Mascherano wants to quit West Ham

[Rich]

We've already been given one major rule change by UEFA/FIFA a couple of years ago, we can hardly expect another one!!

[nbryan1764]

I cannot see how we would be able to play him. I am not sure where Bacombe is coming from saying he would be eligible as he played for Corinthians just 4 days before joining West Ham (and got sent off!!) so he obviously has played for 2 clubs already since July 2006

[Red Chilli]

You really don't want him do you?

Never in a month of Sundays, but I also don't want him to leave West Ham, his case should be a lesson to footballers that they can't just **** clubs around. Not in the team? Tough ****, fight for your place.

[Maestro]

We've already been given one major rule change by UEFA/FIFA a couple of years ago, we can hardly expect another one!!

That was purely a UEFA decision - this situation has nothing to do with it Rich.

[Rich]

Piss on my chips why don't you!

[Maestro]

Piss on my chips why don't you!

[kurtangle01]

Never in a month of Sundays, but I also don't want him to leave West Ham, his case should be a lesson to footballers that they can't just **** clubs around. Not in the team? Tough ****, fight for your place.

I think West Ham have made it abundantley clear that they don't want him and no matter how hard he tries he won't play so why should he stay there? It looks more to me like Mascherano is being the one messed about but what do I know.

[Neil Young]

I'm not sure wat you're emplying there, Neil. Perhaps behind closed doors they may be but to publicly bend their owns rules would set a precedent that Fifa would not be happy with IMHO.

I'm suggesting that FIFA rules are made to be broken, that money talks and that there are always get-out clauses to be found. It may or may not happen in this case but I think it's wishful thinking to believe that FIFA will not be, how shall I say it, flexible in certain situations.

I'm not for a moment suggesting LFC are going to bribe anyone if that's what you thought.

[Neil Young]

I think West Ham have made it abundantley clear that they don't want him and no matter how hard he tries he won't play so why should he stay there? It looks more to me like Mascherano is being the one messed about but what do I know.

I think you established that a few weeks ago.

[Red Chilli]

I think West Ham have made it abundantley clear that they don't want him and no matter how hard he tries he won't play so why should he stay there? .

1. because he signed a contract.
2. because if he left he would be breaking FIFA rules.

Fine if he wants to leave, let him pay to get out of his contract and then sit on his arse in Buenos Aires until he is eligible to join another club, but why should he jump ship because he's not in the team. It's ****ing pathetic.

[kurtangle01]

I'm suggesting that FIFA rules are made to be broken, that money talks and that there are always get-out clauses to be found. It may or may not happen in this case but I think it's wishful thinking to believe that FIFA will not be, how shall I say it, flexible in certain situations.

I'm not for a moment suggesting LFC are going to bribe anyone if that's what you thought.

I can't see them bending their rules on this. If they do it for one club or player then they have to do it for all and the crticism they and us would recieve over the matter probably wouldn't be worth the hassle.

[kurtangle01]

I think you established that a few weeks ago.

[Neil Young]

I can't see them bending their rules on this. If they do it for one club or player then they have to do it for all and the crticism they and us would recieve over the matter probably wouldn't be worth the hassle.

You may be right. I suppose we'll see in the end. In the meantime, we can ask ourselves questions like what is the scope of MSI's (owners of Mascherano's contract) influence, who do they know, etc.

Also, what is the legal position in terms of restraint of trade legislation? FIFA may well be prepared to accede on this one case in order to protect their patch from heavyweight judicial interference.

[kurtangle01]

You may be right. I suppose we'll see in the end. In the meantime, we can ask ourselves questions like what is the scope of MSI's (owners of Mascherano's contract) influence, who do they know, etc.

Also, what is the legal position in terms of restraint of trade legislation? FIFA may well be prepared to accede on this one case in order to protect their patch from heavyweight judicial interference.

Perhaps there is a case to be made about restraint of trade and it could be argued in court but wouldn't such a case take a while to get through? i.e. it wouldn't be completed by the 1st of February there for we wouldn't be able to sign Mascherano in January.

[redlancer]

You may be right. I suppose we'll see in the end. In the meantime, we can ask ourselves questions like what is the scope of MSI's (owners of Mascherano's contract) influence, who do they know, etc.

Also, what is the legal position in terms of restraint of trade legislation? FIFA may well be prepared to accede on this one case in order to protect their patch from heavyweight judicial interference.

BOSMAN

freedom of work?


the loophole where you pay off your own contract you become a free agent, does this apply here. If so who owns the contract WH or the holding company