COURT SHORTS

The phrase “it’s obvious what’s going on” has no legal force. And nor should it, though this government’s next Criminal Justice Bill could always change that, despite some of the convincing (he says modestly) arguments below. If it had legal force when applied to football’s frequent contemporary court appearances, a lot of time – and a lot of the money which dominates modern football, would be saved.

“Let the courts do their job,” wrote the Telegraph’s Patrick Barclay in a plea for justice in the re-emerging Carlos Tevez ‘affair.’ However, sleuth journalist Andrew Jennings pointedly referred to “investigators citing, off-the-record, evidence that isn’t good enough to bring to court” in reports on the current Swiss court case ‘involving’ FIFA. Evidence that not only Jennings would consider ‘obvious.’ Just as it’s ‘obvious’ that West Ham never fully-owned Tevez, not least because of the ultimate destination of Tevez’s multi-million transfer fee. Which won’t be the Boleyn Ground, Green Street, London E13 9AZ, you can be assured.

There’s plenty of ‘obvious’ in Zug, Switzerland, where bankrupt sports marketing company International Sports and Leisure (ISL) admit paying “personal commissions” (bribes) to sports officials in return for broadcasting rights, amazingly legal in Switzerland at the time, 1988 to 2001. FIFA instigated an investigation when they discovered £22m owed to them by Brazilian TV station O Globo had gone missing. However, when investigators discovered the destination of some of their money, FIFA did a handbrake turn, saying “we’ll look for it ourselves” via a civil court case which has yet to materialise.

But where was it? Not in the piggy bank of current FIFA president Sepp Blatter – not this money anyway. Nor was it paid to the last FIFA president-but-two Sir Stanley Rous, because, being British, he wouldn’t do that sort of thing (uh-huh)…and because he’s been dead twenty-two years. Which leaves…

Ken Bates is ‘obvious’ for fun. But his attempts through law to recover the fifteen points deducted from Leeds this season actually have validity. Justice might even be served by finding in Bates’ favour, at which point I will definitely have seen it all.

As a consequence of being in administration, Leeds were caught between a rock (Football League rules) and a hard place (HM Revenue and Customs – HMRC). League rules obliged Leeds to pay ‘football creditors’ in full, leaving ‘unsecured’ creditors, including HMRC, to scrabble about for any remaining pennies. Owed £7.7m (taxpayers’ – our - money), HMRC demanded full repayment, too, and mounted a legal challenge to Leeds arrangements for exiting administration by the start of the season, as league rules required.

HMRC eventually secured eleven times what they were first offered, though still only 11% of what they were owed. But Leeds were only awarded their ‘golden share’ in the Football League (a quaint term for league admission) through the League’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ clause and with the points deduction tagged on in acknowledgement of their rule breaches.

Bates has been at his hypocritical best/worst, accusing football authorities trying to delay Leeds’ appeal until it couldn’t affect the league table. This, the man who delayed entering administration and the accompanying ten-point penalty until relegation from Championship was otherwise assured.

The Yorkshire Evening Post wrote: “Leeds are expected to present the timeline as evidence that there was no prospect of adhering to league rules.” That the timeline was Bates’ own doing may prove irrelevant when Leeds go to independent arbitration in three weeks. But so will Bates’ bluster about clubs voting for the deduction through “self-interest.” League clubs voted 64-5 in favour, meaning the vast majority of unaffected Championship and League Two clubs voted for it too. Maybe they just didn’t like Bates? No, of course not.

Unless Leeds form improves sharpish, none of it will matter. They’re nearly out of the automatic promotion places on Bates’ deduction-free league table in Leeds programme. But if Leeds win the case, Bates will have “got away with it.” Leeds have lost millions and their Championship status under his chairmanship, for which he unfairly blames ex-chairman Peter Ridsdale. They could yet be playing Rochdale for league points next season, for which Bates cannot blame Ridsdale. Or anyone else.

Ridsdale’s current beau, Cardiff City, could be alternating between High Court and Wembley in coming months, the ‘obvious’ reasons being ex-chairman, “charismatic Lebanese businessman” Sam Hammam. Cardiff recently won round one of their well-documented legal battle against the ‘mysterious’ Panamian-registered, Swiss-based Langston Corporation – who wanted money owed to them by City immediately, without going to trial.

