Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Football' started by Misfit, 26 July 2007.
Hmmm,think they have a case after all.....
This whole thing would've been fine if Joorabchian had taken over the club, no issues then. But i'm glad he's got stuck now, owning players without having an actual team, arrogant little shit.
well this situation (agents owning a player, entirely of just a percentage) is quite weird for us europeans, but is quite normal in south america. I heard an agent on skytv a couple of days ago, who was explaining how those people are important for football in south america. he said that without them south american football would collapse coz brazilian and argentinian football clubs wouldn't have enough money to keep their players.
this agent said that usually when theese players come in europe, european clubs buy "the whole player" (paying the the club and the agent).
that's not what happened this time coz tevez was getting "old" and still no european club was making concrete offers for him. So Kia decided to put himself tevez in the european market, "parking" him at west ham.
You are totally right mate it's very common in south america.
Some agent have one leg some companies have the other and pheraps one arm and the club gets f**cked all the time! (sad but true)
Have you heard of Nilmar-Lyon-Agent-Corinthians-MSI-Lawyer-Fifa-CBF :sad:
Considering Terry Brown and our last board of directors, i'd actually consider that above contract to be a lot more professional than the real one
Good one misfit AND Stevo! :thumbup: :lol: :mrgreen: :lol:
lol!! Yeah I remember that. :lol:
It's still not solved is it? And as confusing as the whole "Nilmar" thing was and who he really is owned by, it wasn't even the most confusing....
Loving your work, Misfit. :mryellow:
I hope west ham don't get a penny.
If WHU would just say 'yes' and agree to let Tevez come to us, then everything would be resolved. Isn't this basically just what happened with Mascherano, just without the 'yes'?
We cannot do that.
We have to be seen to be acting as though we own the player.
Otherwise we could breach rules that could affect what we were punished for before.
I really hate women like that......er......:shock:
West Ham agree with MSI for an 'official' £2m release fee.
Tevez to Man Utd imminent.
Thank fuck we can all move on now :lol:
Looks like the mancs have got someone uglier than Rooney now...
FFS, what a mess!
a 2m release fee to MSI?
I think you could have got more from MSI, £2m is peanuts for a player of his stature.
not bad if you never paid for him though.
That's exactly it.
We had to be seen to own the player and had to play along with it to appease the Premier League.
But things would have got far too fucked up, so the £2m as well as some other expenses elsewhere go some way to covering the £5.5m fine.
The money we were given is in no refelction of the player's valuation at all.
Anyway, Christian Dailly is far better.
its the same as the mascherano deal....
West Ham should have been relegated.
Because West Ham broke the rules regarding ownership of players and lied about it to the premier league.
Carlos Tevez then went and scored the crucial goal that kept West Ham in the premier league.
The whole Tevez affair was a farce in which the premier league made themselves complicit by stating that they had received proof from West Ham that the player belonged to West Ham.
If Tevez was owned by West Ham then why is it that Tevez could be moved onto Man Utd against the wishes of West Ham with West Ham receiving a paltry 2 million in compensation?
The fact is the premier league stated that West Ham proved that they owned Tevez because they were petrified of potential court action from Sheffield Utd for their lack of action over the affair.
West Ham could not and did not prove that Tevez was their player; they could not do so because he patently was not their player, but MSI’s player.
It was stated that West Ham had tore up the contract with MSI and therefore MSI did not own the player.
Interesting, I never realized that is how contract law worked. Someone ownes something that you borrow and to own it all you have to do is rip up the contract LMAO.
So ALL contracts can simply be ripped up and then it is as though they do not exist.
Presumably I can go and rent a flat and then simply rip up the signed contract and claim I now own the flat? Ludicrous!!!
West Ham acted tough until MSI threatened court action and then acted like a paper tiger because MSI would have shafted West Ham all over the place at the high court with little things like indisputable facts as to who owned Tevez and minor things like….the other contract….you know the one that MSI kept- given that contracts are given to both parties LMAO.
The real facts then.
A) Tevez was loaned to West Ham.
B) MSI were the owners of Tevez not West Ham.
C) The form of agreement broke the premiership rules and made Tevez ineligible to play for them.
D) He played for them while ineligible
E) West Ham lied to the premier league about the nature of the deal
F) The premier League took inappropriately lean action against West Ham because they did not foresee the circumstances that could occur due to Tevez playing given West Hams league position.
G) The premier League stated they had proof of West Ham’s ownership of Tevez, which made the premier league complicit in- as no such legitimate documentation existed.
H) Tevez score the goals that kept West Ham up and in particular scored the final goal that altered the course of relegation.
