Official Premiership 06/07 thread

[Steeb]

I thought it had been known from the start that MSI still owned the pair? That was my understanding, so why is the FA's different?

[therockbox]

It hadn't. They didn't send the FA the documentation that stated MSI still owned the pair, so as far as the FA was aware there was no third party ownership.

[-A-]

Yes, there are some misconceptions going on. Tevez and Mascherano were never ineligible in the true meaning of the word - their registrations were correctly held by West Ham and they were eligible to play for us. The only wrongdoing has been in the failure to correctly inform the authorities that MSI still had a financial interest in the players - which everyone and their mother knew on the day of the transfer anyway, including the FA. The fact that the FA chose to ignore the information means that they themselves were trying to ignore the issue, where they would have to make a decision. The contrast with the situation regarding Mascherano's employment at Liverpool shows the issue - he still isn't owned by them, he's owned by MSI, yet Liverpool aren't facing the same accusations of third-party interference, purely because they filled out the correct paperwork to announce what everyone in the FA knows already.

No FIFA rules have been broken either, since this arrangement is perfectly common and accepted in South America.

[therockbox]

Liverpool have loaned Mascherano from MSI, so no, he's not 'owned' by them at the moment.

Tevez and Mascherano were never ineligible in the true meaning of the word - their registrations were correctly held by West Ham and they were eligible to play for us.

[-A-]

Loaning a player means you own them? Exactly the same situation of ownership was present in the West Ham deal as in the Liverpool deal. We loaned them, Liverpool loaned them.

Edited May 7, 2007 by -A-

[Matt]

Actually, they are legible in the correct sense of the word, because they are registered West Ham players, it's the actual transfer that's under scrutiny, not that they're playing for West Ham. The deal broke the rules, not the registration. So in that sense Tevez is registered to West Ham and that's why he can and does play still.

[therockbox]

No, you're wrong. Liverpool have loaned Mash from MSI as well as West Ham, meaning MSI have to ownership over him. MSI still owned the two at West Ham, thus the third party interference.

[-A-]

What are you saying? A loan does not mean that you own a player, he is still owned by MSI in the sense that there is a contractual obligation for his registration to revert to them after the 18 month loan period. This is exactly the same way the West Ham deal was done. Yes, in a sense, both clubs 'owned' the players, but only for the duration of the loan period. Loans should more correctly be known as 'temporary transfers.'

[Zaz]

How many hours until the Tottenham/Charlton game (so I know when to wake up for it)?

[Matt]

8 give or take a few minutes.

[Zaz]

8 give or take a few minutes.

[therockbox]

What are you saying? A loan does not mean that you own a player, he is still owned by MSI in the sense that there is a contractual obligation for his registration to revert to them after the 18 month loan period. This is exactly the same way the West Ham deal was done. Yes, in a sense, both clubs 'owned' the players, but only for the duration of the loan period. Loans should more correctly be known as 'temporary transfers.'

[IAceI]

I'd love it if West Ham got docked something like 3 points and stayed up, something totally anti-climax like that ¬_¬

Does anyone know how much they expect to be docked? Obviously it'll be enough to send them down, but is there a set amount or just an amount the FA see fit? I expect most people to say the amount of points they accumulate while Tevez has been playing - which just isn't going to happen.

Charlton could be, and most likely are, down today. While we have West Ham more than likely going down for the whole problem that I refuse to go into again on the grounds no one's going to admit they're wrong, and we're just going to go round and round in a vicious circle - I think most people forgot that while Watford are down, and West Ham are going down most likely, one of Sheffield United, Charlton and Wigan are still going to go down. Sure when they go down they'll try and play some card that they were cheated unfairly by West Ham, even though West Ham are going to get their punishment and go down, the managers (Paul Jewell) will still find something to whinge about.

They should leave the media comments to the Mourinho's and Ferguson's and Wenger's and Rafa's who actually are good enough managers to say what they feel. So I quite like Charlton, so them staying up would be nice. If Sheffield United stay up, we get extra money for Jon Stead. I'd love to take on Wigan next season. And I really have no problems with West Ham, but I'd be scared to come up against them with Zamora and Tevez as their front men, and if they go down Tevez won't stick around so I guess West Ham could go down, and most likely are.

So I don't really care who goes down with Watford, and most likely, West Ham.

[-A-]

The verdict has already been made, and we haven't been fined any points, we were fined £5.5M. Unless Whelan and co. actually go through with their threat to take this to the courts, that's how things will stand.

What are you saying? A loan does not mean that you own a player, he is still owned by MSI in the sense that there is a contractual obligation for his registration to revert to them after the 18 month loan period. This is exactly the same way the West Ham deal was done. Yes, in a sense, both clubs 'owned' the players, but only for the duration of the loan period. Loans should more correctly be known as 'temporary transfers.'

West Ham don't own the player though, MSI do.

[therockbox]

It's not. MSI have no involvement with Mascherano whilst he's at Liverpool, they did whilst he was at West Ham.

Edited May 7, 2007 by therockbox

[-A-]

Uh ... what? Liverpool had no involvement with Mascherano when he was at West Ham either, how is that relevant? Or is it only West Ham that can be guilty?

I'm comparing the structure of the arrangement which had the pair at West Ham, and Mascherano at Liverpool, to see whether it is the nature of the deal that's breaching rules, or whether it's the paperwork involved with the actual transfer.

At West Ham, both players' registration was owned by the club for the duration of the 'loan.' West Ham paid a fee to MSI, probably paid a fee to Corinthians, and MSI continued to pay a fixed wage to the players above that of their contracts at West Ham. After the duration of the 'loan,' the registration would automatically revert to MSI. Additionally, an offer large enough (£30M was suggested) would force the agreement to be terminated.

At Liverpool, Mascherano's registration is owned by the club for the duration of the loan. Liverpool paid a fee, reported to be £1.5M, to MSI, and might well have had to pay West Ham for the early termination of the loan deal. MSI continue to pay a fixed wage to the player above his contract with Liverpool. After the duration of the 'loan,' of 18 months, the registration will automatically revert to the control of MSI. Additionally, an offer large enough will force the agreement to be terminated.

I still contend that the only difference between the two arrangements is that Liverpool correctly filed the paperwork declaring the involvement of MSI. The fact that their deal is also a temporary transfer shows that the Premier League is not opposed to third-party involvements, no matter what the rules state.

[therockbox]

Uh ... what? Liverpool had no involvement with Mascherano when he was at West Ham either, how is that relevant? Or is it only West Ham that can be guilty?

[Thomas]

I'm finding it absolutely hilarious that some Newcastle fans don't want Allardyce. They're pretty close to being real life spastics.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Thomas

[-A-]

Fielding an ineligible player is not the same as failing to fill in the correct form, and what I've shown is that the FA does not oppose the kind of third-party involvement of MSI. There was no reason for Tevez and Mascherano not to play, they were, by the procedures of the FA, the Premier League and FIFA, our players. Points deductions are only implemented for the most sever of non-footballing reasons, and failing to file the correct, non-consequential paperwork, is not that.

[IAceI]

I'm finding it absolutely hilarious that some Newcastle fans don't want Allardyce. They're pretty close to be real life spastics.