According to the papers today, Mascherano has been sold to Liverpool for £10M so thats why the deal has been allowed to go through. This doesn't mean that West Ham are in the clear because they didn't buy him or Tevez.
Eggert is still trying to absolve the current West Ham administration against any resposibility with the loan deal, but he cannot remove the fact that both these loan players actually appeared for West Ham in Premier League competition.
If all these legal issues are still up in the air, can West Ham continue to play Tevez until resolved, one way or the other? I can't see how if the ineligibility issues is as serious as is being claimed.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]If all these legal issues are still up in the air, can West Ham continue to play Tevez until resolved, one way or the other? I can't see how if the ineligibility issues is as serious as is being claimed.
I guess it's a mix of innocent till proven guilty and caveat emptor.
Presumably since the premier league okayed it initially (albeit potentially with dodgy documentation) it would be difficult to turn round without any proof and say he can't play. The Hammers are obviously confident that they won't lose any points as I'm sure if they thought they was a major risk they wouldn't be playing him.
If you are right, then isn't it a huge gamble on their part? It's pretty easy to find some lawyer who will give you an opinion which might back up your position. According to the Daily Mail article, Liverpool have paid off his contract with MSI/Kia. Doesn't it seem likely that they have done this so as not to fall foul of the FA rules? This makes West Ham's position more precarious. If they continue to play Tevez and the FA rules against them, aren't they going to throw the book at them. It's one thing for Egg Head to claim that the original contacts were signed by the previous owners, it's quite another to continue to play a possiblily ineligible player at a time when the FA is deciding whether a player has been properly registered.
The whole thing is a mess and I hope it gets sorted out soon.
West Ham have got too many friends /supporters in high places.
They broke the Carling Cup rules a few years back by playing an ineligible player who had played for Gillingham previously. Nothing happened to them. Bury did the same thing in the FA Cup this season and got kicked out the competition.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]No points will be deducted.
West Ham have got too many friends /supporters in high places.
They broke the Carling Cup rules a few years back by playing an ineligible player who had played for Gillingham previously. Nothing happened to them. Bury did the same thing in the FA Cup this season and got kicked out the competition.[/quote]
I thought they had to replay that game?
I suspect the problem here is that the Premier League have found themselves in a grey area legally and that needs to be cleared up before they get sued.
Let's say they deduct WHU six points who then get relegated. WHU then takes the EPL to court and win, but as they have been relegated it creates a problem, with WHU demanding tens of millions in compensation.
Much better for the EPL to ignore the problem until EU employment law is clarified.
Much better for the EPL to ignore the problem until EU employment law is clarified.
Is it an EU employment law issue? I thought it was to do with who controls players and thus may have influence over games. Say West Ham with Tevez were playing Barcelona in a Euro Game and MSI who own Tevez have a financial interest in Barcelona. They could ask Tevez to fain injury or generally play against the interests of his club West Ham to benefit Barca and thus their financial interest. That's why these deals are dangerous for the game.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]No points will be deducted.
West Ham have got too many friends /supporters in high places.
They broke the Carling Cup rules a few years back by playing an ineligible player who had played for Gillingham previously. Nothing happened to them. Bury did the same thing in the FA Cup this season and got kicked out the competition.
I thought they had to replay that game?
I suspect the problem here is that the Premier League have found themselves in a grey area legally and that needs to be cleared up before they get sued.
Let's say they deduct WHU six points who then get relegated. WHU then takes the EPL to court and win, but as they have been relegated it creates a problem, with WHU demanding tens of millions in compensation.
Much better for the EPL to ignore the problem until EU employment law is clarified.
Yes you're right they did have to replay it I discovered through talking to a Hamster earlier today.
However there is still an inconsistency of treatment in that Bury were summarially kicked out with no opportunity of replaying the game.
I think you make a very good point re the possibility of EU Employment Law clouding the issue
Much better for the EPL to ignore the problem until EU employment law is clarified.
Is it an EU employment law issue? I thought it was to do with who controls players and thus may have influence over games. Say West Ham with Tevez were playing Barcelona in a Euro Game and MSI who own Tevez have a financial interest in Barcelona. They could ask Tevez to fain injury or generally play against the interests of his club West Ham to benefit Barca and thus their financial interest. That's why these deals are dangerous for the game.
It could be an EU Employment Law issue in that presumably the players have work permits and if they are not allowed to play then there might be a case for restraint of trade.
Your reasoning is also valid though re conflicting interests.
Restraint of Trade is a minefield as well we know. Ask Killer for his opinion!!
I have a problem with this though. If a player obtains a contract to play and receives a salary for his time at a club, but is ineligible to play in the first team, how is that restraint of trade? He trains, draws his money, plays in the reserves, he just can't play in the first team. If his trade is professional footballer, how is it being restrained?
