West Ham: Victims or Idiots?
In the last few months West Ham fans have become increasingly defensive and come out in droves to protect the honour of West Ham United whenever the club is criticised.
Think that West Ham were leniently treated by the Premier League? You’re just feeding on media propaganda and don’t know the truth.
Think that West Ham is being ditched by ambitious players and joined by squad players? You don’t know football then.
Think that West Ham are being pricks over Tevez or that they have no legal rights over the player? You’re a West Ham hater!
Yes. You. You’re a West Ham hater for thinking that a club that signs a potentially damaging contract and then lies to the Premier League AND is punished in April, not in January when the issue was discovered, was leniently treated.
You’re a West Ham hater for thinking that they won’t make the top 6 or top 8 next season (Having Craig Bellamy in your team does NOT guarantee you European football, mind you – it just guarantees that there will be fighting).
You’re a West Ham hater for thinking that – because all West Hams DO have law degrees, are intimately familiar with the legal issues at stake and furthermore are not biased, AT ALL.
Quite frankly, this whole “the world is against us” bullshit is a childish excuse to deal with the real issues. I’m up for debate and I’ll discuss anything, anywhere, with anyone. But if your best defense is that because I disagree with you I’m influenced by third-rate media (who I thoroughly despise, mind you) or that I support a big club so I’m arrogant, then yes, you’re going to get the same tripe that you are usually dished out.
Idiocy doesn’t deserve better.
Topics: West Ham
Football News 24/7
Im not a Hammers hater, I think they will finish 7th or so this season.
July 19th, 2007 @ 11:58Losing Harewood and that other guy to Villa was bad..
But Craig Bellamy is with them..Hes been to more Clubs than Dwight Yorke
wow wow wow… What was that?!!! Easy tiger
July 19th, 2007 @ 12:10Some West Ham fan is going to put a bounty on your head
July 19th, 2007 @ 12:58Fair comment.
However, Kia and West Ham’s PREVIOUS Owner, Terry Brown, are the real hate figures.
Kia should not have insisted on a contract with West Ham that broke Premiership rules. As a owner of economic rights to a player, he has a duty to learn the rules of the league he is selling to. Sorry Mr Customs I didn’t realize it was illegal to sell drugs, doesn’t cut it with me. Kia is in the wrong here and should be punished.
Terry Brown in his greeed to sell up and take as much money as he could is also totally in the wrong, he seems to have escaped scott free, it was him that did the deal.
Do I think West Ham got away lightly, maybe, they could have been punished harder.
The MEDIA has very poorly covered this issue into a Anti-West Ham campaign targeting the innocent and letting the real culprits off the hook.
Let see a sustained campaign to get Kia banned from the game and sue Terry Brown for damages.
As regarding the Tevez transfer, PL rules say Kia cannot dictate when the player is sold, regardless of any contract Kia has with West Ham, West Ham must agree the deal first. Kia is going against the PL and doing the deal between Man U and himself. West Ham are just following the rules.
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:14Ahmed, I though you don’t write articles when you’re emotional anymore? Or, did the emotions enter as you wrote the article?
Anyway, I’d also like to know from all our WHU lawyer friends what exactly the situation is?
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:17@geedoubleu
Apparently Kia claims that West Ham gave permission. He says he can prove it (in writing). What now?
Just wondering…
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:21Does West Ham plan to sue the previous owner for the £5.5mil fine?
Awesome! Well said, my friend!
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:22I am curious why Kia Joorabchian has walked away from this situation without being questioned. Joorabchian is as much to blame in this situation as west ham and should be banned from any future transfer deals, as should Terence Brown. Send Joorabchian back to Brazil to face the music.
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:26I am a West Ham supporter this does not make me a crook !! the people that caused all this was T Brown who left the club before all this blew up, and Joorapchain it was not the fans or the players but all the papers and some poxy web sites !! keep blaming West Ham as if we are all lying villains. It was Magnusson that brought the matter up with pfl not the other way round.
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:27I could write this comment full of expletives *#&/ and dissing every club that dared to cross whu, and there AHMED you have it in a nut shell, we WEST HAM FANS are sick of everyone and their dog writing rubbish about us, admit this, the closed season would have been a barrage of lies and speculation involving transfers, because the real transfers arent done untill, well about now actually, and Tevez has given them some column inches, otherwise what a boring summer we all would have endured. By the way the price on your head is £6-27p.
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:31Ahmed are you a complete pr*ck or what? You try and stir things up all the time getting other writers to do sh*t pieces on WHU and then cosying up to the fans when it all goes against you. FFS grow up and if you’re the knowledge of this game you tell us whats going on! It’s totally natural for supporters to defend their club with or without facts you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. We are claret and blue blooded and proud of it!!
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:32There is one person who could decide all of this, it’s that wanker Joorabchian. Apparently he has all the evidence in his grubby mits to sink us. However he never uses it so why is this? I’m sure if this was a government issue a copy would have found it’s way onto the table of some rag or other but this potentially explosive contract never turns up!
Heres a thought why don’t you do a piece on the money laundering “wanted” Joorabchian and his backer the Russian mafia tycoon Berezovsky? You won’t because it’s easier to have a pop at WHU supporters defending there pride and joy thats why!
RR and Karl – no, not emotional and no, not angry either.
Chris – that’s a good idea – I’ll dig up the dirt on Kia and get back to you
Defend your club to the death, no doubt – but dont brush aside criticism blindly.
