Tevezgate: A Hopeful Development

tevez

The News of the World has an excusive today, which if correct, goes a long way to giving us hope that West Ham will be cleared in the forthcoming Tevez inquiry. They print letters from the club to the FA and Tevez, which show that the club did indeed terminate the third party agreement with MSI. Click HERE to read the full story.

Advertisements

40 Responses to Tevezgate: A Hopeful Development

  1. Basildon Bob says:

    Legally, it is still all open to interpretation from both sides, but at least this report shows there might be a light at the end of this very long tunnel.

    3pts today, COYI!

  2. Mikef117 says:

    Iain,

    I think it is good for us. I have said before that I welcome the second look as we as fans can only benefit. If the FA/EPL were to throw the book at us at least any potential buyers would know what they were buyering and if as I suspect the FA/EPL have finally woken up to the damage a SUFC court backed win would bring to the game and will rule in our favour we also win.

    West Ham were fined for a relatively minor rule infringement. We know it was borderline as EPL amended the ruling to tighten it up after we were done. SUFC should get the £5.5m fine and that should be their compensation.

    However, SUFC should also be fined this amount for ignoring EPL rules (no right of appeal to the original fine) otherwise anyone can claim for anything and the league ends up like Serie A in the 90’s, or F1 for the last couple of years – regardless of what you do on the pitch/track, some old fart with no idea of the intricacies of the game tries to make a common sense ruling. Shouts of biased have been echoing through the league for years and a result either way on this will not change that.

    MIKE

  3. Perth Hammer says:

    I’m not sure that this information is strictly relevant. What we need to see is the subsequent contract, which enabled Tevez to play the remaining games. If it was a totally separate agreement/contract, fine; if there is any ambiguity, there will be trouble. If, on the other hand, it comes down to something said verbally and it is just one opinion versus another on what was said, the result should favour WH. I understood that the new inquiry resulted from what was said in a conversation. I hope that only two people were involved!

  4. DagenhamHammer says:

    If what the NOTW reports is true and we have the emails and letters to prove it, plus the Egg & Curbs will stand up at the inquiry and confirm this version of events then surely we are in the clear. My only concern is that both the Egg and Curbs are involved in litigation against the club themselves and may be deliberately unhelpful!! Without lying of course… PLEASE ZOLA, BELLAMY ON THE BENCH TODAY… HE NEEDS A GOOD UPTON PARK SEND OFF(!)

  5. DagenhamHammer says:

    Perth Hammer, I don’t think there were any subsequent agreements. I think, but of course do not actually know, that there were a number of agreements in place and this letter merely unilaterally terminates the offending one. The other agreements remained in place that allowed Tevez to carry on playing under similar arrangements to Tevez at Man U and Mascherano at Liverpool.

  6. SJ Chandos says:

    This is what I have been saying all along, there is so much documentary evidence that the third party agreements were scrapped it is overwhelming. What is there to prove the contrary, an unsubstantiated personal conversation between Duxbury and Shear!

    There is only going one outcome and when it is confirmed that there is no further case to answer ,then the whole rotton Griffths judgement comes crashing down!

  7. Mikef117 says:

    SJ, someone who thinks like me. I have been saying exactly that to anyone who will listen.

    Mike

  8. SJ Chandos says:

    I see that Chelski’s financial crisis is coming to an head. A three billion loss by their owner, it puts BG’s estimated 250m losses in perspective. I do not know why the press have been so slow to wake up to the situation there? But, they have also failed to give enough coverage to Man Utd’s and Liverpool’s indebtness! Perhaps it is a ‘big four’ / Champions League thing!!!!

    Also, what on earth is Moyes on? Blaming West Ham and Portsmouth for inflating the transer market! It had nothing to do with Chelski then did it!

  9. SJ Chandos says:

    There is a report that Redknapp wants Reo-Coker from Villa! He is really trying to assembe some ‘characters’ down at WHL!! If the wages are high enough, expect our old friend Nigel to try and jump the Villa ship.

  10. SJ Chandos says:

    Man City have been reported to have offered 14m for Bellamy. Add another 1m of add on clauses and we do the deal! Spurs lose out due to their duplicity! If Bellamy does not go for Man City, he stays!

    I then expect players to be brought in quickly and, hopefully, well in advance of the window deadline!

  11. Hammeron says:

    Perhaps McCabe knows whats going on hence the sale of BT for financial reasons….

  12. Spencer says:

    the papers are irrelevent.

