West Ham - Will they get away with it? YES THEY WILL SAY PANEL!

[SlunkSoma]

What do we expect WH to do next season. From the outside it just looks like a huge pirate ship about to capsize under the weight of mercenaries and booty (as in dubloons not ba-dunk-a-dunk). No real loyalty there, i reckon after a run of a few bad results their season will fall to bits unless Curbs is some sort of Blackbeard pirate master...which he doesnt seem to be.

 

[Moore6]

Sign it quick, the judge is coming.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/3308/kjut1.jpg

 

[TheChosenOne]

Still confused of Hertford thinks:

If I go down to Blockbuster and get a DVD out I can use it for a while and have the benefit of it, then sell it to a third party and keep all the money, stuffing Blockbuster ?

I am beginning to like this free trading stuff.

 

[Moore6]

Apparently West Ham will release Tevez's playing registration tomorrow in exchange for £2m compensation.

Thanks for the memories Carlos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpzgPnL8ORs

 

[BoringOldFan]

I can't really see there being an out of court settlement on this one. It's been so protracted that I can't see either party standing down.

Yes they will TSH, and this is why:

On a dramatic day in the High Court [August 1], Media Sports Investments (MSI) and Just Sports Inc (JSI) produced the contract that was signed by West Ham after the club’s new Icelandic owners had taken control in late November.

The contract made amendments to the original third-party deal agreed last summer when Tévez and Javier Mascherano arrived at Upton Park. The new agreement, dated December 1, was signed by Scott Duxbury, the club’s deputy chief executive who was legal director at the time, and Kia Joorabchian, who fronts MSI and JSI, and Tévez.

Times.

So there you have it, West Ham signed a contract one month after Eggy's regime took over on November 1. So all this self-righteous "previous owners" bullshit is just that.

I believe the phrase is "banged to rights".

West Ham lied, lied, signed a new contract and lied again. And again. In fact I lost count.

This just in: cheats prosper. But they're still cheats.

Moore6 you have done a great job of presenting your club's version of events but I think even you must now admit that you haven't a leg to stand on!

 

[Tryph]

This is tearing my hair out BOF.

OK, they come to an agreement, but how can West Ham NOT be punished?!?!? They lied to the PL and sent Sheff Utd down because of it. Tevez played last season because they lied.

As much as I love Spurs, if West Ham get away with this, Top flight football will lose all credibility for me. We'll be as corrupt as the Italian league with its bribery.

 

[Moore6]

Yes they will TSH, and this is why:



Times.

So there you have it, West Ham signed a contract one month after Eggy's regime took over on November 1. So all this self-righteous "previous owners" bullshit is just that.

I believe the phrase is "banged to rights".

West Ham lied, lied, signed a new contract and lied again. And again. In fact I lost count.

This just in: cheats prosper. But they're still cheats.

Moore6 you have done a great job of presenting your club's version of events but I think even you must now admit that you haven't a leg to stand on!

Eek

:???:


When Eggy took over he tried to implement a new contract with MSI that would replace the old contract.

The new contract would not have been in breach of PL rules as it had an agreed date that Tevez's registration could be released (1 July 07) and therefore included no 3rd party influence.

West Ham signed it but the other parties didnt, therefore it never became legally binding. West Ham sent a copy of this 2nd contract to the PL as part of their investigations into the original rule break.

Following the £5.5m punishment Eggy then terminated the original contract.

When things were getting serious MSI produced a copy of the 2nd contract which appeared to have been signed by all parties.

The PL obviously never received a copy of the 2nd contract which had been signed by all parties because if they did then WHU wouldnt have needed to destroy the original contract in order for Tevez to continue playing.

It seems as if MSI werent interested in the new contract until it became clear that the old contract was in breach of the rules and had been terminated. Did they doctor the 2nd contract in an attempt to get WHU to be bound by this one? Surely MSI wouldnt do a thing like that, would they?

C&P from The guardian:

QUOTE:

Matt Scott
Wednesday August 1, 2007
The Guardian


The Carlos Tevez saga took a dramatic twist in the high court yesterday when West Ham United's lawyers challenged the authenticity of a document presented by Media Sports Investment and Just Sports Inc. The document, filed at a depositions hearing, was a contract drawn up on December 1 at the insistence of the West Ham chairman, Eggert Magnusson. It stated that on July 1 Tevez would be released from the club and stipulated that, if he remained at Upton Park, MSI-JSI would have to make payments that would effectively cover his wages.

MSI-JSI consider the document central to their breach-of-contract case against the Hammers, in which they demand that Tevez be freed from his obligations with West Ham and permitted to move to Manchester United. The hearing will take place over three days from August 22.

West Ham say the document was rescinded and its terms were never executed because it was not countersigned by Tevez. But the copy of the document filed at yesterday's hearing was furnished with dates and signatures, prompting West Ham's challenge over its authenticity.

MSI-JSI interpret this as a delaying tactic but it is believed the club's lawyers are preparing to call a graphologist and forensic experts at the hearing. MSI-JSI's counsel will respond by calling Tevez, Magnusson and the West Ham chief executive, Scott Duxbury, to give evidence under oath.