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:41Come on Ahmed you’re just at it again with this stuff… You haven’t actually made a point of any kind here – just slating West Ham fans for sticking up for their club. Obviously no other fans would do that would they?
At least write something that says more about the issues than ‘West Ham fans – w*nkers aren’t they?’
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:52The Premier League are the idiots. All of this shambolic mess could have been anticipated by an 8 year old.
Last September, I heard a Radio 5 interviewer with Kia Joorabchian when the ‘deal’ was announced. His evasive, confusing, ambiguous answers to:
1. Who actually owns the players ?
2. How much did West Ham pay for the players ?
3. Precisely, what will happen if the players move to another Premiership club next summer ?
…pointed to an accident waiting to happen.
July 19th, 2007 @ 13:55You love West Ham really.
July 19th, 2007 @ 14:00Quick tip – head over here, and see prior articles.
July 19th, 2007 @ 14:10Terry Brown and Paul Aldridge are the two figures who should (if necessary) be penalised, nobody else.
It’s totally unfair to point the finger at Magnusson and Gudmundsson as they obviously had nothing to do with the Tevez and Mascherano transfers whatsoever. In fact, Magnusson was the person who actually contacted the PL to tell them about irregularities surrounding the transfer deals. He also went on to say that he would have ‘never agreed’ to such transfers if he were in power before these deals took place.
Although I may be biased being a massive West Ham fan, I believe that a 5.5 million pounds fine was hefty punishment enough considering the fact that the club were under new ownership and that both players were in fact fully-registered to the club from the moment that they joined.
July 19th, 2007 @ 14:12Ahmed, what is this popularity thing on all the posts.
July 19th, 2007 @ 14:26I can see your point and some of us Hammers are making prats of ourselves over some of the issues but some of us have armed ourselves with the facts over the months that this tiresome drivel has dragged on and can argue the facts. Problem is that we frequently come up against complete ignorance in return (or idiocy as you would put it).
So, in the words of Bill Hicks, let me just plaster on a fake smile and plough through this shit one more time to respond to your points.
1) All West Ham fans if they are honest will admit we have been leniently treated. We could easily have been deducted points (I wouldn’t go so far as to say we SHOULD have because a) the rule breaking of U18 was technical breach in that the offense we committed was not what the rule was designed for and b) I don’t believe the “deceit” necessarily warrants points deduction as appropriate punishment).
What grates however, is how much dis-information has been posted about the situation. Forgive me for repeating the line that people are too ready to believe the media but the PR campaigns of Sheff Utd, Wigan and others have managed to plant firmly in the mind of the general public that the “crime” we committed was other than that we actually did commit, ie. the media have repeated the lie that we played ineligible players when this has never been the case and citing previous instances of this as justification for deducting points. It has been hugely frustrating to have to correct this on an almost daily basis and understandable when people snap and simply dismiss those who utter it as being idiots.
2. We won’t finish top 8 unless we have a very good season. Some West Ham fans have been fooled by our late season performance into believing otherwise.
3. Yes, we are biased but we are also probably better informed about the issues involved in most because as point 1 states, evidence of the ignorance of them is rife amongst other supporters and a lot of us have read thoroughly around the subject.
4. If you don’t think, Tevez aside, that our squad has not been improved by this summer’s transfer activity, then you have not seen enough of the players we have let go to judge them effectively. This is, of course, only my opinion but again it is probably better informed than most because I have watched these players week in week out.
5. If you describe West Ham as being “pricks” over the Tevez affair then its a fair assumption to make that you hate them. West Ham are merely asserting the position that they have been forced to take legally to protect themselves. This is the PL’s doing and they should be the subject of much of the ire that surrounds the whole situation.
6. Finally, the whole world against us “bullshit” is good for us. A siege mentality is useful for bringing people together – it worked for the team at the end of last season and its working for the fans now as well. Long may it continue.
July 19th, 2007 @ 14:35We were lucky not to be docked points, we will be lucky to get rid of Carlito without further problems. Personaaly? I blame the previous chairman and an incompetant premier league who made assumptions about west ham’s relegation and regretted not punishing us further. As a club we deserve criticism and i just hope we can start the season better than last. As regards the summer signings I think until we can secure a decent season mid table no real quality will be tempted to join, journeymen and sqaud players will do for now, as long as they work hard and keep the club i love up!
July 19th, 2007 @ 14:40Guys, does anyone know if the Premier League will block a move if Tevez were to go to a different league, eg. Serie-A (Inter)?
July 19th, 2007 @ 15:19Will the rules still count? Can they still penalise West Ham?
I cannot understand why so much rubbish was written about the ineligability of Tevez to play. This was never the case if you would be in the frame of mind to look at the facts you will find he was always correctly registered to play for West Ham.
As for the ownership issues well lets all be honest what an absolute mess. However Tevez is registeed to West Ham and only they can give permission for him to move on despite Joorabchin owning the economic rights. Joorabchin is at best a shady businessman ho should be banned from football transfers. As for Man Utd surely this was a clear case of tapping up but dont let the facts get in the way of a good story line.
I am a lifelong hammers fan and it does appear that certain media outlets do have it in for us and put a spin on every story. Forgive me if this feels like a hate campaign but read the papers yourself and you will see where I am coming from. I am not blind enough to think the deal was not wrong but Magnusson was not at fault he actually bought it to the attention of the PL fair play to the man. We were punished and rightly so but that was a fair punishment. West Ham although I would like to think they will finish top 6 I cant see it but tenth possibly and that will do for now until we can build for future seasons.
