Pardew Slates Eggert

Alan Pardew was on Sky Sports this morning and made some very interesting remarks about his former club. He laid into Eggert Magnusson and basically blamed him for the club’s current woes. He also said he tried to sign Craig Bellamy.

The big problem of course at West Ham was when Eggert came in, who I had no respect for and no relationship with. That was never going to end or start well. He never showed me much respect to be honest. He kept wanting to buy eight different positions, but the first time I spoke to him I said I didn’t really need that many. He wanted to buy the world. I thought he was a bit naive and the best thing to happen to West Ham is that he’s no longer there. I just feel at that time he was not really understanding how it worked.

In our second year in the Premiership, which is always a tricky year, we had a takeover and it really caused havoc to be honest. It unsettles you. Everybody becomes wary of their position. Is the manager still going to be here? Are the players and the staff going to change? Everyone gets a little bit nervous. I’ve had three takeovers in my managerial career, which isn’t particularly long. The first part of the West Ham takeover was slightly contrived because Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano were involved. Up until that point we hadn’t signed anybody in that window and I was getting very concerned. There were two or three positions I really wanted to fill. The board were obviously wanting the club to be taken over and I was not aware of some of the conversations that were going on at that time. At the end of the window I was told there was a chance of getting these two world-class players, but not in the positions I particularly wanted to fill if I’m totally honest. But I wasn’t going to turn down the opportunity to manage two players I’d watched in the World Cup that summer. I was going to bring them in.

We didn’t actually fill the positions I wanted to. We had a weakness in the squad that unfortunately came out to play massively as the season progressed. Those two players were absolutely outstanding but Tevez hadn’t played for eight months because of a ban and a problem at his former club and they were both not quite ready. We tried to introduce them, I think there was a bit of animosity and we had takeovers. It was a very complicated situation. They weren’t expecting to play. I have to say they were both brilliant professionals in their time at West Ham.

But every time I introduced them unfortunately nothing really worked for us and it didn’t kick on, which was a shame. Tevez did show, especially towards the end, what he was all about. He played a big, big part in saving them from relegation.

You can read a summary of his remarks HERE.


50 Responses to Pardew Slates Eggert

  1. DevoDevo says:

    I liked Pardew’s passion but thought he was out of his depth tactically, although he ws undermined by the big time Charlies in the dressing room, all of whom have gone now.

    He talked about trying different things with them but, as far as I can recall he barely played Mascherano. Rumours were that this was down to his contract.

    Most fans liked Eggert. he was colourful, passionate and had a history in football, unlike most of these foreign owners.

  2. ian says:

    So it was Eggy who made Pardew get his dipstick wet was it?

  3. Wicksy says:

    I have to agree with Devo, i liked eggert as i think most of us he seemed to be leading us into a new era. But we should have known better than that just another dream that faded. i also think there is more chance of finding out whether the Kennedys had anything to do with the death of Miss Monroe than we will of finding out what really has been going on at our beloved west ham and the likes of Duxbury, BG, Egg and the whole Tevez saga. All we can do is keep the faith that Zola and co keep us moving in the right direction and that maybe one day soon we can only have the need to worry about whats happening on the pitch rather than whats happening behind the doors of the board room. COYI.

  4. aussie graham says:

    If the previous regime could have kept our squad together without flash arry selling and making a few quick quid we would have had most of the current England team and we would not be in the current mess. would it not be nice to get one of our true fans who could do what we all crave and do a jack walker and buy us all the success our long suffering desire and not keep attracting asset strippers!At least eggy thought the big picture.remember one thing always west ham still won the world cup!

  5. SJ Chandos says:

    Yes, I saw the programme and Pardews comments. The real reason for our struggles in 2006/07 was that the old regime refused to provide the funds to strengthen the squad in the summer, pending the takeover. As he said, prior to the Tevez and Mascherano deal, the club had failed to recruit any of Pardews targets. If I remember he wanted to strengthen the right side, a right back and right sided midfielder.

