Liverpool FC Forum

[RedorDead]

Everyone keeps saying that we should sign Mascherano as soon as we can in the belief that we havn't already. As far as I was always aware we have already bought Mascherano on a permanent deal, he is a Liverpool player outright. I know there are a lot of uncertanties about the fee and what other clauses are in place but I am fairly sure we do own the player having bought him from MSI.
I am of course not an expert in all these legalities/player rights issues but after what happened to The Hammers I can't see us making a similar mistake, we will have bought him properly and no "third party" will have an influence over him in breach of rules....I mean who do you all think we have loaned him from? MSI? Wouldn't that be in breach of premier league rules? Do you think the premier league might have had a VERY close look at our purchase of Mascherano after what happened to West Ham? I think it is safe to say that there are no irregularities and all is above board and we have ourselves a spledid prospect of a midfielder!

[adamnbarrett]

Mascherano has moved to Anfield in a permanent 18-month deal that is rumoured to have cost in the region of £10million

That is the key bit. We've got him for 10 million on an 18 month contract. Time for him to sign a new one me thinks.

We have the registration rights of the player while MSI/globo have the ownership rights.

Bollocks I'm afraid, otherwise we'd be suffering the same fate as West Ham. You must own the player, the player cannot be owned by a third party.

[Scottbot]

We have the registration rights of the player while MSI/globo have the ownership rights.

Bollocks I'm afraid, otherwise we'd be suffering the same fate as West Ham. You must own the player, the player cannot be owned by a third party.

Technically that's correct Adam but in the Tevez case I understand that MSI simply relinquished their 3rd party ownership rights for the duration of the season, i'm sure they have them back again now. With Mascherano i'm guessing (can we do anything else?) that he is our player for 18 months and at the end of that period he becomes the property of MSI again.

[LFC2007]

Mascherano has moved to Anfield in a permanent 18-month deal that is rumoured to have cost in the region of £10million

That is the key bit. We've got him for 10 million on an 18 month contract. Time for him to sign a new one me thinks.

We have the registration rights of the player while MSI/globo have the ownership rights.

Bollocks I'm afraid, otherwise we'd be suffering the same fate as West Ham. You must own the player, the player cannot be owned by a third party.

You have a real problem in understanding the concept of ownership rights and regsitration rights, I can't be fecked to go into it.

The vast majority of press reports have reported that we have him on an 18 month loan deal, do you really think we'd have bought his contract outright given the aim of MSI is to profit from the long term development of Mascherano and others?

Do you also think that, given Tevez's release clause is something like £40m, Mascherano's is likely to be something equally extortionate, and that we could afford that?

You can still have the ownership rights of a player, it's the REGISTRATION of the player is the issue, the club holds the REGISTRATION, MSI have the OWNERSHIP rights.

[redtrader74]

Mascherano has moved to Anfield in a permanent 18-month deal that is rumoured to have cost in the region of £10million

That is the key bit. We've got him for 10 million on an 18 month contract. Time for him to sign a new one me thinks.

We have the registration rights of the player while MSI/globo have the ownership rights.

Bollocks I'm afraid, otherwise we'd be suffering the same fate as West Ham. You must own the player, the player cannot be owned by a third party.

You have a real problem in understanding the concept of ownership rights and regsitration rights, I can't be fecked to go into it.

The vast majority of press reports have reported that we have him on an 18 month loan deal, do you really think we'd have bought his contract outright given the aim of MSI is to profit from the long term development of Mascherano and others?

Do you also think that, given Tevez's release clause is something like £40m, Mascherano's is likely to be something equally extortionate, and that we could afford that?

You can still have the ownership rights of a player, it's the REGISTRATION of the player is the issue, the club holds the REGISTRATION, MSI have the OWNERSHIP rights.

I have a feeling that you will be trying to explain this, about 1465 more time this year! And then again someone will say 'I'm sure we signed him duh' 

[adamnbarrett]

Mascherano has moved to Anfield in a permanent 18-month deal that is rumoured to have cost in the region of £10million

That is the key bit. We've got him for 10 million on an 18 month contract. Time for him to sign a new one me thinks.

We have the registration rights of the player while MSI/globo have the ownership rights.

Bollocks I'm afraid, otherwise we'd be suffering the same fate as West Ham. You must own the player, the player cannot be owned by a third party.

You have a real problem in understanding the concept of ownership rights and regsitration rights, I can't be fecked to go into it.

The vast majority of press reports have reported that we have him on an 18 month loan deal, do you really think we'd have bought his contract outright given the aim of MSI is to profit from the long term development of Mascherano and others?

Do you also think that, given Tevez's release clause is something like £40m, Mascherano's is likely to be something equally extortionate, and that we could afford that?

