Tevez: United Face Sanctions …
Independent: Manchester United could be charged with “tapping up” Carlos Tevez if they continue to push for the striker’s £35m transfer without the agreement of the Premier League.
So far the Premiership champions have done nothing wrong in their attempts to sign the 23-year-old Argentine despite the controversy surrounding the complicated saga. But if Tevez flies into Manchester next week for a medical, which his adviser Kia Joorabchian said will take place on Wednesday, United could risk the wrath of the Premier League.
The organisation argue that United should be dealing directly with West Ham United, Tevez’s current club and the holders of his registration, and not Joorabchian. Yesterday a Premier League source warned that failure to do so could be a breach of their rules and therefore a case of approaching a contracted player without the permission of his employer. The punishments for the offence range from a fine to a ban on transfer activity for up to two transfer windows.
That stance appears perplexing because Joorabchian received an email four weeks ago from West Ham informing him that they would not be taking up the £40m option to buy Tevez. Since then, however, the Premier League have insisted that it is West Ham who have to do the deal and the club maintains it has had no contact with United and that no offer has been made to them.
At the same time Joorabchian and United admit that they have negotiated a deal with Sir Alex Ferguson declaring he believes Tevez will end up at Old Trafford.
Joorabchian also claims that West Ham have agreed to the deal taking place but the club deny this, declaring that the businessman’s actions are “irresponsible”, even if, at the same time, club sources have hinted that a breakthrough may come at the beginning of next week.
An impasse was reached after the Premier League declared it would not sanction the transfer unless West Ham kept the largest portion of the transfer fee. This is because the club, after pleading guilty at a disciplinary hearing, gave undertakings that Tevez is solely their player when it tore up the agreement it had with Joorabchian.
The Premier League are demanding that West Ham stick to that undertaking and are refusing to change their stance - and are even threatening to convene a second inquiry - despite concerted pressure from United whose lawyer Maurice Watkins has been tasked with sorting out a deal. Ironically Watkins was on the advisory panel that helped draw up the Premier League rules which West Ham then breached.
He spent last Friday at the organisation’s headquarters but failed to change the minds of its chief executive, Richard Scudamore, or its chairman, Dave Richards.
Scudamore has come under increasing pressure over his handling of the affair ever since West Ham were found guilty of acting improperly and withholding documentation over the ownership of Tevez and Javier Mascherano. When the two were registered as players, West Ham failed to disclose that they had entered into an agreement with third-party companies.
There is an appetite at the Premier League for the issue to go to court so that it serves as a warning to clubs and to businessman against such agreements. That would need Joorabchian to sue West Ham, or indeed the Premier League, if he fails to receive the money he believes is due to him as the holder of Tevez’s economic rights. However it also appears that he is intent on concluding a deal that would provoke the Premier League into taking action. The problem with that is that the organisation insists it will not hand over Tevez’s registration until it is satisfied.
There were further developments yesterday with Sheffield United being refused leave to appeal against the Premier League arbitration panel decision which, itself, upheld the inquiry’s verdict that a fine, rather than a points deduction, was the correct punishment for West Ham. The Blades, who are seeking up to £50m in damages for losing Premiership status, will now consider their options after the High Court ruling which failed to back their claim that the panel had made an “error in law”. They may also try to pursue a case against West Ham.
Joorabchian, meanwhile, released a statement yesterday denying “any wrongdoing whatsoever” after a Brazilian court issued an international arrest warrant over allegations of money-laundering. The warrant relates to an investigation at Brazilian club Corinthians, of which Joorabchian’s company MSI is a major investor. Joorabchian insists all his financial dealings, including international transfers, were cleared by the Brazilian Central Bank.
“The investigation in Brazil has been rumbling on for some considerable time and apparently involves numerous individuals including the president, club officials and partners of Corinthians Football Club,” Joorabchian said. “I deny any wrongdoing whatsoever. I have co-operated fully with the authorities in Brazil and have previously offered to speak to them directly, an offer that they have not taken up.”
The Brazilian authorities have also issued an arrest warrant for Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky, who is living in exile in London. Berezovsky has previously denied any business association with Joorabchian - and he denies having “any dealings connected to Carlos Tevez” or any involvement in money-laundering. Indeed Berezovsky is adamant the warrant is “an extension of the Kremlin’s politicised campaign against him”.
