Quite a clear article on Tevez ownership etc

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle2039856.ece

Just who does own the rights to Tevez?James Ducker
Manchester United are seething at suggestions that they made an illegal approach for Carlos Tévez. United were given permission by West Ham United to speak to Tévez, although Eggert Magnússon, the West Ham chairman, insisted last night that there was “no agreement” for the Argentina forward to leave the club. “No decision on his future can be reached without the agreement of West Ham,” Magnússon said.

Nonetheless, United expect to complete the signing of Tévez on a two-year loan once the player returns from Copa America in Venezuela later this month. Provided the deal is ratified by the FA Premier League, which has insisted that any fee for Tévez must be paid to West Ham and not Kia Joorabchian, the businessman who owns the economic rights to the player, the 23-year-old will undergo a medical having already agreed personal terms worth £90,000 a week.

With serious doubts still surrounding the transfer, however, The Times answers the questions that matter:

Who owns Carlos Tévez?

West Ham United hold the player’s registration. Kia Joorabchian’s Media Sports Investments firm owns the economic rights to the forward.

Does Tévez’s transfer to Manchester United mirror Javier Mascherano’s move to Liverpool in January?

Yes and no.

How do they differ?

Liverpool signed Mascherano on an 18-month loan – at the end of which they have the option to buy the player permanently – after West Ham ripped up the player’s registration and gave up any rights to him to facilitate the transfer. Joorabchian, who owns the economic rights to Mascherano as well as Tévez, was paid £1.5 million by Liverpool as part of the deal.

United have agreed a two-year loan deal for Tévez, with the option to sign the forward permanently at the end of that period, but West Ham cannot simply give up the rights to the player in this case to facilitate the transfer.

Why not?

After the verdict delivered by the independent commission into the transfer on April 27, when West Ham were fined £5.5 million, the club were given three choices. Either they stop playing Tévez, they bring the third-party agreement with Joorabchian into line with FA Premier League rule U18 so Joorabchian could not materially influence the club’s policy, or, finally, terminate its agreement with Joorabchian on the proviso that they would continue to behave in that manner and assert their rights over the player.

So what did they do?

Given that Tévez was central to the club’s hopes of staying in the Premiership, West Ham decided to terminate their agreement with Joorabchian and assert their rights over the player. As part of the agreement, West Ham would effectively have to answer to the Premier League regarding any future dealings with Tévez. Even if they wanted to, they could not simply terminate the player’s contract, but the decision left the club open to a legal action from Joorabchian for breach of contract.

So what has to happen to satisfy the Premier League before Tévez can join Manchester United?

United must strike a deal with West Ham for Tévez. That means that any fee – thought to be £6 million over the two years – would have to be paid to West Ham and not Joorabchian.

But couldn’t West Ham just receive a fee from United and then give it all to Joorabchian as compensation?

No. The Premier League would want to see that a “significant portion” of the transfer fee remained with West Ham and, given that it has power to scrutinise transactions over £25,000, that would be easy. Otherwise, it could be accused of trying to cover up the third-party agreements that caused so much controversy in the first place.

But what about Joorbachian? Won’t he try to sue West Ham if he does not receive some compensation for a player he holds the economic rights for?

He could, but it is likely that, somewhere down the line, West Ham will pay him a compensation fee in an out-of-court settlement, although that will have to be handled carefully

An excellent article but it still doesn't explain the essential point, how can you unilaterally cancel a contract between 2 parties and somehow gain control of an asset for free?

You keep saying unilaterally cancel a contract?

What the £#%&! does it mean?

I do have an English Language A-level but I ain't sure.

Originally Posted by koppas

You keep saying unilaterally cancel a contract?

What the £#%&! does it mean?

I do have an English Language A-level but I ain't sure.

Well it means you have a contract between 2 parties and one of them cancels it without the agreement of the other. How does one do this?

Originally Posted by koppas

You keep saying unilaterally cancel a contract?

What the £#%&! does it mean?

It means that they canceled it without the consent of the other party (parties) I.E. MSI and JSI.

I don't know, back in the 80's everyone knew what unilateral meant. See, nuclear weapons weren't all bad

Can anyone see this not ending up in court

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

Well it means you have a contract between 2 parties and one of them cancels it without the agreement of the other. How does one do this?

As you put it, like tearing up your mortgage agreement with your lender then?

Originally Posted by koppas

As you put it, like tearing up your mortgage agreement with your lender then?

Yup, then the PL stating you still own your house.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Can anyone see this not ending up in court

That has been mooted as a solution. United pay West Ham, Tevez moves to United, Joorabchian takes West Ham to court and the two parties settle. Not sure how feasible that is though, seems like it would be a somewhat risky move, no?

can't believe Joorabchian let West Ham rip up the contract in the first place. nft.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

An excellent article but it still doesn't explain the essential point, how can you unilaterally cancel a contract between 2 parties and somehow gain control of an asset for free?

indeed, it also ignores the fact that the original deal was clearly a shady sweetner for when Joora and his backers aimed to takeover WH. Presumably once in they would have transferred ownership to the club

the whole thing is bent as £#%&!. I'm glad that the PL are now not being seen as an independent objective body, they clearly have a vested interest due to their direct involvement and actions which caused this situation

in all honesty the players should never have been allowed to sign in the first place

how much did west ham pay to buy them? nowt. why should they benefit from their sale?

Originally Posted by El Calafate

can't believe Joorabchian let West Ham rip up the contract in the first place. nft.

He claims he didn't, that's kinda the point. West Ham and the PL are also suggesting that they did it without his consent.

If West Ham do get compensated for this it'll essentially mean that they broke the rules and got away with it scot-free. Total farce.

Originally Posted by koppas

You keep saying unilaterally cancel a contract?

What the £#%&! does it mean?

I do have an English Language A-level but I ain't sure.

WUM

Originally Posted by ethelred

WUM

Add to that French and Sociology.

Originally Posted by koppas

Add to that French and Sociology.

and by god do you have one employable school leaver.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

and by god do you have one employable school leaver.

I'm 23 bedders ffs.

Originally Posted by koppas

I'm 23 bedders ffs.

Took you 'til 23 to get a sociology A level?

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

and by god do you have one employable school leaver.

What is known as a "late developer".

Originally Posted by ethelred

What is known as a "late developer".

In his A levels he learnt to speak his native language, French and got an A level of less worth than "General Studies". This in the day and age where A levels are less difficult than O Levels were.