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 Â£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 Â£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.
- Paris Saint-Germain are in transfer talks with Manchester United’s Marcus Rashford
- Man Utd want three more signings before transfer deadline
- Report claims Manchester United told to pay £21 million for Sasa Kalajdzic
- Signing of Adrien Rabiot will determine James Garner’s future
- Adrien Rabiot one step away from joining Man Utd
- Brentford v Manchester United: Preview, Team News & Predicted Starting XI
- Manchester United reportedly considered signing £50 million Douglas Luiz from Aston Villa
- QPR closing in on Ethan Laird loan deal
- Big boost as Frenkie de Jong agent has agreement with Manchester United ahead of blockbuster deal
- Would rejected ETH transfer have done better than Fred / McTominay against Brighton?