    I liked Eggbert’s communication skills and commitment to taking the club forward. But it is probably true that he was a bit naive, reflected in the inflated wage packages he agreed for some of the players recruited during his period as Chair. However, it was soon clear that the new regime that took control of the club wanted to appoint their own manager, for whatever reason.

    I though that his comments about Bellamy were unfair. But that’s his opinion and he is entitled to express it! Good luck to him in finding a new manager’s post.

    The Chandos award for the craziest report in the Sunday Papers, this week, goes to a Mr Stammers of the Sunday Mirror. It is so mad that I hesitate to replicate it, but he reckons that Wenger will take Jack Collison off our hands (yeah, I bet he would if he got the chance) and the deal will be ….. wait for it! Collison for Bentner and us paying them £5m!!!!!!

    Where do they get this crap from? You would have to be an idiot or a tabloid hack to fall for that one! lol.

  6. SJ Chandos says:

    Yes Aussie Graham, the Hammers did win the World Cup for England. The goals were fashioned on the training fields at Chadwell Heath. However, I sometimes wonder if a lot of the hostility towards our club is a by-product of that and the fact that all the Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc, squads that followed have never come close to winning it!

    There is certainly a great deal of jealousy, hence the frequent attacks by the hacks upon our heritage and achievements. How many times have you read articles or reports where they refer to us as the ‘so-called’ or ‘self-appointed’ Academy of English football? That is something that really bugs the hacks for some reason?

  7. Chris (who knows a few bookies who'll miss Etherington) says:

    Have to say i was and still am a massive Pardew fan. He was passionate and really cared about the club, you can tell he still wants to be here and is bitterly disappointed at how things turned out.
    Liked Eggert, but Pardew’s not the only person not to have got on with him. This is the chairman that sanctioned or bought Boa Morte for 6 odd million and Ljungberg for 3. He was sacked for a reason. And I think its a crying shame the current chairman is going to the soup kitchens because I really think he knows what he’s doing.
    C’est la vie.
    Up you irons!

  8. FrannyZola says:

    I don’t think Pardew was given a fair chance really. The most successful manager ever thought quite highly of Pardew:

    “[Alan] Pardew at Charlton has got something about him, he is a good young manager.” SIR ALEX FERGUSON

    The best moments were the fight with Arsene Winger and the Pardew shuffle.

    I liked Eggert too but I think he thought he was playing a video game. The effects of his big wage packet hand outs will be with us for a long time because most of those players are still here though it is clear we are trying to get rid of them (e.g Neil). Those handouts set a new wage precedent….raised the bar.

    It was also the underlying cause of Green’s contract issue few months back. If your own mate sacks you, as BG did with Eggert, then you must be doing something wrong.

  9. IronMick says:

    Yeah I had a fondness for good old Eggert initilly, however behind that exterior of passion and enthusiasm (which is why slighty naively we all loved him) it does seem that he was living a bit of a fantasy. I for one am glad he is gone – as FrannyZola quite correctly stated if your own mate gives you the boot – something is very wrong.

    I believe had he stil been in charge we would be going down the same road a good old Wollies! We are still recovering from some of he’s major mistakes ( Ljungberg for example).
    I’m just disappointed the BG seems to be in the financial position he seems to be in as, I think he has the right idea of where our football club should be going and the way in which we can get there ( homegrown talent, and young players with great potential from overseas)
    oh well – at last the spuds lost 🙂

  10. SJ Chandos says:

    Stupidity or duplicity? The question I ask myself about the football press is do they genuinely believe what they write or is it a case of consciously pursuing a story line for maximum impact?

    I watch programmes involving football hacks and it tells me that they are not exactly some of the finest minds in the country. Yet, it is the way in which they continually, over and over again, repeat the same misinformation, even though it has been officially denied by the club or disproved. It is as if they are employing the classic propaganda tactic of authoritively restating a lie so many times that people come to accept it as fact.

