Mascherano Will Cost Us £20m

[RafaShanks]

Heads in the sand over ownership madness

 

Jul 21 2007 by Chris Bascombe, Liverpool Echo

 

IF LIVERPOOL want to sign Javier Mascherano at the end of this season, it’s expected he’ll cost £20m. Good news for West Ham, you might think.

 

Alan Curbishley’s Icelandic/Russian benefactors might not need to dip into their pockets so much if he wants to bid for players next summer.

 

Except, if Liverpool do buy Mascherano, the accounts at Upton Park won’t be swelled by a penny.

 

His agents, MSI, own the economic rights to the Argentinian.

 

As with Carlos Tevez’s ‘complicated’ move to Manchester United, any fees supposedly passing between the clubs will be quickly passed on to the third party. This is prohibited by the Premiership, which is why West Ham were heavily fined at the end of last season.

 

Laughably, the Premiership’s rulers believe Tevez has belonged 100 per cent to West Ham ever since they punished the club, taking on face value the claim the deal was altered as result of their intervention.

 

The Premier League need to convince themselves of this in order to divert attention from the almighty c**k-up at the heart of West Ham’s continued presence in the top flight.

 

The only reason Tevez was allowed to play in the remaining few games of last season, after the abnormalities of his deal were exposed and West Ham were fined, is because the Hammers said the contract with MSI had been ripped up and they owned the player.

 

“Fine then, he can play,” said the Premier League, seemingly oblivious to the fact that even if West Ham did shred their documents, the MSI agency certainly did not and the original conditions of their deal stand.

 

Everyone knows nothing changed. To prove it, investigators need only follow the money trail when Tevez joins United, or if Mascherano moves permanently to Anfield.

 

Liverpool and United have worked overtime to ensure everything is as it should be at their end, but in doing so the irregularities at Upton Park have become clear. That’s why Rick Parry, correctly, gave evidence on Sheffield United’s behalf during the summer.

 

If the catalogue of ineptitude which allows West Ham to escape relegation wasn’t bad enough, the lack of pressure put upon them by a largely ambivalent media is just as disturbing.

 

Many will be tired of the whole ‘Tevez affair’, but how many of the newspaper industry’s genuinely big (in some cases really, really big) hitters have been prepared to go in where it’s dirty to expose what’s happened at Upton Park?

 

Could, by chance, the fact so many of our most influential sports writers are loyal Hammers fans have anything to do with their reluctance to back Sheffield United’s recent court case?

 

One such scribe appeared on a slot on Sky TV a few weeks ago to say he was bored and felt the time had come for the Yorkshire club to draw a line under the affair and accept their fate.

 

“This had nothing to do with the new regime. They should not be punished,” scream the Upton Park apologists, who seem as keen as the Premier League and West Ham board for the issue to die a quiet death.

 

At the very least, they ought to be asking how the ‘Icelandic’ consortium allowed the Tevez deal to go unchecked through the due diligence process.

 

Did their accountants notice nothing of suspicion?

 

Had West Ham been the victims in this case, I suspect many a London hack would be spending their eighth week in a bed and breakfast near Bramall Lane, determined to find the evidence which would allow the Hammers to avoid relegation.

 

It’s not only the leniency shown to West Ham which raises serious issues of objectivity in certain sections of the media.

 

On Monday, Sky Sports News dedicated hours to a theatrical training session by David Beckham.

 

It was the kind of trivial non-event the channel thrives upon, and yet when a serious, relevant story broke – that of the three major clubs raided by the police – it was allocated a mere three minutes at the top of the hour.

 

“This has nothing to do with the new Newcastle regime,” an apologetic reporter announced from outside St James’ Park. “The new board have promised full co-operation in this matter… Now, back to Posh and Becks in L.A.”

 

Sky didn’t just read the Newcastle press release, they sounded like the press office.

 

Why have Newcastle got such a hold on Sky? Are they worried Jim White won’t be invited to host the next unveiling of a player of the calibre of Michael Owen?

 

West Ham, Newcastle, Portsmouth and others appear to have friends in high places. If there’s any justice, the Hammers will end the season in a particularly low one.

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/colum...00252-19486989/

 

A lot of money (if true), but I think it's well worth paying to keep hold of the little bugger.

