Good article by Jeff Powell in the Daily Mail this morning (full text on ww.dailymail.co.uk):
"Murkier and murkier. Fouler and fouler. The Carlos Tevez affair is plumbing depths so fetid that, unless justice is dragged screaming from this quagmire, the Premier League will be in danger of drowning in its own effluent when it re-opens for dodgy business next month.
This is a catastrophe in the making...... Sheffield United are heading for the High Court this Friday in hot pursuit of their appeal for reinstatement to the Premier League in place of the Hammers.
That is the one place to which they can subpoena the player's 'commercial' owner, Kia Joorabchian, thereby obliging him to give evidence and to disclose the documentation which he has been hinting will prove that Tevez kept West Ham up in breach of the Premier League's own rules.
Not only that, but the League executives squirming on this hook, Sir Dave Richards and Richard Scudamore, face being hauled into court by Joorabchian if they try to prevent him being paid by United for supplying Tevez Yet unless they attempt to force the Premiership champions to hand over the bulk of these 'loan' fees to West Ham, they will be damned by tacit admission that Tevez was under third-party influence in contravention of their regulations.
Catch 22, gentlemen.
There is only one way out and it is the recourse which the governing body of the world game would prefer. FIFA are furiously opposed to football disputes going to court and will be urging the Football Association to help the Premier League find a solution.
Frankly, it is astonishing that the FA have not intervened. But then this is the body which lured England's major teams away from the old four-division structure into forming the FA Premier League, only to hand over power to the club chairmen who could not wait to exercise their vested interests.
UEFA, for its part, are giving thanks that Liverpool lost the Champions League Final. Otherwise, knowing how the Italians and the country's former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi operate, be sure that AC Milan would be questioning the eligibility for Europe's blue riband event of another of Joorabchian's hot Argentine properties. Javier Mascherano took the same loan route from Buenos Aires to Merseyside, via West Ham, which Tevez is following to Manchester. If the Premier League refuse to ratify Tevez's next move, they must expect United to cry foul and double standards.
Catch 23, gentlemen.
So what is that solitary escape hatch? Before this can get to court — where no judge worth his wig could help but find against their Star Chamber injustice — the League must ask the FA to join them in forming a joint commission and calling a re-trial on the grounds of fresh evidence from Joorabchian.
They simply cannot go on hiding behind the independent tribunal's equally enfeebled failure to enforce a second hearing despite finding the Premier League at fault. Nor can they claim it is too late because the fixtures have been published. Given a little fine tuning to avoid local clashes, Sheffield and West Ham can swap their Premiership and Championship programmes...."
For once, the normally right wing nutbag Powell actually nails it on the head.
This could get very interesting and how ironic that having beaten Man United to stay up that the Hamsters could then effectively get relegated by Man United's decision to buy Tevez!!! If Man United had not come in for him until after the start of the season then it would have been too late for a change!!!
Agreed on Powell, normally a prize tosser. It would be indeed be poetic justice for the Hamsters. I always thought that, although the judgement to fine rather than deduct points was obviously outrageous, Sheff Utd's best chance of success was to claim that there was a new offence committed, i.e. that the PL was not acting reasonably in ruling that the contract with KJ had been terminated just becuse WH said they had torn it up. Going for arbitration on the original ruling was always likely to be a waste of time since the new panel could only rule on the procedure. The High Court action should be very interesting. Powell continues in his article: "This weekend a source 'close' to Joorabchian, by way of making it clear West Ham had no legal right to tear up their agreement unilaterally in a devious attempt to get round the rules, came up with this candidate for Analogy of the Year: 'If you borrow a car from someone and you tear up the log-book, that doesn't make you the owner.' "
The Premier League gambled on West Ham being relegated on the field of play which would have been the end to the matter. The gamble didn't come off and now they are in a mess. My heart bleeds.
Where I'm unclear is to whether third party ownership is allowed in the rules or not. I thought the issue was the third party influence NOT ownership.
I will rang the Halifax today and tell them I'm tearing up my mortgage and the house is now mine. Will it help if I say I'm a West Ham fan?
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite] I will rang the Halifax today and tell them I'm tearing up my mortgage and the house is now mine. Will it help if I say I'm a West Ham fan?[/quote] Nice one
the way i see there is only one way out of all this...1] west ham should be relegated; 2] to discourage any other club doing a sheff utd, the pl should deduct points from them for the deal that stopped one of their players playing against them after he had been sold to watford; 3] the team that finished 2nd from bottom of the pl last season should be reinstated...
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]The Premier League gambled on West Ham being relegated on the field of play which would have been the end to the matter. The gamble didn't come off and now they are in a mess. My heart bleeds.
Where I'm unclear is to whether third party ownership is allowed in the rules or not. I thought the issue was the third party influence NOT ownership.
I will rang the Halifax today and tell them I'm tearing up my mortgage and the house is now mine. Will it help if I say I'm a West Ham fan?
I pretty sure it's third party influence which is not allowed. As I understand it Macherano's contract with Liverpool was drawn up differently so that although he is "loaned" by the Joorbachans companies, he cannot be transfered without Liverpools agreement. Thus there can be no "third party influence" over him.
As regards the latest twist in the Tevez affair, I'll have a small wager that whatever is paid to West Ham by Manure in the way of "transfer fee", the money will be paid across to Joorbachan (who we all know "owns" Tevez), minus a handling fee to West Ham of.......£5.5M. I can just feel it in my water. So West Ham will have lost precisely nothing. Here again I blame the FAPL who will have added this to their litany of "cock ups".