    Yet, I have read many of the hacks’ moralistic, holier than thou pieces on the Tevez case and they clearly do not understand the basic facts. They make incorrect statements like Tevez was inelligiable; Tevez was illegally registered to play; the Hammers broke PL rules on ‘third party ownership;’ and West Ham Utd should have been awarded a points deduction on the basis of PL rules. They treat these things as axiomatic (a truth beyond dispute) and show no balance or shadow of doubt about them. Deceitful tactic or lack of understanding? I have not yet come to a conclusion, perhaps the truth is it is a bit of both?

    But for me, one of the things that stands out is that Sheffield Utd and their fellow travellers have had a great communication success. They have been able to project simple and effect messages that have struck a cord with the press and public. These are that they are fighting for justice, they were only relegated because of Tevez and that West Ham Utd should have been deducted points by all standards of decency and fair play! The tabloid press, for whatever reason, have lapped this up!

    At the same time the accusations of hypocrisy, double standards and sheer financial opportunism have countered. And the result has been that West Ham have been left fighting a losing communications battle, largely because their defence is based upon the true and complex facts of the case, which the press and public cannot or do not understand.

    West Ham Utd PLC need to belated address this. They need a coherant communications strategy to support their case and combat the lies and distortions of the Sheffield Utd camp. A lot of damage has been done, but it is never too late to start fighting back in a propaganda war that they have hitherto been losing! They have commissioned a first class legal team, perhaps they should also now employ a innovative, proactive, well connected and slightly ruthless publicist?

  11. SJ Chandos says:

    By the way, apologies for the overly long post!

  12. av hammer says:

    U know y u hear all this rubbish and slagging by the media? It is because West Ham have a history and sell papers, whereas other clubs who are in precarious positions, like Portsmouth dont draw much interest. They see west ham as a profit-making machine and tht is y they spin stories about us. Its annoying i know but at least we are getting recognised. One more thing, how much have tottenham spent in the last year or two?? Where has it got them, sitting in the relegation zone and struggling. They definetely are aiming for the top four, top four of the cc tht is.

  13. IronMick says:

    SJ Chandos
    It was a long post, but it was a good post

  14. Big Casino says:

    I’ll keep this short… I was and still am a Pardew fan and would be happy to see him return as manager at some point in the future….

    At the time, Eggy seemed like a godsend, finally the club had a benefactor willing to spend, spend, spend…. unfortunately it appears, unlike Abramovich, BG could not sustain the club paying astronimical transfer fees and wages… And I blame him as much as eggy for the state we now find ourselves in…. how and why did he let eggert offer such ridiculous wages and sign players for such high transfer fees…. ??? Just poor management from the very top.

  15. Stephen says:

    It was good to see the Pardew interview. I was really gutted he was sacked and feel it was unfair especially now we know the board didn’t back him with some funds so he could correct the balance of the team. He really enjoyed his time and genually cared about the club, that was for all to see. I hate all the rumors of him and other players wives etc. I for one look forward to the day he comes back to the club perhaps as an opposition manager so we can give him a big upton park welcome. That cup run run and some of the performances of the team during his time in the premiership hold some good memories. Especially that crazy jig down the touchline….

  16. But the “He [Tevez] played a big, big part in saving them from relegation.” part wasn’t a comment on the inquiries was it?

  17. SJ Chandos says:

    I do not agree with everthing that he says, but I have say that Martin Samuels is spot on with regard to the absurdity of the Griffths Tribunal decision. His debut Sportsmail column summarises the whole farcical sitution and rubbishes that decision to launch another investigation of Duxbury’s alleged ‘oral cuddles’ with Graham Shear!

    It seems that at least an alternative point of view will be present in Sportsmail’s coverage of the issue! This might help to ameliorate some of the anti-West Ham nonsense churned out by that particular tabloid?

