Tevez Affair

[Easy 10]

West Ham rather meekly held their hands up and said fair cop at the time of the initial investigation in order to get rid of the case asap. When in my opinion they should have contested the case.

No they didn't. When the PL came knocking at the door during the INITIAL investigation, and specifically asked whether or not Tevez was subject to 3rd party ownership, West Sham lied and said no, he wasn't. It was only during a subsequent investigation (when the PL went back to ALL the Prem clubs to ask this question), that West Shams initial deception was (eventually) uncovered.

 

[Easy 10]

Sheffield United went down because they were Shit over the whole season !!

Before they came into the equasion it was Dave Whelan who was gonna be doing all the sueing when it looked like Wigan were going to be relegated. Funny how he clambed up after they were safe !!

West Ham held their hands up and took the (amazingly harsh) fine on the chin. Now, (unts like Warnock are coming out of the woodwork wanting their 2 bob !!

Maybe all the Albion fans so on his side on this forum should remember the Notts County play-off final when his lot feigned an injury while we were the better team and then went and scored straight away !!

What a hero he is

Lets not start letting agendas and prejudices cloud the issue. Yes Warnock is an obnoxious tosser at times, but thats got nothing to do with what happened here.

West Sham played a ringer all season long who they should not have been allowed to play - a guy who was absolutely instrumental in them escaping the drop, particularly during that run-in. We can safely say that had it been Marlon Harewood in Tevez's shirt that year, they might have struggled a bit.

Lesser clubs get points deducted or kicked out of competitions for fielding an ineligable player for ONE game. West Sham played Tevez ALL SEASON and got away with a tap on the wrist !

 

[Hove Seagull]

But, what Hotchilidog is saying, is that west ham did nothing wrong, and that the Tevez agreement with Kia Joorabchian only put in writing, the "gentlemens agreements" that are present in any loan deal. What I want to know is, what were they actually guilty of?

 

[Hotchilidog]

No they didn't. When the PL came knocking at the door during the INITIAL investigation, and specifically asked whether or not Tevez was subject to 3rd party ownership, West Sham lied and said no, he wasn't. It was only during a subsequent investigation (when the PL went back to ALL the Prem clubs to ask this question), that West Shams initial deception was (eventually) uncovered.

It is true that there was non disclosure of the disputed clause. But even this did not affect tevez's registration to play for West Ham and it never did. In their summation when delivering the £5million fine it was made clear by the PL that they were opposed to the potential 3rd party interference, but that they accepted that NO 3rd party influence actually had occurred.

Seeing as the PL do accept 3rd party influence in many instances, in which teams can affect the selection of their opponents (and let's face it the disputed clause was hardly to West Ham's benefit) I fail to see what problem they had at all in the first place.

There was no precedent for this 'offence' so no set penalty, but Tevez was eligible to play at all times. The punishment should have been meted out to people like Brown and Duxbury who presided over the whole mess, with admittedly shady behaviour. It should not have affected what goes on on the pitch. And it must be pointed out that no-one was moaning when west Ham were dropping like a stone after the signing of the two argentinians.

3rd party ownership is not outlawed by FIFA, the PL rules regarding this are still unclear to most people, hence your quizzical appraisal of Tevez's current situation. They should sort it out.

West Ham stayed up fair and square, by winning games when they had to, with help of good performances from the likes of yes tevez, rob green, bobby zamora, mark noble etc, not to mention the ref at blackburn who allowed bobby's winner to stand despite the fact it hit tevez on the line maybe he should be sued aswell?.

All the teams at the bottom had ample opportunity to put the nails in West Ham's relegation coffin but weren't good enough to do so. Well tough, that's football.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Lets not start letting agendas and prejudices cloud the issue. West Sham played a ringer all season long who they should not have been allowed to play

No they didn't. See above post.

 

[The Lemming Stomper]

Lets not start letting agendas and prejudices cloud the issue. Yes Warnock is an obnoxious tosser at times, but thats got nothing to do with what happened here.

West Sham played a ringer all season long who they should not have been allowed to play - a guy who was absolutely instrumental in them escaping the drop, particularly during that run-in. We can safely say that had it been Marlon Harewood in Tevez's shirt that year, they might have struggled a bit.

Lesser clubs get points deducted or kicked out of competitions for fielding an ineligable player for ONE game. West Sham played Tevez ALL SEASON and got away with a tap on the wrist !

For someone who refers to West Ham as West Sham i don't think you are in a position to preach on prejudices or agendas !!

 

[sten_super]

No that is not the case at all. What the PL were unhappy about was a clause in the contract that would potentially have enabled Joorabchian to sell Tevez in the transfer window unless WHU came up with the dosh first. This had nothing to do with selection, or Tevez's eligibility (he was ALWAYS eligible to play for West Ham, people are still incorrectly reporting this).

Apologies for my inaccuracies, I was trying to recall from memory what had gone on.

To me it seems a bit like Ken Bates at Leeds; everything is so murky, and there is so much deception, that it's impossible to work out what actually happened.

West Ham get fined; state that they have terminated agreement with Joorabchian. At the same time, according to the findings of Lord Griffiths, the West Ham chief executive, Scott Duxberry, was busy reassuring Joorabchian that the agreement was still in place. Joorabchian sued West Ham for breach of contract, and won. Tevez continues to play last 3 games for West Ham, scoring crucial goals which keep them up. Tevez then leaves the club and signs 'on loan' for Manchester United.

If the agreement between Joorabchian and West Ham was terminated, how did Tevez remain a West Ham player? If he suddenly overnight became a West Ham player, why are West Ham not receiving all of the funds from his loan to Manchester United? So many questions so few answers.

 

[clapham_gull]

Good question. A: Why were they fined £5million, media hysteria and the need to be seen doing something when they didn't even know what they were doing themselves. Also West Ham rather meekly held their hands up and said fair cop at the time of the initial investigation in order to get rid of the case asap. When in my opinion they should have contested the case.

B: Why did they agree compensation with those cry baby talentless muppets? Well they are trying to flog the club at the moment, a clear resolution to this whole farce clarifies the position for any potential buyer.

C: How is it different from any other loan deal, well you saved the best question till last as I would like to hear an answer from the PL on that one. The main problem with this deal was that there was a specific clause written into the contract which potentially gave Kia the option to sell in the window (much in the same way a loan player can be recalled at anytime), rather than the usual verbal or so called gentlemen's agreements that clubs have in these situations. In fact Sheff Utd famously exercised this option themselves in another case, oh the irony!

The quite obvious difference between that and a loan deal is that the loaning club operates under the laws and guidelines laid by FIFA etc...

.. whilst a private individual er... doesn't.

 

[Skint Gull]

At the end of the day there's nothing to dispute here regarding whether or not West Ham broke any rules, they've admitted breaking rules and been found guilty by the league and at a tribunal, they were GUILTY of the charges against them.

The issue is the penalty which is quite obviously rediculiously lenient and as I said earlier would never have happened if it had been Sheff Utd fielding the ineligable and West getting relgated as a result!

 

[The Lemming Stomper]

At the end of the day there's nothing to dispute here regarding whether or not West Ham broke any rules, they've admitted breaking rules and been found guilty by the league and at a tribunal, they were GUILTY of the charges against them.

The issue is the penalty which is quite obviously rediculiously lenient and as I said earlier would never have happened if it had been Sheff Utd fielding the ineligable and West getting relgated as a result!

But the penalty was given a long time before the end of the season (as the prem league thought west ham were down anyway)

Sheff utd (if they were in the same situation) would have had the same penalty.

It's not as if the decision was made at the end of the season sending Sheff Utd down !!

 

[Hotchilidog]

The quite obvious difference between that and a loan deal is that the loaning club operates under the laws and guidelines laid by FIFA etc...

.. whilst a private individual er... doesn't.

FIFA guidlelines do not outlaw 3rd party companies from owning the 'economic rights' of players. You may well argue that they should do, but at the moment it is allowed. Manchester Utd do not own Carlos Tevez, they have an option to pay an agreed fee with Kia's company at the end of an agreed term, which they look unlikely to do. Kia will then be free to settle him elsewhere.

If 3rd party agreements were not permitted then this situation would not have arisen, but the plain fact is, that they are permitted.

The loan system is far more open to abuse as teams can actually influence the team selection of an opponent thanks to non-written verbal agreements. Tim Howard not playing for Everton against Man Utd in a crucial game immediately springs to mind.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

At the end of the day there's nothing to dispute here regarding whether or not West Ham broke any rules, they've admitted breaking rules and been found guilty by the league and at a tribunal, they were GUILTY of the charges against them.

The issue is the penalty which is quite obviously rediculiously lenient and as I said earlier would never have happened if it had been Sheff Utd fielding the ineligable and West getting relgated as a result!

 

[sten_super]

The loan system is far more open to abuse as teams can actually influence the team selection of an opponent thanks to non-written verbal agreements. Tim Howard not playing for Everton against Man Utd in a crucial game immediately springs to mind.

That's not quite the case. Players are specifically NOT allowed to play against the team that they have been loaned by, to prevent them from being in a position where they have split loyalties. The issue with Howard is that Everton had exercised a clause allowing them to buy him on a permanent basis, thereby making him elligible to play against Man Utd, but Everton 'chose' not to play him, either because they weren't aware of the rules (as he'd been officially transferred outside of the transfer window), or (more likely) because there was a gentleman's agreement between the clubs that he wouldn't play despite being eligible.

 

[Easy 10]

The point is, there IS a distinct difference between football clubs loaning players around amongst themselves, and 3rd party organisations outside of the Leagues jurisdiction owning players and their economic rights and "loaning" them to League clubs.

Regardless of whether FIFA allow it, the Premier Leagues rules stipulate that they do not allow it within their competition. Therefore, Tevez was registered to play for West Sham under false pretences, and so should have been (under the PL's own rules) INELIGABLE to play for them. Its only the falshoods and lies that made him "eligable" at the time to the PL.