July 19th, 2007 @ 15:27I also dont mind constuctive balanced criticism but make sue it is balanced what about the shady Joorabchin why not look at his part in this mess.
Karl, they wouldn’t be able to stop a medical but the situation would still persist regarding registration regardless of who the buying club was. Ultimately Kia Joorabchian is likely to have to challenge West Ham’s position legally to release him unless West Ham consent to a move. The impasse is because no bid has been lodged with West Ham yet. If Inter tried to deal exclusively with MSI/JSI then this would result in the same position.
As for penalising West Ham – how would they do that and why? West Ham are complying exactly to the demands of the PL post the initial disciplinary hearing. Unless new information comes to light to show that this is not the case then no penalties can be imposed.
July 19th, 2007 @ 15:28The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities:
1. WH’s lawyers have told them that MSI’s initial contract, which they tore up, was not upholdable in a court of law. Therefore, essentially, the only valid contract is his registartion with West Ham.
Problem with this is, that essentially it would mean that WH obtained Tevez for nothing, for a 4-year deal (til 2010). I’m pretty sure that MSI would have a case against WH for this, as one cannot obtain a valuable asset without reasonable renumeration.
2. West Ham are just f*cking about to try and show the world that they’re following the Premier League’s ruling to extremes, so when they do sell Tevez without getting a fee, they can’t be blamed.
Personally this seems a bit more likely to me. I’m fairly confident that United have some rather good sport contract lawyers, who should immediately have been able to tell David Gill if MSI had no rights over the guy, at least in UK law. Given the efforts United are still putting in, they either don’t get it, or are just going through the motions with West Ham.
July 19th, 2007 @ 16:10WEST HAM UNITED CLUB STATEMENT
West Ham United totally rejects the latest outburst and threats issued in the name of Kia Joorabchian in relation to the situation regarding Carlos Tevez.
We will not be drawn into this form of public mudslinging but these latest statements cannot go unanswered.
Mr Joorabchian entered into agreements with the previous regime at West Ham United at a time in which he was attempting to take over the Club. Those arrangements, since terminated by West Ham United, led the Club into serious disciplinary difficulties for which the Club has paid a heavy price.
It is absolutely clear that the only contract relating to Carlos Tevez recognised by West Ham United and the Premier League is the player’s four-year contract which runs until June 2010. All other arrangements were terminated by West Ham on 27th April 2007 and no legal challenge to that termination has occurred.
West Ham United can also confirm that all documentation regarding the Club and Carlos Tevez has already been submitted to the Premier League and fully scrutinised by them. We have ensured full disclosure.
The Club has in recent weeks made every effort to keep Carlos Tevez at West Ham United and indeed offered significantly improved terms and conditions to the player, which were not accepted.
However, a transfer of a properly registered player cannot occur without agreement between two clubs and the Premier League.
Without such an agreement we believe that it is in the interest of all parties to resolve this issue as quickly as possible through the procedures laid down by FIFA.
Public threats and accusations are irrelevant, let FIFA decide and West Ham United will accept that judgement whatever the outcome. The time has come to settle this matter in a way which will allow everyone concerned to move on.
Nuff said
July 19th, 2007 @ 16:19Can anyone tell me what west ham mean when they say they terminated all contracts with msi?because if msi had paid 12 mil or so to buy tevez from boca surely they wud not allow this ‘termination’.
July 19th, 2007 @ 16:28Chris,
Thanks for posting that.
Mr Joorabchian entered into agreements with the previous regime at West Ham United at a time in which he was attempting to take over the Club. Those arrangements, since terminated by West Ham United, led the Club into serious disciplinary difficulties for which the Club has paid a heavy price.
From my understand of the situation you cannot ‘terminate’ a legal contract without consent of the other party – if you do so you open yourself to legislation as it’s a breach of contract.
Furthermore, the responsibility is West Ham’s, as a club, regardless of who was the owner at the time. Kia made the agreement with the club, not a personal deal with Brown or Alrdridge.
It is absolutely clear that the only contract relating to Carlos Tevez recognised by West Ham United and the Premier League is the player’s four-year contract which runs until June 2010. All other arrangements were terminated by West Ham on 27th April 2007 and no legal challenge to that termination has occurred.
How does that argument hold in a court, I’d like to see that. The real kicker here is whether the initial contract was legitimate according to the rule of law – which I think it was. If so, then West Ham and the Premier League are in the wrong.
July 19th, 2007 @ 16:32Ahmed
You will know that I, on this site, have said more than once that West Ham were dealt with leniently. However, the punishment was within the rules – as demonstrated by the second arbitration between PL and Sheff Utd. The media and public that take it in without bothering to read keep saying “he was ineligible” even though he never was.
The media and gullible public keep blaming West Ham (as it stands at present) when the dodgy ##### have always been Joorbachian and Brown.
West Ham clearly do not have full legal rights over Tevez but they do have some legal rights or he would already have been transferred. If you think West Ham have NO legal rights over Tevez then that doesn’t make you a ‘hater’, it makes you a lazy blogger.
I have no idea where West Ham will finish – could be 6th – could be 20th. The problem I have is with ####wit fans – predominantly of top 5 (Arsenal fans often excepted) who know little about football and make comments on our signings demonstrating no understanding of who we have signed before and the difference in quality.
You personally are now throwing your toys out of your pram because you’re a London red and West Ham are standing up to Man Utd’s intimidation. Magnusson’s statement leaves no room for interpretation or ‘wiggle room’. If there are some ‘secret documents’ then he, Magnusson, is ####ed forever in terms of his reputation. He is a reputable businessman who has been involved at high levels with FIFA for many many years. Joorbachian is wanted for money laundering. You are basically supporting Joorbachian’s position.