I) West Ham had no choice in Tevez moving to Man Utd despite paper Tiger gestures
J) MSI new this which is why they were taking West Ham to court
K) MSI agreed a paltry figure out of court so that the deal with Man Utd could be pushed through and agreed to give 2 million of a 30 million pounds worth of economic rights to West Ham for the bungled outstanding loan period of the player.
West Ham are in the premier league because of Tevez’s contribution to the team, conversely Sheffiled Utd are in the Champuionship- Tevez was ineligible to play for West ham.
Does that cover it?
I like West Ham asa club a lot, I don't like Sheffield Utd. As an Everton fan I/we benefited from Sheffield Utd going down as this opened up the clause in Jagielkas contract that allowed us to get him..
Nowt to do we Me liking West Ham, Nowt to do with us benefiting, Nowt to do with a team I don't like going down.
I just think the situation was a disgrace to the EPL, a disgrace to football and evything that sport and fair play is about. It brought shame to the name of sport and was fundamentally wrong.
That is my honest opinion.
I haven't got any qualms whatsoever on your stance mate and I understand it completely.
What I take exception to is hearing the same argument from the same sources basically going with what the press have spun.
I am not at all biased.
When we are shit I say so, when we are wrong, I say so.
I have probably followed this case to the letter more than any other poster on this board to point of physical pain and boredom.
Debated and argued various points over time only to hear the same things from the same people taking an outside view on things.
"West Ham cheated, Sheff Utd are hard done by, Tevez was ineligible, only he kept them up"
What about Steve Kabba's contract with Watford?
Sheff Utd inserted a 3rd party clause into his contract with Watford saying he wasn't allowed to play against them.
That was exactly the same as what we got punished for.
Honest Kevin McCabe indeed... full of integrity.
What you have to remember is there is no precedent for this case.
You cannot compare it to any other and just say 'we should have got relegated'.
So I assume you think we should have points deducted then? How many? 1, 2... 3? Enough to put us down?
If we survived by 7 points, people would have said we should have been deducted 7 points. Basically anything that would have kept Sheff Utd up.
The commission could have easily fined us £2m and deducted us 2 points.
Something that would have still kept us up but would not have satisfied the others who were looking for someone to blame for their own problems.
This is the original thread on here if you want to read through it mate, but that was last posted on a while ago and hasn't got much newer information.
By all means send me a PM and I can lead you to masses of debate on the subject, but you will feel as exhausted and tired as I do after everything we have been through.
It is sickening to be labelled as the bad boys by the media and the way they have been treating us in regards to just about everything in the past 12 months has been nothing short of a disgrace.
We are paying Lucas Neill £72k a week, Bellamy £80k, Scott Parker £70k and offered Darren Bent £85k, don't you know :roll:
As I said mate, feel free to message me if you like as I would rather not publicly debate something that I am sick and tired of on the public forum as it will just escalate again.... something that I just don't like seen commented on based on many 'facts' that are reported but aren't entirely accurate.
Fancy selling us Arteta for £10m? :lol:
I am prepared to accept everything you say (you have been both polite and detailed and that is welcomed) except certain points which I maintain and which still in my view mean that West Ham should have faced a points deduction.
This is simply my opinion and nothing more and like I say I do like West Ham so my feelings are certainly not personal or in any way due to ill feeling towards you club.
West Ham should have been relegated because;
To which you replied;
I take your point and will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are correct with regard to the technicality.
However and this is the point;
Tevez was ineligible to play for West Ham Utd because the contract was not legitimate because of the technicality that it broke.
The contract between West Ham and MSI was said to be thrown out or ripped up. If I accept that to mean that the contract was re-written so that it met with acceptance with the premier league (I will accept what you say and accept that), then we are talking about an ileagal contract (technicality or not) and ineligibility altered so that the contract became legal and the player eligible.
That still means that Tevez was ineligible to play for West Ham prior however you cut it. It also means what brought him to West Ham initially, was an illegal contract technicality or not and it was lied about by the former board.
You cannot say that Tevez was eligible to play for West Ham from the time of the original contract because the contract was not legal because of an illegal provision in it. When a contract has an illegal part the contract has what is known as a vitiating circumstance….meaning the contact isn’t legitimate.
It is my contention that without Carlos Tevez’s goals West Ham Utd would not have avoided relegation, that an ineligible player significantly prevented relegation and in so doing relegated another team namely Sheffield United who could have seriously benefited from a lack of the ineligable Tevez.
To which you replied;
I have accepted the rebuttal of many if not most of my points because you have provided informed information that I have not contended. I would accept the rebuttal of my entire opinion if I felt you had provided informed information that genuinely refuted all of my thoughts/points. I am not dogmatic and I would gladly change my opinion if I felt you were entirely correct, but I do not accept that.