  18. Stephen says:

    Another point on Pardew, I once attended a fans forum “post Cup final” which Pardew attended with his then assistant Peter Grant. I have to say he seemed to be a really decent bloke as was Grant. Pardew was definitely trying his upmost to move the club forward. Paul Aldridge on the other hand didn’t seem to give the same vibe, that was the reaction from fellow hammers fans anyway. I remember one guy apologising on behalf of some of the supporters for giving him (Pardew) stick back in the championship days, to which Pardew acknowledged then everyone gave him a round of aplause for his efforts.

  19. IronMick says:

    Just following on from ‘SJ Chandos’ comments about Martin Samuels Sportsmail column..
    I posted it on the “if you only read one blogpost” thread earlier this morn if anyone wants to have a look.

  20. John says:

    Unfortunately I have suffered as a dedicated West Ham supporter for over 60 years. Now at 72 and no doubt suffering ageing senility I fail to understand what the legal difference is of Carlos Tevez playing for Manchester United compared to playing for West Ham! It would appear that if Manchester United wish to purchase him they have to pay Gorbichan or his syndicate that owns him the money. Surely there for this puts them in exactly the same position that West Ham were in and have been castigated for eversince. Have I got it all wrong or has Benitez got a point? Ian you seem a clever sort of chap could you please explain the situation so this poor old sod can understand what is going on?

  21. James says:

    So it was’nt to do with Pards having his favourites then?

    I thought it was because the team disliked Reo Joker alias (Baby Bentley) due to his relationship with Pardew!

    And I really think Pards did’nt have a clue how to play the two Argies to be honest!!

    I would love Eggert back at the club any day, I loved his constant communication with the fans, His passion for the future vision of our club and so what if he wanted to bring in loads of players, A dream come true if you ask me! He just needed Zola as the manager back when the players were being bought

  22. Roy says:

    I’m not quite as old as John but will soon be getting my bus pass and even my young, agile brain can’t work this out either. When Liverpool made Mascherano’s transfer permanent they paid out to a third party and that’s what Manure will have to do if they want to do the same for Tevez. I was of the impression that third party ownership was the root of this issue.
    Also, how many tribunals and inquiries can you have to sort out the same issue? It seems that, if someone (mainly Sheff Utd) don’t get what they want from one inquiry they simply instigate another one. If you go to court and are found guilty, or not guilty, of an offence that’s the end of it once the appeal process has been followed through. We may not always agree with the verdict but it stands. It’s called the process of law.

  23. Stuart says:

    Pardew had to go – as simple as that. He broke the first rule in the book about shitting on your own doorstep. He lacked the self control required by a professional.

    His record since then speaks for itself. No regrets from me about his departure.

  24. colney says:

    reading a newcastle webb page saying they dominated west ham? well i watched extended highlights and didnt see that?

  25. Roshi says:

    Pards was great when he was in his comfort zone, ie Reading where to be fair the fans don’t expect they are just grateful.
    At West Ham he inherited some half decent players who “held his hand” but began to tire of that when he began to “lord it about” and do some stupid things…allegedly. He basically lost it and really was not up to the job.
    Onto Charlton, after the initial flurry of results that most new managers get, it was down to hard work and football savvy, and I’m sorry to say he was totally baffled and has put that club into a tailspin with bad buys and mismanagement that they will be lucky to suvive.

  26. irontc says:

    Going to Cardiff 3 years on the trott with Pardews Claret and Blue Army was nearly as good as the 1980 cup final! But as much as I liked Mr P. – things were getting very messy and he had to go.

    I dont know wether it was a bit of a free for all when Eggie was at UP and it compromised some of Alan Curbishleys buys and tactics – but we were heading for a right old mess there too. The football was simply shocking.

    Now with Fonzy (and Clarke) things are looking very bright. As always with WH its not quite that straight forward though of course (Tevez Affair, BG losing his shirt), but football wise things are looking good.

    Hopefully now, our new legal eagles will once and for all sort out this rediculous mess regarding Tevez.

    My understanding (for what its worth) is that WHU broke the ‘3rd Party influence’ rule with Tevez’s contract. ie. at anytime IN THEORY Kia/MSI could move him to another club/ tell him not to play. IN THEORY betting syndicates could one day in the future profit from this in some way.

