Mascherano

[Red Chilli]

The whole thing is to do with 3rd party interference rather than ownership. Mascher contract and registration belongs to us for the 18 month period with an option to purchase after that. MSi can't do anything like talk to other clubs about Mascher without our permission during that 18 months.

We should sell him for 30 million after 17 months then

[El Jefecito]

beginnin to think now that sheff utd really did get ****ed and parry did a wonderful job of navigating that mascharano deal

Parry deserves the credit, he did the deal. He was the one that grassed up West Ham when he saw the deal that El Jefecito was on @ W HAM.

[Diego]

So are you saying that we're loaning Mascher from MSI?

If so, why is that not a case of 3rd party ownership?

i think it has to do with the fact that west ham signed masher off to us, they didn't put up any fuzz so i asume that they ok'd the transfer. after we constructed the complicated contract with masher the tevez contract was improved i think i remember it correctly...

if west ham had refused to let masher go to us then there would have been a problem...

[Red Chilli]

i think it has to do with the fact that west ham signed masher off to us, they didn't put up any fuzz so i asume that they ok'd the transfer. after we constructed the complicated contract with masher the tevez contract was improved i think i remember it correctly...

if west ham had refused to let masher go to us then there would have been a problem...

Who owns him now then?

[AFII]

Who owns him now then?

We own Mascherano 100% until next summer.

[Diego]

Who owns him now then?

i think it's a complicated question, i have no idea about it other than what i have heard. to say that we own him 100% until next summer is probably simplifying it a bit. from what i can tell it's a complicated deal, and we don't own him but we have temporary control over him, so we control his registration for some time so the deal will comply with FA rules...

[Red Chilli]

We own Mascherano 100% until next summer.

So we can sell him?

[AFII]

So we can sell him?

No and MSI can't sell him either.

You can say that we bought him for 18 months but without the right to sell him.

[Diego]

i don't know, but i know it isn't that simple. we probably have him on loan, i remember that west ham said after the deal had been done, they no longer had any connection to the player. so it would seem that the contract with west ham was terminated and we loaned him directly from msi with the option/condition that we'd make it permanent. that was the key factor for the move being allowed by the FA that there was a option/condition that he would be ours. i don't know how it is but this is how it was reported i seem to remember as it was all over the the news here in iceland do to the owners being icelandic...

[Morph]

No and MSI can't sell him either.

You can say that we bought him for 18 months but without the right to sell him.

Yes but that's wrong isn't it because we've loaned him from WHU for 18 months as has been said multiple times

[Diego]

Yes but that's wrong isn't it because we've loaned him from WHU for 18 months as has been said multiple times

i seem to remember egg-head coming out both in the icelandic and british press saying that west ham had severed all ties to Mascherano. only chance of that being true is if he only had 18 months left of his contract at west ham and we just loaned him for that period of time, but then he'd be a free agent and i don't think that's the case either. the only thing left for me is that his contract with west ham had been terminated and that we loaned him straight from msi, with the option of a permanent deal in the contract which was something the FA insisted on...

just speculations though...

[Morph]

i seem to remember egg-head coming out both in the icelandic and british press saying that west ham had severed all ties to Mascherano. only chance of that being true is if he only had 18 months left of his contract at west ham and we just loaned him for that period of time, but then he'd be a free agent and i don't think that's the case either. the only thing left for me is that his contract with west ham had been terminated and that we loaned him straight from msi, with the option of a permanent deal in the contract which was something the FA insisted on...

just speculations though...

going from what maestro said it's a straight loan from WHU, and to me on reflection that seems the most sensible, although i did think we'd bought him for the 18 months originally.

[Diego]

going from what maestro said it's a straight loan from WHU, and to me on reflection that seems the most sensible, although i did think we'd bought him for the 18 months originally.

but if it's a straight loan from west ham, does that mean that either we'd have to pay them to complete the move, or that he'd be a free agent come next summer? how can west ham loan him if they don't own him?

[Morph]

but if it's a straight loan from west ham, does that mean that either we'd have to pay them to complete the move, or that he'd be a free agent come next summer? how can west ham loan him if they don't own him?

thinking about it, we'll know when we play west ham wont we?

[AFII]

Yes but that's wrong isn't it because we've loaned him from WHU for 18 months as has been said multiple times

We loaned him from MSI, not West Ham.

West Ham terminated all their connections to him.