You slag off West Ham and ergo Magnusson for acting like a “prick” when he is protecting his new Club as a result of the actions of previous owners and the dodgy #### who is now trying to lease Tevez to your beloved Reds. Oh you man of principle Ahmed.
This is no way to promote your messageboard surely?
July 19th, 2007 @ 16:39Ahmed
Did you note the point in Magnusson’s statement.
“All other arrangements were terminated by West Ham on 27th April 2007 and no legal challenge to that termination has occurred.” Note the second part of that sentance.
Also, the Premier League initial panel concluded that they thought the contract between MSI and Tevez was “probably not legally enforceable”. I believe those were the exact words but you can check it yourself, you C&Pd their verdict on this site.
While that was not a court of law and they were merely expressing an opinion, those three people were legal ‘big hitters’ and experts in sports and contract law. You, in contrast, run a website/personal blog thing.
So, opinions of 3 independent legal experts in the field supported by the fact that MSI has not tried to sue West Ham… or opinion of Man Utd legal team who have a minor vested interest in Mr Tevez. Hmmmm…
July 19th, 2007 @ 16:50West hams previous owners are in the wrong for doing the deal in the first place yes, west ham fans have to be granted that, but then those saying kia should have looked at the league rules and made sure the contract was legal here – what did you want? Would you have rathered he just gave you tevez for free? Not happening. Kia invested money in the player and wants money back. The move to west ham was a year long loan deal between them and msi, with a view to a further three year permanent deal. This has not been agreed.
West ham are in the wrong for lying to the premier league about severing all third party ties in his contract. The premier league are in the wrong for ruling that they had severed all ties in his contract. West ham did not field an illegal player because they deceived the league and the league made a mistake by accepting this. Had the league investigated this properly they would have caught west ham out then.
As the option of a permanent deal was not agreed between west ham and msi, west ham gave permission for kia to speak to other clubs. West ham’s permission was necessary as they hold the players registration. Kia spoke to all interested parties about the transfer of tevez with the agreement of west ham.
Manchester united’s maurice watkins analysed all documents meticulously in order to establish how to rightfully and cleanly sign the player. All of the information in previous paragraphs became clear to him – he understood that kia has a contract with the player and it is with him and his company that a transfer needed to be agreed. Ofcourse, west ham had to agree to allow united to discuss the transfer with kia as they hold tevez’s registration. United were given written permission to discuss a transfer with kia by west ham.
United negotiated a clean deal with kia which would see tevez transferred to the club with no contract irregularities and with no third party ownership. United would own the player fully, just like any other player in the squad. They also agreed personal terms with the player and his agent. kia is not tevez’s agent. Kia is the representative of msi, who hold tevez’s contract, who acts just as a club representative in a transfer between two clubs. Tevez has an agent who acts like any other agent.
When the media found out about the proposed move, the premier league were quick to protect themselves and state any deal would have to be done directly with west ham. Similarly west ham released a chain of statements which went along with the premier league’s view on things – stating tevez has a three year contract, that they have received no offer for him and that they had not given him permission to leave. These were lies in public while privately they allowed the transfer of tevez to be negotiated between united and kia.
When these negotiations were complete and the deal was brought before the premier league, the league held the move up. They insisted on a deal with west ham and west ham went along with this. Both these parties would argue publicly that west ham would not release the players registration unless a deal could be made with west ham. Tevez sent a written letter asking for his registration with west ham to be cancelled, as they had given him permission to discuss a transfer with united. This was rejected by both west ham and the league, even though kia has written permission from west ham.
Tevez was flown into manchester for a medical after west ham and united were scheduled to meet where west ham had assured united that the issues holding up the deal would be sorted out and a medical could take place. However, this did not happen and west ham stated publicly that they would not allow tevez to have a medical.
Finally, fifa has been asked to arbitrate in discussions. This will see tevez complete his move to united, with a deal taking place with kia. West ham and the premier league will not be able to hold up the deal any longer. Kia has all the proper documentation to go ahead with the deal, this will be realised by fifa. The only reason fifa’s inclusion was delayed this long was due to west hams lies. They gave united assurances and then never followed through with them. The had a very different agenda when working with united and kia privately compared to with the premier league and in public.
Sory this is sooo long. If anyone can be bothered to read all of it then well done lol. I think i covered everything but with it being so long i’v probably missed stuff out
July 19th, 2007 @ 17:16You can not say anyone wrong or right by your own judgments.
1)my question is (those who are blaming WHU for all) have you seen all transfer papers.
2)proper authority (FIFA) is coming let them solve the matter.
and one more thing i am not concerned by where tevez will end up or whu gets relegated .
July 19th, 2007 @ 17:38“From my understand of the situation you cannot ‘terminate’ a legal contract without consent of the other party – if you do so you open yourself to legislation as it’s a breach of contract.”
Ahmed , you can and companies do unilaterally terminate contracts in all types of situations where any clauses or activities are deemed illegal, a restraint of trade, unenforceable, etc. Here’s an example,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3634572.stm
There are plenty of others.
“Furthermore, the responsibility is West Ham’s, as a club, regardless of who was the owner at the time. Kia made the agreement with the club, not a personal deal with Brown or Alrdridge.”