    Yes we admited to this and were fined 5.5mil for this, the question is did Duxo tear up the the offending article after the fine?

    Apperently Duxo/WHU put in writing to the PL that the 3rd party clause had been removed. So what Duxo said or didnt say to some solicitor shouldt really cut any mustard.

    But we live in crazy times!


  27. SJ Chandos says:

    Third party ownership is not the issue, third party influence is! A player can be owned by a third party, whether it is a consortium or a bank. For instance, at the heighth of Leeds Utd’s madness Viduka was bought and was listed as an asset of the financial institution that loaned them the money to buy him. If, however, there had been a clause in the agreement between the bank and Leeds Utd that the bank could force his sale at any of the transfer windows, this would have been third party influence.

    By third party influence is meant the ability of a third party to exercise an influence over the selection, transfer or other policy of a club. In the Tevez’s case the club signed him and Mascherano on standard four year contracts. However, this was supplemented by additional third party agreements between West Ham and MSI that MSI could initiate a sale without the club’s consent. These additional agreements were allegedly not revealed to the PL when the transfer went through.

    It was only when Mascherano was released to join Liverpool that the existence of the third party agreements come to light. Mascherano and Tevez’s transfers to respectively Liverpool and Man Utd were approved by the PL as long term loan agreements between MSI (the owners) and the clubs. These specifically avoided any third party agreements being put in place.

    When West Ham pleaded guilty to the offence and received a £5.5m fine, the PL stated that Tevez could continue to play for us, as long as the third party agreements were torn up. This West Ham duly did and this only left the 4 year contract between West Ham Utd and Tevez. They were torn up on the legal basis that under EU law they were not enforceable! At the start of last season MSI began the process of movng Tevez to Man Utd, but the PL would not sanction the deal because, as far as they were concerned, he was on an existing 4 year contract with West Ham.

    The PL insisted that West Ham held the players registration and they must receive a fee before the PL would let Tevez move to Man Utd. West Ham dug their heels in and MSI started court proceeding to effectively enforce the non-existent, former third party agreements and get the player released. In an out of court settlement, West Ham accepted £2m from MSI to release him from his contract and the PL sanctioned this. Tevez is currently on a 2 year loan agreement, Manchester Utd hold his registration and MSI own the player. If Man Utd pay £32m MSI effectively sell the player to Man Utd.

    It is my understanding of the situation. I hope that it helps. Do not feel too bad John and Roy, the whole thing is incredibly complex. And most of the press do not understand it either, the only thing is they are not as honest as you!

  28. SJ Chandos says:

    Roy, on your second point about the endless Sheffield Utd appeals, yes you are right, Sheffield Utd exhausted the PL appeals process and then resorted to an High Court challenge. In taking the latter course of action they arguably broke FA and FIFA rules that clubs should not take legal action against each other.

    However, the Sheffield Utd legal team found out about the FA arbitration process and laid a trap for us. We agreed to enter the process, when we should have refused citing the High Court Action as negating any further obligations to Sheffield Utd. But we either felt obliged to do it or thought that it was just a formality. The rest is history and we got the illogical and perverse Griffths judgement that on the ‘balance of probabilities’ Tevez was worth three points to West Ham!

    From that point West Ham fell into a trap and Sheffield Utd sought to slam the door shut by insisting that there was no further appeal available. West Ham changed their legal team, got a deferment in Griffths costing the compensation to Sheffield Utd, got the Blades to open their accounts to scrutiny and sought an appeal to the FIFA Court of Sports Arbitration. Sheffield Utd responded by getting a temporary injunction to stop the appeal to CAS, pending a full High Court case.

    All this has been complicated by the new regime at the FA seeking to use the case to assert their authority over he PL. And West Ham have ended up the meat in the sandwich between the FA and PL! And I think that is how it currently stands, with the added factor of the new FA/PL investigation muddying the waters even further.

