ToffeeWeb - Season 2007-08

The Mail Bag

Legality

Some of the media are reporting that we may try to sign Jo who is part owned by Kia whatshisface. This may or may not be true but is similar to the Fernandes situation and leaves me with several general questions.

Firstly the Bosman ruling stated that it was unlawful for Standard Liege or any other club to demand a transfer fee for a player whose registration they held even though he was no longer on their payroll. Therefore how is it legal for Kia to demand any kind of fee for a player whose registration he partially holds but who has never been an actual paid employee of his?

Secondly the "3rd party" issue leaves us open to the kind of rigging we saw in boxing back in the day. Let's say that Kia has a goalie on his books and he is playing against an up and coming striker who also is on Kia's books. What is to prevent Kia from politely sugesting that the goalie should let the striker score since it's for the greater good of the organization they all belong to?

Also how is it that it's against the rules for West Ham to enter into such deals but Ok for Utd, Liverpool and ourselves?

I am not a legal expert so perhaps someone can explain this all to me. Whilst they're at it is it really wise for us to work with folks like Kia given the aforementioned potential legal/corruption issues?
Kieran Kinsella, Gainesville, FL, USA Posted 20/05/2008 at 23:04:12

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Mark Cassin
1 Posted 21/05/2008 at 06:20:03

I would only be guessing at the answers to those questions -- it?s all very strange. I think the West Ham situation was abit different as they didn?t stipulate to the FA the correct circumstances surrounding the transfer -- this is why Kia Joorbachian threatened to sue them as they were trying to receive a transfer fee from Man Utd/Liverpool to cover up to the FA that he was their player.

As for us, I don?t think loaning a player was a problem as we did it all by the book (probably why it took so long) as did Pompey.

Tom Freestone
2 Posted 21/05/2008 at 09:06:12

The whole thing is a bit murky isn’t it?

I think the main problem lies in the fact that the FA’s rules were only really clarified after the West Ham debacle - I followed that sage quite closely and I’m still unclear as to what exactly went on!

The other problem is that the rules are different between different national associations, which obviously has an impact on transfers between foreign clubs. We all saw this with the Manny ’transfer’ - loan = fine, but the full transfer was problematic to say the least. Still, I remember from last season that Valencia bought him outright, which would now make it possible for us (or any other British club) to buy him. This has still yet to be clarified though.

You raise a good point about the conflict between the Bosman Ruling and the ability of ’contract holders’ like Kia Joorbachian.
My (non expert) guess would be that the legislation is lagging behind somewhat - the rules the FA/PL have just didn’t bargain for the current complexity of player ownership/registration that we are seeing with lots of foreign players.
So, no answers from me then!

Simon Skinner
3 Posted 21/05/2008 at 09:04:56

I would imagine there are several reasons why Kia can claim a transfer fee. Firstly, he isn’t European, so EU law doesn’t apply to him (though I don’t know where his company is based). Secondly, I beleive that the way it works is Kia has a deal with the club that he is entitled to a proportion of the proceeds of any transfer (as well as the ability to negoiate any transfer himself). The club, I believe, holds the players registration entirely - I doubt FIFA/UEFA would allow a player to be registered to any other entity.

Is it wise to deal with them? Well, if they are the best players availiable at present within our budget, can we afford NOT to work with them?

As for your point on potential corruption - agree entirely. The potential for such is everywhere in football now, with intra-division loans etc. It’s not really a goalie "letting shots in" that worries me, as I don’t think anybody would be so blatant/stupid. I worry more about players just not giving 100%, as nothing could ever be proved.

Until the money spinning autobiography that comes out in 20 years time when the player falls on hard times, obviously.

Ray Roche
4 Posted 21/05/2008 at 11:34:00

I seem to remember reading that third party ownership is common place on the Continent and in South America, it?s only here that it falls foul of FA regulations. Is that correct anyone?

Andy Hudson
5 Posted 21/05/2008 at 11:40:09

I know in Italy it is very common. I only know this from playing FM though, as if you're Inter or someone like that, half of your team seems to be co-owned by other clubs.

Steve Williams
6 Posted 21/05/2008 at 13:35:19

This whole business stinks.

I remember that West Ham argued that they, and they alone, held the registration documents for Tevez and Mascerano (I know that’s not spelt correctly, but couldn’t be arsed finding out how it should be!). In that event a transfer fee should go to them. I would love to see the RS try to prove that they paid £17m to West Ham and not into the grubby mitts of a third party.

