Hammer The Hammers

What was Premier League Chief Executive Richard Scudamore thinking of? OK, let’s be much more specific. Why did Scudamore allow himself to be pictured in front of a celebrating Kia Joorbachian – the ‘Media Sports Investments (MSI) executive’ and owner of Carlos Tevez’s ‘economic rights’ – at Old Trafford as West Ham completed the easy bit of their relegation struggle? As if Wigan chairman Dave Whelan wasn’t angry enough…

Not even a fusion of Billy Bonds, Trevor Brooking and Alf Garnett could deny that West Ham should have had points deducted for cheating. Three seems to be the going rate when the rules don’t specify a punishment (or even when the rules suggest eighteen, as AFC Wimbledon showed recently).

It’s equally clear that collective cowardice allowed West Ham to keep the points. The Premier League’s Independent Commission admitted as much: “…the club are responsible for dishonesty and deceit…docking points would have been easier in January…the case merited a points deduction.” Feel free to re-read those selectively quoted but wholly within context words at your leisure. I’ll wait.

But there’s nearly no such thing as an open and shut case. And the rights and wrongs weren’t even the key issue in this one.

My trade union’s rules stated that we held general secretary elections ‘in the event of a vacancy.’ Our ruling committee held one in 2000, although there was no vacancy until 2002. The High Court, no less, ruled that the committee had the ‘right’ to get such things ‘wrong’ because they were the rules’ guardians.

The West Ham case seems analogous, hence Whelan’s admission that “we can’t reverse the committee’s decision.” But there are stronger grounds for complaint.

Eggert Magnusson’s regime may not have been dishonest or deceitful. But they were sloppy. West ham deceived the Premier League by hiding documents. But Magnusson’s people undertook ‘due diligence’ – steps taken to avoid committing an offence while buying something – prior to finalising their bid. So you’d have thought that ownership of a £30m asset such as the latest ‘new Maradona’ might have been scrutinised, might even have affected the price.

But their bidding process was rushed – in order to beat Joorbachian to the punch, ironically. They weren’t diligent enough, they’d have you believe.

Like Tevez hasn’t well-documented ‘previous’ in such matters. Argentinian footballers do NOT move to Brazil. Or at least not since 1940 when Bernard Gandulla did so – and spent so much time on the subs bench throwing the ball back that ‘gandulla’ is how Brazilian ballboys are described to this day.

But in November 2004, Tevez moved to Corinthians Paulista – not exactly West Ham but not a club you’d expect to beat top Champions Leaguers to a signature. MSI funded the five-year, $10m contract – good for a 20 year-old even if Brazilian football wasn’t skint.

MSI agreed a 10-year partnership with Corinthians, clearing $20m of debt in return for 51% of club and future profits, with Tevez added as a ’gift’ (West Ham’s fate under MSI?).

However, not everyone was happy. Corinthians’ individual salary cap was breached twenty times over. And who WERE MSI?  With the slogan ‘funding the future of football’ and Tevez listed among ‘current investments,’ they were an ‘international fund of investors’ based mainly in Britain and Russia, fuelling unease that Joorbachian had connections with ex-Soviet oligarchs – never considered a plus.

These included Dynamo Tblisi owner Badri Patarkatsishvilli and his business partner, Boris Berezovsky – a ‘friend of Abramovich’ (a link with no bearing on Tevez’s future). London-based Boris denies links to West Ham bids. But he was at Corinthians – one (one?) of his arrests following a home game. And few believe Joorbachian could have solely financed a Hammers’ bid.

None of which suggest Joorbachian is a mere agent, as the Premier League claim. Hence Whelan’s current rat-smelling exercise. For instance, it’s hard to reconcile: “there are four clubs, including West ham, interested in taking Tevez” with “the contracts gave no influence to any third-party.” Why would West Ham be interested in ‘taking’ a player they already ‘have?’.

And are these an ‘agent’s’ words: “I’ll talk to the clubs who want to buy him. I’ll sit down with West Ham too, if they want to talk to me about keeping him.”? Isn’t that nice of him?

Other Premier League defences seem about as solid as Michael Essien at centre-back. Third party ownership isn’t new, they claim, citing Registered European Football Finance (REFF), a Guernsey-based leasing company who, among involvement with a welter of football clubs, ‘bought’ a number of Fulham players during one of Mohamed Fayed’s many desperate scrabbles for cash. No evidence of REFF (owned by former Manchester City defender Ray Ranson) exercising Joorbachian-style influence follows such claims, however.

Given the organisation he heads, Scudamore must be about the last person to condemn anyone for ‘self-interest.’ “With the league being as lucrative as it is, people are desperate to stay in it” he argued, until the involvement of Fulham and the support of Middlesbrough exposed his grubby smear campaign.

He also briefed journalists: “I find the suggestion that we wanted to keep West Ham in at the expense of so-called smaller clubs offensive.” This, as the Independent’s James Lawton noted, “is why no-one has made the accusation.”

The Indie was pettily excluded from the briefing because of Lawton’s withering criticism of Scudamore. Lawton is among my least favourite journalists. So any action which leaves someone like me feeling sympathy for someone like Lawton demands an independent commission all its own.

The spectre of ‘conflicting legal advice’ looms over proceedings, Fayed hiring top barrister Michael Beloff – whose unsavoury former clients include Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, Alan Sugar and…the Premier League (in their case against Ashley Cole). Fayed is among my least favourite chairmen. So any action… (see above).

Further inquiries into Tevez must be held. And if West Ham are rightly found guilty of further ‘dishonesty and deceit’, only the most incompetent, self-centred, blunderingly dunderheaded organisation could then deduct West Ham TWO points and declare the matter closed.

It’ll happen.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

Entry Filed under: MotorMurph Column

© The Right Result 2008

Terms & Conditions | Contact Us