Once again if the facts are not disclosed during a takeover then the previous owners or board could be sued and the new owners are not liable. Owners of companies can’t just sell up and abdicate all responsibility as Conrad Black found out. There is also a conceptual difference here. A ‘club/company’ has responsibilty to its customers (i.e., WH fans) in its entirety but in terms of debtors and creditors the board members are responsible, otherwise free market capitalism would descend into absolute chaos because everyone would behave like Black!
“It is absolutely clear that the only contract relating to Carlos Tevez recognised by West Ham United and the Premier League is the player’s four-year contract which runs until June 2010. All other arrangements were terminated by West Ham on 27th April 2007 and no legal challenge to that termination has occurred.”
Exactly, we’re getting there.
“How does that argument hold in a court, I’d like to see that. The real kicker here is whether the initial contract was legitimate according to the rule of law – which I think it was. If so, then West Ham and the Premier League are in the wrong.”
Well problem here is that the English legal system is based on precedent of principle. You think the first contract was legitimate so on what is your opinion based? Or are you just going for ‘blind faith’ and wishful thinking (what you’ve accused us of)? What knowledge or evidence do you have that this would be true?
On the other hand I have studied some contract law as part of my profession and this is far from definite. Because there are few precedents from within football the courts would rely on business and company law and there is compelling evidence that they would uphold the termination. In particular, there are plenty of cases where clauses and whole contracts with 3rd parties are kicked out because of restraint of trade (which is what a WH lawyer has already stated)and even for being ‘unreasonable’, ‘carrying undue influence’ and a whole host of other legal jargonistic reasons. At the end of the day though, the 1st contract was in place as a ‘sweetener’ in MSIs bid to buy WH, which if it had happened would have nullified the clause (owner and 3rd party would have been 1 and the same). They didn’t have the money, Magnusson did. It would be unreasonable for a new owner (not MSI) to be expected to carry on with this contract in place and not a court in the world would dispute it. That is why Joorabchian is all bluff and nonsence.
July 19th, 2007 @ 17:49Jim – wow, that’s about the best comment/post I’ve seen on the issue. You should stick on wikipedia. It’s a really really complex issue and I suspect that you’d struggle to find two lawyers who agree on the subject.
There’s one clear distinction, though. Premier League rules are not the same as the law. West Ham tearing up their contract with Kia may have satified the league but that doesn’t make it legal.
The mistakes may have made by the previous regime at West Ham and Magnusson may have wished they hadn’t happened BUT he didn’t want to lose the player (because he knew they were down without him) so he gambled. Cancelling the contract but keeping the player is wanting to have your cake and eat it (or wanting “the ha’penny and the cake” as we say up north). It’s left West Ham in a very dodgy legal position (I believe) and just because there has been no legal challenge thus far doesn’t mean there isn’t one in the pipeline.
Having said all that, I’ve always maintained United would be daft to go for Tevez because of the ownership complexity, but would SAF listen to me…?
July 19th, 2007 @ 18:01West Ham got off way way too easily. They should have been relegated and docked points, like other teams have been for the same offence. I would kill to see West Ham get relegated.
July 19th, 2007 @ 18:01Jim
Your statement is embaressing (for you). You write as if you are “in the know” yet you are factually incorrect.
West Ham had a four year deal for Tevez. To quote the Premier League inquiry findings on this very site:
“Those contracts, even as to the personal terms, are identical, save for Mascherano signing a five-year contract and Mr Tevez a four-year contract.”
It was not a one-year loan. That contract did indeed state that MSI held the ‘economic rights’ exclusively but that is a different issue.
Why on earth would West Ham have given formal approval to MSI to negotiate with other Clubs for Tevez when any deal for Tevez not to go through West Ham directly would mean West Ham would be in breach of their statement in relation to ‘tearing up’ their agreement? The Premier League clearly stated after the £5.5 million fine that any action by West Ham that demonstrated that West Ham were not acting in good faith that they had ‘torn up’ the agreement would result in further disciplinary action against the West Ham. This is also on the record and long before their statement about West Ham having to receive “the bulk” of any transfer fee.
It may well be that what was said privately by West Ham was different to what was said publicly. I am sure that Eggy wants to get Tevez out without any delay and without any further punishment… but he would never have said “agree a deal between the two of you and ignore West Ham” because that would be disciplinary suicide for the Club.
Kia would already have published his written approval from West Ham if it existed. West Ham may have given written approval to seek to broker a deal between West Ham and another Club but not a deal that does not include West Ham. Why would MSA let it go to FIFA to release said “proof”? Kia said the same before the Sheff Utd High Court hearing.
Please explain your sources, otherwise you are just another fantasist “my cleaning lady knows the uncle of the tea lady at the Old Trafford Academy who heard someone say ….” merchant.
July 19th, 2007 @ 18:10Nerazzuri
Frankly, another know-nothing. Ahmed doesn’t like the “defensiveness” but no-one has EVER been found guilty of this offence before.
West Ham were found guilty of potentially allowing third party interference and for breach of good faith.
Other Clubs in the past have been found guilty of fielding ineligible players and been docked points. Tevez was not ineligible = FACT
This is not being defensive – it is stating a fact. The responses on this thread “Tevez was on a one year loan”… “They should have been relegated and docked points, like other teams have been for the same offence”… sorry but these are just wrong.
Ahmed, what is your explanation for people repeating factually incorrect information while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground?
July 19th, 2007 @ 18:17@jim – who are you? (I mean this in a good way).
Your comments make a lot of sense, but it seems almost like my impression after I read all the newspaper articles. Do you derive your information from the media, or do you have another source, because we all know the MEDIA CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
I’m just surprised that everybody blame West Ham (who now have to defend themselves), but no one publicly attacks the Premier League to put them into a position to defend Themselves.