  29. Roy says:

    Thanks SJ Chandos. A bit clearer but still rather muddy-coloured.

  30. irontc says:

    Hi SJ Chandos

    concise and clear summarising from you there sir!

    Would you say that if Kia’s solicitor, Shear, can not provide in documentation any evidence of his alleged conversation with Duxbury regarding Tevez’s contract, then his comments should be only be regarded as heresay, and therefore disregarded by any future enquiry?

  31. colin say's says:

    I have been involved in a couple of arbitration cases & l was dealing with the worst scumbag surveyor you could think of! During negotiations with him, he always put ‘Without Prejudice’ on his letters, so as you could never use the letters in the arbitration!!! what chance do you stand with ‘Hear Say or a verbal contract’!! it would never stand up.

    If Sheer made a statement about verbal assurances, he’s not really an independat witness, because although yes he is indpendant between West Ham & Sheffield, he is still tainted with Tevez!! so no way is he an independant witness!! therefore l can’t see how on earth this has gone as far it has!……… and l’m glad Pardew went, he had no charisma at all!! I would rather have Zola any day!! he’s got bucket loads!! & of course Clarke comes with him!! Look what’s happened to Chelsea since Clarke’s been gone!

  32. D&G says:

    How the hell has Zola got Charisma? He never bloody smiles and talks with that one tone boring Italian accent.

    I love the style of football he has introduced and he has gained a lot of admirers (Premier league unfortunately) But charisma? Sorry don’t see it.

  33. D&G says:

    Roger Moore had charisma. :-0

  34. colin say's says:

    CHARISMA ! MEANS, SPECIAL POWER OF INDIVIDAUL ,TO INSPIRE FASCINATION ,LOYALTY ETC. All of which you have just said in the 2nd paragraph of your comments. & speaking of loyalty, how long did he play for Chelsea? years!!he could have played for any club in the world, but he stayed at Chelsea.

  35. brooking still the best says:

    I have heard a few wierd and wonderful stories about Pardew. If half of them are true, he had to go.

    What is certainly true is that he had lost the respect of the players, that alone is reason enough for him to go. He never had a clue in the end.

    Its easy to blame everyone else for your own failings.

  36. SJ Chandos says:

    irontc, any case against West Ham Utd PLC is very difficult to prove. I guess it would would need verifying testimony by others as to what was said and when. Even then it is only one party’s word against another’s, so no I do not think they can make it stick, unless there is any supporting written evidence, such as letters West Ham Utd PLC to MSI. If there was West Ham would know about it and would not have issued their confident statement that there was no wrong doing on their part.

    Some reports have said there are tapes of telephone conversations. But they are inadmissible unless West Ham were aware that they were being taped. Amongst other things it would infringe the human rights of Duxbury or whoever else made the call, in terms of the right to privacy.

    This is being pursued because the new regime are looking to assert some authority over the PL. The new regime under Triesman are looking for a scapegoat to get all tough with and we fit the bill. If this had been Man Utd or Liverpool, the case would not have been brought in the first place and the FA would not have pursued it.

  37. SJ Chandos says:

    As Colin say’s Shear’s testimony is hopelessly compromised. A good legal team could easily discredit the testimony by asserting that they had a axe to grind against the Hammers for (1) MSI losing out to the Icelantic consortium in the West Ham takeover; (2) tearing up the third party agreements; and blocking Tevez’s move to Man Utd until they received a £2m payment to release his registration.

  38. irontc says:

    Thanks SJ. I think you talk a lot of sense. Hopefully we wont get hung out to dry for what is a pretty petty offence at the end of the day!

  39. clack says:

    That’s completely incorrect that Tevez hadn’t played for 8 months before joining WHU.

    He played for Corinthians from Jan to May, then played in World Cup, and then did pre-season training with Cotinthians – he hadn’t played for 2 weeks before joining WHU due to walking out on Corinthians.

