[kopchoir]

Now as i understand it sheff utd have just been given 35 mil for the carlos tevez affair from west ham, which imo is just plain crazy considering the season is 38 games long, anyway thats not what i dont get If tevez is still owned by a person or a financial instituion as he is and this is not allowed why is tevez still playing for manchester united i really dont get it,what else i dont get is why have manchester united not been punished have the rules been specificly changed for them or have the rules changed.
I just dont get it nor understand it, this is not an anti man utd thread either just dont understand 1 rule for one and not the other i would be saying the same thing if we had not bought masch
Anyone else shed some light on this or is it just me who feels this way
Kop

[Sicknote10]

There was a clause in his contract whilst at West Ham that mean the 3rd party has control over him (which is the illegal thing), that clause isn't present in his Man Utd one

3rd party ownership isn't allowed anymore, so once this season ends I believe he'll have to be bought properly by a team

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by Sicknote10

There was a clause in his contract whilst at West Ham that mean the 3rd party has control over him (which is the illegal thing), that clause isn't present in his Man Utd one

3rd party ownership isn't allowed anymore, so once this season ends I believe he'll have to be bought properly by a team

Hmm but he is still owned by a 3rd party though this is what i dont get so no team will get a transfer fee for him only the sports group and kia jorabhim so still owned by a 3rd party how ever you dress it up

[jimmymac2213]

Originally Posted by kopchoir

Hmm but he is still owned by a 3rd party though this is what i dont get so no team will get a transfer fee for him only the sports group and kia jorabhim so still owned by a 3rd party how ever you dress it up

there is not 3rd party ownership anymore, theres only one party that actually owns Tevez right now and thats MSI, Kia's company, United have loaned him directly from there.

The issue of third party ownership was the idea that a club and another party could share ownership of the player which was the issue at west ham, both parties had some claim of ownership rights to him which was deemed unacceptable. MSI bought Tevez out of his contract with West ham to negate that issue.

[Steven]

Its nothing to do with sporting pride and the hurt the fans felt when the team was relegated but everything to do with money, money, money

I have to laugh at Warnock saying he might sue now. "I might not have resigned otherwise"

[Scholes18]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

Its nothing to do with sporting pride and the hurt the fans felt when the team was relegated but everything to do with money, money, money

I have to laugh at Warnock saying he might sue now. "I might not have resigned otherwise"

And he wonders why he isnt liked at all then? Man has a really appropriate anagram for a nickname

Colin W...ahh you know the rest

[dazza1011]

at the end of the day they lied and cheated.

Its not all about money its also about fair play and the fact the punishment didnt fit the crime, and if it wasn't us that sued West Ham it would have been Wigan or another club.

anyway I'm thinking of suing them for the emotional distress the relegation caused me

[Rorifett]

Was/is Mascherano not in the same boat?

[yojay]

its the same case, but he didnt really play. While on the other hand tevez was much more active and scored the goal to keep WH up.

[dazza1011]

Originally Posted by Rorifett

Was/is Mascherano not in the same boat?

he was but Liverpool noted the wording and notified the Premier league

[kopchoir]

Ken "skint" "try to get as much cash as i can" bates is also now seeking legal advice its just gone potty

[yojay]

I read about that on the bbc yestaday.... that is just low.

[dazza1011]

I think it was something along the lines:

Man United negotiated a fixed term loan contract with MSI which ensured that MSI gave up any possible control of Tevez for the duration of the loan, and I think with an up-front payment to MSI as a loan fee, rather than regular payments. MUFC pay Tevez.

WHUFC didn't loan Tevez from MSI, they registered him as if one of their own players (legally), but they paid MSI fees for his services who themselves then paid Tevez (with other subtle differences in the structure). Their arrangements with MSI did not fall into any valid category of contract as sanctioned by the FA, the MUFC contract does.

Or some such...

If you remember, the Liverpool signing of Mascherano took ages to complete because they spent time negotiating a similar arrangement to extract him from MSI, to ensure it didn't fall into the trap that WHUFC had fallen into.

[Rorifett]

Ahh that makes a bit more sense still quite weird to think mascherano couldn't make it into the west ham team during that time he was with them

[parchman]

Sorry to resurrect this positively ancient thread, but like the poster, there are so many aspects of the Tevez affair that I simply don't understand.

I am a lifelong West Ham fan, and the fact the club broke the FA's rules is indisputable, but didn't West Ham already face an FA disciplinary hearing where they were given a paltry monetary fine with no points deducted?

Surely, the FA, as did most people at that point, think that the Hammers would be relegated anyway, so they decided to line their coffers and not dock any points. Is this West Hams fault?

Wasn't it the FA who gave Sheffield a right royal shafting?

Dan