Tevez dispute may be ended by Sheffield United offer of £25m out of court settlement
EXCLUSIVE by By Alan Biggs
Last updated at 8:57 AM on 28th November 2008
Sheffield United will consider a £25million out-of-court settlement from West Ham to end their damages claim over the Carlos Tevez affair.
The Sheffield club originally claimed £30m to compensate them for relegation, then upped the claim by a further £20m to include the cost of a second season outside the top flight after an FA panel found in their favour.
But Bramall Lane directors are now prepared to save West Ham from complete financial meltdown, offering a compromise deal of about half the £50m they wanted in compensation.
Having won a High Court injunction preventing West Ham from appealing through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), they are convinced it is a matter of when, not if, compensation has to be paid.
Although they believe their claim is now a certainty, they are prepared to give ground to settle if the Hammers do the same and indicate they are willing to discuss the offer.
A compromise agreement on the final figure could now prove to be in the best interests of both clubs, otherwise the issue will drag on deep into next year, with West Ham planning an appeal to the High Court.
Even if they were to prevail, West Ham would still have to convince CAS to take on the case and then to overturn an FA arbitration verdict that both clubs consented to as legally binding.
The delay will cost time and money amid suggestions that West Ham's Icelandic owner, Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, could be forced to sell the club or be bankrupted by the FA panel's award of damages to Bramall Lane.
Chairman Kevin McCabe has already offered to accept stage payments and will consider going further to end the long-running row - providing West Ham concede that they owe redress for Sheffield United's controversial relegation at the end of the 2006-07 season.
McCabe is being pragmatic as well as magnanimous from a position of strength. It was firmly established by the FA hearing that Tevez should not have been playing for West Ham when his goals kept them in the top flight at United's expense.
After the Premier League fined West Ham £5.5m for breaching third-party ownership rules - and spared them a points deduction - Tevez only played on under the premise that the Hammers had cancelled his arrangement with businessman Kia Joorabchian.
It was then found the agreement was still in place and that West Ham deceived the authorities. More than 17 players past and present are also pursuing a case for loss of earnings as a result of the relegation.
Where in my job description does it say that?