The debate about the authenticity of the document might most simply be settled by the Premier League's chief executive, Richard Scudamore, whose organisation received a copy before a disciplinary commission hearing in April. Scudamore is also set to be subpoenaed by the offshore companies, which are fronted by Kia Joorabchian.

West Ham hope a negotiated settlement can be achieved before August 22. However, MSI-JSI have not received the proposed terms of any compromise agreement because these must first be approved by the Premier League.

That may prove difficult because the league is holding the club to their undertakings in May. This was when they informed the league they had torn up all third-party contracts relating to Tevez and MSI-JSI.

C&P from the Mail:

Quote:

Another row over Tevez contract
Last updated at 10:30am on 1st August 2007


West Ham are likely to escape fresh punishment from the Premier League over the emergence of a second contract agreed with Carlos Tevez's representatives.


The club are disputing the authenticity and relevance of the document which suggests the Argentine signed a new deal at Upton Park on 1 December last year.


If proven to be valid, the contract could seriously damage their legal fight with Kia Joorabchian, even though it would have averted any punishment from the Premier League over the Tevez debacle.


A High Court hearing has been set for 22 August, when Joorabchian's lawyers will argue for an injunction which allows Tevez to join Manchester United before the end of the transfer window.

But it is understood that the sides were still today attempting to negotiate an out-of-court settlement.

West Ham were fined £5.5million by a Premier League commission in April for breaking rules on third-party ownership.

But the commission's decision was based on the contract agreed with Tevez in August 2006 as the existence of the second contract was not made public until yesterday.

West Ham had blamed their previous regime under ex-chairman Terry Brown and managing director Paul Aldridge for the Tevez debacle, but new chairman Eggert Magnusson had taken control of the club by 1 December.

It is understood Magnusson was unhappy with the third-party agreement relating to Tevez and, on completion his £108m takeover in November, ordered a new contract to be drawn up so that the 23-year-old would be contracted to the club only until July and not until 2010 as stated in the August agreement.

West Ham, however, claim that the second contract was never executed, even though it was signed by director Scott Duxbury and subsequently forwarded to the Premier League prior to the independent tribunal in April.

The club's lawyers have also questioned the validity of the second contract because of doubts over whether Tevez signed it in December or at a later date, possibly June.

Ironically, had the second contract been executed, it is possible that West Ham would have been found not guilty of breaking Premier League rules and would have avoid the subsequent furore and the £5.5 million fine.


In the preliminary hearing into at the High Court, West Ham's barrister Michael Bowsher QC said: "The binding agreement is the first agreement, the longer term contract.

"There are doubts over the authenticity of the second agreement. The signatures of these individuals other than those signatures from West Ham were not made on the date purported and that is relevant."

It was also suggested in court that handwriting experts may be called to provide a view on when the contract was signed by Tevez.

Sources close to Joorabchian insist it was signed at the correct time.

Joorabchian, whose company Media Sport Investments claims to hold the "economic rights" to Tevez, is suing West Ham for breach of contract and wants the High Court to give the green light for the player to complete a proposed £20m transfer to Manchester United.


But West Ham hold Tevez's registration and have given an pledge to the Premier League - following their fine - that they will only sell him on for full "market value".

The Hammers claimed to have torn up the third-party agreement with Joorabchian in April, thereby negating his companies' rights to take the largest slice of any transfer fee.

 

[talkshowhost86]

So basically West Ham will now get the 30m next year?

They must be crying into their bovril that they had to pay that massive 5.5m fine before.

Absolutely disgraceful really and as has been said just proof that cheats can prosper.

 

[Moore6]

So basically West Ham will now get the 30m next year?

They must be crying into their bovril that they had to pay that massive 5.5m fine before.

Absolutely disgraceful really and as has been said just proof that cheats can prosper.

MSI own his economic rights and will therefore get any future transfer fee.

We will simply get £2m for releasing his playing registration.

If we didnt terminate the original contract then MSI would have only had to pay us £100k (that was the amount stated in the original contract).

 

[talkshowhost86]

MSI own his economic rights and will therefore get any future transfer fee.

We will simply get £2m for releasing his playing registration.

If we didnt terminate the original contract then MSI would have only had to pay us £100k (that was the amount stated in the original contract).

If that's the case how does that satisfy the Premier League's demand that West Ham get the substantial part of any transfer fee?

And even in getting that 2m it makes a mockery of the initial verdict. Effectively West Ham have been fined 3.5m for an act of cheating that landed them up to 50m.

Ridiculous.

 

[Moore6]

If that's the case how does that satisfy the Premier League's demand that West Ham get the substantial part of any transfer fee?

And even in getting that 2m it makes a mockery of the initial verdict. Effectively West Ham have been fined 3.5m for an act of cheating that landed them up to 50m.

Ridiculous.

The PL never said that. The PL only ever said that a deal must be agreed between the 2 clubs. They never mentioned who should receive the money or how much. The press have simply speculated on this point.

We will not get £50m. We get £2m for releasing the registration, nothing else.

