Daily Mail reports that West Ham are desperate to keep Tevez for another year. They are offering him £115k a week but "will have to pay his 'owner' Kia Joorabchian up to £3m in a loan fee".
No no that can't be right. West Ham unilaterally tore up the contract with KJ. Otherwise the Premier League would look very foolish or just plain bent and that can't possibly be.............................
0
Comments
Wont happen though.
No no that can't be right. West Ham unilaterally tore up the contract with KJ. Otherwise the Premier League would look very foolish or just plain bent and that can't possibly be.............................[/quote]
I think you have overlooked Premier League Rule 78 Subsection D which states
"Should any club be deemed to have won the World Cup they can get away with blue murder"
Shouldn't that read 'Claret and Blue Murder'
Incorrect. The contract was amended to remove the possible 3rd party influence clause, stating that tevez could be sold in any transfer window without west hams consent.
Tevez is owned by MSI. West ham only hold his registration.
Quite right too.
On a side note, rumours are that the decision of the arbitration will be made today.
So we can finally put this to bed.
(although people will still lable us as cheats based on half truths & complete untruths written in the press by people like oliver holt, without knowing the facts of the case).
The argument is over whether the punishment fits the admitted crime.
You'd be surprised how many people have said to me "you only stayed up because you cheated" blah blah blah.
Any team that can do the double over both arsenal & man u deserves to stay up in my opinion.
So whgat about this Steve Kabba deal then? Or the Howard situation between Man U & the blue scouse?
These both invoked the 3rd party influence, where as the clause in tevez contract was never invoked.
Are watford/sheff u/man u/everton all cheats?
It was an administrative error by previous owners not to disclose all conditions of the contracts.
These clauses could & would have been ironed out easily.
The registration of the players have never been in question.
£5.5m is a lot of money to pay for a clause in a contract that has never been invoked.
no they will still lable you as cheats because you cheated ............. Messrs Brown, Aldridge and Duxbury were anxious to complete the registration of these players by the deadline of 31st August. They knew that the only means by which they could acquire them would be by entering into the third party contracts. Equally, they were aware that the FAPL, at the very least, may not -- and in all probability would not -- have approved of such contracts. They determined to keep their existence from the FAPL. In the case of the third element of the breach of Rule B13, namely the conversation between Mr Scudamore and Mr Aldridge, there is no dispute.
Crap, it was concealed by Scott Duxbury, your clubs legal and commercial director.
On 1st September, due to media speculation as to how these players had been signed by West Ham, the FAPL wished to clarify the position. Ms Purdon, and to this extent there is common ground, and Mr Duxbury had a telephone conversation in which she asked him if the club had entered into any arrangements with any third parties. Ms Purdon says that his answer was an unequivocal "no". Mr Duxbury says that he essentially ducked that question. He did not say yes, he did not say no. He merely replied that all documents required for registration had been provided. In doing so, he was in the belief that no Rule had been broken because he, despite having reminded himself of the rules, had failed yet again to read U18.
***BANGS HEAD ON WALL***
There are no rules against 3rd party opwnership of players.
(although people will still lable us as cheats based on half truths & complete untruths written in the press by people like oliver holt, without knowing the facts of the case).
....................
Sorry dude, West Ham cheated by signing two players illegally they even pleaded guilty to breaking the rules.
No amount of claiming that journalists in the media, who probably know a lot more than you or I, will change that.
What is at stake is whether the punishment West Ham received is appropriate or not, and whether a fine without pints reduction or automatic relegation was enough. My belief is that West Ham signed these players to make a difference on the pitch, did so knowing full well that they were breaking the law ie illegally and therefore a points reduction is in order in addition to a fine. That West Ham were not docked points has nothing to do with "half truths and untruths". West Ham cheated, end of.
***BANGS HEAD ON WALL***
There are no rules against 3rd party opwnership of players.[/quote]
The fact is that the Commission admitted that it would ordinarily deduct points from WHU but for reasons that are universally regarded as absurd it decided to impose a fine instead. An arbitrary decision, contrary to precedent and plain wrong. It saved WHU from relegation. A gross injustice. FACT.
any team that tonk a team 4-0 deserve to stay up in my opinion also.
growl
I suspect that Eggy "admitting" they cheated was part of a "behind the scenes" bargain which lead to the financial and not points deduction punishment. After all we do not know whether Brown or Aldridge accept that interpretation of events as they were not called upon to testify.
By the way I understand that this Appeal panel is not necessarily the end of the process, it is merely a staging point. If the panel uphold the Blades appeal, they merely pass it back to the FAPL for further consideration. The FAPL could then ask the original commitee to revisit the issues. My gut feeling is that the Panel will say that the Blades have been relegated unfairly.
That said, most of the people at West Ham cheated who are no longer there, so it is unfair to label the current administration and fans (even Mortain) as a bunch of cheats - all they are doing now is fighting their corner which is fair enough.
Because of Premier League incompetance and tardiness there is no easy solution now - I would suggest that West Ham are given a choice:
(a) get their £5M back but swap places with Sheffield United ie. relegation
(b) a 10 points deduction next season, plus a huge fine (say £20M) which should be paid to Sheffield United by means of compensation.
If they refuse to make the choice then relegate them.