You can still have the ownership rights of a player, it's the REGISTRATION of the player is the issue, the club holds the REGISTRATION, MSI have the OWNERSHIP rights.

Don't try and patronise me knobhead so pull your head out of your ar5e

As I understand it, we've got his registration and ownership rights (because for it to be legal you need to have ownership rights because the rule states that a player cannot be owned by a third party) for 18 months, then we will give the rights back to them.

So he's not on loan from west ham or Corinthians, he's on loan from MSI.

All Liverpool fans should know not to believe everything they read in the press because sometimes even they are speculating themselves.

Tevez has got nothing to do with this.

[LFC2007]

Mascherano has moved to Anfield in a permanent 18-month deal that is rumoured to have cost in the region of £10million

That is the key bit. We've got him for 10 million on an 18 month contract. Time for him to sign a new one me thinks.

We have the registration rights of the player while MSI/globo have the ownership rights.

Bollocks I'm afraid, otherwise we'd be suffering the same fate as West Ham. You must own the player, the player cannot be owned by a third party.

You have a real problem in understanding the concept of ownership rights and regsitration rights, I can't be fecked to go into it.

The vast majority of press reports have reported that we have him on an 18 month loan deal, do you really think we'd have bought his contract outright given the aim of MSI is to profit from the long term development of Mascherano and others?

Do you also think that, given Tevez's release clause is something like £40m, Mascherano's is likely to be something equally extortionate, and that we could afford that?

You can still have the ownership rights of a player, it's the REGISTRATION of the player is the issue, the club holds the REGISTRATION, MSI have the OWNERSHIP rights.

Don't try and patronise me knobhead so pull your head out of your ar5e

As I understand it, we've got his registration and ownership rights (because for it to be legal you need to have ownership rights because the rule states that a player cannot be owned by a third party) for 18 months, then we will give the rights back to them.

So he's not on loan from west ham or Corinthians, he's on loan from MSI.

All Liverpool fans should know not to believe everything they read in the press because sometimes even they are speculating themselves.

Tevez has got nothing to do with this.

Leave the "knobhead" jibes out, we have the REGISTRATION rights of Mascherano.

You don't hand back ownership after 18 months!!!!!!

You hand back the player's registration!!!!!!!!!!!!

MSI own Mascherano and Tevez, they may have conducted the paperwork in a way that is acceptable to Premier League rule U.18 that stipulates a third party cannot:

"enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or performance of its teams in League matches"

Where in that rule does it say "A THIRD PARTY CANNOT OWN A PLAYER".

It does NOT.

It means a player can be registered to a club, but the ownership rights of the player can remain in the hands of MSI.

The issue with West Ham was with the paperwork and relevant documents that were not handed over to the FAPL.

The situation with Tevez was corrected by terminating the third party AGREEMENT, that does not affect OWNERSHIP.

The situation with Mascherano's move to Liverpool would have been conducted in a way that did not contravene rule U.18, that is the difference. It is not an issue of OWNERSHIP.


If you read this carefully you may understand the situation
better.

Interview in the Daily Mail with Kia Joorabchian:

LC: Did you agree to tear up the contract?

KJ:West Ham have unilaterally terminated the agreement and I have left it in the hands of my lawyer, Graham Shear, to deal with the matter.

LC: Are you comfortable with that.

KJ: Yes.

LC: To qualify Carlos to play, to satisfy the Premier League?

KJ: I am assuming so, or else he wouldn’t have been able to play.

LC: Who now owns Carlos Tevez, is he a West Ham player?

KJ: He is registered to West Ham.

LC: If he moves to another club, do West Ham make a profit?

KJ: No. To use an analogy, take Ben Foster. If he transferred to another club, do Watford get the transfer fee?

LC: Is the loan deal indefinite?

KJ: No.

LC: If he doesn’t stay at West Ham, could he go on loan to another club?

KJ: Yes.

LC: Do West Ham have a buy-out option on him?

KJ: That is confidential, but we are more than happy to talk to West Ham to try to resolve the problem, if they wish. Of course, Carlos’s views are paramount.

Sportsmail has since learned that the buy-out clause to own Tevez outright is £40million.






Now, the situation with Tevez shows how the PROCESS works.

That is, that West Ham hold the player's registration, but they do not own him outright. If they owned him outright, they would receive a transfer fee if he was transfered.

The situation is the same with Mascherano at Liverpool with the only exception being the agreement with the third party does not contravene rule U.18. There are plenty of ways clubs can be savvy about complying to the relevant rules.


Now, if you don't understand that, then I give up!

[account deleted by request]

The Premier League's decision not to dock West Ham points after the club breached regulations in the signing of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano prompted surprise and anger from their relegation rivals.

Tevez's goal at Manchester United safeguarded the Hammers' Premiership status on the final day of the season, but relegated Sheffield United have threatened legal action over the Premier League's ruling.

