BBC released the details of the transfers for Tevez and Mascherano. Basically, West Ham pay a nominal fee, both players have £35 million release clauses that can be activated from January onwards. If the £35 million bid is made, and the transfer goes through West Ham get no money, besides the minimal fee they paid for them. All money goes to MSI. So MSI are basically owners of the players, no club owns them. IMO this is a terrible thing. I've always hated agents, and now they're getting stupidly powerful. Clubs should have the final say in what happens, and maybe players have some say, but agents should have no say whatsoever. I'd even go as far as removing all non-F.A. agents.

MSI do not care about football, not in the slightest, they would not of sent Tevez ad Masch to West Ham if they didn't think they could get mnoey out of it. Football has been a buisness since the Premiership has started, but now it's going too far. This has to be stoppeed, it was bad enough that we have one or two sugar daddies dominating the football market, but I could live with that, but sooner or later we will have a league where all 20 clubs are owned by billionaires, and we'll have a merry-go-round of managers in every club with each one expecting success.

If the BBc reports aren't true, then I'll take it back. And i'll get accused of double standards of course, "If they signed for Arsenal etc.", but I really don't think any fan should like the sound of agents becoming more powerful than clubs.

Me and a couple of friends have been thinking up the same sort of idea. We thought that the only way that West ham would of got these two is if they would of agreed to some sort of Next Sale clause. I can imagine that teams like Chelsea & Man Utd wouldn't of agreed to such a clause.

I imagine they would want a huge fee from teams such as Chelsea and Manchester United.

i think its good for the players, MSI, West Ham, everyone.

BUT, i think its terrible for football. As you said, its just more power to the agents.

Salary Cap 4tw!

I agree with you,

I fear for football in the long term if people like Abramovich or MSI are allowed to dominate like this. From overriding contracts (Obi Mikel) to this Mascherano/Tevez deal to clubs just buying ludicrous numbers of players, just so opposing clubs cannot buy them (Chelsea). The rich will just get richer and the others will struggle to catch up.

I firmly believe that the Premiership will be dominated by Chelsea for not only the next few years, but beyond. There won't be a "cycle" this time as there was with Liverpool and United's domination. Chelsea can afford to pay any money to any team for any player and so they can just build team after team after team after team.

In addition these "superclubs" seem to be above the laws of the game, Chelsea went behind Arsenal's backs to instigate and unsettle Ashley Cole and they escaped. Then they sign a player, registered officially to another club (Obi Mikel was pictured signing for United - he even wore the damn shirt)

And now we have this weird Mascherano / Tevez thing.


I think that FIFA, and the domestic authorities need to draw up new guidelines and legislation that can somewhat level the playing field, and give some power back to the majority of clubs that don't have billionairres bankrolling them. Including;

Harsh penalties (deductions of points etc) for making contact (tapping up) players without consent of club first.

All players to be registered with clubs and not individuals (Tevez, Mascherano etc) All transfers to be ratified and certified with the FA / FIFA. To prevent any Obi Mikel repeats.


Clubs to have fixed first team squad allowances (say, 30 players) but be allowed to promote youth academy players in addition, but not buy any further players over the 30. This will prevent teams just buying players to block other clubs.

Any fit players (that is eligable to play) that have not featured in a certain percentage of the club's games over a set period (say two/three seasons - not including loans) will be automatically entitled to leave for a set fee. For example if Joey Bloggs signed for Harchester United on a four year deal, but whilst fit, did not feature in say 10% of Harchester's first team games over 3 seasons would be allowed to leave if a bid of £xM came in, and the club would have to release him. This I feel will prevent players having to struggle and being stuck on the bench - and allow them to make a clean break it also allows younger players to break through and fill gaps left.

All merchandise sales to include a percentage that will be fed into a "football fund" held by each league - and then distributed equally throughout the teams in that League. For example if you paid £50 for a Manchester United shirt, United would recieve 70% with 30% being added to the "football fund". This 30% (minus tax) could then trickle down and help each smaller club too. I believe this business model is used for the NFL American Football league.