Where I'm unclear is to whether third party ownership is allowed in the rules or not. I thought the issue was the third party influence NOT ownership. .............
Third party ownership is I think allowed, it is third party inflence which is illegal.
The Kabba deal was a gentleman's agreement and they are common in football. When Parker left for Chelsea the arrangement was that he wasn't to play in the Chelsea's very next match, which happened to be against us.
When Parker left for Chelsea the arrangement was that he wasn't to play in the Charlton match, was just a request by verbal 'gentleman's' agreement - and was not part of the contract and therefore quite unenforceable.
If Chelsea had reneged on the agreement, Charlton would have had no legal redress.
Comments
"Murkier and murkier. Fouler and fouler. The Carlos Tevez affair is plumbing depths so fetid that, unless justice is dragged screaming from this quagmire, the Premier League will be in danger of drowning in its own effluent when it re-opens for dodgy business next month.
This is a catastrophe in the making......
Sheffield United are heading for the High Court this Friday in hot pursuit of their appeal for reinstatement to the Premier League in place of the Hammers.
That is the one place to which they can subpoena the player's 'commercial' owner, Kia Joorabchian, thereby obliging him to give evidence and to disclose the documentation which he has been hinting will prove that Tevez kept West Ham up in breach of the Premier League's own rules.
Not only that, but the League executives squirming on this hook, Sir Dave Richards and Richard Scudamore, face being hauled into court by Joorabchian if they try to prevent him being paid by United for supplying Tevez Yet unless they attempt to force the Premiership champions to hand over the bulk of these 'loan' fees to West Ham, they will be damned by tacit admission that Tevez was under third-party influence in contravention of their regulations.
Catch 22, gentlemen.
There is only one way out and it is the recourse which the governing body of the world game would prefer. FIFA are furiously opposed to football disputes going to court and will be urging the Football Association to help the Premier League find a solution.
Frankly, it is astonishing that the FA have not intervened. But then this is the body which lured England's major teams away from the old four-division structure into forming the FA Premier League, only to hand over power to the club chairmen who could not wait to exercise their vested interests.
UEFA, for its part, are giving thanks that Liverpool lost the Champions League Final. Otherwise, knowing how the Italians and the country's former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi operate, be sure that AC Milan would be questioning the eligibility for Europe's blue riband event of another of Joorabchian's hot Argentine properties. Javier Mascherano took the same loan route from Buenos Aires to Merseyside, via West Ham, which Tevez is following to Manchester. If the Premier League refuse to ratify Tevez's next move, they must expect United to cry foul and double standards.
Catch 23, gentlemen.
So what is that solitary escape hatch? Before this can get to court — where no judge worth his wig could help but find against their Star Chamber injustice — the League must ask the FA to join them in forming a joint commission and calling a re-trial on the grounds of fresh evidence from Joorabchian.
They simply cannot go on hiding behind the independent tribunal's equally enfeebled failure to enforce a second hearing despite finding the Premier League at fault. Nor can they claim it is too late because the fixtures have been published. Given a little fine tuning to avoid local clashes, Sheffield and West Ham can swap their Premiership and Championship programmes...."
This could get very interesting and how ironic that having beaten Man United to stay up that the Hamsters could then effectively get relegated by Man United's decision to buy Tevez!!! If Man United had not come in for him until after the start of the season then it would have been too late for a change!!!
what a great way of putting it. it is getting way out of hand now, and the premier league are coming out of this looking like total muppetts
It would be indeed be poetic justice for the Hamsters. I always thought that, although the judgement to fine rather than deduct points was obviously outrageous, Sheff Utd's best chance of success was to claim that there was a new offence committed, i.e. that the PL was not acting reasonably in ruling that the contract with KJ had been terminated just becuse WH said they had torn it up. Going for arbitration on the original ruling was always likely to be a waste of time since the new panel could only rule on the procedure. The High Court action should be very interesting.
Powell continues in his article:
"This weekend a source 'close' to Joorabchian, by way of making it clear West Ham had no legal right to tear up their agreement unilaterally in a devious attempt to get round the rules, came up with this candidate for Analogy of the Year: 'If you borrow a car from someone and you tear up the log-book, that doesn't make you the owner.' "
Where I'm unclear is to whether third party ownership is allowed in the rules or not. I thought the issue was the third party influence NOT ownership.
I will rang the Halifax today and tell them I'm tearing up my mortgage and the house is now mine. Will it help if I say I'm a West Ham fan?
I will rang the Halifax today and tell them I'm tearing up my mortgage and the house is now mine. Will it help if I say I'm a West Ham fan?[/quote]
Nice one
Rules apply to to who we want them to apply to.
FACT LOCKED ON!
I pretty sure it's third party influence which is not allowed. As I understand it Macherano's contract with Liverpool was drawn up differently so that although he is "loaned" by the Joorbachans companies, he cannot be transfered without Liverpools agreement. Thus there can be no "third party influence" over him.
As regards the latest twist in the Tevez affair, I'll have a small wager that whatever is paid to West Ham by Manure in the way of "transfer fee", the money will be paid across to Joorbachan (who we all know "owns" Tevez), minus a handling fee to West Ham of.......£5.5M. I can just feel it in my water. So West Ham will have lost precisely nothing. Here again I blame the FAPL who will have added this to their litany of "cock ups".
.............
Third party ownership is I think allowed, it is third party inflence which is illegal.
The Kabba deal was a gentleman's agreement and they are common in football. When Parker left for Chelsea the arrangement was that he wasn't to play in the Chelsea's very next match, which happened to be against us.
If Chelsea had reneged on the agreement, Charlton would have had no legal redress.