Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore has today insisted that complaining clubs have no chance of overturning the decision not to dock West Ham points over the signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. Scudamore urged the teams fighting for their lives at the bottom of the table to allow their fates to be decided on the pitch and not in the court room. He stated: "The Premier League were always very confident that their rules have been adhered to in terms of how the [three-man independent] commission was convened and how the whole issue was resolved. That commission have decided on the punishment. West Ham pleaded guilty to the charges and the commission, independently of the [Premier League] board, have made that decision. There is no doubt that in terms of the process the rules have been followed and that is the end of the matter."
The statement comes after pressure mounted on the FA Premier League last night as its war of words escalated with the “Gang of Four” clubs angered by the dispute over the ownership of Carlos Tévez. Dave Whelan, the Wigan Athletic chairman, has once again queried the contractual status of Tévez, this time in a letter sent last night to Scudamore and the other top-flight clubs. West Ham have said that they have ripped up the third-party agreement with Kia Joorabchian to the satisfaction of the Premier League, clearing Tévez to play. But Joorabchian, whose companies, Media Sports Investment and Just Sport, own the economic rights to Tévez, says that he has not cancelled the agreement and that Tévez, who has led West Ham’s fight to avoid relegation, only plays with his permission.
Whelan’s letter to Scudamore reads: "In your e-mail of May 8 sent to all Premier League clubs, you state that assurances were received in a satisfactory form from West Ham. Surely the contract can only be terminated by both parties? Could we and the rest of the Premier League please see concrete evidence, ie, written confirmation that this contract had been cancelled by both parties and furthermore, was this termination actually completed before Saturday, April 28, the day West Ham played Tévez at the JJB Stadium?” A second letter was being drawn up last night from the “Gang of Four” in response to a warning from the Premier League that legal action will not succeed.
Central to that is Sheffield United, who yesterday reiterated that they are ready on legal grounds to pursue the Premier League over the Carlos Tevez affair and get it to reconsider its decision and appoint a new tribunal. Clearly cocking a deafen to the entreaties of Richard Caborn, United have consulted again with their legal advisors and circulated their observations to representatives of other aggrieved clubs, including Fulham, Wigan and Charlton, before a response to the Premier League. United's chairman, Kevin McCabe, said: "The original ruling found West Ham guilty but the penalty given undermines the governance of the Premier League and invites anarchy. It is a snub to every club and their fans." The Blades are ready to sue the Premier League if they are relegated as a result of West Ham being fined £5.5m rather deducted points. McCabe added: "This is not so much a case of gaining recompense as protecting our position in the hope that the Premier League will reconsider their decision and appoint a new tribunal. It was an unjust penalty. We might as well all field illegal players every week. Here are West Ham still playing an international whose signing has breached the rules. It's just not on."
On the transfer front The Sun repeat the rumour from a couple of days ago that Carlos Tevez will leave West Ham even if we stay up. Hammers boss Alan Curbishley is eager to thrash out a permanent deal for the Argentine striker but Tevez’s magnificent recent displays have alerted Chelsea and Liverpool. The article states the player is still partly owned by Kia Joorabchian, who is far from happy with the way he has been treated by West Ham since his efforts to buy the club failed last year. A Chelsea bid of around £15million would persuade Joorabchian to cash in, while Liverpool, who have already taken Tevez’s pal Javier Mascherano from West Ham, are also keen. The Guardian states it a little more elegantly in their Rumour Mill section: "It seems, another love affair is going to end in beers - because, whether West Ham stay or go on the final day of the Premiership this weekend, Carlos Tevez will be fending off defenders with that J-Loesque derriere of his for either Liverpool or Chelsea next season. Tevez, still owned by Kia Joorabchian, would cost about £15m, which, for a young, acclimatised, genuinely world-class player, is probably the biggest bargain since Scented Beef Jerkys were 2 for 1 in Londis."
Posts
8 comments:
I can't understand how Joorabchian can have more influence on WHUFC thro Tevez, than Man U have on Watford thro Ben Foster. Man U are able to specify when he plays or does not play and can recall him from loan at any time.
What is this influence Joorabchian is able to exert on WHUFC?
I struggle to see what the offence was in the first place. The contract appears to relate to the right of Jorbach???? to unilaterally transfer Tevez etc etc. This does not ammount to influencing playing policy. It all seems to be a storm in a tea cup, just diverting our attention from the inadequecies of Whelan and Al'Fayed et al.
No, you guys are the only ones confused. Tevez's registration as player was never in question; the terms of the agreement for the transfer were. In line with PL rules, Tevez is now solely owned by WHUFC until the end of the season when a new deal will be negotiated or he will leave. (Barking)
They (West ham) have sent a letter? i have sent a letter to West ham explaining i now own the rights of Tevez, i expect 1 mill every time he plays for West ham and as i now OWN him, if the money if not forthcoming before the game today begins i will remove him from the field of play after 10 mins. As this is now in the open West ham are in breach of premier rules which state no third party (slave traders) shall own players.
The current debacle only goes to highlight the problem that the Football Authorities have with any rule enforcement that they take up. With the exception of the Football League rule that any club going into adminstration will be deducted 10 points no other offence has a fixed penalty. This leave the way open for influential people to manipulate situations.
Each offence against the rules should carry a fixed penalty
variable to the level of offence and the FA should retain the services of a pane of retired high cour judges to make the decisions. Then no one could question the impartiality of a ruling.
The bottom-of -he-table clubs are just clutching at staws when they shoulld be concentrating on playing football! The 3 sides with the least premier league points should go down....end of subject!
I'm no expert on the law of contract but it takes both parties to agree to terminate a contract. If one party alone could do it , thye wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on. So, can either West Ham or the FA explain what West Ham "tearing up their contract" with Joorabchiam actually means?
Tevez has been West Ham's star man this season and without doubt has had a huge influence on their performances. The way the FA has dealt with this has been shameful and smacks of the old boys network. West HAm should be deducted points and relegated
Where has it been said at any point that Tevez or Mascherano well ineligible? If they were, then fair enough they should have been deducted points as the rules state.
Yes the previous board of West Ham broke rules, but not by playing ineligble players. They broke rules abour disclosure and having contracts that allowed 3rd party influence. These happened to relate to players contracts, but their registration was never in question.
There is no precedent for a points deduction for breaking the rules that West Ham did.
The judgement mentioned various reasons why a points deduction was unwarranted and it is unfortunate that comments about the timing and the impact on fans have been picked up on. The more relevant ones are that West Ham's new owners reported the breach by the previous management team and pleaded guilty to the charges. Unfortunately those facts don't do much to support the argument so those with an axe to grind simply ignore them
Post a Comment