Kia Joorabchian isnt happy

Rikand

Kia Joorabchian has criticised the Premier League's handling of the Carlos Tevez saga and is willing to fund an new inquiry to resolve the matter.

Joorabchian, who represents Tevez, is upset with the lack of "transparency".

He has also accused Premier League chief Richard Scudamore of dragging "me, my players, West Ham and the Premier League through the mud".

He added: "That's why I want a proper independent inquiry and I'm willing to finance it, whatever it costs."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/6952701.stm

leninbenjamin

can ya blame him? seems both WHU and the PL tried to screw him over. tbh, i think another enquiry would be well in order after the fiasco of the transfer found out the bullsh*t accomodation that WHU supposedly put in place to have him play out the rest of the season.

KdjaCL

PL created a position that 3rd party ownership is not on, Kia covering his arse and trying to ensure it goes. All the money is in the PL now if Kia wants some of it with his players playing there he has to ensure 3rd party is allowed.


kdjac

Guy:Incognito

leninbenjamin wrote:

can ya blame him? .

Yes actually, he's as dodgy as fook. He created all these iffey situations in the first place.

leninbenjamin

Stekelly wrote:

Yes actually, he's as dodgy as fook. He created all these iffey situations in the first place.

he's no more dodgy than FIFA and all ( or well, many, at least, of ) the individual associations. WHU are just as circumspect as they entered into the agreement with him. another enquiry doesn't necessarily mean 3rds party ownership will be allowed, it'll just expose the moronic depths of the PL and WHU, instead of lumping all the blame on joorabchian.

KdjaCL

leninbenjamin wrote:

he's no more dodgy than FIFA and all ( or well, many, at least, of ) the individual associations. WHU are just as circumspect as they entered into the agreement with him. another enquiry doesn't necessarily mean 3rds party ownership will be allowed, it'll just expose the moronic depths of the PL and WHU, instead of lumping all the blame on joorabchian.

But outside the PL this is the "norm" Look at Riquelme for crazyness that Tevez dreams off. Or Wagner Love sold to russia to pay mafia off by his owners, club he played for found out about it after he had played for the russian club. They were wondering why he didnt show for training.

I think the PLs stance on it is correct and it should be banned.

kdjac

JPA

KdjaCL wrote:

But outside the PL this is the "norm" Look at Riquelme for crazyness that Tevez dreams off. Or Wagner Love sold to russia to pay mafia off by his owners, club he played for found out about it after he had played for the russian club. They were wondering why he didnt show for training.

I think the PLs stance on it is correct and it should be banned.

kdjac

But then there's plenty of cases that aren't as extreme as this which we never even hear about. It can work okif all participants are fully aware of what is involved.

KdjaCL

JPA wrote:

But then there's plenty of cases that aren't as extreme as this which we never even hear about. It can work okif all participants are fully aware of what is involved.

How can it work?

You buy a player who you dont own and dont even hold his registration? This goes back to the Nike team controversy whereas players Nike had sponsored seemed to get games for national teams to ensure work permits abroad (anderson recently)

I honestly cant see any good in a company owning a player and loaning him out for a fee, whats to stop MSI selling tevez before end of August to real? Man Utd dont own his registration therefore cant stop it the agreement they have is with MSI.

kdjac

JPA

KdjaCL wrote:

How can it work?

You buy a player who you dont own and dont even hold his registration? This goes back to the Nike team controversy whereas players Nike had sponsored seemed to get games for national teams to ensure work permits abroad (anderson recently)

I honestly cant see any good in a company owning a player and loaning him out for a fee, whats to stop MSI selling tevez before end of August to real? Man Utd dont own his registration therefore cant stop it the agreement they have is with MSI.

kdjac

That can't happen. MSI own the financial rights or whatever it's called but the agreement is that MSI have no control over the players movement for the duration of his contract with Man Utd.
This was well publicised and is part of the difference between the Tevez/West Ham contract and the Tevez/ManUtd contract.
The same type of contract that Liverpool have for Mascherano.
The FA rules are not against third party ownership but they are against third party influence which is why there is no problem with the current Tevez deal.

Guy:Incognito

Exactly. What happens if Tevez sets the league alight between now and Christmas , firing Utd 10 points clear and winning matches on his own, then Chelsea decide to offer joorabcjian an obscene amount of mony to pull Tevez out of Utd and he agrees. Utd lose momentum rapidly and Chelsea win the league?


Its a wild one but still

KdjaCL

Stekelly wrote:

Exactly. What happens if Tevez sets the league alight between now and Christmas , firing Utd 10 points clear and winning matches on his own, then Chelsea decide to offer joorabcjian an obscene amount of mony to pull Tevez out of Utd and he agrees. Utd lose momentum rapidly and Chelsea win the league?


