OK, I may be a bit dim, but, O my brothers, would somebody please explain to me how IKEA and his fellow investors can pocket £47m when Tevez moves across Manchester, whilst Man Utd don't pocket a penny from the deal, yet this is all above board and kosher? What is and isn't a third party agreement exactly?
Now I am sure Man Utd were careful with the way the Tevez deal was done, but that then begs the question how, exactly, we managed to mess it up so badly. If it was possible to pay a fee and sign Tevez "on loan" for a fixed period, why didn't we do it? What the hell was going on when we entered into an "illegal" (in terms of the rules) deal when there was a perfectly legitimate way of signing him (as the Mancs have now shown)?
Duxbury has been very vociferous on all sorts of subjects but he has been conspicuously silent on this one. He can't blame Eggert, BG, or Curbishley, of course, because none of them were in place when the Tevez deal was struck. Nor can he blame Brown and the old Board for what happened after the initial ruling, because they had departed by that stage.
So what is the single common factor, who is the only man who bridges the signing of Tevez and the agreement to pay Sheffield United out of court? That would be Scotty of course. Time and again he told us that West Ham had done nothing wrong and that we had nothing to fear about Shafting United's legal action, then suddenly we settled out of court, then we learnt that, in the opinion of the authorities, we had done nothing to merit further punishment. That doesn't add up does it?
My brothers, let me take you back to August 6, 2006 and an announcement from the club. We were told then, "West Ham United are delighted to announce the double signing of Argentinian World Cup stars Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano from Brazilian club Corinthians. The pair have been signed for an undisclosed fee and put pen-to-paper on permanent contracts with the club this afternoon. All other aspects of the transfers will remain confidential and undisclosed. The transfers represent a massive coup for the Hammers, who have beaten off some of Europe's biggest clubs to secure the services of the duo."
Now there are two interesting things here: the claim that it was a permanent deal, with subsequent events suggesting this was false; and the insistence that "All other aspects of the transfers will remain confidential". The fact that Chelsea had been negotiating to sign Tevez for a fee reported to be between £20m and £60m sort of added to the suspicion that there was something even dodgier than an 'Arry deal involved here. Especially when you remember that back in May of 2006, IKEA had claimed "Tevez will leave Corinthians if a team pays the contract's release clause, which is between £69m and £83m". So how on earth had we signed him on a permanent deal exactly? And Mascherano into the bargain! Fishy? It stank worse than an eighty five year old prostitute after a visit from Wayne Rooney! Yet the Board, including Duxbury, insisted that everything was above board!
The position shifted in March 2007. By then, the contract agreements had been exposed by Liverpool's attempt to sign Mascherano on the same deal, forcing us to reveal the terms. The reluctance of the club to do so tells a story, as does the defence, that we should not be punished because the deal was struck by a former regime. That always seemed like a weak argument to me because it sounded a bit like "My mate made me do it!" Anyway, the owners and manager may have changed but one familiar figure had made it onto the lifeboat when the old Titanic went down - there, smiling in the prow, was Scotty!
Perhaps Scotty can't spill the beans because should he do so, our place in the Prem might be endangered even now. Fair enough if that is the case. But then, perhaps, he is therefore too dangerous to cut adrift which would explain why, during a double regime change, he has remained the one constant and why, despite seeming incompetence in a number of areas, he has been promoted rather than shunted out.
If anybody else can supply a logical explanation, I would be glad to hear it! If Mr Duxbury would care to offer a blow by blow explanation I would be delighted. Are we not entitled to know why Man Utd could do what we were not allowed to do? Somebody cocked up hugely; who was it and how much did Mr Duxbury know at the time?
7 comments:
Aren't you jumping the gun? This is, at the moment, an unsubstantiated rumour which Joorabchian has flatly denied.
Furthermore if said payment did take place, it was between Man City and MSI/Joorabchian not Man Utd, therefore Man Utd have not got away with something that we could not.