July 19th, 2007 @ 18:27Ahmed Bilal –
“The real kicker here is whether the initial contract was legitimate according to the rule of law – which I think it was.”
“because all West Hams DO have law degrees, are intimately familiar with the legal issues at stake”
Pot. Kettle. Black.
July 19th, 2007 @ 18:37tc123 – thank you very much, something good did come out of all this.
FC – Not from London, and Arsenal fans can be full of shit too, just wait for them to get out of their slump and self-doubt.
A lot of what’s said here is based on opinion – which makes it an interesting case.
Mind you, I didn’t criticise the defensiveness but the ear-covering shrieking that usually comes out in place of any legible arguments. But not all WH fans are like that, you and I both know that.
Why has Kia not initiated legal proceedings? It’s a good question. Two possible scenarios – one, he’s got nothing or two, he’s didn’t want to make things messy so he’s going through proper channels. If this goes to court it will take months, if not years.
Both are equally possible at the moment, although your bias for or against West Ham could tilt you either way.
July 19th, 2007 @ 18:39I still don’t understand what any of this has got to do with us, the West Ham fans. What do you propose we do? We had no idea these signings were about to be made so we couldn’t camp outside the gates of Upton Park and protest. Just like now we have no sway over the situation at all. All we can do is sit here and take abuse over something that has absolutely nothing to do with us. And half the time the abuse is mis-informed. The only thing we can do is fight off the arguments and try and correct a few of the more ill-informed. And why the hell shouldn’t we? What exactly would you do Ahmed if your club was being dragged through the mud by every gutter press journalist and every bandwagon jumper? Maybe you would jump ship and support someone else or maybe you would just lie down and take it. We sure as hell ain’t. And for as long as there are people like you that are willing to put their head above the parapet and mouth off there will always be us to shoot you back down.
July 19th, 2007 @ 19:02Fifth Column – You seem intent on following the West Ham line that, in fact, both Macherano and Tevez signed 5/4 year deals respectively for West Ham football club, for no transfer fee. Which seems absurd. But if your argument were true, then surely West Ham football club would also be the laughing stock of the world for letting Macherano go, a player they owned for ANOTHER FOUR YEARS go for nothing. So if you’re trying to say that both of these contracts were in place from day 1, then WH are certainly acting irrationally.
I don’t know the legality of what’s going on, but gut instinct says that WH are just trying to cover themselves. It’s that or they believe that by screwing up last August, they’ve managed to:
a. Not be docked points, and stay in the premiership
b. Obtain a £30m player for free, for four years
c. Obtain a £xxm player for free, who then decided to just let walk away.
Now you tell me, is that realistic?
July 19th, 2007 @ 19:05Must admit, the argument that the MSI/West Ham contract was a sweetener (and filled with legal-loopholes) for the take-over and that it backfired after MSI failed to take-ove the club, seems like a logical one. But, why then would West Ham let Mascherano go for free? Even if they sold him for £1mil (which I’m sure Liverpool would have agreed to), they would have still made a profit? Why did he then leave on a free?
July 19th, 2007 @ 19:15Beachryan
Keep up, this is not actually that complex.
1. West Ham sign Mascha and Tevez on 4/5 year contracts respectively. This is not “the West Ham line”. This is FACT as published in the inquiry by the Premier League. FACT. Comprende? No-one argues this is not the case, not even Joorbachian. Joorbachian simply argues that despite WHU having a 4 year contract that Joorbachian holds the rights and can move him whenever he wants.
2. Mascherano was allowed to leave because at the time West Ham had not repudiated the ‘third party’ element of the agreement with MSI i.e. they did not claim full legal rights to the player.
3. West Ham, regardless of the legality, then stated they no longer accepted the clauses in the contract with MSI in relation to allowing MSI to move Tevez as and when they chose to do. They did this because (a) they effectively had to in order to avoid a later points deduction and (b) because there is some legal argument in their favour which has been elequently outlined above in this thread.
The above, again, is all FACT.
Whether WHU or MSI would win a court case on the matter is unknown to anyone – otherwise one of the two parties would have already taken it to court. But there were 4 and 5 year contracts. Again, someone who is too lazy to read the openly available FACTS of the case can’t be bothered and posts absolute nonsense. Congratulations.
Ahmed – do you understand why West Ham fans get annoyed when people post things that are factually incorrect? Not opinion about legalities i.e. can you tear up a contract legally, but things that are factually incorrect? Even when the facts are already on this site from C&P from Premier League inquiry?
July 19th, 2007 @ 19:17Something that still puzzles me, and I’ve yet to get any real answer from a WHU fan, if WHU signed Tevez on a 5 year contract, as Fifth Colunm says, why did Curbs say this:
http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=459345&CPID=8&clid=21&lid=&title=Curbs+keen+on+Tevez+deal
Would be nice to know.
July 19th, 2007 @ 19:32Because Curbishley doens’t know the same facts Fifth Column does I guess.
FACT: If Tevez and Macherano signed the typical, 5/4 year contracts in August of last year that comformed with all the usual football contracting terms, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and they wouldn’t have cost £0m in transfer fees.
