Barca set sights on Mascherano.

[kurtangle01]

No, but unlike you I don't know anything about our deal or the West Ham deal, but I do know that we took Mascherano from West Ham before all the Tevez thing kicked off and it's possible that our hold on Mascherano is as tight as West Ham's was on Tevez.

It was us that blew the whistle on West Ham. You know that, right? And we did our deal differently so that we didn't end up getting stung. You know that aswell, right?

[Red Chilli]

He can't do anything to get more than £18m for Mascherano. If we pay the £18m then he is our player and there is nothing Kia can do about it. He can't cancel the deal.

Anyone with a good enough legal team can cancel any deal in reality

[kurtangle01]

I don't know where you're getting these corkers from. Your opinion is a little bit Rose tinted in my opinion and conveniently ignoring that Joorabchian has a history of dodgy deals.

Rose tinted? Okay right. The opposite of yours right?

Okay mate, you know best. Ofcourse you do.

[Red Chilli]

It was us that blew the whistle on West Ham. You know that, right? And we did our deal differently so that we didn't end up getting stung. You know that aswell, right?

No, didn't know any of those "facts". Have you got a source?

[kurtangle01]

No, didn't know any of those "facts". Have you got a source?

The fact that Rick Parry was a witness for Sheffield United when they were pushing the F.A. to have West Ham relegated.

As for finding sources. Go and have a look yourself. I'm sure you'll find all these stories and statements on a website like the BBC etc...

[carrsim]

the reason we signed the specific deal we signed with kia/masher was to avoid the **** that west ham got themselves into.

ie we own the player for 18 months.

and IF we pay the 17.5m we will own him again, lock stock and barrel for the length of his contract.

kia may well stay as his agent- ie taking 15% or whatever, but he will be owned by LFC- kia will pocket whatever fee we (or anyone) pay and that will be that.

the reason i think that the agreement will stay in place, even if FIFA make a ruling is that i imagine that any investigation will open the proverbial can of worms over many players- as kia has suggested its quite common.

i expect that after a certain date the agreements/ownership will have to be clearer but existing deals have to be honoured.

so, all in all masher will be ours

[Red Chilli]

The fact that Rick Parry was a witness for Sheffield United when they were pushing the F.A. to have West Ham relegated.

That's not blowing the whistle though is it? And his expert testimony didn't have much effect on the outcome.

[kurtangle01]

That's not blowing the whistle though is it? And his expert testimony didn't have much effect on the outcome.

I give up.

When the deal for Mascherano was being put through, apparently, Rick Parry wanted to know who should be paid. Joorbichan insisted that it was him so Parry, apparently, contacted the F.A. to have this ratified because he knew that constituted as 3rd party ownership. That's how all the **** blew up in West Hams face and also the reason Rick Parry was called as a witness at the hearing.

If you like I could spell it out for you.

[tomasjj]

No, didn't know any of those "facts". Have you got a source?

ahhhh... how quickly I forget.
you didn't want him in the first place...cause he is an Argie....

Still the same eh?

[kurtangle01]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sheff_utd/6761225.stm

Sheffield United have been told they must wait to hear if their appeal against relegation from the Premier League has been successful.
Blades plc chairman Kevin McCabe says the arbitration panel hearing their challenge will deliver a verdict "by the end of the month, maybe sooner".

United want to be reinstated after West Ham breached player ownership rules.

West Ham said in a statment that there was no threat to their top-flight status from the hearing.


Interview: Sheffield United chairman Kevin McCabe

The Hammers avoided a points deduction over the signing of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano but were fined £5.5m.

"West Ham United are and remain a Premiership football club," said the Hammers in a statement.

"There is no scope for this to be changed by the Premier League's arbitration panel and West Ham's status cannot be called into question in relation to next season.

"West Ham were not and are not a party to the arbitration and our standing as a Premier League club is not in doubt as a result of the panel's hearing."

The Blades want the panel to order a fresh disciplinary hearing against West Ham.

The independent arbitration panel can order a new hearing or rule that some compensation be paid to Sheffield United.

I think the Premier League accept they wish the arbitration was not happening

Sheffield United plc chairman Kevin McCabe

The three-man panel's main role was to see whether the correct disciplinary procedures were followed.

Retired High Court judge Sir Philip Otton chaired the hearing in Fleet Street, with David Pannick QC representing the Blades and leading barrister Nicholas Randall acting for the Premier League.

After the panel finished hearing the challenge, McCabe said: "It's been a very complicated case, and the panel are going away to review the evidence and submissions.

"All three parties had the opportunity to present their cases clearly to the panel and we look forward to the handing-down of the decision of the panel in due course.

"It would be inappropriate to comment further until a decision has been made."

Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry appeared at the arbitration tribunal on Monday.

He first drew attention to the rule breaches when Liverpool signed Mascherano from West Ham in the January transfer window.

Questioned as to whether Parry's appearance as a witness was because of Liverpool's signing of Javier Mascherano from West Ham, McCabe added: "Not particularly. Rick is an experienced football guy. He's a good witness."
McCabe also appeared as a witness, with Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore and general secretary Mike Foster appearing for the other side.

McCabe has always been adamant the panel will rule in favour of his club over a saga that started back in March.