Also, If these players signed on standard club to club loan agreements or signed transfer contracts, there would not be any kind of EU permit issues for either of them. It' s the nature of the type of financial ownership of these players which may or may not be in breach of FIFA/FA rules. I'm pretty sure that both FIFA and FA would say that their rules do not create a restraint of trade issue provided they are properly followed.
But hey what do I know, there are lawyers as we speak, racking up a fortune in fees trying to sort these things out.
[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]Restraint of Trade is a minefield as well we know. Ask Killer for his opinion!!
I have a problem with this though. If a player obtains a contract to play and receives a salary for his time at a club, but is ineligible to play in the first team, how is that restraint of trade? He trains, draws his money, plays in the reserves, he just can't play in the first team. If his trade is professional footballer, how is it being restrained?
Also, If these players signed on standard club to club loan agreements or signed transfer contracts, there would not be any kind of EU permit issues for either of them. It' s the nature of the type of financial ownership of these players which may or may not be in breach of FIFA/FA rules. I'm pretty sure that both FIFA and FA would say that their rules do not create a restraint of trade issue provided they are properly followed.
But hey what do I know, there are lawyers as we speak, racking up a fortune in fees trying to sort these things out.
It's my understanding that a sizeable part of a footballers "package" usually comprises bonuses as well as basic wages / salary.
If you are ineligible to play in the first team you probably won't be able to access the bonus potential which could be construed as restraint of trade.
Comments
Henry have you see this in the Daily Mail ?(I know its the Daily Mail, but hell, it could be true)
but he cannot remove the fact that both these loan players actually appeared for West Ham in Premier League competition.
I guess it's a mix of innocent till proven guilty and caveat emptor.
Presumably since the premier league okayed it initially (albeit potentially with dodgy documentation) it would be difficult to turn round without any proof and say he can't play. The Hammers are obviously confident that they won't lose any points as I'm sure if they thought they was a major risk they wouldn't be playing him.
The whole thing is a mess and I hope it gets sorted out soon.
West Ham have got too many friends /supporters in high places.
They broke the Carling Cup rules a few years back by playing an ineligible player who had played for Gillingham previously. Nothing happened to them. Bury did the same thing in the FA Cup this season and got kicked out the competition.
West Ham have got too many friends /supporters in high places.
They broke the Carling Cup rules a few years back by playing an ineligible player who had played for Gillingham previously. Nothing happened to them. Bury did the same thing in the FA Cup this season and got kicked out the competition.[/quote]
I thought they had to replay that game?
I suspect the problem here is that the Premier League have found themselves in a grey area legally and that needs to be cleared up before they get sued.
Let's say they deduct WHU six points who then get relegated. WHU then takes the EPL to court and win, but as they have been relegated it creates a problem, with WHU demanding tens of millions in compensation.
Much better for the EPL to ignore the problem until EU employment law is clarified.
Is it an EU employment law issue? I thought it was to do with who controls players and thus may have influence over games. Say West Ham with Tevez were playing Barcelona in a Euro Game and MSI who own Tevez have a financial interest in Barcelona. They could ask Tevez to fain injury or generally play against the interests of his club West Ham to benefit Barca and thus their financial interest. That's why these deals are dangerous for the game.
Yes you're right they did have to replay it I discovered through talking to a Hamster earlier today.
However there is still an inconsistency of treatment in that Bury were summarially kicked out with no opportunity of replaying the game.
I think you make a very good point re the possibility of EU Employment Law clouding the issue
It could be an EU Employment Law issue in that presumably the players have work permits and if they are not allowed to play then there might be a case for restraint of trade.
Your reasoning is also valid though re conflicting interests.
Basically it's a mess!
I have a problem with this though. If a player obtains a contract to play and receives a salary for his time at a club, but is ineligible to play in the first team, how is that restraint of trade? He trains, draws his money, plays in the reserves, he just can't play in the first team. If his trade is professional footballer, how is it being restrained?
Also, If these players signed on standard club to club loan agreements or signed transfer contracts, there would not be any kind of EU permit issues for either of them. It' s the nature of the type of financial ownership of these players which may or may not be in breach of FIFA/FA rules. I'm pretty sure that both FIFA and FA would say that their rules do not create a restraint of trade issue provided they are properly followed.
But hey what do I know, there are lawyers as we speak, racking up a fortune in fees trying to sort these things out.
It's my understanding that a sizeable part of a footballers "package" usually comprises bonuses as well as basic wages / salary.
If you are ineligible to play in the first team you probably won't be able to access the bonus potential which could be construed as restraint of trade.