The real deal with Mascherano

[Diego]

No mate, YOU are speaking bollox of the highest order (and just for good measure, so is AFII). Just because someone accepts a higher offer it doesn't mean the player has to agree terms with and put pen to paper. A player cannot be forced to sign for a club just because they have made a higher bid.

There will be no waiting game in an attempt to get a higher fee as a ruling is due soon concerning players registrations and who is allowed to own them. This will undoubtedly rule against 3rd party organisations.

i know that, but it's not like it's sunderland thats going to be into him. he could probably choose from the biggest teams in the world, pricetag suddenly becomes 25+ and if we want him weðll have to pay that. i know he wants to be here but kia is a right dirty fecker who'll probably stick to his guns, and with the players rights being as unclear as they are now, masch could end up ad madrid or barca simply due to them outspending us.

Carheex is right here, its the Owen saga over again isnt it? Newcastle put in a higher offer but if the little ****er had stuck to his guns then he would be our player (lucky escape)!

Same with Masch - if he makes it clear that he only wants to play for us, and sticks to it, then it doesnt matter if Milan offer £300 mill. Makes it far more awkward granted but still, ultimately its the players decision.

we have no idea what madrid would have done, the players rights have increased but the club still has power to refuse to sell him, they might have said no to us and refuse to let him go. i'd respect the ****er if he had but thats no guaranty that we would have got him...

[Liverpool]

First option doesnt matter if he wants to play for a club he will play for them, he's not gonna think oh ill sign for Liverpool because they have first choice, but i think he will stay anyways!

[carheex]

Third party ownership only comes into play if a player is already at a club, not if he goes back to MSI, in this case, at the end of his loan deal.

MSI owns him and won't count as a 3rd party in that case.

There's no MSI to "go back to" and play for. Javier is a professional footballer and the ruling will state that his playing rights must be owned by a club, to avoid all this kerfuffle in the future.
I think it's highly likely that a tribunal will decide a fee to which MSI must sell his rights to. Whoever meets that fee can talk to the player providing he wants to talk to them. I don't see how we can lose out. My guess is that we will end up getting him for less than anticipated. Be patient fellow reds....

[red g]

He would have to wait until the end of his contract with MSI.

It will then come down to if Masch loves Liverpool so much that he is prepared to miss out playing football the time he have left on his contract with MSI.

If Real for example offered £30m, then MSI would still make a profit even if they would pay his wages if he isn't playing for a year or two.

I don't think Masch would be prepared not playing for a year or two.

why the **** would MSI do that? MSI are a company in effeft mash is one of there employees, if they did that with masher then would want to sign for MSI in the future?

MSI have to protect there image and future value by treating mash well.

Rafa wants Mash
Mash wants liverpool

end of. well if the yanks cough up that is

[AFII]

There's no MSI to "go back to" and play for. Javier is a professional footballer and the ruling will state that his playing rights must be owned by a club, to avoid all this kerfuffle in the future.
I think it's highly likely that a tribunal will decide a fee to which MSI must sell his rights to. Whoever meets that fee can talk to the player providing he wants to talk to them. I don't see how we can lose out. My guess is that we will end up getting him for less than anticipated. Be patient fellow reds....

Again, MSI can own him without any problem at all because they are not classified as third party as long as they sell both his playing registration and image rights when they sell him.

It's in a case like West Ham when MSI had the ultimate decision even if the playing rights was owned by West Ham that's called third party ownership.

When Mascheranos contract with us ends then he will be owned by MSI and they can then decide who they want to sell him to.

[AFII]

why the **** would MSI do that? MSI are a company in effeft mash is one of there employees, if they did that with masher then would want to sign for MSI in the future?

MSI have to protect there image and future value by treating mash well.

Rafa wants Mash
Mash wants liverpool

end of. well if the yanks cough up that is

I don't think MSI is buying any players anymore.

[carheex]

Again, MSI can own him without any problem at all because they are not classified as third party as long as they sell both his playing registration and image rights when they sell him.

It's in a case like West Ham when MSI had the ultimate decision even if the playing rights was owned by West Ham that's called third party ownership.

When Mascheranos contract with us ends then he will be owned by MSI and they can then decide who they want to sell him to.

Not quite. Of the clubs that meet the asking price, Javier and Javier alone will decide who he plays for. If MSI accept a bid from Barcelona and he doesn't want to play for them then he won't sign. Hence the first option clause not being worth piss.

[red g]

I don't think MSI is buying any players anymore.

the deal they signed with corinthians was a 10 year deal for there players. this was signed in 2004.

Although it may have been ripped up when they were relegated?

and doesnt roman have a stake in Msi?

[thekop]

When Mascheranos contract with us ends then he will be owned by MSI and they can then decide who they want to sell him to.

In theory yes but, if Masher decides on signing for us only and sticks to his guns, then ultimently they would have to let him go IMO

Just a thought, a player whose has a year left in his contract is able to buy himself out(i think) so, does this mean Masher can too AF!

[Alpha]

Again, MSI can own him without any problem at all because they are not classified as third party as long as they sell both his playing registration and image rights when they sell him.

It's in a case like West Ham when MSI had the ultimate decision even if the playing rights was owned by West Ham that's called third party ownership.

When Mascheranos contract with us ends then he will be owned by MSI and they can then decide who they want to sell him to.

All this from a guy who, until last season, based all arguments around MSI on the presumption that MSI was bankrolled by Abramovich and that Mascherano and Tevez were dead-certs to join Chelsea.

[AFII]

All this from a guy who, until last season, based all arguments around MSI on the presumption that MSI was bankrolled by Abramovich and that Mascherano and Tevez were dead-certs to join Chelsea.

What have that to do with anything? It's actually the other mega rich russian that bank rolled them but Putin didn't like him and that was the end of MSI as a buying company.

[red g]

What have that to do with anything? It's actually the other mega rich russian that bank rolled them but Putin didn't like him and that was the end of MSI as a buying company.

neither boris berkowsky or roman have officially anything to do with msi. It was all rumour that they owned a stake

[AFII]

neither boris berkowsky or roman have officially anything to do with msi. It was all rumour that they owned a stake

It's not a rumour.

Berkowsky and the other members of MSI are being investigated for money laundry, I guess that you have missed that.

[Alpha]

What have that to do with anything? It's actually the other mega rich russian that bank rolled them but Putin didn't like him and that was the end of MSI as a buying company.

The Kremlin's first attempted extradition of Berezovsky pre-dates MSI's existence, or at least their involvement in contracting footballers. As long as Boris is based in the UK and there is no extradition treaty between London and Moscow, Boris and his fortune are safe. Putin does not and never has entered the equation.

And this is what it has to do with it AF - you ought to straighten your facts out before wading in with half-baked arguments.

[Exiled_red]

Surely not even Parry wouldn't put a 1st option clause in the contract