In that month, West Ham were found guilty by an independent committee set up by the Premier League of acting improperly and withholding vital documentation over the Argentine pair's ownership but they escaped a points deduction and Tevez was allowed to continue playing.

606: DEBATE
Your views on this story

He and Mascherano were part-owned by a third party but the Hammers then ended that agreement, which satisfied the Premier League.

Tevez was one of the major factors in the club's late escape - scoring a goal on the final day of last season at Manchester United to help the Hammers stay up.

The Blades finished on the same number of points as fourth-from-bottom Wigan but were relegated on goal difference.

"I think the Premier League accept they wish the arbitration was not happening," McCabe said last week.

"But in the knowledge it is happening and it cannot be prevented, then if the decision is overturned we should be reselected to the Premier League.

"Since we really looked into the whys and the wherefores of the Tevez affair it became apparent that a wrong decision was made."

[Red Chilli]

ahhhh... how quickly I forget.
you didn't want him in the first place...cause he is an Argie....

Still the same eh?

Is that relevant tomas? Is it relevant to whether we will sign him permanently and is it relevant to how water-tight the deal is?

I don't think it is, please try and keep on topic.

[kurtangle01]

ahhhh... how quickly I forget.
you didn't want him in the first place...cause he is an Argie....

Still the same eh?

So it seems.

He wants his moment to say, "I was right, told you so!"

[tomasjj]

Is that relevant tomas? Is it relevant to whether we will sign him permanently and is it relevant to how water-tight the deal is?

I don't think it is, please try and keep on topic.

Makes it easier to spot if you still have an agenda.
And that has an effect on your arguments.

Not that I care.

Roll on...

[Red Chilli]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...td/6761225.stm

Sheffield United have been told they must wait to hear if their appeal against relegation from the Premier League has been successful.
Blades plc chairman Kevin McCabe says the arbitration panel hearing their challenge will deliver a verdict "by the end of the month, maybe sooner".

United want to be reinstated after West Ham breached player ownership rules.

West Ham said in a statment that there was no threat to their top-flight status from the hearing.


Interview: Sheffield United chairman Kevin McCabe

The Hammers avoided a points deduction over the signing of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano but were fined £5.5m.

"West Ham United are and remain a Premiership football club," said the Hammers in a statement.

"There is no scope for this to be changed by the Premier League's arbitration panel and West Ham's status cannot be called into question in relation to next season.

"West Ham were not and are not a party to the arbitration and our standing as a Premier League club is not in doubt as a result of the panel's hearing."

The Blades want the panel to order a fresh disciplinary hearing against West Ham.

The independent arbitration panel can order a new hearing or rule that some compensation be paid to Sheffield United.

I think the Premier League accept they wish the arbitration was not happening

Sheffield United plc chairman Kevin McCabe

The three-man panel's main role was to see whether the correct disciplinary procedures were followed.

Retired High Court judge Sir Philip Otton chaired the hearing in Fleet Street, with David Pannick QC representing the Blades and leading barrister Nicholas Randall acting for the Premier League.

After the panel finished hearing the challenge, McCabe said: "It's been a very complicated case, and the panel are going away to review the evidence and submissions.

"All three parties had the opportunity to present their cases clearly to the panel and we look forward to the handing-down of the decision of the panel in due course.

"It would be inappropriate to comment further until a decision has been made."

Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry appeared at the arbitration tribunal on Monday.

He first drew attention to the rule breaches when Liverpool signed Mascherano from West Ham in the January transfer window.

Questioned as to whether Parry's appearance as a witness was because of Liverpool's signing of Javier Mascherano from West Ham, McCabe added: "Not particularly. Rick is an experienced football guy. He's a good witness."
McCabe also appeared as a witness, with Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore and general secretary Mike Foster appearing for the other side.

McCabe has always been adamant the panel will rule in favour of his club over a saga that started back in March.

In that month, West Ham were found guilty by an independent committee set up by the Premier League of acting improperly and withholding vital documentation over the Argentine pair's ownership but they escaped a points deduction and Tevez was allowed to continue playing.

606: DEBATE
Your views on this story

He and Mascherano were part-owned by a third party but the Hammers then ended that agreement, which satisfied the Premier League.

Tevez was one of the major factors in the club's late escape - scoring a goal on the final day of last season at Manchester United to help the Hammers stay up.

The Blades finished on the same number of points as fourth-from-bottom Wigan but were relegated on goal difference.

"I think the Premier League accept they wish the arbitration was not happening," McCabe said last week.

"But in the knowledge it is happening and it cannot be prevented, then if the decision is overturned we should be reselected to the Premier League.

"Since we really looked into the whys and the wherefores of the Tevez affair it became apparent that a wrong decision was made."

Doesn't that second bit you've bolded blow a whole in your assertion that Parry blew the whistle on WH?

[kurtangle01]

Is that relevant tomas? Is it relevant to whether we will sign him permanently and is it relevant to how water-tight the deal is?

I don't think it is, please try and keep on topic.

I think he's implying that your letting your apparent dislike of Mascherano or Joorbichan rule your judgement. Which is fair enough, imho.

You may turn out to be right, mate, but at the moment it just seems like you're trying to back up a point you were making 10 months ago and trying to prove that you were right all along.

Until it happens though you or I can't say for sure what will happen.