Like or Dislike: 0  0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/10/the_philosophical_argument_of.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“If someone is caught and convicted the criminal court may order the offender to pay you compensation for any loss which you have suffered because of the offence. If the court decides to make an order against the offender he or she will be required to pay the money to the court which will pass it on to you. If the offender has enough money the compensation will normally be paid in a lump sum. It is the job of the court to make sure that the offender pays the compensation. Whether or not the offender is convicted in the criminal courts, you can sue him or her for damages in a civil court.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

So to summarise, you think that Sheffield United should be fined £5.5M for NOT stating in a contract that Watford couldn’t play an injured former player against us?

To continue the burglary analogy, I would say that West Ham are the thief and The Premier League are the judge who only fined them then gave them the keys to our house, so they could offend again.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Independent Tribunal:- “The rights owners paid West Ham £2 million against an understanding that Mr Joorabchian would recoup that sum, plus his costs, from acting as an agent for West Ham in future player transfer dealings. We note that Mr Joorabchian in fact sued West Ham for the money and those proceedings were compromised very shortly before the hearing of the arbitration. Under the compromise Mr Joorabchian is to receive a guaranteed amount for acting as consultant to West Ham in relation to player transfer activity.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

He was also legally registered to play all season and the problem was a clause in the ownership paperwork which could only have worked against west ham if applied. (after all we were due to give man u another spanking by that stage anyway:).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Given the robust attitude of the Premier League as regards the private agreement, it is in our view inconceivable that it would have been prepared to tolerate West Ham’s stance towards the rights owners. We are sure that, if the Premier League had known about that, it would have suspended Mr Tevez’s registration as a West Ham player.”

Letter from Richard Scudamore to all Premier League clubs:-
“The Board has secured written undertakings that West Ham United can only act in a way that is consistent with its having terminated the offending agreement. It is only because of these written undertakings that Tevez’s registration was not terminated. If the Board suspects or has evidence that these undertakings are false or have been breached, then it will take all necessary steps to enforce Premier League Rules.”

The fact is that West Ham DID act in a way consistent with having terminated the (original) offending agreement, which was cancelled in writing, the PL being copied in. Subsequently, West Ham refused to transfer Tevez’s registration to Manchester United, causing MSI to initiate legal action for breach of contract, which was only finally settled on terms which had been ‘cleared’ by the PL’s lawyers.

The verbal remarks which Duxbury is alleged to have made to Shears, and Shears’s opinion of their intended meaning, is open to interpretation. The independent tribunal went as far as to say it could understand how Duxbury’s take on the matter could have been interpreted in the way Shears says he did, but they then took a very one sided view of the remarks, before deciding what they thought the PL would have thought of them, and what the PL would have done regarding Tevez’s registration.

However, which ‘private agreement’ was Duxbury referring to? The one which had been signed by Brown and Co, and which contained the offending clause (That MSI would determine when Tevez left the club)or the one which had been signed by Eggert Magnusson and which Joorbachian claimed to have signed, but which, seemingly, was never actually returned, and which the independent arbitration panel clearly stated did not offend the ‘third party influence’ rule, because it required MSI to seek to transfer Tevez in the close season, same as a 12 month loan?

And, is it surprising for Shears to have asked why West Ham had terminated the private agreement? Was it dishonest of Duxbury to have said they had done so because they had been required to do so by the PL? That was a simple matter of fact.

Further, is it surprising that, following the termination of the agreement, Shears would have needed to know what that meant in practical terms, and was it dishonest for Duxbury to have said the club had no intention of taking any practical action departing from the terms before the end of the season?

I don’t think so, and it seems to me that the independent tribunal is assuming too high a duty to the PL under rule B13 to deduce that transcripts of all verbal discussions between clubs and players and their agents or owners should be disclosed, and that their conclusion that the PL would have felt that Duxbury’s remarks negated the written cancellation and the subsequent litigation, is highly presumptious.

There really should be a right to appeal such matters, and since the FA acted to force West Ham to ‘consent’ to the arbitration, they should do the decent thing and facilitate the appeal to the CAS. Good Faith should cut both ways, after all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0