July 19th, 2007 @ 20:00They are darned fools! They lied to the Premier league to save themselves. Ttore up a piece of paper, and unitlaterally withdraw from an iron clad contract with MSI. As if that would not constitute a breach of contract with MSI, making any initial deal they had in place for Tevez null and void. Buried their head in the sand and hoped the problem would go away. They know darn well they don’t on Tevez. That is why at the end of the season they gave MSI permission to let other sides talk to Tevez. They only back tracked when the Premiership, afraid of being sued by Sheffield United for compensation worth 50 million for failure to punish West Ham for clear lies, threatened to punish West Ham if they didn’t have anything to do with the Tevez deal directly. They are just acting cocky in order for the premiership authorities, who they duped not to fall on them like a ton of bricks. FIFA will put paid to that
July 19th, 2007 @ 20:06Ahmed, not another one – who’s instituted legal proceedings?
I think you’ll find that the only people that have referred this to a higher authority are West Ham. We have gone to the FA who have referred the matter to the Disputes Council of Fifa. Joorabchian hasn’t done anything other than gob off! And Ferguson has been sitting on his shoulder shouting, ‘Go on! Go on! Go on!’. Manchester Utd seem to think they just have to say, ‘we’re having that player’ and everything all just slips into place.
Jim’s turgid tome contains no more information and simply repeats some lies.
Which brings me to opinion. Yes all these web sites are about opinion but does that mean they have to be ‘blind’ opinions? I can have an opinion that spinach floats on the air and dogs grow on trees but without some semblance of scientific evidence it is all candy floss (sweet, nasty and rots your inside). And the whole point of your criticism of WH fans is that we’re just ‘blindly’ defending our team. Clearly the opposite is the case as you’re quite happy to entertain the type of drivel that Jimbob up here perpetuates yet still come up with half truths.
This issue has uncovered a whole nest of vipers and will not be over when this particular case has settled. The top clubs have all been burrowing away over the years inventing ways of a) making themselves more money out of players, b) getting round FA rules, c) employing expensive lawyers to ‘buy off’ the FA usually with a threat of a restraint of trade case. This has been true for Chelski, Liverpool and Tottenham all of whom were hauled over the coals for tapping up, etc, etc. The game is riddled with corruption and Sky is ruining the game. This exact scenario happened in Italy @10-15 years ago. I don’t want Man U or Liverpool or Chelsea even to be disbanded like Fiorentina but that is the way it is heading.
So for p sake get some standards in place and get this site to be a campaigning site.
The recent police raids on Rangers, Newcastle and Portsmouth should have given you lot a warning of what is to come. It is up to us as fans to take a bit of responsibility and hone our opinions so they are based on the truths we uncover (and not the garbage out of the press or internet). I’m happy to expose our management and board if we find out they have any involvement in corruption. In fact WH fans have a very good record of keeping their board, chairmen and managers in check. The problem for us is that the current board are ethically, morally and business wise 10,000 times more honest and genuine than any previous lot. Yet the press has conducted a witchunt and you lot have followed it all whilst slavishly following every piece of crap that comes out of your chairman.
July 19th, 2007 @ 20:32Lets get our opinions based on facts and the truths WE uncover and take it to the FA.
Nick. This is a possible explanation. It is conjecture of course.
That statement was made before the disciplinary committee gave their verdict and before the 3rd party agreement was ripped up.
If this one-year loan agreement was part of the 3rd party side-contract then in ripping it up we agree to no longer be bound by it as it is a) against PL rules, in that it allowed MSI to move the player on without our explicit consent, and b) also possibly restraint of trade, which would need to be tested.
For Kia to exercise it he will have to challenge it through the courts which I suspect he will want to avoid if at all possible. The player however, has a 4 year playing contract – that is fact until successfully legally challenged.
July 19th, 2007 @ 20:59Pete. Thats what I figured, in which case, where has the four years come from? It was a one year loan agreement, that got torn up so now WHU have this 4 year contract? Was the player asked about this? Why didn’t WHU make it a 10 contract? (Obviously I know that is unrealistic, but where has the four years come from? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?)
July 19th, 2007 @ 21:09I have always had the impression that Tevez’s contract was a One year loan,at the end of which West Ham had the option to match the highest bid to retain Tevez. This would also fit in with the fact that Joorabchian was touting Tevez around Europe for most of the summer and also fit in with the fact that West Ham had given him permission to speak to other clubs. However, Joorabchian seems to have dealt with Man Utd without actually giving West Ham the option of matching that bid.
Secondly, people really need to get their heads around the issue of Third Party ownership(which is legal) as opposed to Third Party Influence (which is not).
Again as I understand it West Ham did not (physically) rip up this contract but gave an undertaking to ignore a clause in this contract which could have lead to Third Party influence. If MSI or Joorabchian now seek redress through the courts and the courts decide that West Ham have acted unfairly then the undertaking that West Ham gave to the PL would have to be seen to be given in good faith and no further action would be taken.
Lastly, does anyone else find it abhorrent that Man Utd prefer to deal with a man wanted by Interpol for alleged money laundering than deal with a premiership club.
July 19th, 2007 @ 22:01There are two contracts Nick. One is the 4-year playing contract between Tevez and West Ham and the other the side contract which is between MSI and West Ham. The 4 years is the length of the playing contract signed.
This is because the players were originally used as a downpayment on purchasing the club. The side contracts presumably gave them an opt-out should the purchase not go through.
July 19th, 2007 @ 22:59FIFTH COLUMN- Get help! You are a plank that knows nothing. Tevez wasn’t on loan, thats a dilusional fact in your head, which seems to be up your arse! You might need to read this more than once!