[Mike]

but somone said we paid £10 milll for him

Edited July 21, 2007 by Mike

[muleskinner]

but somone said we paid £10 milll for him

 

Everythinghereistrue

[Maldini]

I can't understand how we're not in trouble if Mascherano is still owned by MSI

[Guz]

I can't understand how we're not in trouble if Mascherano is still owned by MSI

 

The impression I get (from newspapers admittedly) is that if a player is legally an employee of the club and has a contract + registration provided by the football club then it's ok. As in we have an agreement for x months with Mascherano and during that time he is ours 100%. But once that time is up either we pay MSI or they whore Mascherano to someone else. I could be totally wrong though.

 

Did Tevez and Mascherano even have genuine contracts with West Ham when they first signed? Or did MSI just set up camp in the league, almost like an employment/recruitment agency and send their players on duty for 12 months? The whole thing is confusing me but I've got faith that everything at our end is alright, if for nothing but the fact that it's been given the green light by the authorities

[Zoob]

Eek.

 

If this is all true, then it's very unlikely that we could hold on to Mascherano after the loan period is over (and not just because of the quoted price). But somewhere I still hope that having been the club that actually uncovered the whole ownership mess when it came to getting Mascherano on loan, we made sure we could get him without breaking rules.

 

 

Given the player he is, and how much the mancs paid for Carrick and Hargreaves, 20 million for Mascherano doesn't seem too absurdly crazy, but I can't see us breaking our transfer record on him.

[Rimbeux]

I think he's got a premis wrong here. It's not prohibitted for players to be owned by a third party, a non club, or for clubs to buy from a non club and the non club to recieve the cash. It is prohibitted for the non club to decide or influence when and where the player plays and moves whilst registered (not necessarily having to be owned to be so, but leased or loaned in these cases) and contracted to a club. Big difference.

 

 

Difference also between Tevez and Masch. West Ham agreed to terminate JM's contract and give up his registration, they didn't want him, gladly let him go, their choice, and were rightly allowed to do so with no penalty. The Tevez issue is completely about the PL and in their wake West Ham trying to hold together the facade of allowing/encouraging West Ham to steal the player and continue playing him post the hearing. It's not really about their rules anymore, just this nutty idea of allowing Tevez to stay with WHU without actually sorting the ownership issue there and then.

 

Where I think Sheff Utd were thrwarted was in going after the original decision on the level of punishment for the illegal contract and the deception. If they could have found a mechanism to challenge Tevez continued registration, which they probably couldn't, they'd have had a massive case.

 

Nobody directly involved in this latest transfer (especially MSI for reasons of scrutiny of their operation, forced inaction of their prime asset, damaged rep in football) wants the lengthy process of the courts to find for what is already clear, that with egging on from the PL, WHU are trying to steal a player. Therefore we have this curious episode of musical chairs between MSI, MAN U and WHU with the PL as some desperate parent insisting WHU stay in the game under threat of a beating and trying to trip the other kids.

[mercury]

this is a good write up.

 

20m for Maschareno is not expensive at all but the whole mess is a bit worrying. A case which really test Parry's mettle.

[Guest Snorky]

I can't understand how we're not in trouble if Mascherano is still owned by MSI

 

Because the Premier League/FA took weeks to approve the deal. That's our get out clause, ie he couldn't play for us until the Premier League/FA sanctioned the loan deal, so to say that the deal is now under investigation is like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

Also, at this moment in time I believe that we he will not be a Liverpool player after this season. He has taken Momo's place, but Momo has signed a new deal.

[alias75]

Because the Premier League/FA took weeks to approve the deal. That's our get out clause, ie he couldn't play for us until the Premier League/FA sanctioned the loan deal, so to say that the deal is now under investigation is like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

Also, at this moment in time I believe that we he will not be a Liverpool player after this season. He has taken Momo's place, but Momo has signed a new deal.

 

I find it hard to believe we wont take up the option we have on him, he started the CL final and in the games he played he was consistently one of our top performers. As for Sissoko / Alonso signing new contracts that doesnt mean they still wouldn't be sold next season, just that now we don't risk losing them on the cheap if their contracts are due to expire.

[Guest Snorky]

I find it hard to believe we wont take up the option we have on him, he started the CL final and in the games he played he was consistently one of our top performers. As for Sissoko / Alonso signing new contracts that doesnt mean they still wouldn't be sold next season, just that now we don't risk losing them on the cheap if their contracts are due to expire.

 

Another way of looking at things. Time will tell what happens.

[Scally Bob]

That's ridiculous. No London journalist would spend eight weeks in a bed and breakfast in Sheffield.