I think that despite the information that you have provided (something that shows West Ham in a much better light overall), I still think the central and most important points I had and the reason for my opinion being what it was still stand untouched.
The thing is while you have rebutted most of my points and whilst I have accepted that with no problem at all, in fact I have welcomed the information you have provided; nevertheless I still am of the same opinion because I feel that there are still irrefutable points that I don’t think your argument can cover for.
Almost all of your post was really good IMHO, but I think the above where I quoted you is passion and your own semantics.
I have not said that Carlos Tevez alone prevented West Ham from being relegated, football is patently not an individual sport and the players you have mentioned made a fantastic contribution to West Ham at the end of the season and made an invaluable contribution to keeping you up. I watched a lot of your games and I watched your game against Arsenal on sopcast. The Zamora goal and in particular Green’s goalkeeping display was spectacular (Green for England ahead of Robinson IMHO).
But and this is the but;
Do not try to tell me that West Ham would still be in the premier league without Tevez going on FIRE and hitting the back of the net virtually none stop at the end of the year.
The fact is irrespective of the great stuff from all the players you have mentioned, if Tevez was not allowed to play and you didn’t get all those goals- something massive and quantifiable……don’t tell me that you/West Ham would have stayed up, because you would not have and you must admit that.
Tevez should never have been at West Ham for the re-negotiated and now supposed legal contract because his initial registration was ileagal based on the entirety of the premier leagues rules. Tevez was plaed at West Ham as a poison pill with a view to Kia Joorabchian's attempt to take over West Ham. Tevez was illegally placed at West Ham precisely so that Joorabchian's would be able to illegally influence his movement so he could push through or ease his attempted take over. For this reason I do not think that Tevez should have been allowed to have his contract altered at a latter date in the season. I suppose you can argue with me on this point, but that is my feeling and it is not the central tenant of my position as I have given that above.
Out of interest;
If the original contract is illegal- which it was that means it had vitiating circumstances and was not worth the paper it was written on. That means the second contract that the premier league has accepted is outside the transfer window and not legitimate doesn’t it?
I will be honest I am not sure of this point and am not pushing it too hard. This point alone may mean that Tevez’s second contract was also illegal…..
I am not going to keep pursuing this and I can see you have had enough, I’m sure you have discussed it up to the gills- where as I have not so I can understand how you could be pig sick of mulling it over (pig sick with gills- funny).
Despite what I have said I wish West Ham the best of luck this season, a long suffering family club and good fans.
If you do comment with one more post hopefully it will be as polite and as intelligent as your last one. I certainly am not going to escalate anything, I have made my points and agree or disagree…what has happened has happened.
The premier league stink more than anyone in the affair- a touch more than Joorabchian.
Hopefully you can understand my feelings even if you do not agree with them, also I would hope I do not sound like a thicko hang'em high Daily Mail reactionary type of person and that my views do stem froma genunine position, even if some of my technical details have not been up to scratch.
I am very happy with Arteta’s new Everton contract so I don’t want to sell him thanks, nice to see someone else appreciate him though- a very underrated player still IMHO.
There should have been a two-leg play-off match, West Ham (without Tevez) versus Sheffield United. Winner is given a Premiership place, all proceeds given to charity.
Sorry for not quoting exactly the singular parts, but I will make the point as a whole.
The thing that is crucially important in this is that many players are registered to play temporarily, even though their contracts are not legitimate with Premier League rules.
It is very commonplace for a signing (nearly always a foreign one) to be registered legally to play, then for the premier league to discuss with all parties, the best way to shape the contract to fit in with premier league and FA guidelines.
This is an ongoing process (indeed while the player is playing with an offending contract...not an offending registration) until the matter is resolved and the contract is finalised and made perfectly legal to rules.
As we both know, contracts aren't just 2 page documents, but complex documents that go into tens of pages (I think Walcott's contract was something like 60 pages or something daft).
My point being is that you are basing much of your views on that Tevez contract(s) would have never have been allowed in the first place because of said offending clauses.
You would be perfectly right in thinking that.
However, with the information I have pointed out above, it is clear that West Ham, MSI, The Premier League and the FA would have arranged Carlos Tevez contract if this problem had been noticed beforehand.
This problem only arose in January when a letter was sent by the Premier League because of a similar clause with Fernandes and the potential transfer to Portsmouth.
The Premier League sent letters to all clubs asking if such a clause existed... we admitted we had a problem after we had checked the full details of the player's contracts.
You will ask about the original covering up and lies that were told.
