Times Claim West Ham in Hot Water - Against the Facts

The Times claim West Ham could be in trouble because MSI presented documents in court today that were signed by Scott Duxberry and were dated December 1 which showed that West Ham entered into a second agreement with Tevez's owners.

The Times say that West Ham initially claimed in court that the contract was not what it appeared to be. However, when the judge asked whether the club believed that it was a forgery, the club’s lawyers said no, but claimed that they had reservations about Tévez’s signature and the date on the copies of the documents.

West Ham say that the documents were supplied to the commission, which took them into account when it imposed a fine of £5.5 million in April for a breach of Premier League rules.

The Times say that West ham could be in trouble because the Premier League’s independent commission said that one reason for not deducting points from the club was because the new owners should not be penalised for the misdemeanours of a previous regime. So it appears The Times either do not believe West Ham's statement about showing these documents to the commission or West Ham are not in any trouble.

In fact The Times say "It is believed that West Ham sought changes to the initial agreement because it gave MSI and JSI the option of paying the club £100,000 to move Tévez in the summer." Which appears to be the point that MSI have been making - that they only owe West Ham £100,000. However if The Times are to believed there is a second agreement that obviously has a larger compensation to be paid to West Ham.