Tuesday, 13 January 2009

Tevez Case Reopened

It seems there is a power struggle between the FA and the League, leading to a reopening of the Tevez case. The immediate victims of this are the West Ham players, closely followed by the fans. Sheffield United, Fulham, Wigan, despite their protestations are not victims in this. I strongly believe that we have been punished enough in this matter. The club has been dragged through all sorts of mud slinging and accusation. Terry Brown and Scott Duxbury should bear the brunt of this. However, I believe that Brown has a clause that he cannot be implicated.

As disgraceful as this is, as difficult as it is to swallow, Brown will remain 'innocent' of all charges. Brown dealt with Joorabchian and his players Mascherano and Tevez behind Pardews back, primarily this is why Pardew never played them. Brown dealt with Joorabchian and his players Mascherano and Tevez in order to sweeten the sale of West Ham to a partner of Joorabchian. Brown then sold to someone else leaving them to pick up the pieces. Brown is still being paid in the region of £1 million a year from West Ham for his non-executive role at the club, allegedly. It is Brown and Duxbury alone who should be in the dock.

I noticed in the wording of the statement initiating the reopening of Tevez's case that the club or an individual might be charged as a result. This leads me to believe that Duxbury will be correctly identified and punished...alone. I am so frustrated that I am infuriated at our treatment in this case. It also reeks of double standards and double or is it triple jeopardy. West Ham United are not allowed to appeal the independent decision that went in Sheffield's favour due to the terms and scope of that inquiry which bound all participants to agree to the ruling without appeal. However, as a result of this inquiry, West Ham United are being tried again by the FA and League. This just doesn't seem fair, right or just.

Some dozy Lord (and I despise nearly all Lords eapecially those preceeded with the word law) deemed Tevez worth at least 3 points to West Ham, the main reason according to the resultant summary that West Ham were found guilty. How is that determined? I know for a fact that Tevez and Mascherano were the main cause of results going against West Ham when they first played. Was this considered? How on earth does someone deem the value of a player in terms of points. It seems so wholly arbitrary that it is ridiculous.

It also seems that a little he said/I said is at play. If Duxbury did indeed rip up and reconsitute the agreement with Tevez for the last 3 games then surely the Premier League sought evidence of this? Duxbury is alleged to have told Joorabchian that the 3rd party agreement still stood. If it didn't why did United pay us £2 million to get Tevez? Some paperwork somewhere must evidence a correct contractual agreement. Somewhere in all this Duxbury is lying.

Furthermore, United do not own Tevez at all. They are negotiating directly with Joorabchian to buy him for longer. This time it would make him United's sole property but would cost £20 million or so. I am not a dim person, yet I fail to see the difference in what Manchester United have with Tevez and what we had!!! I know it boils down to a 'form of words'...but semantics aside, the truth is that United are in all reality in no different a position than West Ham.

The timing of the FA and Leagues decision to reopen this case has 2 huge negative impacts on West Ham. The uncertainty will unsettle any potential bidders for the club. New ownership is something West Ham currently, absolutely need. It also creates further uncertainty for the players, coaches and fans. The outcome of this case seems likely to be known around April/May time, precisley the relegation period at the end of the season. What if we get points deducted as a result?

Despite all this, my optimistic side, says this case is being reopened to draw a line under the affair. To State wholly that everything was correctly done by West Ham for those last 3 games. If not, to then punish Duxbury as an individual. It might also have the added affect of reducing the payout to Sheffield United and any other ambulance chasers looking some compensation, through a weakening of their cases. That is my hope anyway.

Gary Loughran

1 comment:

  1. As Gary points out it is impossible for any judge to assess how many points West Ham gained from playing Tevez and Mascherano. The calculations seem to based on the number of goals Tevez scored. However, it is impossible to calculate if the forward he replaced would not have scored just as many goals as he did. What about the goal chances he missed? It is possible that his replacement would have scored more goals and gained more points for the club.

    Gary also rightly points out that “I know for a fact that Tevez and Mascherano were the main cause of results going against West Ham when they first played.” I remember how mistakes made by Mascherano made against Everton costs us points. It is of course impossible to make any accurate assessment about how many points any individual obtains for a club during a season.

    The role of Manchester United in this matter is very important. The season that West Ham was fined for playing Tevez and Mascherano because they could be influenced by third-party owners, United forced players they had on loan to rival clubs, not to play in games that involved them. It has been argued that in the case of Tim Howard who was refused permission to play for Everton against United, resulted in at least 3 points gained by the club. This is I suspect the real reason West Ham were not deducted points. The fact that Tevez has been able to help Manchester United win the Premiership and the Champions League while still being owned by Kia Joorabchian is also significant. Especially as Joorabchian eventually paid West Ham £2m to move Tevez to United.

    The idea of West Ham paying Sheffield United compensation of £50m for being relegated is also ridiculous. It is based on the assessment of lost revenue because of increased revenue from Premier League status. However, it does not take into account of the extra costs of being in the top league. For example, most of the £50m would have been taken up in transfer fees and extra wages that would have been needed to play in that league. As we know from examining club accounts, it is almost impossible to make a profit from being in the Premiership. Maybe, it is Sheffield United who should be paying West Ham compensation.