…
The key stumbling block in the protracted saga involving Carlos Tevez and his transfer from West Ham United to Manchester United is the apparent insistence by Premier League that the bulk of the proceeds of the transfer remain with West Ham and not be passed on to the businessman, Kia Joorabchian, who is said to own the “economic rights” in Tevez.
In some ways this is surprising, since the passing of proceeds of a transfer to a third party - or even an agreement to this effect - in itself is unlikely to be contrary to the rules of the Premier League.
At the centre of the problems concerning the transfer of Tevez is Rule U18 of the Premier League, which states that no club may enter into a contract which enables any third party “to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams”.
West Ham have long accepted that there was an agreement between them, Tevez and Joorabchian’s companies which enabled Joorabchian to procure the termination of Tevez’s playing contract during any transfer window and to compel West Ham and Tevez to transfer Tevez to another team. This clause was clearly a breach of Rule U18.
When this came to light, West Ham were disciplined by the Premier League for their breach and also for their failure to disclose the agreement when questioned about it. The disciplinary panel fined West Ham a record £5.5m. However, crucially the panel neither deducted any points from West Ham nor cancelled Tevez’s registration, leaving his registration as a matter for the Premier League.
The Premier League decided it would allow Tevez’s registration to stand - and to allow him to play - if West Ham could confirm that the agreement with Joorabchian’s companies had been satisfactorily amended (so that it no longer breached Rule U18) or was no longer in force. West Ham responded by stating that they had unilaterally served notice of termination of the agreement on Joorabchian.
To lawyers, this was somewhat curious. One cannot usually terminate a contract unilaterally without good reason. It requires the other party to agree - otherwise it remains in force. In the event, Joorabchian did not agree and expressly reserved his position to sue on the contract. He, at least, thought it was still in force. This would mean West Ham were still in breach of Rule U18.
West Ham said that in any case they did not consider the agreement with Joorabchian was enforceable - since it constituted an unlawful restraint of trade - and assured the Premier League that they would continue to argue that the agreement was invalid and terminated (even if sued by Joorabchian) and that they would not perform their obligations under it.
Somewhat surprisingly, the Premier League thought that satisfactory and allowed Tevez’s registration to stand and for him to play. He then inspired West Ham to win all three remaining games, scoring three times, including at Old Trafford, which meant the club avoided relegation.
Now there is a transfer to United in the offing and speculation that the proceeds of the sale will be passed on to Joorabchian. The Premier League assumes this is not out of charity, but because West Ham are honouring a contract with Joorabchian which is still in force. This would obviously put in question the assurances provided by West Ham to the Premier League that they would treat the contract as invalid, the assurances which allowed Tevez to play those last three games.
So West Ham have dug a hole for themselves. If they sell Tevez and pass the proceeds on to Joorabchian, the Premier League will want to know how this is consistent with the assurances they gave and, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, they may institute fresh disciplinary proceedings. This may yet result in the deduction of points.
On the other hand, if West Ham keep the proceeds Joorabchian will undoubtedly sue them for the money, arguing that his contract with them is still in force. If he is successful, it will mean that West Ham did have an agreement with a third party in relation to Tevez in breach of Rule U18 and, once again, they may face disciplinary proceedings.
But there may be a way out. While Rule U18 clearly prohibits any club entering into a contract with a third party which allows the third party, for example, to demand or prohibit a transfer of a player, there would appear to be nothing in the rule which prevents clubs simply agreeing to provide a share of the proceeds of a transfer to the third party. Indeed, clubs often agree to pass on a proportion of a transfer fee received to a third party, such as a player’s former club in so-called “sell-on” fees.
West Ham may say that when they gave their assurance to the Premier League they had terminated their contract with Joorabchian’s companies, or that they considered the contract invalid, it was only to the extent that the contract was incompatible with the Premier League’s rules and did not cover the proceeds of sale (although it would have been helpful if they had actually said this at the time). They may even say that the Premier League is exceeding its authority by seeking to prevent the distribution of the proceeds of sale which would, in fact, be permissible under its rules.
This may not be foolproof. The Premier League, now under considerable pressure to take a tough line with West Ham, may say that, in any case, the club are again in breach of their obligation of good faith under its rules. But, in a tight corner, this may be West Ham’s best option.