July 19th, 2007 @ 23:10I am afraid guys Nick has pointed out where WHU were F**KED! I think you have been smart as hell to sit with PL and the when Fifa get involved, you know they would rule in MSI favour, that is why the little comment from WHU OFFICIAL statement:
“Public threats and accusations are irrelevant, let Fifa decide and West Ham United will accept that judgement whatever the outcome. The time has come to settle this matter in a way which will allow everyone concerned to move on.”
This is saying oh well whatever FIfa decide we will accept, meaning that they know Fifa will rule in favour of Tevez, and then your arguement to the PL is we did as you said. Oh well lets move on…….Clever. And if it was my club i would be wanting the same strategy.
The PL f**ked up here and (not the NEW WHU regime) the OLD WHU also. Eggy has played this a blinder. The player will get his move, WHU will go on unpunished (and rightly so imo) and probably a couple of million towards the fine and the PL save their face. And Fifa go off feeling big and bold.
I wonder what number Tevez will get…? Answers on postcards.
July 19th, 2007 @ 23:32Glad to be of service lads. Looks like everyone should have come see me in the first place, when will they learn?
July 19th, 2007 @ 23:39West Ham have bought this on themselves. Saying it is the old regimes problem is short sighted. The ORIGINAL tevez / mascherano deals which were illegal, you have been punished for. £5.5mil. It should have been points, but the Premier League bottled it. Fair enough. At that point Eggy tore up the MSI contract. MSI didnt. Thus it still stands. This will come up when FIFA look into everything. How much have West Ham paid for Tevez? Seemingly nothing. Sounds right? No.
July 20th, 2007 @ 03:32Why did Jim write that really good piece and never come back? I’ve read so much on this from both sides and its just a mess. Jims summation was it in a nutshell!
If its true he’s already a reporter, if not he should be!
July 20th, 2007 @ 04:40Its not thier fault, Manchester are kidnapping thier player!
July 20th, 2007 @ 04:44Ahmed, Show that comment by Curbishley to the Premier league..
July 20th, 2007 @ 11:17Will Help United
Regarding the Tevez affair, West Ham have come out and said that they will abide by FIFA ruling. From this i feel, the only reason why they r refusing to abide by Kia’s contract is because they know that any dealing with Kia will put them in trouble. now if the World body themselves rule on the matter even if in favour of Kia, that will mean that they are still clean on the whole affair and the ruling is well and above the ruling by Premier League.
What dya think?
July 20th, 2007 @ 12:09This argument about “West Ham should have had points deducted” becuase it would have been a “fairer” punishment (as apposed to a £5.5mil fine) is really funny indeed.
July 20th, 2007 @ 12:21Would the points still have been a fair punishment if West Ham was in – lets say – 8th position?
I agree with karl I mean for tapping up Ashley Cole Chelsea got a 2 point suspended sentence and West Ham now have paid 5.5m which is a huge fine and people want 3 points deducted just beause that would get them relegated because of the ‘possibility of third-party influence. The PL should have deducted 1 or 2 points and be finished with it because then Sheffield United couldn’t go crying to anyone that listens about how they were cheated because the lost to Wigan on the last day
July 20th, 2007 @ 13:11the bloody fools.i felt sorry for them,when they were at the relegation zone last season but now that they snuck in a goaat united,they want to act big and play like they own everything,as far as am concerned if it wasn’t for SAF’s liniency they would be sluggin mud with the rest of them championship sides next season.The least they could do is give united tevez,as a sign of good faith if you will.
July 20th, 2007 @ 13:11Spizzy me ol’ mucker, it’s a shame you’re not running things.
July 20th, 2007 @ 13:38I think the real culprit here is Sheffield.
July 20th, 2007 @ 13:41Why can’t they take accept that becuase of their OWN doing, they got relegated. Lets face it…if they won more games, they would have stayed up. No one cheated them from that… They were simply NOT good enough to stay in the PL.
How come no one is against them for ‘pushing’ this whole thing?
I guess £50mil can make anyone push for almost anything hey?
July 20th, 2007 @ 13:43I don’t think you can blame Sheffield, you’re not wrong that it’s mainly their own doing but there is the train of thought that the ‘ammers best player shouldn’t of been playing and without him West Ham where just as crap as SU and thus there wasn’t a fair shoot out to see who was crapiest. What an accolade eh!
July 20th, 2007 @ 13:55Although you certainly can’t blame them for this mess starting in the first place, that is solely West Hams fault, do they have lawyers? Or do they just use a magic 8 ball as their legal representation?
July 20th, 2007 @ 13:57Sheffield United going on and on abt West Ham is silly. Its not like West ham illegally had twelve men on the pitch one of whom was invisible and had magic powers. They just played a player they had registered at the start of the season. Simple.
July 20th, 2007 @ 15:38They lost against Wigan and not West Ham on the last day. They have no case here.
M not supporting anything West Ham are doing here . definitely not as a united fan. West Ham can do nothing else from the state they are in. Thats the truth.
lol @ everything Karl has said. take away the tevez goals and for the last 7 games west ham end up with zero points from them. if it wast against the premiership rules, im sure sheffield would have signed an illegal player at the start of the season, ripped up the contract, which means nothing and the lied again to the premiership.
really its their own fault for not doing all that….
July 20th, 2007 @ 22:38Hey, geedoubleu …Terrence Brown hasn’t got ‘…away scot free…’ for any misdemeanour with Tev & Mascher as you suggest. He is allegedly after money ‘owed’ to him from Eggy – and Eggy hasn’t coughed up a penny. Why hasn’t Brown kicked-off about it? Maybe because of his implicit naughtiness?
July 21st, 2007 @ 01:55