Its a wild one but still

And sadly without a proper contract with the club its possible.

Unlike heinze Utd have no ownership over Tevez and i would bet the EU would go against them as Tevez is contracted to MSI rather than Utd.

kdjac

thebaz

Was this gangser not trying to buy West Ham , before he "loaned" them Tevez and Masherano --- if he did actually get ownership of West Ham , then i think sheffield would have had a case to take ... p.s. he even looks like a sleezeball

Mr Alan

the guy always reminds me of a villian from a James Bond movie

thebaz

millersangel wrote:

the guy always reminds me of a villian from a James Bond movie

I'd say he sold a few dodgy 2nd hand cars down the East end , before moving on to better things

Mitch Connor

KdjaCL wrote:

PL created a position that 3rd party ownership is not on, Kia covering his arse and trying to ensure it goes. All the money is in the PL now if Kia wants some of it with his players playing there he has to ensure 3rd party is allowed.


kdjac

in fairness - that is wrong.

3rd party ownership is not new or wrong. Hell, look at leeds - when we bought Rio and later Smudge off them, we were actually buying them off a bank. What the premier league don't like is 3rd party INFLUENCE, which is completely different. If they really didn't like 3rd party ownership, the enitre loan system would be completely scrapped.

Also, the 3rd party influence rule was initially created with ownership of clubs in mind, not players. It was initially created to insure the same person or group could not have an impact on more then one club in the premier league (ie. not allowed to own more then 9.9% of more then one club)

Tevez is a United player for the next 2 years. There is no getting round that. We have him on a two year contract - with the option to purchase him at any point during that time. Joorabchian can NOT remove him from United within that time so all these crazy scenarios with Tevez being sold at christmas is just rubbish.

KdjaCL

Tauren wrote:

in fairness - that is wrong.

3rd party ownership is not new or wrong. Hell, look at leeds - when we bought Rio and later Smudge off them, we were actually buying them off a bank. What the premier league don't like is 3rd party INFLUENCE, which is completely different. If they really didn't like 3rd party ownership, the enitre loan system would be completely scrapped.

Also, the 3rd party influence rule was initially created with ownership of clubs in mind, not players. It was initially created to insure the same person or group could not have an impact on more then one club in the premier league (ie. not allowed to own more then 9.9% of more then one club)

How can a loaning one of one player to another club be even considered as similiar to this type of ownership?

I think you dont understand the word "club" thats attached to football clubs, Man utd have no owernship of Tevez only a contract with MSI that allows him to play for them for 2 years. Will they put an MSI badges on his jersey so when he scores he kisses that?

By allowing 3rd party ownership you allow a group of mercenaries to ply their trade by the instructions of MSI and other companies.

Man Utd fans worship Scholes for 2 reasons one he is ****ing brilliant and the other is what the word "club" is all about. Sad that a Man utd fan would overlook the importance of it in favour of success.

Tevez is a United player for the next 2 years. There is no getting round that. We have him on a two year contract - with the option to purchase him at any point during that time. Joorabchian can NOT remove him from United within that time so all these crazy scenarios with Tevez being sold at christmas is just rubbish.

You have no clue how this system works, the option to purchase him from who? jesus MSI own the players registration FIFA/UEFA and most importantly the EU would seriously disagree with your crazy ideas, he doesnt get paid by man utd , he gets paid by MSI. MSI can do whatever the hell they like with him at anytime, he is their "employee" and if the word bosman doesnt ring any bells it is quite possible the tevez case could ring some bells in a few years. Man utd didnt buy a player they bought an agreement to allow them to play him. MSI still own him be thankful there are not many clubs richer than man utd who could buy him from MSI.

kdjac

Mitch Connor

KdjaCL wrote:

How can a loaning one of one player to another club be even considered as similiar to this type of ownership?

I think you dont understand the word "club" thats attached to football clubs, Man utd have no owernship of Tevez only a contract with MSI that allows him to play for them for 2 years. Will they put an MSI badges on his jersey so when he scores he kisses that?

By allowing 3rd party ownership you allow a group of mercenaries to ply their trade by the instructions of MSI and other companies.

Man Utd fans worship Scholes for 2 reasons one he is ****ing brilliant and the other is what the word "club" is all about. Sad that a Man utd fan would overlook the importance of it in favour of success.