Also I wonder if transfer budgets and salary caps could be imposed. Based on a percentage of revenue and annual turnover. So the big clubs would still have more money, but the gap would be less. Plus a set budget of investment could be added to that - so the likes of Roman Abramovich could still put money into the team but up to a limit (again based on means tested statistics) This would allow Chelsea or Barcelona to still have more money, but would prevent the "bottomless pit" philosophy that they theoretically can employ, hopefully bridging somewhat the gap between rich and poor and hopefully, bringing more competitive leagues.


Something needs to be done as there is far too much money in football, and clubs are going to start folding more and more, the worse it gets.


Mike

Interesting, so is West Ham paying for their contracts? If everything is true I would guess that they are not?

The real problem is that the FA (and similar organizations across Europ) are so weak compared to the most powerful clubs in their respective leagues. Unfortunatly only FIFA seems to have any real power, and that comes at the cost of punishing an entire country for the actions of one club.

Interesting, so is West Ham paying for their contracts? If everything is true I would guess that they are not?

They're paying their wages, it's tiny like 20k each (tiny heh), and they play for West Ham.

They're paying their wages, it's tiny like 20k each (tiny heh), and they play for West Ham.

:S Well at least its not alot but if both get sold for a huge amount it will be kind of a bad deal from a buisness point of view unless they win West Ham some silverware/help market their clubs. I was under the impression that West Ham were more or less taking care of these players untill they are bought for a huge amount which will go to MSI and not the club therefor I thought MSI would take care of them ( Tevez and Masch )

If Chelsea don't win the Champions League next year, Roman will get bored and leave.

BBC released the details of the transfers for Tevez and Mascherano. Basically, West Ham pay a nominal fee, both players have £35 million release clauses that can be activated from January onwards. If the £35 million bid is made, and the transfer goes through West Ham get no money, besides the minimal fee they paid for them. All money goes to MSI. So MSI are basically owners of the players, no club owns them. IMO this is a terrible thing.

It seems true, people of the press here in Brazil say the same thing. Corinthians is not making much of a profit with their sales aswell. MSI buys the players for you, but they can take it off you when they fell like it. Also, Tevez quite often would leave the squad, then when the coach complained he would say "Joorabchian let me". And the club president Dualib would have no say in it.

Isn't Corintians in huge debt?

If Chelsea don't win the Champions League next year, Roman will get bored and leave.


mmm i dunno man, ROman is determined to make Chelsea a powerhouse (in EUrope as well) so if they dont win CL he'll be me more determined , i mean hes a class business man, and we all know no person with that kinda money didnt quit without reaching their goal. So he has a passion with Chelsea and wants to make Chelsea a power after that we still dont know, cuz managing a sports teams is great for someone until they get very old, i mean not alot of work is done, really he just gives up money and in the other direction ur gonna make money, Chelsea have said they will regain all the money they spent in like 2015 , thats if everything goes according to plan (marketing, sales, more capacityu at the bridge etc. ) :jambo:

**** loads of debt from what ive read Bobby, **** loads.

Great articles on BBCi by the way, one where it explains the whole thing... cant remember the link :(

Dreath is just bitter.

Deals like this have been done all over the world for years.

This would allow Chelsea or Barcelona to still have more money, but would prevent the "bottomless pit" philosophy that they theoretically can employ, hopefully bridging somewhat the gap between rich and poor and hopefully, bringing more competitive leagues.

Mike

Barca just came out of a huge financial crisis and managed to get things back under control by spending wisely and well, not throwing money around indiscriminately.

I think what you say has merit, but it won't happen. A salary cap and revenue sharing would have to be installed by UEFA or FIFA, not by the individual FAs as the players would just leave to play somewhere else.

I just don't think it would be viable in Football. The scope is too big and the cross-border difficulties would make it too much to handle.

MSI are in the very early stages of takeover discussions with West Ham.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/5306356.stm

Corinthians' problems are more about their directors than about the MSI partnership. Before MSI, Corinthians had partnerships with a bank (Excel-Economico) and an American company (HMTF). Neither worked on long term, because as soon as a title was won, or some money got in the club's account, the directors would kick the partner's arse away, and somehow get away with it because the investors were not football-related.

MSI was different. In Joorabchian they have a man who likes football and knows how it works. Also, the supporters like him a lot, as he's quite a charismatic person.