    We need to satisfy the court that we did not give Duxbury did not give Graeme Shear a series of ‘oral cuddles’ that the original contract terms would be respected.

  13. SJ Chandos says:

    Yeah Mike. we should be very confident that West Ham will be vindicated. The only thing that concerns me slightly is FA/PL political power struggles and certain people trying to use this so-called issue to stamp their organisation’s authority!

    However, with the Watkins legal team in our corner I am confident that FA/PL will not try it on with us. Also, if they do, they know that they are risking the very governance of the game. The FA are cowards by inclination, they only pick fights they know they can win. Look at their policy towards Man Utd!!!!

  14. SJ Chandos says:

    Oh well off to the game now! I expect a West Ham win. Three points and no excuses! Up the Irons!

  15. bertie says:

    15 mil for Bellamy. What a joke. The kid has never delievered the goods, even at Liverpool. He’s worth 5 mil tops in today’s amrket. You should snap the hand off anyone who offers much more than 5 mil

  16. redkipper says:

    Win !!! Happy Days1
    Loking forward to your report Ian.
    Hope Cole does not now become the Media’s speculation player to move to Man City.
    Well done Zola and Clarke.
    Just to make our day come on Portsmouth.

  17. Tony says:

    Hope the FA or PL dont do us for some stupid rule about “revealing” these letters through the press and not at the hearing first!! You never know. Good win to day , were on the up. COYI

  18. Eric says:

    CMON POMPEY!!!!!1

  19. SwedeHammer says:

    C’mon!!! I’m sitting in LA waiting for some reports!!!

  20. SwedeHammer says:

    Brilliant..thanks Tony and YEEESS Pompey just scored..

  21. RMH says:

    IAIN

    IF THEY DID TERMINATE THE CONTRACT WHY DID THEY MAKE AN OUT OF COURT PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TERMINATION……………….

    You cannot t erminate and then make good on the terms….

  22. irontc says:

    Appologies for returning to a negative vain. But…

    After the NOTW Tevezgate story today I have read a few posts which have quite fairly pointed out that to tear up a contract, or even remove a clause in an existing contract – both sides need to agree. It can not be unilaterally torn up.

    I just wondered what the clubs view would be on this point ? anyone?

  23. clack says:

    Despite the big bold News of the World headlines, I don’t see how this has any bearing on anything?

    These are just the letters from WEst Ham to Prem league saying they have terminated the 3rd party agreementm aren’t they?

    We’ve always known these documents must exist, but they’re not really relavant to the case?

    If anything, they could be used as evidence against us – as we’re saying they haven’t been signed by Tevez?

    I don’t understand how we can just unilaterally tear up a contract either, irontc?

    If we can, I wish we’d unilaterally tear up Boa Morte and Quahie’s contracts!!

  24. DevoDevo says:

    I was never a fan of Curbishley as our manager as most of you probably know! However, credit where credit is due, Curbs said after the game today that the conclusion that Tevez kept West ham up was a flawed judgement and pointed to the influence of Green, Zamore’s winning goals and others.

    Nice one, Alan.

  25. BAC says:

    The point is that the Premier League confirmed in writing that at the relevant time, they were satisfied with West Ham’s efforts to terminate the agreement, and cleared them to play Tevez in the crucial last three matches.

    The only fly in the ointment is whether Duxbury’s alleged remarks to Shear, the so called ‘oral cuddles’, reinstated the rescinded agreement, as so interpreted by the Arbitration Panel. According to Duxbury, he said that if Tevez played for the last three games, he wouldn’t stand in Tevez’s way if the player decided to leave the club in the summer. That is very different to the offending ‘third party influence’ clause of the ‘private agreement’, which gave Tevez’s ‘owners’ (the third parties) the right to enforce a sale when they wished, regardless of the wishes of the player or the club. The decision to leave was Tevez’s, who told the chairman he didn’t want to play for West Ham any more, but wanted to go to Manchester United, it was not a move enforced by the ‘third parties’. Telling a player’s representatives that he will be allowed to leave in the ‘window’ if he wishes isn’t contrary to Premier League rules, as far as I am aware.

    Lord Griffiths, unfortunately, was unwilling to accept anything said by Duxbury, and no doubt after seeing all the same documentation, chose to interpret matters concerning the unrecorded conversations in the least favorable light possible from West Ham’s viewpoint. Hopefully the new enquiry will be more open minded.

  26. DagenhamHammer says:

    I don’t think the point is whether you can legally unilaterally terminate a contract. The point is that we told the Premier League of the ‘unilateral’ termination and we provided the documents to the them. They then told us they were happy with that. If you cannot legally unilaterally terminate a contract then that is not our problem (except that Kia and co can take us to court over it – which they did incidentally) – the governing body of the league said they were happy we were now operating within the rules. They can’t tell us they’re happy and then 18 months later tell us we broke some rules. In order for us to be in the crap they need to prove we mislead them in some way. I don’t think we have. A verbal assurance from Duxbury that Tevez can move on in the summer is part and parcel of football, it does not create a new legal obligation. If our legal team has anything about them they will rip this case to shreds and get a public apology for the unfair persecution we have suffered for the last 18 months!! Plus our legal costs refunded! COYI!

  27. DagenhamHammer says:

    Great point BAC. You’ve hit the nail right on the head!!

  28. SJ Chandos says:

    irontc, on the point of unilaterally tearing up a contract. It is valid as long as it is a legal contract. Surely the point is that the terms of the third party agreements are not enforceable under EU law. You cannot enforce an illegal contract, hence West Ham Utd PLC’s right to terminate it.

    Do you not think that the PL would not have given advice on this, prior to issuing the instructions to West Ham? Would the PL order a member club to do some thing that was illegal? Course not!

  29. SJ Chandos says:

    Tevez was only supposed to counter sign to acknowledge receipt of the letter, that is all! The fact is there is all this evidence that West Ham went painstaking levels to fulfill their obligations to the PL. It also shows that PL verified and approved the processes that West Ham followed. Where is the concrete evidence that they did not? A unsubstantiated statement by Mr Shear!

    Good points BAC!

  30. Steve says:

    We can speculate as much as we like but the court will be the final judge. You never know with a court ruling.

  31. lynn1990 says:

    SORRY I HATE DOING THIS BUT I HAVE TO!sorry about this… when you are reading this dont stop or something bad will happen! My name is summer i am 15 years old i have blonde hair,many scars no nose or ears..i am dead.if you dont copy this just like from the ring, on 5 more sites.. or..i will appear one dark quiet night when your not expecting it by your bed with a knife and kill you. this is no joke something good will happen to you if you post this on 5 more pages

  32. clack says:

    The wording ‘private arrangement’ is not very specicic.

    Again, BAC & SJ Chandlos – and I know I’m sounding very much like a broken recored here – but the specific wording of the fisrt commssion’s verdivt said that WHU must “remove all 3rd party agreements” for Tevez to play in those last 3 games. It did not say they must remove only the 3rd party ‘influence’ clause.

    Given that was the condition, and this letter was accepted by the Prem league, I can only assume that removal of the ‘private arrangement’ is refering to removal of ‘all 3rd party agreements’ as was required?

    The problem now is that it’s not just Duxbury’s word versus Shears’ when it comes to looking at the evidence, but the whole nature of Tevez’s move to Man U, which I feel sure they will look into.

    The fact is that Man U paid 2 million to WHU (as they were obliged to do by Prem league, who were overssing the deal and wanted to show Tevez belonged to WHU)), but then MSI sued WHU for that money because they claimed Tevez belonged to them (ie. 3rd party agreement still existed), and WHU, instead of telling MSI to get lost, settled out of court, – that suggests to me that the ‘private agreement’ (the 3rd party agreement) did really still exist.

    That’s just the way I see it, anyway, and I’m nowhere as confident as you are that we won’t be found to have deceived the Prem league again.

    Whatever happens, the lawyers must be loving it – they’ve made millions on this case already, and it just keeps going on and on. It’s so complex and open to interpretation it’s perfect for lawyers.

  33. BAC says:

    Clack, if you read the text of the West Ham letter cancelling the ‘private agreement’, you will see it referred to the original private agreement, and to any subsequent amendments and replacements, in full. At the time of the initial disciplinary tribunal, there had been a replacement ‘private agreement’, negotiated by Eggert Magnusson in December when he took over, which West Ham had signed, and which MSI claimed to have signed and returned, but which West Ham stated had not been returned to them. Hence there was some confusion over which ‘agreement’ therefore remained in force, (although Griffiths had commented that if it had been the Magnusson document, West Ham would have been in the clear, because it effectively turned the Tevez arrangement into a fixed term loan, with MSI required to move him on in the transfer window following the end of the season, and that was not a breach of Reg 18). That, I believe, is the reason why West Ham were required to remove ‘all’ third party agreements, rather than simply the initial private agreement, which their letter made clear they had, and as accepted by the Premier League at the time, i.e. to ensure no ‘private agreement’ could be argued to remain in force after the cancellation

    As you say, the subsequent transfer of Tevez to Man Utd was strictly overseen by the Premier League, and, again, satisfied their requirements regarding ownership and transfer of his registration.

    Following the initial disciplinary panel’s decision, West Ham acted in accordance with the Premier League’s directions regarding Tevez’s registration, and his subsequent transfer. It is only the Arbitration Tribunal’s findings concerning Duxbury’s alleged ‘oral cuddles’ which casts doubt on this. Was his telling Shear that if Tevez wanted to leave in the summer, he wouldn’t stand in the way, tantamount to an assurance that the ‘private agreement’ remained in force? If the Premier League had heard that conversation, would they have said, Oi! You can’t say a player can leave if he wants to, that’s a third party agreement!? Griffiths said ‘Yes’ to both questions, but was that reasonable?

    Obviously, I don’t think it was a reasonable decision, but I’m not a law lord. In a civil arbitration, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, meaning Griffiths had to ask himself which interpretation, Duxbury’s or the one coaxed out of Shear, to the effect the private agreement remained in force, he tended to believe. As he was at pains to point out he didn’t regard Duxbury as a creditable witness (no doubt because of the initial attempts to deny the existence of a private agreement at all), that left him no option other than to ‘plump’ for Shear’s view, on the balance of probabilities.

    I am not confident that West Ham will be ‘cleared’ by the new enquiry – I doubt very much it will have been set up for any purpose other than more vilification of West Ham. However, I do believe that no third party with an open mind could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they shared Griffiths’ conclusions concerning Duxbury’s unrecorded conversations with Shear. Duxbury’s explanation amounts to a reasonable alternative and innocent explanation, which was borne out by the subsequent Premier League approved behaviou of the club. On that basis, I think it would be unjust to ‘convict’ West Ham of a further disciplinary offence.

    But there are many miscarriages of justice …

  34. Doc H Ball says:

    irontc –

    A contract can be unilaterally ‘torn up’. If it is unenforceable, ie contrary to law, then it cannot be enforced.

    The formal agreement was that MSI owned the player and could therefore sell him at their own choosing. That agreement was against PL rules and, possibly, European employment law.

    Damages are entirely different which is why Kia thretened to sue.

  35. clack says:

    I think that’s one of the best summaries and opinions I’ve read on it, BAC.

    And I make you right about the reasons for the specific wording of ‘private arrangements’

    And I share your lack of confidence that WHU will be cleared by the new enquiry.

    Personally, I think that if they look into the details, particularly the circumstances around MSI sueing oWHU for the Man U transfer money and WHU’s subsequent agreement to settle out of court – then I fear that will prove that 3rd party agreements did still exist.

    I also think it’s very significant that the letter given to Tevez informing him of the termination of the ‘private agreement’ easn’t signed nor returned by him as required.

    And as the News Of the World points out I think this wording from the Prem league is very relevant,

    In an email to Cheveley, which was copied to Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore, Foster wrote: “I can confirm you have satisfied requirements of Board and player is eligible to play.”

    But, ominously, he warned: “Board may have to review situation dependent on future developments and, in particular, if your termination of agreement is challenged.”

  36. clack says:

    Doc H Ball – the agreement can’t be against EU laws as there are loads of players in Spanish and Italian league who belong to 3rd parties.

  37. Doc H Ball says:

    clack –

    I think their ‘economic rights’ are owned by 3rd parties, not the players themselves.

    I don’t think that MSI’s contract with regards Carlitos was enforceable in Europe given that they had the exclusive power to sell. You can get done under emloyment laws for sniffing at someone with a big nose so I can’t see slavery being ok. Where do you see players in Spain and Italy being sold by the 3rd parties not the club?

    Anyway, it was against PL rules, there’s a specific transfer window to buy/sell and lawyer friends (I need a life) don’t reckon a contract term like that would stand up in court.

  38. clack says:

    Sport is different Doc H, as the EU recognise.

    An worker only being allowed to change companies at certain windows in the year, for example, is against normal EU employment law.

    Infact, the very concept of transfer fees and an employee not being allowed to change company unless the company to whom he wants to move pay a big transfer fee to the old company – these are all against normal EU employment law, but they make exceptions because it’s sport, and as sport needs those rules to have competition.

  39. irontc says:

    Could Duxbury be the new Alistair Campbell ? The King of Spin!

    Hes been very assertive and public in the last week or so, add to that the silence of Mr McCabe and the flogging of their top striker – it makes you wonder?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: