egafd.com

Just what the hell is happening?

West Ham assured the PL that the Tevez situation was all sorted, and that there was no 3rd party ownership of Tevez any longer. This was the reason they were allowed to keep on playing him throughout the season.

The deal with Mascherano and Liverpool went ok. Same club, same 3rd party. Something stinks. The guy who has the economic rights for Tevez was rumoured to have evidence against West Ham that may be useful for Sheff Utd's case, and 2 days later the guy is arrested.

West Ham seem to be sitting pretty don't they? They get, and field an illegal player that cost them fuck all, he keeps them up just about single-handedly, and they're in for a windfall if someone buys Tevez outright.

A year later and who's any clearer about who owns Tevez?

Oops, wrong forum mods.............sorry!

I hope it gets sorted soon, he's in my dream team!!

Kia Joorabchian and MSI own Tevez. They always have and still do and far from sitting pretty West Ham now face a world of hurt as if they don't receive all of the fee from Tevez sale (or loan) then that's an admission that the 3rd party agreement wasn't torn up and leaves them open to a massive compensation claim from Sheff Utd.

If they do keep the fee then look for Joorabchian and MSI to sell them down the river as they are not going to wave goodbye to an asset worth 25m smackers just to save West Ham's backs.

Unless some sort of skulduggary goes on behind the scenes with brown envelopes being passed then it's difficult to see how West Ham can get themselves out of this.

"Kia Joorabchian and MSI own Tevez."

I thought slavery had been abolished! how can you "own" someone, even in a contract you cant "own" someone"

Ok they own his football and economic rights then if that's worded better.

eduardo

The initial "4 year" contract that pretty much entitled west ham to nothing more than the economic rights to tevez was ripped up straight after the original inquest and a new contract that gave WHU pretty much exclusive rights to tevez`s ownership as requested by the prem league was enforced.

WHU never entered into any loan agreement and the original deal was on the basis that tevez would sign a 4 year deal with the option to review he`s contract with the club each and every year, since then new owners have moved into Upton Park and they now see things very differently.

This is about to get even more uglier than it already is, WHU can not legally allow tevez to join man utd on a 2 year loan basis as has been suggested by joorbachian and Man Utd as it would be in breach of a serious premier league rule that states that said club must gain "realistic" profit from the sale of an asset.

Meanwhile joorbachian swears blind that he has full ownership of tevez and that the players contract belongs solely to him therefore no transfer fee be neccesary as MSI owns the player.

My guess is that at some point later on in the week we will hear confirmation that tevez has signed a deal "in principle" to join manchester united.

However this one will go to the courts as eggert magnusson has made it quite clear he expects a full transfer fee to be paid to west ham united in return for tevez`s services and while joorbachian may indeed be correct in that it is he`s company that owns carlos tevez an independent inquiry set up after the original hearing stated that the new deal agreed by all partys was not in breach of any rules as it gave west ham full ownership of the player.

Hopefully the Famous Man Yoo will get dragged into the shit with it all too. How much is that debt spiralling up to now?? Oh dear...........

So is that absolutely certain then that the 3rd party agreement has or had been torn up because I thought I read that at the original hearing and also at (Sheff Utd's) appeal that major doubts were expressed by those panels and that they suspected that the 3rd party agreement was still in place although they couldn't prove it?

Is this not the case?

I also thought I read that the Premier League asked for proof that the agreement had been ripped up but never actually received this and took West Ham on their word.

Is this not the case either?

I'm not arguing with you about it because as a Hammers fan I reckon you know more about this than me but this case has got so complicated I'm not sure of the facts anymore.