 

[talkshowhost86]

The PL never said that. The PL only ever said that a deal must be agreed between the 2 clubs. They never mentioned who should receive the money or how much. The press have simply speculated on this point.

We will not get £50m. We get £2m for releasing the registration, nothing else.

You get 50m for staying in the Premiership when by rights you should have been relegated. The player who you broke the rules to get has kept you in the league and gained you all the TV money and everything else that goes with it.

And for this West Ham have been fined 3.5m? Seems totally fair doesn't it?

 

[Moore6]

You get 50m for staying in the Premiership when by rights you should have been relegated. The player who you broke the rules to get has kept you in the league and gained you all the TV money and everything else that goes with it.

And for this West Ham have been fined 3.5m? Seems totally fair doesn't it?

So you are going back to the original argument regarding whether or not the PL were right to fine WHU instead of deducting them points?

Im not going back over that again. Its been done to death. I personally think that the reasons given for not deducting points were valid. Some people wont and some people will. That could be argued for ages, as has already been the case.

 

[talkshowhost86]

So you are going back to the original argument regarding whether or not the PL were right to fine WHU instead of deducting them points?

Im not going back over that again. Its been done to death. I personally think that the reasons given for not deducting points were valid. Some people wont and some people will. That could be argued for ages, as has already been the case.

You can't possibly think that because you appear to be an intelligent person, and no intelligent person can look at the reasons given for not deducting points and say 'yeah that makes sense'.

But as you've said that's been done to death and we all know the Premier League were wrong and have totally let West Ham off the hook.

One last thing...are you honestly telling me that this deal has been done exclusively between West Ham and Manchester United? Does anybody honestly believe that MSI havn't had some input on the transfer fee and the destination? Do we honestly believe that if West Ham had agreed to sell him for 100k to Peterborough that MSI would have allowed it?

MSI still exert an influence over Tevez that is not allowed under Premier League rules. It's an absolute farce.

 

[llamafarmer]

We will not get £50m. We get £2m for releasing the registration, nothing else.

I think he's referring to the difference in income you'll have by having stayed in the Premiership.

£50m a year!

You argue your points well Moore6, but I can't help but believe West Ham have gotten away with it! They have never owned Tevez, there has always been a third party influence and they will now receive half their fine back in the form of compensation!

 

[TheChosenOne]

Conspiracy theory ..

Man U & WH U decide to let WH win at Old Trafford on the last day of the season, enabling WH U to stay up, on the strength that WH U sell Tevez to Man U. job done.

Bit of a smokescreen involved but it works.

 

[Moore6]

You can't possibly think that because you appear to be an intelligent person, and no intelligent person can look at the reasons given for not deducting points and say 'yeah that makes sense'.

But as you've said that's been done to death and we all know the Premier League were wrong and have totally let West Ham off the hook.

One last thing...are you honestly telling me that this deal has been done exclusively between West Ham and Manchester United? Does anybody honestly believe that MSI havn't had some input on the transfer fee and the destination? Do we honestly believe that if West Ham had agreed to sell him for 100k to Peterborough that MSI would have allowed it?

MSI still exert an influence over Tevez that is not allowed under Premier League rules. It's an absolute farce.

Of course MSI still have an influence over Tevez, in the same way they still have an influence over Mascherano. They own their economic rights.

They are not allowed to have an influence over the clubs that hold their registrations though, that is the key.

The only difference between their deals with Liverpool & Man Utd compared to their deal with West Ham is that they dont contain an option to move the players on without the agreement of the club.

They have both learned from West Ham's mistake.

After Eggy terminated the agreement with MSI, they no longer had an influence over West Ham either. Hence the reason why a compensation payment was needed in order for WHU to agree to the transfer.

West Ham only agreed to let Tevez leave when a £2m compensation payment was agreed.

 

[The Apprentice]

So the chav wankers get no punishment?

Good job. It would have been a waste of 6 points to send em down.

 

[Moore6]

So the chav wankers get no punishment?

Good job. It would have been a waste of 6 points to send em down.

Why on earth would Spurs be punished over this?

:wink:

 

[Moore6]

West Ham Statement

03/08/2007 14:40
West Ham United can confirm that a settlement has been reached today with the representatives of Carlos Tevez which will allow the player to leave the Club.

The settlement ends the current litigation taking place between the respective parties and provides for a £2million fee to be paid to West Ham United. The agreement confirms that West Ham United do have a valid player's contract with Carlos Tevez and hold the registration of the player. This will be released once the agreed fee has been paid to the Club.

The terms of the settlement are consistent with undertakings given by West Ham United to the Premier League and the rules of The Football Association.

Commenting on today's announcement, Eggert Magnusson, Chairman of West Ham United, said: "I am obviously pleased that we have finally reached the end of this saga through agreement and common sense.

"All parties involved can now move on and truly focus on the new season.

"I wish Carlos Tevez well for the next stage of his playing career. He is a fine player and I am sure he will be successful wherever he plays football.

"Personally, I am looking forward to the next stage of our development as a club and for what I hope will be a very exciting new season in the Premier League."