I don't think West Ham fans should be worried, as long as there's a clear hierarchy in the club. If Joorabchian says a player can go home and his coach doesn't want that, what would the players do? What Lean mentioned is true. Too often Tevez would go to Argentina and then tell the club that "Kia let him".

Hilarious how Man U fans NOW feel that the richer clubs need to be harnessed. Now they are not the "big cheese" any more. You wouldn't have heard a manc say that a few years ago.

I do agree though that the MSI situation is very disturbing. Its one thing to buy players, discuss terms and have them in the team,but it seems that MSI do not only OWN the players contracts, they also dictate to the players where they will play and tell them how much they will earn. Did Tevez and Mascherano have a say in which club they would like to play for? I get the feeling that they just had to do as they were told. Usually the agents work for, and are paid, by the players. Now we see the players working for MSI and I just feel that this is a bit sinister somehow. I dont really understand the implications of a company like this operating inside football as yet, so although the whole MSI thing is strange, maybe its just the unknown that we find unsettling. I've gotta do some research on the whole MSI situation before I can make up my mind.

Mikey.....Top marks for your posts mate. One thing though, when bashing Chelsea get the facts right man. Chelsea were punished by the FA for the Ashley Cole saga. They recieved the heaviest fine ever given to any club in England ever. They also had points deducted, although that was suspended. That still hangs over the club.

Mikel?.......Dont even go there mate. You do not know the true story, I do not know the full story. Only Man U, Chelsea, Lyn Oslo and Mikel (plus one or two others) know what went on and nobody has said a word about it since its conclusion, and the truth on this one will not see the light of day for a long time yet.

Forget about all the bitching from all those clubs at the time. The loudest voice is not always the voice of truth. Its just the loudest voice.

Isn't Corintians in huge debt?

Yes, fact. MSI promised to clear the debts (or at least part of it) but i dont think they did. Actually, the partnership between Corinthians and MSI is crumbling.

If Chelsea don't win the Champions League next year, Roman will get bored and leave.
Nope he will just fire Jose Murinho, I would love to see the press confrence aftewards LOL. :wootman:

Nope he will just fire Jose Murinho, I would love to see the press confrence aftewards LOL. :wootman:
"Me............errgg...........Roman..........we go separate ways.....so.........he think i should move on..........i think he is not smart.........so good luck to Roman, Chelsea, the players .................................................. .................................................. ......I'm going to Man United.........Ferguson called me ......and......he is amazing..............simply amazing................so.............i replace him in Manchester................Thank you and good day." :jacko:

mm yeah except that name one manager in the world at the same level as Jose, the only ones i can think of is Guus Hidink and Scolari. firing jose would be stupid, theirs no manager thats like him ,Sir Bobby Robson even said hes one of the finest managers.

What's so great about Scolari?

Scolari? :funny: RIGHT.

What's so great about Scolari?

If he spent a 15 minute half time with Giselle Bundchen, she would probably be motivated to give you a blowjob. That's how good he is at motivation.

scolari is one of the tactical geniuses, "wats so great bout Scolari"??!! ur kidding right euro 2004 final, worldcup semi final, brazil worldcup. aside from the national scale he led Grêmio, Palmeiras to win Libertadores and won south american coach of the yr twice, if it wasnt for the media hed be the one coaching England rite now , FA (if u cant beat him join him)

he has an impressive resume and knows how to deal with egos, so in my opinion if JOse DOES get fired then Scolari and Hiddink should replace him if not available then no point of firing Jose b/c hes without a doubt the finest managers out their. :jambo:
:jap:

Uefa released a statement today that they are looking into the for Tevez and Mascherano transfer.

http://www.maisfutebol.iol.pt/noticia.php?id=720792&div_id=1488

There's no question of Jose getting sacked FFS. Even if he never wins the Champions League with Chelsea, Roman wouldn't sack him for that. In fact Roman wouldn't sack him for any reason at all. Its a stupid suggestion and only wishfull thinking for some people. I dont think some people realise just how tightly knit everyone at Chelsea is. The only pressure on Jose is the pressure that he puts upon himself.

yeh pede but jose said that he was close to quitting in the first season he had with chelsea. why was that?

