Tevez

[Easy 10]

At the bottom of an article in The Times today:

"A bid for Benzema would raise further doubts about the future of Carlos Tévez, whose contract with United expires at the end of the season, with the club facing a £32 million bill to sign him from the investment companies that own his economic rights."

I don't recall the FAPL revising or relaxing their rules about 3rd party ownership since this whole thing with West Sham blew up last year, yet every time I see any speculation about Tevez's future at Man Utd, something like this is trotted out very matter-of-factly. MSI paid West Sham £2m to get them to release Tevez's registration with them, then Man U picked him up on a 2 year "loan" deal. But ultimately, it seems he is STILL owned by these 3rd party "investment companies" who will presumably profit from his sale when he moves on from Man U. How come the FAPL are ok with this ?

I'm confused.

 

[champion7]

You and me both Easy,i was under the impression that a palyer could not be owned by anyone other than the club he's playing for or the club who have loaned him out.

 

[Walkers Cajun Squirrel]

Because it is a loan deal it is OK. There is always a third party in a loan deal. The two clubs and the play. Except this time it is one club, the player and an agent/company.

 

[Easy 10]

So who gets the money when he is sold then ?

 

[Marshy]

I am confused, and even more confused with 32 million !

Hes a poor mans Rooney in my book, 15 million tops is his value.

Id kick him out and concentrate elsewhere if i were United.

 

[Walkers Cajun Squirrel]

So who gets the money when he is sold then ?

The company that owns him. He is not contracted to any other club than man utd.

 

[Smythe]

Football has gone completley mad if Tevez is worth 32million. What with Man City threatening to spend 200 million in 1 transfer window.......is the bubble gonna burst?

 

[Easy 10]

The company that owns him. He is not contracted to any other club than man utd.

Thats my point. Its a breach of FAPL rules for players to be owned by a 3rd party.
Why is it ok for Man U to have Tevez in their team, but not West Sham ?

 

[Walkers Cajun Squirrel]

Thats my point. Its a breach of FAPL rules for players to be owned by a 3rd party.
Why is it ok for Man U to have Tevez in their team, but not West Sham ?

West Ham:
Owned by a company
Lent to Corinthians
Corinthians then lent him to west ham
Tevez was therefore owned by the company, Corinthians and west ham. Therefore 4 parties involved (one being tevez)

Man utd:
Owned by a company
Lent to man utd
Tevez is therefore owned by the company and man utd. Therefore 3 parties involved (one being tevez)

 

[captainmorganrum]

I hope nobody is suggesting that Man United have broken any rules and should be docked points or something silly like that.

Look, a flying pig!

 

[Easy 10]

West Ham:
Owned by a company
Lent to Corinthians
Corinthians then lent him to west ham
Tevez was therefore owned by the company, Corinthians and west ham. Therefore 4 parties involved (one being tevez)

Man utd:
Owned by a company
Lent to man utd
Tevez is therefore owned by the company and man utd. Therefore 3 parties involved (one being tevez)

Of course there are always three parties in any deal (the buying club, the selling club and the player/his representative). That goes without saying.

But there is a difference between a football club and a 3rd party company, they are not one and the same. Tevez is owned by a 3rd party company, MSI, who are lending him to Man Utd. They are not a football club, they are a company outside of football - therefore this breaches the FAPL's rules. They're not borrowing him from West Sham, they're not borrowing him from Corinthians. If he is sold, then presumably the proceeds will go out of the game and straight to MSI.

Thats not supposed to be allowed.

 

[keaton]

The whole Tevez thing has been fudged because the Premier League didn't want to send West Ham, legally it makes no sense at all

 

[Monkster]

Of course there are always three parties in any deal (the buying club, the selling club and the player/his representative). That goes without saying.

But there is a difference between a football club and a 3rd party company, they are not one and the same. Tevez is owned by a 3rd party company, MSI, who are lending him to Man Utd. They are not a football club, they are a company outside of football - therefore this breaches the FAPL's rules. They're not borrowing him from West Sham, they're not borrowing him from Corinthians. If he is sold, then presumably the proceeds will go out of the game and straight to MSI.

Thats not supposed to be allowed.

So why aren't Liverpool in the dock with the other Argentine, they loaned him for 6 months then paid £18M for MSI at the start of this season.....

 

[Mendoza]

Thats not supposed to be allowed.

Its Manchester United, they have no rules. The Frazer Campbell thing slipped under the radar too

 

[sten_super]

What Frazier Campbell thing?

As I understood it, West Ham got in trouble because the third party had an interest in the club; i.e. they could tell West Ham when to play or not play their players. This was what they were done for, not having a player who was owned by a 3rd party.

 

[Easy 10]

So why aren't Liverpool in the dock with the other Argentine, they loaned him for 6 months then paid £18M for MSI at the start of this season.....

No idea. This isn't an anti Man U thing. Its just that the FAPL seem to have one rule for one and one rule for another. Or at least they only seem to actually APPLY their rules when it suits them. Its like this pathetic "fit and proper person" test for club ownership that Scudamore blathers on about. Its all BOLLOCKS.

Still, as long as somebody makes lots of money out of it, I guess that makes it all ok. Thats all that really matters in the FAPL innit.

 

[Monkster]

No idea. This isn't an anti Man U thing. Its just that the FAPL seem to have one rule for one and one rule for another. Or at least they only seem to actually APPLY their rules when it suits them. Its like this pathetic "fit and proper person" test for club ownership that Scudamore blathers on about. Its all BOLLOCKS.

Still, as long as somebody makes lots of money out of it, I guess that makes it all ok. Thats all that really matters in the FAPL innit.

Let's just hope that Football is the real winner

 

[Mendoza]

What Frazier Campbell thing?

With Man United and Tottenham and Dmitar Berbatov. Spurs saying he is in they have agreed a fee with Manchester CITY, yet all the while, Ferguson had flown in to court Berbatov himself, without permission.

Tottenham then saying there is no way he will go to Manchester United as they havent bid for him, whilst in the background Man U were doing the contract negotiations.

Then they say they have done a deal without Spurs knowing, Spurs are fuming, saying Man U have broken the rules, they will sue, etc etc.

Then once the Berbatov thing goes through, Tottenham suddenly have Fraier Campbell on their books and shut up about complaining

The whole deal stunk

 

[Easy 10]

As I understood it, West Ham got in trouble because the third party had an interest in the club; i.e. they could tell West Ham when to play or not play their players. This was what they were done for, not having a player who was owned by a 3rd party.

Not quite.
They got into trouble for breaching the FAPL rule that states that you cannot sign a player who is under 3rd party ownership. They signed Tevez and Mascharano from MSI (via Kia Joorabichan), then when questioned by the FAPL, lied about the 3rd party involvement. And then lied to the FAPL again when the deal was further investigated the following January.

There was never any suggestion that MSI were dictating team selection, but the fact that they were involved in the deal that took Tevez and Mascharano to Upton Park was a breach of the rules.

If Tevez moves in January, I'll be very interested to see where the transfer fee goes.

 

[Gritt23]

If Tevez moves in January, I'll be very interested to see where the transfer fee goes.

It will be an "undisclosed fee" and everyone will move off shuffling their feet, hands in pockets and whistling a little tune.

The game is run / owned by agents these days. That's the truth but teh authorities can't face admitting it. The deals are made deliberating complicated, so that the old duffer in Soho Sq. don't have a clue, and therefore just huff and puff for a while, then allow it to happen.

Still, at least we can rely on UEFA and FIFA to step in and save us with their good common sense, authoritive running of the game.

:thud: