Connect with us

Manchester United News

Tevez Update: Is a Solution Finally In Sight?

The Guardian today reports that West Ham United are confident that the clauses in the contract that concern the ownership of Tevez’s economic rights are unenforceable by law.

Reading that article makes it tempting to think that a solution to this mess might be in sight, after all.

So is there one?

To quote from the report:

Jim Sturman QC, argued to the independent disciplinary panel that fined the club £5.5m in April that elements of those contracts are “clearly invalid as being a restraint of trade”. According to Sturman the “predetermined damages” in the third-party agreements – fixed amounts payable upon breach of contract by the club or player – are “penalty clauses” that are also “unenforceable in law”.

What this means to West Ham may not be our concern at all. But this could mean good news to us. At present, we don’t have to debate on whether the claims West Ham make are true or not. What really matters is what West Ham think about the ownership, and if it is really in our interest.

Suppose, we go by their claims, we could deal with WHU directly. West Ham have bought Craig Bellamy and are further bolstered by the return of Dean Ashton. So clearly, they might prefer to offload Tevez rather than stay involved anymore with the murky business that accompanies keeping him.

If we go ahead and deal with them, they might be more than willing to take the £20million pounds straight up and our job would be done. West Ham would be safe in the eyes of the Premier League and would rather face a court case with MSI. Any compensation, they might be asked to pay if they lose will come under scrutiny at a later point of time, and the Hammers might hope that the charges that MSI themselves are facing in their home country might come to their aid, in some way.

From our point of view, we would have secured the signing of Tevez with the blessing of the Premier League (however devilish a part, they might have played in this mess) and could go about our business of making Tevez feel at home at OT. (They say he likes fish ‘n chips).

Any further lawsuits that would happen in the future concerning Kia and MSI would only involve the Premier League and West Ham United. So we stay clear.

This post is my opinion based on West Ham’s claims in that Guardian report. Of course, they may be flawed due to the complex nature of the whole case. So your comments are welcome.



  1. rolo

    16 July 2007 at 12:05

    We, there is small difference between paying 20 millions now and paying them in 2 years after the loan.

  2. simonthered

    16 July 2007 at 12:20

    I agree with your opinion.

    However, I sincerely hope that Sir Alex has kept his eye on the Huntelaar situation, or any other striker for that because we do need somebody else up front.

    And although it worked out last year with Carrick whilst waiting for Hargreaves, I don’t think we can be a striker light going into this season, and this must be dealt with before mid-August not waiting a year due to Fergies honesty and loyalty to players he wants.

    So all in all, hurry up Premier League and get it done because we’ve got a quadruple to go for and Tevez would be handy (very handy) in this quest.

  3. Ambrose Smith

    16 July 2007 at 12:27

    As WHU have never actually bought Tevez, if United would buy rather than loan, that might be a relatively easy way out.

    A fee is agreed with WHU & MSI, say 20 million, which WHU pay MSI and Utd pay WHU – with maybe a little bit extra for their pride.

    Obviously contrived, but all parties get what they, presumably, want.

  4. BootifullGame

    16 July 2007 at 13:49

    I agree with the article and some of what you say simon, but i dont agree with the “any other striker” statement.
    I think Fergie is only going for Tevez because of what he can bring to the team. I think its safe to sat that “any other striker” would not have the same affect. There is only a small number of strikers, in my opinion, that are good enough to add something extra to the squad. One of those was Torres, Tevez is another. Huntelaar would probably fit that bill, but im not sure how mobile/versatile he is.
    If we do buy a striker i certainly hope we get the right one, and dont just buy a striker for buyings sake.

  5. Master Yoda

    16 July 2007 at 13:55

    Even if the clause is a penalty clause, it does not necessarily mean that the whole contract is void. The court may sever the penalty clause and treat the contract as alive.

  6. r...

    16 July 2007 at 14:04

    It wont happen like you state. Man utd is a big club; rich and influential, they are sure to have the contacts and the resources to
    get the job done. How stuff works behind the closed doors is not
    for average joe/fan to understand. Shrewd men are dealing with shrewd men- sometihing will be worked by 1 AUG if not next week.
    Stay assured.

  7. Simon

    16 July 2007 at 15:58

    I still like the earlier analogy I read: If you borrow a car and tear up the log book, does that mean that the car is yours?

    Does it make sense for West Ham to obtain Tevez and Mascherano by paying next to nothing and then claim they can receive the bulk of the transfer fee?

    West Ham got themselves into this mess on their own: they probably made misleading representation to the premier league so that Tevez can play in the final 3 games. I can see no-win situation for WH here, although as a United fan I don’t really care as long as we get Tevez before season starts.

  8. dan

    16 July 2007 at 16:15

    nice article, you cleared a few things up.

  9. MoYa

    16 July 2007 at 16:33

    It certainly seems like the whole Tevez deal might not go through so easily after all… I just hope that Fergie has got a plan B if he does not land his man… And for the type of money we are willing to spend we could definately get a top top striker.
    I still rate that Fabio Quagliarella would be a master stroke signing and the fee is really a steal!

  10. furrball

    16 July 2007 at 17:40


  11. Little Dud

    17 July 2007 at 03:53

    I think the premier league has interfered with tevez and west ham too much and has fucked it all up. Before, MSI owned the player and so the transfer fee would have gone to them, not the host club. But the premier league made it so that west ham, who paid absolutely nothing for tevez, now owns the player and would receive the bulk, if not all, of the transfer fee, whereas they really deserve nothing. That £5.5m fine could actually end up making them money in the end. The system surely does not work.

  12. karl

    17 July 2007 at 08:32

    If past experiences are anything to go by, I think Fergie’s planB is … Wait another year.

    Which courts have authority to validate the agreements between:
    WHU / MSI
    Tevez / MSI
    United / MSI
    Considering that MSI and Tevez are not British and the agreements between them have been signed outside of the UK.
    Who can determine whether the contracts are valid or not?

  13. nelson otieno

    17 July 2007 at 12:01

    tevez will make it to trafford.

  14. gubby

    17 July 2007 at 12:45

    Perhaps we should take him on loan and then do a ‘West Ham’ and tear up the agreement and desclare that we now own him!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News