You have no clue how this system works, the option to purchase him from who? jesus MSI own the players registration FIFA/UEFA and most importantly the EU would seriously disagree with your crazy ideas, he doesnt get paid by man utd , he gets paid by MSI. MSI can do whatever the hell they like with him at anytime, he is their "employee" and if the word bosman doesnt ring any bells it is quite possible the tevez case could ring some bells in a few years. Man utd didnt buy a player they bought an agreement to allow them to play him. MSI still own him be thankful there are not many clubs richer than man utd who could buy him from MSI.

kdjac

Jesus - that is full of crap.

1. United are currently paying Tevez a weekly wage.

2. How do you see the loan system as completely different? Liverpool have loaned Carson to Aston Villa. Carson is owned by liverpool but plays for Villa. How is it different to United owning the registration for tevez and MSI the current economic rights?

3. Sorry, don't see where the hell you are goig with the 'club' argument, and with throwing Scholes in there.

4. You seem to have a crappy understanding of the Tevez deal. United have basically leased Tevez for 2 years - it is a 2 year FIXED contract. At the end of the two years, MSI will be free to sell him UNLESS united pay the already agreed fee for him. MSI can not sell him in January or the summer, or the following January unless UNited explicitly agree to it (which is the exact same situation as any other club would be in)

5. Allowing 3rd party ownership allows mercenaries? CRAP! As long as contracts are properly sorted and worded, a player will be contracted to a club. The ONLY issue that is really in question is when the contracts are crap - like the west ham one was, which allwed MSI to remove Tevez from the West Ham team for a fee of 100k without the expressed consent of West Ham. You can be sure there is no similar clause in the United deal for Tevez as the premier league would not allow it and United would not accept it (just as they were offered Tevez last summer but did not agree for that exact reason).

So, in summary, while United do not currently own Tevez, he is a United player for the next 2 years. The situation is no different to Villa loaning Carson from Liverpool or any club owning any player for a fixed term. MSI can not sell Tevez from under the nose of United.

PHB

There is no doubt in my mind that Tevez will be at United for the next two years. Not only do they have his registration, which the PL will back up, they have a legal contract with MSI. MSI have no out clause in this regard (unlike in the West Ham case), so if they do violate the contract, United will sue them for damages and almost certainly win.
MSI can do whatever the hell they like with him indeed. They decided to loan him to United for 2 years. This is a legally binding decision. They have made their choice of what to do with him, and they can't decide in 6 months to renege on that, without breaching the contract they have signed.

This works exactly like a loan deal from another club.

leninbenjamin

KdjaCL wrote:

How can a loaning one of one player to another club be even considered as similiar to this type of ownership?

it's a player playing for a club who don't own his economic rights. same deal both ways. the club are hiring him, like a building contractor might hire plant/machinery.

I think you dont understand the word "club" thats attached to football clubs, Man utd have no owernship of Tevez only a contract with MSI that allows him to play for them for 2 years. Will they put an MSI badges on his jersey so when he scores he kisses that?

Man Utd dropped the word football club from their name a good few years ago. they are now a privately listed company, who hire employees, have assets and strive for profits like any other company. nothing "clublike" about them anymore really... and i'm pretty sure they damn well wouldn't have entered into an agreement with MSI if they couldn't guarantee they have te rights to Tevez's registration for the next 2 years, although i couln't actually guarantee this.

By allowing 3rd party ownership you allow a group of mercenaries to ply their trade by the instructions of MSI and other companies.

please, we dont need third party ownership to create mercenaries, we've already seen this before anyway. Lucas Neill as an example maybe? no third party ownership there...

Man Utd fans worship Scholes for 2 reasons one he is ****ing brilliant and the other is what the word "club" is all about. Sad that a Man utd fan would overlook the importance of it in favour of success.

already made my point about "club." you're coming across as near delusional at this stage.

You have no clue how this system works, the option to purchase him from who? jesus MSI own the players registration FIFA/UEFA and most importantly the EU would seriously disagree with your crazy ideas, he doesnt get paid by man utd , he gets paid by MSI. MSI can do whatever the hell they like with him at anytime, he is their "employee" and if the word bosman doesnt ring any bells it is quite possible the tevez case could ring some bells in a few years. Man utd didnt buy a player they bought an agreement to allow them to play him. MSI still own him be thankful there are not many clubs richer than man utd who could buy him from MSI.

sounds very similar to a loan deal to me...

going back a bit...

KdjaCL wrote:

But outside the PL this is the "norm" Look at Riquelme for crazyness that Tevez dreams off. Or Wagner Love sold to russia to pay mafia off by his owners, club he played for found out about it after he had played for the russian club. They were wondering why he didnt show for training.

I think the PLs stance on it is correct and it should be banned.

First off, did i say anywhere what my own personal stance on 3rd party ownership is? no i didn't really... lets deal with facts here shall we? MSI own the rights to Tevez's registration. this is legal. and i'm pretty sure the EU have no problems with 3rd party ownership and all that, restraint of trade etc. Tevez is no different to any employee. he signs a contract, get's paid.

WHU entered into an agreement with MSI, an agreement which is probably perfectly sound legally - again i can't be 100% but i'm pretty sure guys like these would have their assess covered - but infringed upon the rules of the league.

WHU attempted to severe/alter said agreement without the consent of MSI, screwover number 1. PL attempted to enforce WHU unsound position at the expense of MSI, screwover number two.

now since then the PR guru's have spread the guff around about how 3rd party ownership is wrong, and this worked wonderfully in favour of the PL and WHU. now everyone is talking about how Joorabchian is a "gangster" etc., and while i'm not denying he may be of questionable ethics or defending him in anyway from what i can make out his position in this dealing is legally sound, and i'm pretty confident that WHU and PL wouldn't have settled if it weren't. hence he is calling for more transparecny and another enqury which i think is a good thing, and something he is perfectly entitled to, as it will show up the failings and even more dodgy dealings of WHU and the PL, which i think is more important to fans of football.

remember the bung enquiry guys a while back? football doesn't need any outside influence to engage in dodgy dealings... some people here seem very idealistic.

disclaimer: obviously the whole dealings are pretty shady, and of course i'm open to the fact i could be incorrect, but this is my interpretation of the "facts" i have i digested from the (increasingly unreliable) media. fact of the matter is though Joorabchian could buy as many players as he wants and set himself up as a club playing in his own league if he wanted, heck i could even do that if i had the money. i dont think there are any questions over the legality of his ownership, perhaps i'm wrong but i just can't see how... hence most of the **** ups and dodgy dealings in this case are from WHU and the PL from my viewpoint, so i think Joorabchian has a right to say what he said, regardless of his own questionable background in south american soccer. tha was, is and ever shall be the sole point i intended to express in this thread.

KdjaCL

PHB wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind that Tevez will be at United for the next two years. Not only do they have his registration, which the PL will back up, they have a legal contract with MSI. MSI have no out clause in this regard (unlike in the West Ham case), so if they do violate the contract, United will sue them for damages and almost certainly win.
MSI can do whatever the hell they like with him indeed. They decided to loan him to United for 2 years. This is a legally binding decision. They have made their choice of what to do with him, and they can't decide in 6 months to renege on that, without breaching the contract they have signed.

This works exactly like a loan deal from another club.

Obviously not if he cant be recalled at any time or have clauses in what games he cant play in, which i doubt it is like a loan from another club.

I doubt he will leave but the possibility under EU law says he can at any time be moved on by MSI.


kdjac

Mitch Connor

KdjaCL wrote:

Obviously not if he cant be recalled at any time or have clauses in what games he cant play in, which i doubt it is like a loan from another club.

I doubt he will leave but the possibility under EU law says he can at any time be moved on by MSI.


kdjac

HE CAN'T BE RECALLED AT ANY TIME AND DOESN'T HAVE CLAUSES IN WHAT GAMES HE CAN PLAY IN!

JPA

KdjaCL wrote:

Obviously not if he cant be recalled at any time or have clauses in what games he cant play in, which i doubt it is like a loan from another club.

I doubt he will leave but the possibility under EU law says he can at any time be moved on by MSI.


kdjac

If a fee is paid for a loan then the player cannot be recalled under any circumstances. This is similar to the Tevez deal.
And teams cannot dictate which games a player cannot play in. Why do you think this?
It is the Premier League rule that a player cannot play against his own team but a club cannot dictate which other clubs he cannot play against.
While I think 3rd party ownership is bad because it takes money from the game, it exists and there are rules in place which are not disputable.

KdjaCL

Tauren wrote:

HE CAN'T BE RECALLED AT ANY TIME AND DOESN'T HAVE CLAUSES IN WHAT GAMES HE CAN PLAY IN!

HE DOES NOT WORK FOR MAN UTD THEREFORE UNDER EU LAW WHICH CONTRADICTS FOOTBALL LAW (A LOT) HE CAN.

**** me the word bosman means nothing to you.

kdjac

leninbenjamin

someone should move this thread to legal discussion

PHB

HE DOES NOT WORK FOR MAN UTD THEREFORE UNDER EU LAW WHICH CONTRADICTS FOOTBALL LAW (A LOT) HE CAN.

Why isn't this the case with all loan deals? Why is MSI different?

Mitch Connor

PHB wrote:

Why isn't this the case with all loan deals? Why is MSI different?

because it suits him if it does.:rolleyes:

PHB

No seriously, I honestly can't see any difference, but Kdjacl seems to be quite sure of himself, so I'd like to know what the story is