I expect it has to do with England's media. They don't exactly let the big managers have a private life.

Yes JOse WONT Get sacked stupid english media

That was it entirely. The negativity from the media in England came as a shock to Mourinho. Many people coming to England to work are shocked at the media's vitriol and hatred once they set you up as a target. If you are a boring little "nice" guy, then there is nothing newsworthy in that, but God forbid that you come to England with a bit of personality and a percieved arrogance, and when you combine Jose Mourinho and the new order at Chelsea, also owned by a mega rich foreigner, then for the media, the opportunity is there to try their hardest to either humiliate, embarrass or, the ultimate goal for the press, to drive the foreigner from the shores of England forever, with his tail between his legs.

Thats what pissed Jose off. Thank christ he is made of sterner stuff and didn't give in to them. He is still here and the media still target him. They have succeeded to turn peoples minds into their way of thinking though so, even though most people know nothing about Jose, many people seem to agree with the rubbish the press want to say about him, because it also suits their negative opinions on, in this case, a foriegn "bigmouth" and also Chelsea. This encourages the media of course in their relentless harrassment, but they are beggining to realise that they are wasting their time. Jose is now used to living under the microscope of the press and he has learned to let it all go over his head.

The media in this country just love to ruin peoples lives. We all know that. When its someone that you also might have issues with, unfounded mostly, then there becomes a "lynch mob" hysteria not only in the press but throughout the general public too. People are easily manipulated and the media know that.

In the case of Chelsea and Jose Mourinho, the constant lies and innuendos continue every day. If the people are stupid enough to buy into the crap that is written then theres nothing that can be done about that ignorant blindness.

It does not bother Chelsea or their fanbase in the least. All it has done is made us stronger. Thats why Jose will never quit until he himself makes that decision for his own reasons.

The Times are reporting that part of the deal is that if Maschand Tevez are fit they HAVE to play regardless of form.

Well, West Ham accepted the terms dictated by MSI so they will have to live with that. It becomes clearer day by day why all the other clubs chasing these two guys didn't want to touch them with a bargepole. Looks like the Hammers were the only ones willing to let MSI dictate to them. Not a very favourable position to put a club into I think.

Well, West Ham accepted the terms dictated by MSI so they will have to live with that. It becomes clearer day by day why all the other clubs chasing these two guys didn't want to touch them with a bargepole. Looks like the Hammers were the only ones willing to let MSI dictate to them. Not a very favourable position to put a club into I think.

Yeah I agree

Well, West Ham accepted the terms dictated by MSI so they will have to live with that. It becomes clearer day by day why all the other clubs chasing these two guys didn't want to touch them with a bargepole. Looks like the Hammers were the only ones willing to let MSI dictate to them. Not a very favourable position to put a club into I think.
I don't really agree with that. If it was Chelsea, United or Arsenal that bought those players, then MSI would have had absolutely no control over their future. Their only reason why MSI still has control over them is because they are going to takeover West Ham, if somehow that bid fails, then West Ham totally own the players, they just won't get much money from selling them. But does United, Chelsea or Arsenal buy great players, so that they can resell them in the near future for a big amount? I believe that if those players went straight to a big club, West Ham wouldn't have been a subject to takeover and as stated under the FA rules, the players would have been completely owned by their club.

Apparently United were offered Mascherano for a great sum of money, and also for a loan deal, and turned them both down.

I don't really agree with that. If it was Chelsea, United or Arsenal that bought those players, then MSI would have had absolutely no control over their future. Their only reason why MSI still has control over them is because they are going to takeover West Ham, if somehow that bid fails, then West Ham totally own the players, they just won't get much money from selling them. But does United, Chelsea or Arsenal buy great players, so that they can resell them in the near future for a big amount? I believe that if those players went straight to a big club, West Ham wouldn't have been a subject to takeover and as stated under the FA rules, the players would have been completely owned by their club.


Help, the reason that Chelsea, Man U and Arsenal washed their hands of taking these 2 guys was because, even after shelling out huge sums of money to aquire them, they would still be owned by MSI, who were "pimping" them around the clubs for "hire", and not for sale. Paying big bucks for them would not have given the clubs ownership of the players, MSI would still own them. The deal would have enabled the clubs to hire them, with a stipulation that MSI would still have control.

