Liverpool FC Forum

adamnbarrett wrote:

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.

adamnbarrett wrote:

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.

LFC2007 wrote:

adamnbarrett wrote:

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 wrote:

LFC2007 wrote:

adamnbarrett wrote:

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!

s@int wrote: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