“You never know with the law” said ‘1927 Club Mole’ (not thought to be his real name), a London-based Cardiff fan who “popped into” the High Court and wrote “all seemed to go well” for Cardiff. This time ‘you’ had a fair idea, although Cardiff’s defence looked more solid at Middlesbrough. It centred on the ‘obvious’ – “Hammam IS Langston.” Undisputed here but arguably irrelevant to whether Cardiff owe Langston/Hammam £31,528,321 now or by 2016.

Presiding judge Sir Michael Townley Featherstone Briggs, no less, had his “Who is this Gazza?” moment when Cardiff’s counsel David Wolfson used City’s Bluebirds nickname. But he was perceptive enough to tell Langston “there is no evidence to suggest otherwise” after Cardiff produced their “Hammam IS Langston” theory. A direct comment, for a case otherwise doused in legalese – Langston producing waves of technicalities. The judge declared the case “clearly unsuitable” for decision without trial. But technicalities could still win the day, if the combatants can’t settle out-of-court in the two months allowed by the judge for that purpose and matters go to trial.

Hammam/Langston/whoever would have FA Cup semi-finalists’ blood on his/their hands, if Ridsdale can be believed. Biggish if, though. Ridsdale has been offering doomsday scenarios since Langston served their writ last August. But he got exposed recently, claiming Cardiff’s new stadium would be threatened by City entering administration.

Cardiff council maintain the money is “in the bank” and their financial ‘scrutiny’ committee confirmed this, offering their own doomsday scenario: “There’ll be a stadium but no football club using it” (that’s council-taxpayers reassured). “Unless Langston can take money from council coffers,” they added, “the stadium would be built” concluding: “We have a massive anti-Langston campaign by Ridsdale.”

Overall, the judge was as impressed with Langston as he’d have been with Heather Mills, concluding there was “a real prospect” of Cardiff’s entire defence standing up in court – although “real prospect” means less in legalese than English. Langston have required “immediate” repayment since August, yet survive, presumably through their…ahem… extensive business portfolio, of which I’d like to see evidence.

West Ham fancy their real prospects in their latest Tevez legal battle. ‘Agent’ Kia Joorbachian claims they owe him £7.1m for various services rendered. They claim he’s owed £7.1m less. And when Joorbachian talks of ‘evidence’ and conversations in wine-bars, Mohamed Fayed springs to mind, shouting: “I got the proofs. Basically not the proofs but the circumstances, the cover-ups” at his son’s inquest. Joorbachian’s ‘evidence’ seems equally ‘circumstantial.’

The Hammers are mistaken, though, in equating legal victory with exoneration of all Tevez wrong-doings. Evidence keeps emerging that they only partially-owned him for vital games after being fined £5.5m and NO points for that very breach of Premier League rules. Performances and goals in those games kept them up. Panto refereeing at Blackburn helped, Right-Result readers may recall. But Tevez’s Old Trafford winner ultimately clinched survival.

The evidence keeps emerging from the Express whose evidence against Gerry and Kate McCann was wrong to the tune of £500,000. But West Ham’s Icelandic takeover in 2006 left them vulnerable to financial meltdown if relegated – sufficient motive, arguably, for such persistent, blatant rule breaches. Still, if the Premier League is the worldwide role-model for other leagues that chief executive Richard Scudamore claims, they’ll have nothing to fear from examination of this evidence. Will they?
Lastly, more potential costs for the “world’s richest club.” Nigerian Jon Obi-Mikel’s transfer saga is having legal repercussions three years after Man Yoo announced his signing – just under three years after Chelsea DID sign him. Agent and Lyn Oslo FC ex-director, Morgan Anderson, is charged with numerous fraud offences, including forging Mikel’s Lyn contract, which saw Chelsea pay £4m to Lyn for Mikel’s signature and £12m compensation to Man Yoo for gazumping them.

If Anderson is found guilty, Man Yoo might have to repay their £12m, money which they need far more than Chelsea, despite the ludicrous Peter Kenyon’s fantasy of Chelsea being ‘self-sufficient one day, as they count the cost of FA Cup exit and sky-scraper debt interest repayments.

Simon Inglis had to trawl through 65 years of football history to fill 200+ pages for his 1985 book ‘Soccer in the Dock.” These days he could produce ‘Soccer in the Dock’ annuals that size. Such is the downside of the money that dominates modern football. Whether this plethora of legal activity will benefit any NON-lawyers is anyone guess. But they’re all “worth a try”, even if only to make the dodgier football people think twice about trying the ‘obvious’ in future.

‘MotorMurph’ is written by Mark Murphy

Entry Filed under: MotorMurph Column

© The Right Result 2008

Resources | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us