Obviously West Ham accepted that deal when aquiring the 2 players. West Ham do not own those players hence they have no rights over them regarding their future. If MSI decide to sell them on at a later date they will do that without any say so from West Ham. If any club in the future wants to pay MSI's asking price for both of them, the money goes to MSI and not West Ham.

If West Ham had not agreed to letting MSI take over the club, the players would not be there now. MSI touted the same deal to every club they spoke to and all refused until they got to West Ham.

The whole deal is under investigation by Fifa at the moment for matters that you mentioned in your last sentence.

Reassuring to know that FIFA aren't going to let this one go, it could set a dangerous precident.


Mike

Help, the reason that Chelsea, Man U and Arsenal washed their hands of taking these 2 guys was because, even after shelling out huge sums of money to aquire them, they would still be owned by MSI, who were "pimping" them around the clubs for "hire", and not for sale. Paying big bucks for them would not have given the clubs ownership of the players, MSI would still own them. The deal would have enabled the clubs to hire them, with a stipulation that MSI would still have control.

Obviously West Ham accepted that deal when aquiring the 2 players. West Ham do not own those players hence they have no rights over them regarding their future. If MSI decide to sell them on at a later date they will do that without any say so from West Ham. If any club in the future wants to pay MSI's asking price for both of them, the money goes to MSI and not West Ham.

If West Ham had not agreed to letting MSI take over the club, the players would not be there now. MSI touted the same deal to every club they spoke to and all refused until they got to West Ham.

You are mistaken there a little. As of right now, West Ham own 100% Tevez and Mascherano. These players do not belong to MSI anymore, however when MSI takes over West Ham, the players will be controlled by them again. The FA rules clearly state that an agent cannot own the rights to a player, only the player's team has the authority over that player. It's the FA rules, they are a little different than in South America. Which is why, if Tevez and Mascherano went to either of the big three, then they would completely belong to either of those three and since MSI would not be able to takeover Chelsea, United or Arsenal, those players would have nothing to do with MSI anymore, meaning that MSI would have had absolutely no say in the future of those two players, but the only thing that they could have had is a big sell-on clause, which is exactly what West Ham got right now. However, West Ham are likely to sell them, but why would any of the top 3 teams do that?

That's why the players went to West Ham, because MSI wanted to takeover West Ham. If they wanted lots of money right now, they would have let at least Mascherano go to United at the beginning of the summer for around 18 million.

as I said before deals like Tevez and Mascherano being bought by investment funds happen all the time all over the world.

Just because this time it involves high profile players does not make it any different.


it's a win-win situation for the clubs involved.


Luisao for instance was bought by an investment fund from Cruzeiro and loaned to Benfica.

Had he failed as a player here he would have been sent away and Benfica would just spend the salaries while he was here. As he succeded in the first team, Benfica bought his pass from the investment fund, obviously for a fee higher than what they paid to Cruzeiro but it was worth it because he became a crucial first team player.

Therefore, every part involved gets paid and happy.

as I said before deals like Tevez and Mascherano being bought by investment funds happen all the time all over the world.

Just because this time it involves high profile players does not make it any different.


it's a win-win situation for the clubs involved.


Luisao for instance was bought by an investment fund from Cruzeiro and loaned to Benfica.

Had he failed as a player here he would have been sent away and Benfica would just spend the salaries while he was here. As he succeded in the first team, Benfica bought his pass from the investment fund, obviously for a fee higher than what they paid to Cruzeiro but it was worth it because he became a crucial first team player.

Therefore, every part involved gets paid and happy.
Yes, and because it was a loan deal, he was still owned by the investment fund, but after he signed for Benfica, he is fully their players, which is exactly the same thing that would have happened with West Ham, if the players were singed only on loan and not permanent.