This isn't exactly something that was proven as Aldridge and Duxbury claim it was put through and not looked at when they first signed because the actual rule in question (of 3rd party influence) was hardly noticeable in the Premier League guidelines.
We had not noticed, nor been informed of such breaking of clauses and apparently an administration cock up at the Premier League caused us to continue into January without knowing we had the players on such offending clauses.
This is a side issue regarding our 'lies and cover up' which was more of a poor error in judgement than lies and deceit which is a little over the top. In any case, we were punished for it and fined very heavily.
Back to my main point.
What happened on the 28th of August, was that the Premier League, West Ham and MSI renegotiated the player's contract so it would fit in with the rules of player contracts.
(The 'ripping up of the contracts', if you will).
That was done on that day and if this breaching of rules had come to light in August or indeed January, the process would have been done then instead.
This also ties in with the arbitration mentioning that they would have deducted us point if it was found earlier in the season.
Such so that we may have had to replace Tevez and could have bought different players and not spent £20m in January and outcomes could have been massively different.
The Premier League spent 4 months on this before the independent arbitration came to their decision.
Then and only then, after ticket sales, player purchases, efforts on and off of the pitch etc etc had they effectively relegated us with this mythical 3 points deduction, would have been unfair.
Another point in regards to this argument of semantics (which I mention only to completely refute rather than use it as my own argument), is that it could very well be said Tevez and Mascherano being at the club was just as much to blame for us being in the relegation scrap in the first place.
If you take away the games Tevez played (and performed averagely) in, then we could have well been clear of a relegation fight come January anyway, meaning Tevez influence from then on is neither here nor there to the relegation fight.
It really does get a bit overcomplicated and silly this argument, but goes some way to highlighting how weak the argument is of what Tevez done in our team especially considering the fact that he was legal to play anyway.
It is clutching at straws massively from where I am sitting.
It is of my personal opinion that without Tevez and Mascherano at our club for the whole season, we may have survived anyway.
Another point of note is that the renegotiation of a playing contract has nothing to do with the transfer window as it is dealing with a contract, not a playing registration.
I really don't mind discussing this with someone as yourself as I can see you are accepting of what you make out to be genuine information, rather than what you read in the press.
Something I respect a lot.
I am also glad you specifically brought up the Mail or should I say, the Daily Nazi, as that paper is nothing short of a disgrace.
I hope I have at least cleared some things up, even if you morally disagree mate.
(Arteta is just a class act.)
Oh don't you fucking start as well :lol::lol:
Sheff Utd are now suing West Ham for the cost of relegation.
Their lawyers must be pointing and laghing at McCabe everytime he turns his back after milking him of so much money. Either that or they are on a no win-no fee basis :lol:
If I was a Sheff Utd fan, I would want the earth to open up and swallow me as this is becoming so embarrassing now, it's almost cringeworthy to watch.
That’s ok; you have given your comments in a perfectly reasonable way and it has made for a very interesting read.
I think with these types of discussions it is far too easy to endlessly requote one another anyway and regurgitate, I think once the salient points and a certain amount of quoting has taken place it always tends to be better to stick to your main points. The amount of people you see spinning around in circles with such things, finding new issues to disagree with; getting bogged down in side issues etc, it is quite unbelievable.
Also human nature being what it is, people always tend to concentrate on what the differences of opinion there are rather than what it is that is agreed in common. I have seen lots of seemingly innocent threads descend or escalate (depends on the trajectory you think of where two people have agreed with each other on 90% of an issue, but have still been so dogmatic that they have managed to concentrate on the 10% difference in their thoughts and focus fanatically on that. People tend to get ownership of an issue and when that happens the opinion of the other person is always seen as the polar opposite and it becomes a war of attrition between entrenched dogmatic prats.
Also I see nothing wrong in accepting a rebuttal of a previously held point or previously held view, it seems to me that is something that comes about from dispassionate intelligent reviewand contemnplation and far from being a weakness is the polar opposite of unintelligently and dogmatically regarding every debate or discussion as a pointless game that needs to be won at all costs.
I like to try and take on board intelligent opinions that are well thought out and/or informative when discussing matters (yours have certainly been that), it seems to me to be part of the reason to discuss things in the first place. I thought my initial comment might spark a reaction from someone and wanted to see if that happened, see what someone else thought on all this. Personally I have not really discussed it in any detail on any forums ( I might be an exception) and certainly not with anyone who is involved from a fans perspective in the centre of it all.