Hammersfan, the issue with our Tevez contract was not third party ownership but third party influence.
As much as it pains me to say it, as I detest the Global Marketing Franchise that is the red mancs and their influence within football, they would have learnt from our mistakes.
The mancs paid a fee to MSI for a loan deal. We did the same (although we initially paid little or nothing as Joorabchian expected to own West Ham within a few months of the initial deal). Nothing illegal in that. The difference was a clause in our contract which allowed MSI influence on whether or not he was available for selection. I assume the first thing the mancs would have done after the 'Tevez affar' was made sure this offending clause was removed from the contract they signed.
I believe Duxberry knew the clause shouldn't have been there but thought he could sneak it through. To be fair he did, until Mascherano went to the scousers and Parry grassed us up (interesting that Mascherano hardly played for us while we were short of options in midfield and then went straight into the scousers first team - see above third party influence clause!).
I think we were right to be punished in the first instance. But the fact that that punishment was a fine rather than a points deduction was the decision of the FA and not a matter for law, as was the fact they allowed us to continue to play him subsequent to the initial fine.
You need to get your facts straight for a start as far as Duxbury's dealings with signing Tevez and Mascherano are concerned. As it was all the handy work of Terry Brown and Paul Aldridge. At the time Duxbury was only a junior executive and had very little say in the matter as he and other junior executives were bullied into towing the line by Paul Aldrigde who was then the CEO and it was Paul Aldridge that told those lies to The Premier League, not Duxbury. The reason that we got into such hot water was not because of the third party agreement as that was was all above board, it was because a side agreement that was not disclosed to the Premier League because it had the potential of third party interference, agian that was down to Paul Aldridge who categorically lied bare faced style to Richard Scudamore implicitly denying that there was nothing being omitted about the deal. Also it was Eggy who threw both Brown and Aldridge out when he realised how the deal was done and it wasn't till then, that Duxbury became CEO and it's been Duxbury that has been carrying the can ever since and the rest as they say in history.
Who gives a shit. It's over so why do you keep bringing it back up? Find a proper story and report on it
I am aware of Duxbury's changing role but I find it hard to believe that he was "in the dark" throughout the process. If nothing else, I would like an explanation as to why the compensation was paid to Shafting United.
You do not seem to understand that Tevez was the club's legal representative and was personally accused of with-holding information at the first hearing in April of 2007 - the reason why we have agreed to pay the compensation to Sheffield United. You can't shift responsibility for that to either Aldridge or Brown.
Indeed, it was Duxbury, personally, who was fingered for the "cuddles" with IKEA - the statement from the FA Tribunial said, 'Moreover, if the Premier League had known what Mr Duxbury for West Ham was saying to Mr Joorabchian's solicitor [Graham Shear] following the commission decision, we are confident the Premier League would have suspended Mr Tevez's registration as a West Ham player.'
No mention of Aldridge or Brown there, is there?
Who needs to get his facts straight exactly?
3rd PARTY OWNERSHIP IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!!!!
This whole issue was so mis-understood by everyone, including all the media coverage, Sheffield Utd and Warnock.
The issue was we had a cluase in the Tevez contract that allowed the 3rd party owner (MSI) to be wholly respsonsible for making decisions on his transfers, without the club having any say. ie This broke the rules on allowing 3rd party influence.
Without the clause the whole contract was perfectly legal.
Massive stage payments still outstanding - so the matter is not yet closed. And the guy at the centre of it all, Scott Duxbury, is our CEO. The latest rumours about the Tevez sale to Man City and the size of the fee, makes it topical again. Until all the questions are answered, we need to keep pressing to find out what really happened.
The Third Party Agreement clause was all hypothetical of course - it was never triggered. But who agreed to it, why did we lie about it and why did Duxbury mislead at the hearing and continue to honour a hypothetical agreement which was illegal and which he knew to be illegal. It is Duxbury's actions that have cost us £25m. Brown and Aldridge cost us £6m. Why is Duxbury still at the club?
Post a Comment