then they are admitting that those third party agreements were still in place despite them instisting that all was above board after their disciplinary hearing and fine a few months ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought the main issue with the original contracts were that MSI and Joorabchian could effectively terminate the contracts whenever they wanted (during given xfer windows) and move the players to other clubs - i.e. that they had third party influence rather than third party ownership as such ?
The ruling form the independent commission or whatever it was is here:
http://www.premierleague.com/public/downloads/publications/PL270407final.txt
and my reading of it is that third party influence was the issue rather than third party ownership.

This bit is interesting from it:

According to Ms Purdon, Mr Duxbury told her that the club were negotiating to buy two (unnamed) South American players. He had been informed of this by Paul Aldridge, who had also told him that no fee was to be payable.

No fee to be payable ? Now that bit is just based on a telephone conversation but the lack of the words 'up front' at the end of it is interesting. This suggests the players were being gifted to West Ham and if that is indeed the case then it adds some weight to their stance over continuing to hold the players registration.

What a royal mess that all is..

zing

marco_polo wrote:

The lack of an extradition agreements between the UK and Brazil makes the arrest warrant largely illrelevant, except to hightlight just was a dodgy bunch Kia/MSI actually are.

What happens if the courts decide to seize MSI's assets which are mostly a bunch of football players ? :eek:

marco_polo

zing wrote:

What happens if the courts decide to seize MSI's assets which are mostly a bunch of football players ? :eek:

Isn't that called kidnap? Then again that is the next most popular sport in Brazil after football:D

DerekD Goldfish

zing wrote:

What happens if the courts decide to seize MSI's assets which are mostly a bunch of football players ? :eek:

Players are sold via Garda(well whatever the Brazilian equivalent is) Auction

marco_polo

zing wrote:

They agreed to terminate his contract which effectively made him a free agent. I've no idea why they decided to do that for a player of his quality but then we are tallking about a club who wasn't playing him at all and he was just rotting on the bench. I think they were incredibly stupid to a) not play him in the first place and b) cancel his contract as he clearly is a very talented player. It was most likely a financial decision - probably didn't want to have to end up paying so much for a player that they clearly didn't rate.



The point is that players can be signed without the signing club paying a penny and then sold on for a fee. Why does it matter that one is a free transfer and another isn't ? The sale of the player is a completely different transaction to the purchase/signing and the two should not be mixed up together. As I've said none of us know how the Tevez deal is structured financially so it could well have been a no money up front deal - particularly if Joorabchian thought he was in pole position to buy West Ham at the time.



Correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought the main issue with the original contracts were that MSI and Joorabchian could effectively terminate the contracts whenever they wanted (during given xfer windows) and move the players to other clubs - i.e. that they had third party influence rather than third party ownership as such ?
The ruling form the independent commission or whatever it was is here:
http://www.premierleague.com/public/downloads/publications/PL270407final.txt
and my reading of it is that third party influence was the issue rather than third party ownership.

This bit is interesting from it:


No fee to be payable ? Now that bit is just based on a telephone conversation but the lack of the words 'up front' at the end of it is interesting. This suggests the players were being gifted to West Ham and if that is indeed the case then it adds some weight to their stance over continuing to hold the players registration.

What a royal mess that all is..

Argee with some points and disagree with others. I think I am just too sick and tired of the whole Tevezgate affair to make a long reply. Wanna call it a draw?

zing

marco_polo wrote:

Argee with some points and disagree with others. I think I am just too sick and tired of the whole Tevezgate affair to make a long reply. Wanna call it a draw?

btw - I'm not saying it's right that West Ham get any money for him - just that I can understand why they could/would. Although I've got to admit that I'd almost prefer to see West Ham get the money rather than the likes of Joorabchian and his buddies. That would be completely unfair to everyone involved but I just see the likes Joorabchian as people who are out to exploit players rather than trying to look after the players interests.

marco_polo

Sheff Utd have been refused leave to appeal arbitration commitee decision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/s/sheff_utd/6897960.stm

marco_polo

zing wrote:

btw - I'm not saying it's right that West Ham get any money for him - just that I can understand why they could/would. Although I've got to admit that I'd almost prefer to see West Ham get the money rather than the likes of Joorabchian and his buddies. That would be completely unfair to everyone involved but I just see the likes Joorabchian as people who are out to exploit players rather than trying to look after the players interests.

Well that we can definately agree on. Even though it is quite common in South American football I would hate to see the likes Joorabchian being involved in football on this side of the world. Football players should be owned solely by football clubs.

Although I haven't much sympathy for West Ham in this case as you may have noticed.