Letter to the Premier League...

[Foxy]

Here is the Blades reply:

Dear Sirs

We write in response to the letter dated 8 May 2007 from your Chairman and Chief Executive.

We regret that the letter provides neither the clarification nor satisfaction that its authors apparently intended. We also regret that, until such time as we have received a clear and comprehensive exposition by you of the investigations which you have undertaken to ascertain whether West Ham remains in breach of the Rules, we do not consider that there would be any benefit in meeting with you. If you wish to have such a meeting, then you will need at the outset to respond fully and substantively to the issues which we raise in the remainder of this letter.

We are grateful for the confirmation that the Premier League has at all times regarded the Contract to which our letter referred as enforceable. In those circumstances, however, we are at a loss to understand what "assurances...in a satisfactory form" you might have received from West Ham that it has terminated that enforceable Contract, or how you are able to assert in terms that "the position is...that West Ham has terminated the Contract" (please see paragraph (vi) of the 8 May letter to which this is a response).

As we understand the legal position, a party to an agreement cannot unilaterally terminate it in the absence either of a clause expressly permitting such an action or of conduct by the other party which involves very serious breaches of his contractual obligations. Please, therefore, inform us by return the nature of the assurances which you have received from West Ham. In particular:

(a) Has West Ham pointed to an express contractual right of termination which it claims to have exercised in the absence of any alleged breach of the Contract by MSI or JSI? If so, have you examined the Contract to check that the relevant term is as West Ham asserts, and have you established (i) that the Contract has been terminated in circumstances provided by that clause, and (ii) the manner of the alleged exercise of the contractual right by the Club (e.g. have you required sight of all relevant correspondence between the parties)?

(b) Alternatively, is West Ham claiming that it was entitled to terminate the Contract by reason of breaches of the Contract by MSI or JSI? If so, have you examined the allegations of breach made by West Ham and satisfied yourself that they are well founded? For that purpose, have you been given access to all relevant documentary materials, including any statements of the position of MSI and JSI?

(c) In either event, (i) have you contacted MSI or JSI in order to ascertain the basis upon which they continue to assert that the Contract is binding upon West Ham, and have you obtained confirmation from a suitable independent legal source that West Ham's assertions are well founded?

Please also confirm that the statement in the last sentence of paragraph (vii) of the 8 May letter is no more than a restatement of the passages from paragraph (vi) to which we have referred above. Alternatively, if you have "perfectly satisfied" yourselves otherwise than on the basis of the assurances which you have apparently received, please explain what events have given rise to that satisfaction.

For the avoidance of doubt, you should be aware that your answers to the questions posed in this letter are likely to lead to further more detailed enquiries. In the circumstances, we look forward to hearing from you by way of response as soon as possible. In the meantime, all our rights are reserved.

Yours faithfully

 

[Linz]

They should have ended it...

"So kiss my big fat hairy Yorkshire arse, nobbers"

Very good questions which, if indeed there is evidence supporting West Ham's claims, should be cleared up very easily.

On the other hand...

 

[MAQ]

the thing that pisses me off is that all this will take is a quick phone call to Kia, and confirm the position of the contract. Why doesnt McCabe or Whelan do this.

So easy.

Fuck it, give me his number and ill do it

 

[Foxy]

I think an interesting prospect would be for McCabe to offer £30million for the player... Then just see who the cheques made out to!

 

[MAQ]

excellent idea, lets email the club,

no second thoughts, by the time the email get to McCabe, tevez will be retiring.

Lets phone him instead

 

[Foxy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/05/11/sfnwes11.xml

Clause 6 is interesting

 

[Sensiblade]

This won't be the most profound post ever, but....

F'ing cheating southern bastards!!!!!!!

 

[matth]

the thing that pisses me off is that all this will take is a quick phone call to Kia, and confirm the position of the contract. Why doesnt McCabe or Whelan do this.

So easy.

Fuck it, give me his number and ill do it

They've got to go through the proper legal channels, I imagine. Even though the FA probably didn't

 

[MAQ]

i really cant believe that this stuff is available to everyone who wants to read it, and yet so many ppl are still adament the either a) the club was penalised correctly or b) no further action should be taken and the tevez is still allowed to play.

with the details that are around, wigan and bolton should also has just caused for appeal against the result.

This really does make my blood boil

 

[dingledog]

Does it matter anymore?, we all know we have been shaffted, so lets get on with beating Wigan. Nothing is going to alter the egotistical London centric FA, I mean was Brooking really on the panel?

 

[dansufc]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/05/11/sfnwes11.xml

Clause 6 is interesting

very interesting

 

[Bladesman]

Yep ive been argueing with Hammers fans for a while about it and im getting sick of doing so. Most of them beleive there squeeky clean now and some think there club never did anything wrong in the 1st place. Anyway attention should stay on beating Wigan and keeping us up but unfortunatly keeping West Ham up aswell.