BBC Sport looks at the ins and outs of a complicated case and how likely any appeal against the decision would be to succeed.


WHAT EXACTLY DID WEST HAM DO WRONG?

Tevez (left) and Mascherano joined West Ham in August
It is not explicitly against Premier League rules for a club to sign a player whose economic rights are owned by a third party - as in the case of Tevez and Mascherano.

However, rule U18 states: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its team."

When signing Tevez and Mascherano, West Ham entered into a private agreement with the companies which owned their economic rights.

The contract stated, among other things, that those companies had the right to terminate the players' contracts upon payment to West Ham of £2m (in Tevez's case) or £150,000 (for Mascherano) in any transfer window.

By entering into that agreement, West Ham clearly broke rule U18.

Premier League rule B13 states: "In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith."

When Tevez and Mascherano were registered as players, West Ham failed to disclose that they had entered into an agreement with third-party companies.

In my opinion, West Ham received favourable treatment

Lawyer Mel Goldberg

In its judgement, the Premier League's independent commission said: "This was not only an obvious and deliberate breach of the rules, but a grave breach of trust as to the Premier League and its constituent members.

"In our finding the club has been responsible for dishonesty and deceit."

West Ham pleaded guilty to both breaches of Premier League rules.


WAS CARLOS TEVEZ ELIGIBLE AFTER THE RULING?
There was never a problem with Carlos Tevez's, or indeed Javier Mascherano's, registration as a player.


Tevez scored some crucial goals as West Ham escaped the drop
West Ham's mistake was in not disclosing to the Premier League that they had entered into an agreement with the companies that own the pair's economic rights.

In its conclusion, the commission said: "We order the registration of Carlos Tevez can be terminated by the Premier League."

However, West Ham immediately ripped up the agreement they had with the third-party company and the Premier League has since said it is satisfied the club "acted in a manner that is consistent with them having terminated the offensive third-party agreement".

Wigan and Sheffield United argue that for a contract to be properly terminated, all parties involved must agree.

Kia Joorabchian, who owns one of the third-party companies and was influential in Tevez and Mascherano's arrival at West Ham, has told the Daily Mail newspaper West Ham "unilaterally terminated the agreement and I have left it in the hands of my lawyer".

However, BBC Sport understands that the Premier League can only ask for evidence that the club has terminated the agreement as the third-party company does not fall under its jurisdiction.

The only possible action that can come of West Ham's termination of the agreement is that Joorabchian could consider proceedings against the club.


WHY CAN MASCHERANO PLAY FOR LIVERPOOL?
West Ham's mistake was not in entering into an agreement with a third party - but in the detail of the agreement and in their failure to disclose it to the Premier League.

Mel Goldberg, a lawyer for Max Bitel Greene who specialises in sport, explains: "Mascherano subsequently signed for Liverpool pursuant to a contract entirely different in form to that agreed by West Ham and which has been approved by the Premier League."

BBC SPORTS

[LFC2007]

WHY CAN MASCHERANO PLAY FOR LIVERPOOL?
West Ham's mistake was not in entering into an agreement with a third party - but in the detail of the agreement and in their failure to disclose it to the Premier League.

Mel Goldberg, a lawyer for Max Bitel Greene who specialises in sport, explains: "Mascherano subsequently signed for Liverpool pursuant to a contract entirely different in form to that agreed by West Ham and which has been approved by the Premier League."

BBC SPORTS

That is exactly what my point was, that is the agreement with Liverpool does not contravene rule U.18.


i.e. the paperwork of the agreement is different to what it was at West Ham.

[Penguins]

As far as I can tell everything points to that we are loaning him for 18 months and do not own him at all.

My only hope is that we have agreed a set fee in the future so he won't cost 30 million and maybe 18-20 million instead.

[account deleted by request]

The problem seems to be that no-one seems to know the exact terms of the contract. Which is where we all came in 

[retford red]

[B]All i hope is that Rafa signs the lad ASAP, he is a master of defensive midfield play already IMHO!

By far better than Mr O Hargreaves!

And any player at LFC..

[Pedro Maradona]

i heard that after the loan deal is complete we have first option for 18 million and we paid 1.5 million for the 18 mont loan deal ....i dunno how true this is tho
18 million he would be well worth it in my opinion

[adamnbarrett]

We'll have to wait and see, it's all very hush hush.

[tubby]

Ok so I thought id bump this up before some numpty goes and opens a new thread.

So im sure we are all in agreement that Javier is a good player and should be a main part of Rafas plans for next season. Now we have seen most of our core players sign long terms new contracts and extensions so is Rafa looking to get him signed up aswell? Just out of curiosity is he at the Copa America right now aswell?

I just dont want to see him snapped up by someone else as hes still on a load period.