West Ham’s troubles with Wigan and Sheffield United are far from over
What do we really know about this whole Tevez / Mascherano / MSI mess?
We know that MSI had a deal in which they could terminate the contracts of Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez in the January transfer window for set prices (2m for Tevez, 150k for Mascherano).
We also know that there was never a problem with the players’ registration, but instead the problem was with West Ham lying to the Premier League about this agreement with the MSI.
West Ham did two things wrong - they agreed to a deal that was against rule U18 (explained below) and they lied to the Premier League (breaking rule B13).
Rule U18 states: “No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its team.”
Rule B13 states: “In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith.”
From my understanding, this is a grey area whose interpretation depends on the biases of the commission selected to deliberate over this matter. The players’ registration with West Ham was fine - and technically, it’s not the players’ registration that is to be questioned.
However, West Ham’s role in this MUST be questioned and because it took so much time to decide this matter (it came to light when the Mascherano transfer to Liverpool happened in January, so technically it should have been dealt with by Feb), relegation-threatened clubs are furious with West Ham and the Premier League.
And it is still doubtful whether MSI agreed to the quick change in agreements and today David Whelan has asked the Premier League to confirm whether everything is as they say it is.
Earlier I said that West Ham’s rivals weren’t good enough to stay up on their own. I stand by that, but what got lost in that post was the fact that yes, West Ham did do something wrong and yes, they did deserve more than a fine.
Question is, now that the clubs cannot take any legal action against the Premier League, will they go after West Ham?
Wigan probably will, seeing that Sheffield United need a minimum draw to survive and Wigan need a win (plus they need West Ham to lose). Sheffield United are in the same boat so they’ll have a big grudge as well.
Fulham, Charlton and Boro are reputed to be with Wigan and Sheffield but ultimately it could be just those two fighting West Ham in the courts. Damages claimed could be 30m and to expect West Ham to pay that sort of money is ridiculous but it could very well turn out this way.
Legally, the Premier League has no grounds or precedent on which to base their decision not to fine West Ham. It could be West Ham’s high profile that saved them, or it could be a blundering Premier League who just messed things up and are now hellbent on backing themselves.
If this goes to court, West Ham will be in an unnecessary legal brawl. But if they survive this season AND the next, they’ll have the cash to deal with such court cases, no?
[Source: BBC]
Related Items from Soccerlens
- How Sheffield and Wigan can get West Ham relegated on Sunday
- Sheffield United to sue West Ham - apparently they like begging
- Pick 3 survivors out of 5: Fulham, Wigan, Charlton, West Ham & Sheffield United
- Wigan, Sheffield United, Fulham and Charlton are not good enough to stay up on their own
- Tevez and Alex Ferguson keep West Ham in the Premiership



If Wigan win on sunday they will stay up regardless of what happens to West Ham because they will then have the same points and at least the same goal dif. as Sheff Utd but more goals scored. So if Wigan win and West Ham win or draw Sheff Utd will go down.
I personally think that all matters should be settled on the pitch - failing that then i suppose as a last resort in the courts (hopefully it won’t come to that) - not the press where motormouth rent-a-quote Dave Whelan seems to want to settle it. What would make me laugh is if West Ham beat a Man Utd team with one eye on the cup final and Wigan lost, and then we got deducted 5 points! We’d still stay up, and he’d have to shut his big gob then wouldn’t he!! There is an inconsistency here, because apparently we still need MSI’s ‘permission’ to play Tevez, by all accounts a settlement has yet to be reached (at least that is what Whelan is saying), but yet he continues to play. So what influence has MSI have on our teams selection? Not much it would seem. Plus that Joorabichan is a blagger just like Mr Whelan anyway, so i wouldn’t take much notice of what he is saying. He was supposed to cut all ties with MSI prior to his attempted takeover of West Ham - has he been restored as a director or is he just mouthing off, trying to get a bit of publicity to support his next (aborted) takeover bid?
[…] Premier League ruling on West Ham, and especially the rule that concerns third party influence, in this article. Related items from Red […]