You are mistaken there a little. As of right now, West Ham own 100% Tevez and Mascherano. These players do not belong to MSI anymore, however when MSI takes over West Ham, the players will be controlled by them again. The FA rules clearly state that an agent cannot own the rights to a player, only the player's team has the authority over that player. It's the FA rules, they are a little different than in South America. Which is why, if Tevez and Mascherano went to either of the big three, then they would completely belong to either of those three and since MSI would not be able to takeover Chelsea, United or Arsenal, those players would have nothing to do with MSI anymore, meaning that MSI would have had absolutely no say in the future of those two players, but the only thing that they could have had is a big sell-on clause, which is exactly what West Ham got right now. However, West Ham are likely to sell them, but why would any of the top 3 teams do that?

That's why the players went to West Ham, because MSI wanted to takeover West Ham. If they wanted lots of money right now, they would have let at least Mascherano go to United at the beginning of the summer for around 18 million.


wrong.


West Ham owns the sporting rights that were given them by MSI, for the duration of the players contract.

MSI owns the players pass, meaning if there is a transfer in the future, West Ham won't see a dime and the money will go all to MSI unless they leave on a Bosman.

West Ham obviously has the right to match any offer MSI gets and keep the players though, which is not likely to happen.


If you expect an investment company to hand in assets worth tenths of millions of pounds to a club just because there is a possibility they might take the club over in a near future you need your head examined.

Yes, and because it was a loan deal, he was still owned by the investment fund, but after he signed for Benfica, he is fully their players, which is exactly the same thing that would have happened with West Ham, if the players were singed only on loan and not permanent.

no he wouldn't, he would be our player for the duration of the contract, and that's because the investment fund didn't get a suitable offer for him, which if it was the case we would have to cover or just let him go and not see a dime.

You're mixing sporting rights with transfer rights which aren't the same thing.

wrong.


West Ham owns the sporting rights that were given them by MSI, for the duration of the players contract.

MSI owns the players pass, meaning if there is a transfer in the future, West Ham won't see a dime and the money will go all to MSI unless they leave on a Bosman.

West Ham obviously has the right to match any offer MSI gets and keep the players though, which is not likely to happen.


If you expect an investment company to hand in assets worth tenths of millions of pounds to a club just because there is a possibility they might take the club over in a near future you need your head examined.
Again, if MSI wanted these players to go to say Chelsea and the transfer window was still open, all West Ham would have to do is say "NO" and the players would still be at Upton Park. You probably forgot that MSI is going to takeover West Ham, meaning that they will own the two players again soon. This was most likely part of the deal, which is why the players were moved to West Ham permanently. West Ham doesn't have to sell the players in January, a year or ever, unless MSI takesover them.

Again, if MSI wanted these players to go to say Chelsea and the transfer window was still open, all West Ham would have to do is say "NO" and the players would still be at Upton Park. You probably forgot that MSI is going to takeover West Ham, meaning that they will own the two players again soon. This was most likely part of the deal, which is why the players were moved to West Ham permanently. West Ham doesn't have to sell the players in January, a year or ever, unless MSI takesover them.


So you're saying they give 2 players to West Ham whose value is probably higher than the value of the club itself and then go and buy the club for probably twice as more than they would pay in the first place. That's just f*cking genius man. :funny:


Look, the purpose of a company like MSI is solely to make money.

they obviously think (and probably rightly so) that they can make more money with a possible sale by having them play in a lesser club of the league and therefore raising their value.

Is this so hard to understand?

So you're saying they give 2 players to West Ham whose value is probably higher than the value of the club itself and then go and buy the club for probably twice as more than they would pay in the first place. That's just f*cking genius man. :funny:


Look, the purpose of a company like MSI is solely to make money.

they obviously think (and probably rightly so) that they can make more money with a possible sale by having them play in a lesser club of the league and therefore raising their value.

Is this so hard to understand?
Yes, i believe that under the FA rules the club and only the club can have the ownership rights of the player. I don't want to waste my time looking for this, but my source is a very good soccer analyst here in Canada, Bobby MacMahon, who talked about this. Maybe only a club is allowed to own the player in England if that player is loaned out, which would explain the move turning permament. But even like that it makes sense to me, since MSI is planning to control West Ham soon, controlling those two players again. Don't jump on me for this, because my source is very strong, but i will ask the guy a question and then we can sort this argument out, alright?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/5305724.stm

this pretty much explains what I said.


FIFA are investigating it probably just because they were big name transfers. This is a common practice but some top clubs were interested and you know FIFA always bows down to those.