Man Utd are trying to sign Carlos Tevez. West Ham say they have had no contact from Man Utd. Man Utd seem to be negotiating with Kia Joorabchian. West Ham must own Carlos Tevez as it was part of the terms of the court case that any third-party agreements must be terminated and West Ham should wholly own the player.
So:
- Either West Ham don't own him, have lied to the Premier League, and Joorabchian is free to negotiate his "transfer" to Man Utd; if this is the case, it makes a total mockery of the decision not to dock West Ham points
- Or United are tapping up a West Ham player; interestingly, Sir Bobby Bloody Charlton came out all guns blazing last year, accusing Real Madrid of tapping up Cristiano Ronaldo; he seemed to have conveniently forgotten Stam, van Nistelrooy, van der Sar, Hargreaves, and now (possibly) Tevez. Surely what's good for the goose should also be good for the gander?
Secondly, I am confused by the Leeds United situation: if I owed £1000 to Revenue and Customs, would they be happy if I gave them £80? If not, how come companies in administration (not just Leeds) are allowed to negotiate such paltry settlements?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Leeds go out of business, but on the surface, there is something grossly wrong if Ken Bates can take the ten-point penalty at the end of the season (which has now been rectified - shutting the door after the horse has bolted), and buy back the club at an inferior price than that offered by other consortia.
I confess that I am not in possession of the facts here, so if someone knows better than me, feel free to paint the full picture (I just can't help thinking that if I was Rotherham United, I would feel very hard done by).
4 comments:
P.S. Was browsing the BBC Football site and came across this rather brilliant potential explanation for the Tevez situation:
comment by iainstew
Using the analogy of a Rolls Royce seems to make things Easier.I'm minted and buy a rolls royce from a guy called Corinth. I dont drive but bought it anyway.
I see a guy eating a Ham sandwich who needs a car so I loan the car to him for 4 years (but still own it) and tell him I can flog it whenever I please, but he can keep it ticking over in the meantime which he is chuffed with cos he gets to drive a Rolls for a while.In the city he's in its illegal to drive a car you dont own, but a cop stops him and wants to see the registration papers so fudges the name on them to his own and he claims he owns the car (despite the fact he doesnt)
Another Man sees this swish, fantastic car driving about and comes to me wanting to buy it for £3000.I say yes but the guy I loaned it to has a deal with me for a few years and doesnt want to let go of this amazing car. I tell him we had a deal where I could sell at any point but he says that since he told the copper that it was his, then now he owned my Rolls Royce!!
Just cos he says he owns it, doesnt mean he actually does and I dont see how he's entitled to any of the money I make from this car!!
Actually when you're in administration (speaking as someone who has been there) HMRC are normally extremely grateful to receive anything at all (a choice between £80 and £0 is pretty easy).
However, I think Bates has pissed them off by his buyback - effectively writing off £30m for no penalty - which is why they vetoed the deal.
However, I get the feeling that the other bidders don't actually have any money to run the club, after paying off the debtors, whereas Bates still has a big stash of Roubles somewhere in the Kings Road - hence KPMG's (correct, if that is the case) decision to sell back to Bates.
Oops - two howevers in a row there
Damn right they should have vetoed it. As a layman with little or no business knowledge, how can it be allowed for anyone to put the club in administration just to write off debts?
Despite Bates' assertion that all the debts were due to previous regimes, he cannot absolve himself of responsibility - he had been in charge for ages by the time he put the club into administration.
I can't help thinking that the whole thing is morally, if not legally, corrupt.
Post a Comment