If they didn’t then surely the RS are in the wrong and they should suffer all the consequences associated with that! Now that would be quite something.

Richard Watts
7 Posted 21/05/2008 at 15:00:37

I think FA rules mean that a third party cannot exercise control over a club or players. So where West Ham went wrong when they ?bought? Tevez and Mascherano was that they hadn?t fully bought the registration of the players from MSI, only permission to play them, so the FA felt a third party had influence over the club. They compounded this by fibbing to FA about the nature of the deal.

I think Liverpool got around this with Mascherano by ?loaning? him from MSI so they had full control over the player for the duration of the loan and then buying his registration outright.

This means if we want to buy Jo (or any other MSI player) we either need to loan or buy them outright but cannot do some kind of joint ownership deal.

Does anyone know if any of the other players we?ve been linked with (Dudu, Fernandes, Love?) have MSI links? I thought one of the reasons Fernandes went to Valencia not us last summer was that Spanish rules do allow MSI to continue to jointly own a player - so by him not joining Everton MSI could keep a stake in the player.

Andy Hudson
8 Posted 21/05/2008 at 15:19:02

Richard I?m glad someone else remembers that MSI still have a stake in the player as when I mentioned it in an other thread someone else said Valencia bought him outright. Now I?m not saying this person was wrong, but I clearly remember the details on the transfer being... us offering £12mill for 100% of the player, whereas Valencia only bought Benfica?s 50% stake in him for £12mill. I?d imagine this would mean any chance of getting him for a knock down price would be unlikely due to the dual ownership issue. Valencia may be in trouble but MSi certainly aren?t.

Tom Freestone
9 Posted 21/05/2008 at 16:11:38

Andy - I raised the same question above. I too was under the impression that Valencia had bought Fernandes outright, something that we couldn?t afford to do.

But, as I said, this was never really made clear - you and Richard obviously remember differently, so now i?m not si sure! Maybe no one really knows. If it isn?t the case, and Manny is still part owned, then a permanent deal - should Moyes go for it - would be far from simple. The fact that Moyes has indicated that he might try for a season-long loan instead might give us a few pointers I suppose.

Joint ownership, joint registration - whichever way you cut it it?s absurdly complicated. If any of our transfer targets this summer are involved in deals like this then we really shouldn?t expect things to happen quickly, thats all I can say.

John Charles
10 Posted 21/05/2008 at 16:31:32

lol, European Law definately does apply to him... otherwise it would be like me going to work in America and deciding US law doesn't apply to me because I'm British!

I suggest the reason MSI can demand a fee in respect to the bsoman ruling is because MSI pays the player. I would imagine the club pays MSI a few which MSI then pay the wages of the player. The player is in effect an MSI employee subcontracted to the club whom he then plays for.

Andy Hudson
11 Posted 21/05/2008 at 16:44:15

Tom I?m pretty sure we at least claimed we could afford to pay for him outright... and due to FA rules would not have been able to buy just a share in him. Which unfortunately brought about the major delays in securing his signature... which in turn let Valencia jump in and steal him. I?m pretty sure I remember reading a few things saying that Manny probably didn?t have much say in going to Valencia as they were offering the same money as us, but for only half of his ownership... your right though, with any normal tranfer its hard to work out what the actual facts are let alone one which involves the likes of MSI! I actually applaud the FA for banning this type of transfer as people like MSi are the Devil Incanate as far as transfers go. We all hate agents and the way they bleed money from the game, but for me MSi are a set beyond that. I?d rather we didn?t deal with them at all, but at the same time I want the best players at Everton so its catch 22

Mike Allison
12 Posted 21/05/2008 at 18:51:48

It was reported at the time that Valencia paid £12M for the half of Manuel Fernandes that wasn’t owned by MSI, effectively valuing him at £24M. The currency, or even numbers, might be incorrect or inaccurate but Valencia hadn’t bought him outright, as Spanish rules allow the dodgy 50/50 ownership that the English FA don’t like (but allow if you’re Man Utd or Liverpool).

Declan McCarthy
13 Posted 21/05/2008 at 19:43:39

I get confused myself about these third party transfers, If I can can recall offhand Valencia paid ?18 million for Fernandes, this being split with ?9 million being paid to Benfica and the rest being paid to MSI, I wad windering when Fernandes came back last January how come there was no problem with the loan ?unlike the first time, also I think Moyes might prefer a loan option because of the fee involved and also because he was injured, not sure if this post helps or just adds more confusion, I know these deals are accepted elsewhere but I don’t like this method myself, too much room for the wrong people to influence the game.