[Gomez]

I can't understand how we're not in trouble if Mascherano is still owned by MSI

 

I think he's got a premis wrong here. It's not prohibitted for players to be owned by a third party, a non club, or for clubs to buy from a non club and the non club to recieve the cash. It is prohibitted for the non club to decide or influence when and where the player plays and moves whilst registered (not necessarily having to be owned to be so, but leased or loaned in these cases) and contracted to a club.

 

The key is third party influence, MSI could sell Mascherano at any time, to any club, from under the feet of West Ham. He was basically being shop windowed. With us, it's a straight out loan and MSI can't do anything before 18 months without out agreement.

[Guest Anders Honoré]

Unless we're stuffed with cash and/or find ourselves with nothing else to spend it on or Mascherano proves himself absolutely indispensible over the coming season, 20m sounds like far too much in my book, considering the options we already have in midfield.

[Owen1978]

Unless we're stuffed with cash and/or find ourselves with nothing else to spend it on or Mascherano proves himself absolutely indispensible over the coming season, 20m sounds like far too much in my book, considering the options we already have in midfield.

 

20m is a bargain for a player of his calibre.

[Gomez]

Unless we're stuffed with cash and/or find ourselves with nothing else to spend it on or Mascherano proves himself absolutely indispensible over the coming season, 20m sounds like far too much in my book, considering the options we already have in midfield.

 

It does sound steep, however at least it will be risk free. We know exactly what we will be getting, and he won't need time to settle in.

 

It's also a bit odd that Bascombe initially said £10m and is now saying £20m

[alias75]

Unless we're stuffed with cash and/or find ourselves with nothing else to spend it on or Mascherano proves himself absolutely indispensible over the coming season, 20m sounds like far too much in my book, considering the options we already have in midfield.

 

If he continues in the way he started we have to buy him. 20 million is fair if you look at the price for someone like Hargreaves as an example. He's still very young.

 

The key is there simply arent many players out there that can do what Mascherano does, hes almost always in the right place at the right time defensively keeps the ball moving without giving it away and plays with the head of a 35 year old.

 

At the moment id make Mascherano #1 of our 3 "defensive type" midfielders, the fact Alonso and Sissoko signed new contracts in the summer is no guarantee that they wont be sold and that money used to sign Mascherano, but now anyone wanting either of those players will know we don't have to sell and that will mean we get the price we deserve as they are 3 excellent players and in most other teams would be guaranteed starters.

 

I really hope we sign him on a long contract i think he'll become one of our key players.

[JohnnyH]

20m is a bargain for a player of his calibre.

 

I agree withthat. I thought <ash was superb last season and his shackling of Kaka in the Final was first class. I have thought for some time now that he will be one of the main reasons for a sustained title challenge this season.

[Benito7]

If we have the money it would be madness not to sign a player who will be the best defensive midfielder of his generation IMO.

[floyd]

20m is a bargain for a player of his calibre.

You could also get Chopra, Richardson & Mido and still have change though.

[Leo No.8]

I can guarantee that by the end of this season, anyone who doesn't think Mascherano is worth £20m at present will have changed their mind.

 

I think he'll be our player of the year this season.

[Cunny]

I don't think it's a case of people not knowing how good a player he is (or if he is worth £20m or not) but whether we will be prepared to spend a substantial chunk of any transfer budget on an area of the pitch in which we already have an embarassment of riches.

[Guest Anders Honoré]

20m is a bargain for a player of his calibre.

 

No. Hyypia was a bargain because his value quadrupled after his first season with us. Xabi may even be a bargain as his value has probably increased significantly since coming.

Mascherano may prove to be worth the fee paid but he will never be a bargain at 20m, ffs.

[Guest Anders Honoré]

I really hope we sign him on a long contract i think he'll become one of our key players.

 

So do I, but at 20m, it would depend on a lot of factors - if we had to pay the money this summer for example and it had come down to a Mascherano or Torres, I know where the money would be most needed.

[Rimbeux]

I don't think it's a case of people not knowing how good a player he is (or if he is worth £20m or not) but whether we will be prepared to spend a substantial chunk of any transfer budget on an area of the pitch in which we already have an embarassment of riches.

 

Remove him from the equation and that's no longer the case, also come next summer you'd think we would not be looking at any specific weak areas (ie not having any), more just adding top quality when it's available to us, almost regardless of position.