I guess it is all very old hat for you and has been seriously distressing, I can imagine if nothing else. I suppose as a non West Ham or Sheffield United supporter I can afford to be a little more blasé or voyeuristic in my comments without fully realizing it, because it has not been directly affecting my club. That is a downside of my perspective as is clearly being less clued up on the finer details. I would like to think that my perspective does offer a lack of bias though and that the bigger picture is something that can be viewed a little more dispassionately from and equally from my perspective. All people in the centre of things with a vested interest are bias to some degree or another be that conscious or subconscious and I do think you are biased on the way you reflect certain points.
I could go through everything you have said with a fine tooth comb, but I am not going to because I think that would be redundant for a number of reasons.
I accept that you are very well versed on this subject matter, at least as well versed as it is probably possible to be as far as a fan can be on the outside of the inner circle of people at both clubs and their legal people who know all the ins and outs.
This is understandable given how much it has been affecting your club.
So I think it would be patently obvious to both of us that your grasp on the technical details involved are superior and I will not tell you how to suck eggs.
While I accept the rebuttal of many of the points I have made and whilst I accept that you have been far more versed on the detail of matters, I still have an underlying feeling on this and I’ll paint the logic out and then you can see where I am coming from even if your view will not differ at all- I wouldn’t expect it to.
The premier League has viewed the breach of regulations by West Ham to be serious enough to warrant a 5 million plus fine irrespective of the detail.
In my view if the matter is as serious as that, then for me the breach should have warranted a point’s deduction as opposed to a fine. If breaking the rules was that serious, that is how I feel.
You are far more versed than me in the detail and you may think that the premier league were wrong in their assessment of how serious the matter was, that West Ham were judged harshly.
If the premier league have incorrectly assessed the seriousness of the offence, then I would agree that West Ham should NOT have been relegated.
But just as I know far less than you on the technical/finer detail of these matters, presumably the premier league and West Ham are more in the know than yourself and if this is the case then the nature of the matter was very serious- which would make me revert back to my feeling that if it was that serious that it should have been a points deduction.
I think I have come a long way from my original position and thoughts to think what I do at this moment, but it maybe that I still feel that a points deduction would be correct. In all honesty I think the only way I would feel able to say 100% for sure what the gravity of the offence was for myself, would be to be privy to all the legal information and statements in the way a member of a jury would.
The one thing I am 100% in disagreement with you on is the influence that Tevez had on the outcome of your season and I do think that is where you do have bias and I can’t agree with your reasoning.
West Ham obviously were far better in the season prior (I was willing you all the way in the FA cup final- my own bias against Liverpool being part of that) and obviously a combination of factors came together to result in the season you had last time out.
The possible unsettling of the squad brought about by bringing in the Argentine players, the constant take over issues, change of managers, settling in of the Argentine players, playing Tevez totally out of position, the sacking of Pardew and the settling in of Curbs, players who maybe weren’t pulling their weight at the club…..these things can run and run. I have been through enough close calls with Everton and I know how there can be a whirlwind of differing effects that come together.
So what is the point?
The point is I don’t think your league position in the latter part of last season can remotely be laid at the door of Tevez. I don’t think you can say what if he never arrived and I don’t think you can level your position at his door in any way shape or form just because he didn’t hit the ground running in this country when played out of position in a new league. It is just not possible and not credible IMHO to think in these terms. What we do know is that when you were in real trouble at the end of last season, we know that Carlos Tevez fired the goals that kept you up. Of course this was not down to Tevez alone; of course you could not have stayed up without the great impact of many players. I do you the courteously of not trying to pretend that I know as much about West Ham as you do and, again I am not telling you how to such eggs. But I did watch many of your games- so I am at least offering an unbiased opinion on what I did see as opposed to talking out of my ass- as some people do when they talk about you/my club.
For me there is one thing for sure.
One thing that is quantifiable and it is this;
Without Tevez scoring all those goals in that few number of games, without that, you would not have retained your premier league status irrespective of the efforts of all your other players.
So the ultimate questions to my mind are;
Should West Ham have been allowed to have play Tevez?
Did West Ham break the regulations seriously enough to warrant a 5 million plus fine.
IF, with IF being the operative word, iF it was that serious and IF the premier league got that bit right, then it is my opinion rightly or wrongly that the punishment should have been a points deduction and that would have relegated West Ham.
If the premier league got it wrong and if they punished West Ham excessively, then having spoken to you, I would have a differing opinion and it would be that West Ham should not have had a points deduction or such a fine and that therefore West Ham should not be relegated as I previously stated.
The only way I feel I would know truly for myself what should have happened would have been to have been privy to everything in the manner of a witness to a trial as I previously stated.
I have moved from a position of somewhat ignorant certainty to lesser ignorant uncertainty.
I appreciate the nature of the discussion and for what it is worth I wish you the best of luck this season. Like I said at the outset, I do like West Ham.