    WHU signed T & M on last day of window, in which we had already signed Green, Carlton Cole, Bowyer. Mears, Spectot and Pantsil, so I’m not sure what Pardew’s going on about when he says “up until that point I hadn’t been able to bring anyone in”?

    I think he did want another right back though, and Luke Young failed the medical, and a left midfielder, but Malbranque prefered to go to Spurs.

  40. clack says:

    SJ CHandos –

    I think you miss some important points in your summaries:

    !) The first commmission demanded that WHU remove ‘all 3rd part yagreements’

    That was the exact wording – it was not just about the 3rd party ‘influence’ clause.

    That is something the first abritation panel drew attention to. They said that, “in our opinion, it is highly likely that 3rd party agreements” still exist.

    I fear that when they look into the circumstances surrounding the Man U transfer, it will be quite easy to prove that 3rd party agreements did still exist.

    Also, I think you’re summaries seem to forget that WHU got done just as much for withholding documents and lying than for breaking the ‘influence’ clause.

    The breakdown of the original 5-5 mill fine was 2.5 for breaking the rules and 3 mll for withholding the documents and lying (it was the lying that was more serious offence)

    So, if we are found to have lied again, we could be in trouble?

  41. John says:

    Thanks very much S J for the time you took to give a very clear and concise explanation of the Tevez scenario. I find the whole matter both aggravating and intriguing.

    One more point I’m afraid. Surely the fact that MSI had to pay West Ham United 2 million for them to release their contract for the player thus enabling him to join Man United would indicate to any enquiry that the third party influence of MSI did not exist at that time regardless of whatever was said over the telephone. Obviously I am again being dim here but really would like to understand it all.

  42. D&G says:


    Does not describe my comments. Zola has turned it around by introducing his style of football, what the hell has that got to do with charisma?

  43. Bill W says:

    Maybe I’m being naive and judging by the most illustrious posts above I am- I was still able to proudly fly my WHU flag above my chicken run-apologies to the original East Stand attendees!-and for that AP remains a hero however flawed-and sometimes they’re the best!!

  44. SJ Chandos says:

    Clack, the third party agreements you refer to are those that allowed MSI to potentially exert third party party influence over the sale of the player. I do not know what the ‘third party influence clause’ that you also refer to is? These agreements were terminated after the first inquiry, to the satisfaction of the PL, and this was confirmed in a letter from West Ham Utd PLC to MSI.

    The delay in transfering Tevez to Man Utd was caused by a stand off between MSI and West Ham. MSI sought to move the player as if the third party agreements were still in place. West Ham refused to release his registration because they maintained that they were no longer operative and, as a result, he was still contracted to West Ham for a further three years. The fact MSI had to pay £2m to transfer Tevez substantiates West Ham’s position that the clauses no longer existed. Otherwise, why pay anything at all to West Ham? This was verified and agreed by the PL, so they were happy that West Ham had complied with the undertaking given to them after the first Tribunal.

    They got a 5.5m fine for third party influence agreements and lying and withholding information about them. True, so what? They were punished and the Tribunal gave the PL the option to terminate Tevez’s registration. The PL did not do this as long as West Ham undertook to tear up the third party agreements and they formally did that, to the PL’s complete satisfaction.

    As for being in trouble for lying again. We then go full circle, yes but how can they actually prove that Shear was given verbal assurances that the third party agreements would continue to be in force. I do not think they can!

  45. SJ Chandos says:

    John, as I said, this is a complex issue and one that many people have difficulties with. I am just giving you my understanding of it. Others will have an alternative point of view.

    Yes, I believe that is correct, the fact that West Ham received a £2m fee to release Tevez’s registration proves that West Ham fulfilled their obligations to the PL. This verbal assurance issue is a nonsense and it is surprising that the Griffths Tribunal came to an unproven conclusion.

    For my part, I suspect that the Tribunal’s conclusions were unconsciously influenced by the media hysteria around the issue and West Ham’s alleged guilt. It would be very difficult for them not to have been.

