The Explosive Document
It appears that the 'explosive document' that Kia Joorabchian has long promised to reveal is a contract drawn up by the new owners in December asking MSI to sell the player in the summer for £100,000.
Most of the newspapers today suggest this is potentially explosive because the original independent commission into the third party contracts made much of not punishing the new owners and West Ham also claimed in a statement on July 19th that no other contracts existed.
These documents however are not explosive for that reason. West Ham yesterday said that they had submitted this contract to the commission and the Premier League have confirmed that they received an "unexecuted" copy of the contract ahead of the independent commission. Therefore the league and the commission were always aware of this contract.
Obviously however this contract has a big significance in Tevez's transfer to Man Utd. If the contract is upheld then MSI only have to pay West Ham £100,000 in compensation. Furthermore the Premier League should be happy as they say they were aware of this contract.
West Ham are claiming that the contract was never signed by Tevez and never returned by MSI to the club and is therefore invalid. Whilst this obviously has bearings on the document's legality it does not not affect the fact that the new owners of West Ham did want MSI to sell Tevez for £100,000. Morally therefore they have little argument against Tevez's transfer.
posted by Keir Clarke @ 10:09 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I don't think that it is "immoral" to claim more than £100,000 for Tevez's transfer. The agreement proposed by West Ham in December last year would have been based on a situation which was totally different from the situation after the "great escape". If Joorabchian would have agreed to this amendment in December there would not have been any breech of the "third party-rule" anymore and the amount of the fine would by all probability have been less than £ 5,5 mio. By the way the agreement would have made sense in december when Tevez had not scored (but the proposal was rejected). West Ham would never have made such a proposal half a year later! I think WHUFC have the right to claim for more because Tevez has become used to the PL during his time at Upton Park - ManU didn't want to sign him last year!
Yes immoral may be a bit strong. I certainly think its cheeky for West Ham to claim that it is invalid when it seems the contract was drawn up on their insistence.
Although I suppose they have every right to say it is cheeky for MSI/Tevez not to have signed and returned and now try to say it is valid.
Post a Comment
<< Home