Tevez / Mascherano

[dirtyfingers]

I'm curious....can anyone clarify?

West Ham found guilty of signing both players, who were judged to have been owned by a 3rd party - Kia Jorabchian.

As it stands, is Tevez not still owned by Kia Jorabchian? Everything I've read lately states that he is, and that any transfer fee would be paid to Kia, and not a club.

...is this 3rd party ownership not still illegal? Seems a bit odd that an agent/management co. could own a player for what seems to be 'life'.

Or would this arrangement end once a transfer fee is paid to Kia?
(Wasn't a (low) transfer fee paid when they both arrived at West Ham?)

Is there a throw back to pre bosman when clubs still 'owned' players who were out of contract?


(Not sure on the mascherano situation)

[dirtyfingers]

nobody?

[Lamps]

I just think people are waking up to the disgusting business that is modern day soccer, hopefully anyway.

[Philby]

I'm curious....can anyone clarify?

West Ham found guilty of signing both players, who were judged to have been owned by a 3rd party - Kia Jorabchian.

As it stands, is Tevez not still owned by Kia Jorabchian? Everything I've read lately states that he is, and that any transfer fee would be paid to Kia, and not a club.

...is this 3rd party ownership not still illegal? Seems a bit odd that an agent/management co. could own a player for what seems to be 'life'.

Or would this arrangement end once a transfer fee is paid to Kia?
(Wasn't a (low) transfer fee paid when they both arrived at West Ham?)

It's seems quite up in the air alright. Back as far as March 2007 there was talk of MSI's ownership of Tevez's economic rights being cancelled but Kia is very much back on the scene in terms of negotiating his proposed transfer to United.

United don't own him.
West Ham certainly don't.

Perhaps MSI do still own him but his loan deal is structured in such a way as to comply with premier league rules?

What's more, the Hammers were allowed to continue playing Tevez, whose goals proved crucial in keeping them up, after insisting they had cancelled his third-party ownership with Joorabchian - BBC

Is there a throw back to pre bosman when clubs still 'owned' players who were out of contract?

No

(Not sure on the mascherano situation)

Mascherano's contract is 100% owned by Liverpool and he will be a free agent if/when that contract runs out.

[Philby]

..

[duffer31]

I just think people are waking up to the disgusting business that is modern day soccer, hopefully anyway.


yawn.... wum. turn it off so.

[parrotbait]

The Fiver has a nice way with words::

West Ham are cheats. They stayed in the Premier League in 2006-07
because they cheated and then lied about their cheating. Their
friends in the upper echelons of football administration and their
biased southern-based media buddies have been protecting them ever
since. They've tried to fib their way out of trouble, but,
thankfully, they've been caught and the club should cough up 30m big
ones and be delighted to get away so lightly. Sheffield United,
meanwhile, are bad losers. They weren't good enough on the pitch and
that's why they went down. They've been peddling myths about Carlos
Tevez's ineligibility. They're a miserable bunch of northern whiners
who can't accept that they were relegated because their team were
useless and their desperate appeals for financial recompense are
based on nothing but greed, envy and spite.

That pretty much sums up the attitudes of Blades and Hammers fans
towards one another as the Tevez affair rumbles on

[kevinbitzz]

indeed they do,

http://www.peoplesrepublico fcork.com/~peoplesr/forums/showthread.php?t=137 105

[parrotbait]

Yeah cheers blitzy......I knew about it but thought that it would fit in this thread quite well.

[KolaKubes]

Remember when West Ham were holding out for a fee for Tevez last summer.

[liam2me]

tevez is under the exact same contract at man u as he was at west ham. mascherano was under the exact same contract at liverpool as he was at west ham until liverpool paid kia the signing fee. football corruption at it's best, man u and liverpool have the FA in their back pocket, west ham don't. end of story

[Echoboy]

(Not sure on the mascherano situation)

Not even FIFA were sure on that one, they made it up as they went along. One rule for one and not for the other was the rule of thumb anyway

I just think people are waking up to the disgusting business that is modern day soccer, hopefully anyway.

People dont care as long as it doesn't interfere with Soccer AM

[xvis]

How West Ham were finally nailed for their Tevez transgression



1 When did the saga begin?

Rumours of a takeover were swirling around West Ham towards the end of the 2006 summer transfer window when the club announced the shock capture of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. In their haste on deadline day, West Ham seemed to turn a blind eye to the players' registrations being in breach of Premier League rule U18, which relates to third-party ownership.

2 Why is third-party ownership frowned upon?

The League does not want anyone outside of a club to be able to materially influence their policies, not only in terms of selection but, potentially, when and where a player could transfer to. Kia Joorabchian, who was linked to a consortium which failed to take over West Ham, was the backer of Tevez and Mascherano.

3 When did West Ham come clean?

In January 2007, Liverpool set the wheels in motion for a deal to sign Mascherano but they noticed irregularities in his ownership which they knew would not get past the Premier League. Nick Igoe, the finance director, told Eggert Magnusson, who fronted the takeover, to send the contracts of both Tevez and Mascherano to the Premier League.

4 How did it turn nasty?

The Premier League charged West Ham for breaching their rules over the signings of the players and, the following month, an independent three-man panel, chaired by Simon Bourne-Arton QC, imposed a record fine of £5.5m on them and criticised them for their "dishonesty and deceit". However, the panel ruled against a points deduction at what was a delicate stage of a relegation battle, taking pity on the club's supporters. Scott Duxbury was accused of "misleading" Jane Purdon of the Premier League. Paul Aldridge, the former managing director, was said to have told a "direct lie".

5 What were West Ham found guilty of?

A breach of U18 and also of rule B13, which dictates that clubs act with "the utmost good faith" to one another and the Premier League. The League also ruled that with Mascherano out of the equation at Liverpool, "the registration of Carlos Tevez can be terminated".

6 But didn't Tevez play the final three matches of the season?

He did, and he helped West Ham to nine points, which proved decisive in keeping them up. West Ham had gone to the Premier League and given them verbal and written assurances that Tevez's old contract had been ripped up. West Ham were subsequently engaged in litigation with Joorabchian, who said that they had no right to unilaterally terminate the original agreement. The dispute was settled out of court.

7 How did West Ham's relegation rivals react?

With fury. They called on the Premier League to reconsider the decision not to deduct points and Sheffield United, supported by Fulham, who stayed up, launched an appeal, with the aim of being reinstated. It was heard over the summer by another independent panel, chaired by Sir Philip Otton, but he found against them. Like Bourne-Arton, he had grave reservations about West Ham's actions but found no errant point of laws upon which to overturn the ruling.

8 Did Sheffield United let it lie there?

No. They took their grievance to the high court but, again, lost. The high court had great respect for Otton, a senior circuit judge. But Sheffield United then chose to sue West Ham for monies lost, pursuing them under the Football Association's rule K. West Ham were bound to agree to the arbitration and the latest three-man panel, chaired by Lord Griffiths, found for Sheffield United.

9 What did Griffiths say?

That without Tevez West Ham would have gone down. West Ham reacted with incredulity - "we do not accept that one player's contribution can be placed over that of the team as a whole nor used as the basis for judging the results of a 38-game season." Sheffield United plan to push for losses of more than £30m. Griffiths, who will rule on the compensation figure, said that Duxbury had promised to tear up the third-party agreement over Tevez but privately honour the agreement with Joorabchian.

10 Why were Tevez and Mascherano allowed to join Manchester United and Liverpool respectively?

Because both clubs carefully picked apart the legal minefield of their ownerships and were able to satisfy the Premier League that there was no possibility of any outside influence. The structure that both clubs used were based on the loan deals which are already widely employed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/25/westhamunited.premie rleague

[Philby]

tevez is under the exact same contract at man u as he was at west ham. mascherano was under the exact same contract at liverpool as he was at west ham until liverpool paid kia the signing fee. football corruption at it's best, man u and liverpool have the FA in their back pocket, west ham don't. end of story

Just looks the United & Liverpool had good lawyers whereas West 'Am just got some advice from some guy down market! ;)

[liam2me]

Just looks the United & Liverpool had good lawyers whereas West 'Am just got some advice from some guy down market! ;)
it was terry brown FFS, what more do you expect???