  46. SJ Chandos says:

    irontc, I hope that this farce will end with the investigation finding no evidence of the third party agreements still being in place. My fear is that this has become a politically driven witch hunt by the FA.

    If they seek to hang West Ham out to dry then the club need to threaten them with legal action that will potentially destroy the governance of the game. All they understand is force, look at how the FA crawls to the so-called big 4. If West Ham show weakness they will go for them, stand strong and they will run away!

  47. clack says:

    I’m sorry, but you are wrong, SJ Chandos.

    MSI did NOT pay 2 million to WHU for the release of Tevez.

    It was Man U who paid 2 million to WHU for the relaease of Tevez

    (Man U were ordered to pay that money by the Prem league, who oversaw the transfer, and this payment was vital as it showed Sheff U and the world of football that Tevez belonged to WHU).

    And this is the crux of the matter and where all the problems begin, because MSI disputed that payment, sayiing the 2 milliom should go to them as they were the ones who owned Tevez, and they sued WHU for the money.

    If WHU had owned Tevez why didn’t they just tell MSI to get lost when they sued them?

    Instead, WHU and MSI settled out of court, with Kia Joorabchian being employed by WHU in a vague ‘player-sptting role as part of the settlement (the specualtion is that actually this was of indireclty paying him the Tezez teansfer money – cos to pay him directly would be evidence that Tevez had never belonged to WHU).

    It will not simply be just one man’s word against another’s in the new enquiry, but they are highly likely to look into all the circumstances surrounded the transfer to Man U, including the selltlement – in my humble opinion, it’s likely to reveal ‘3rd party agreements’ did still exist.

    Also, you say that you do not know what the 3rd party ‘influence clause’ I also refer to is? – but it’s absolutely crucial to differentiate between the 3rd party ‘influence clause’, and ‘3rd party agreements’ to understand the whole case.

    At the time, there was nothing wrong with ‘3rd party agreements” (there is now, as all 3rd party agrements’ have since been banned by prem league – Tevez at Man U, which was agreed before the new rules cam in last summer, will be the last of it’s kind), ie. at that time, a club could loan a player from a financial group like MSI for a ‘fixed period’ , but the financial group could not transfer that player without the club’s consent during that period.

    The 3rd party ‘influence’ clause that WHU had is very different and was against Prem league rules as it the clause said that the financial group can tranfer the player away from the club whenever they feltlike it, without the club’s consent.

    The strange thing though, and illogical,thing, is that the first commission, despite finding WHU guilty of breaking the 3rd party ‘influence’ rule, demanded that they terminated ‘all 3rd party agreements’ for Tevez to play in those last 3 games.

    Foe me, it seems inconceivable that MSI would just give away a 32 million pound asset for nothing (which, in effect, is what removing ‘all 3rd party agreements’ with WHU would have done).

    Also, I think you are wrong to play down the importance of the fact that we lied and tried to deceive the prem league when we originally signed Tevez and Mascherano – that is a majot issue. And if Duxbury lie and deceive them again – and I fear the evidence suroounding the transfer to Man U could prove he did – then we could be in trouble?

  48. John says:

    So Roy you are saying that Manchester United paid West Ham United 2 million pounds to purchase West Ham’s contract with MSI for Tevez so in actual fact contracts were not all torn up just the one that exercised the third party influence within a playing period. It would appear to me so far MSI will have made very little out of this Tevez deal unless of course they are on a percentage of his earnings a sort of agent owner set up. I am beginning to wonder just how bright Duxbury is perhaps he should get a job in a bank they would understand his intellect.

  49. SJ Chandos says:

    Clack, you are the one that is wrong, in my view. But that’s life, is it not, people having different opinions and expressing them. I am happy to leave it to our fellow posters to judge who they think is right. I cannot be bothered with pointless circular arguments. We will just have to agree to disagree!

  50. clack says:

    SJ Chandos,

    We can agree to disagree on opinions, but things you are writing on here are factually wrong.

    For example, when you say MSI paid 2 million to WHU -that is completely incorrect – it was Man U who paid it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: