West ham do not own the player, like they did not own mascherano The FA are running scared as they no that west ham should have be deducted points how can you rip up a 3rd party agreement without the other parties consent when a player is not yours, Fifa don't want to make a ruling so they pass it on.
Mr ferguson well done you cannot let any player go from United to Liverpool & by the way we do own heinze, So united should be able to decide his future while he is under contract at old Trafford, the sooner agents are kicked out of the game the better for all as they have cause all the problems in both matters.

Gavin, Thornton Cleveleys, England

West Ham are forced to follow through and claim ownership of Tevez by the terms they agreed with the PL for continuing the registration of Tevez. I suspect they will be quite happy to have the whole thing settled and move on whichever way it goes.

By the way - Get it right. West Ham's ground is called the Boleyn Ground, not Upton Park as you have called it in your Club Details panel. Upton Park is the area the stadium is in.

Johnny, Dublin, Ireland

I disagree with you David. Heinze is under contract with MU and he had a 5 week 'grace period' in which he could have bought himself out of his contract to enable him to negotiate a move to another club. He did not choose to take this option and it would appear that his agent is orchestrating all the moves here (if only to line his own pockets) and I cannot recall any statements during this furore being attributed to Heinze saying that he wishes to leave MU let alone that, if he did, he would want to join Liverpool. As for the Carlos Tevez affair; We are not really sure who the owners are here. Utd believe that Kia Joorabchian is his owner (not his agent) and have approached him in order to sign him. WHU have to disagree otherwise they, along with the Prem League, would be admitting that the decision earlier in the year was incorrect. IMHO

Also, do we know if WHU have denied any such permission for Tevez to talk to MU? Isn't the deal purely hinging on "Who gets the money?"?

Stuart Beddall, London,

Evicted Tevez from his flat. Stop with the sensationalist newspaper stories. That flat in Canary Wharf is owned by West Ham and used by them to put new signings up while they find somewhere else to say. Julien Faubert has now moved in.

In other news Tevez's contract with West Ham and the WHU-MSI third party agreement are seperate documents. Tevez contract and registration currently stand while the WHU-MSI agreement is being disputed. I don't think WHU deserve a fee for Tevez, but I do think it is disrespectful for Man Utd to try and stir things up and put pressure on WHU through the media, even publicising newspaper rumours on their official site.

While Tevez is undoubtedly a great player I'll be glad to see the back of MSI involvement at WHU and am very surprised that Man Utd are prepared to deal with a company that have bought Corinthians to their knees, duped Lyon out of 8 million Euros of Nilmar and whose front man is wanted in Brazil on charges of money laundering.

Ed Gibbs, London,

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

The current West Ham board have acted perfectly reasonably, following legal advice that the 'third party' clauses in the contract signed by their predecessors were unenforceable.

MSI, who apparently have legal advice to the contrary, should have initiated legal action immediately following the April 27 abrogation, and the ownership wrangle would have been sorted out by now, allowing Man U plenty of time to negotiate with whichever party controls Tevez's playing registration.

I don't see what the outcome of the High Court case has to do with Sheffield United, especially if MSI's case, as reported in some quarters, is not that the unilateral abrogation of April 27 was unlawful, but that it amounted to termination, not just of the third party clauses, but the playing contract as a whole, i.e. from that date, Tevez was a 'free agent'.

Brian, Belper,

Also those of you that know anything about the Nilmar situation will realise why Joorabchin is heading for the High Court rather than CAS, as recommended by FIFA and accepted by WHU and the FAPL.

Ed Gibbs, London,

When Terrence Brown handed over control of West Ham to the new owners he talked with pride about his legacy as chairman. He was never going to be remembered fondly, but I doubt even he realised that one of his last actions as chairman would have damaged the clubs reputation quite so badly. The whole Tevez affair stinks and the blame for it rests almost solely with him.

My respect and sympathy goes to the innocent man who has had to take the flak for his predecessor. A man who has done everything by the book and who is to my mind the only person who throughout the whole affair has acted with dignity.

Eggert Magnusson, you are a gentleman.

Gary, Reading,

quite clearly you havent read enough about the situation! heinze is under contract with man utd! tevez however it is argued that he doesnt not have a contract with west ham and in fact it has also been said by the player that he was offered to west ham and they declined. he was then told (allegedly) that he could talk to other clubs. therefore these are two completely different situations! it seems that in my opinion the premier league and west ham are trying to avoid any further legal action from sheffield united. something smells fishy

stephen , largs, uk

It will be interesting to see if Joorabchian appears in court as an arrest warrant has been issued and handed to interpol regarding money laundering in Brazil. I wonder if this will have a bearing on the case.

Joe, Leeds,

Are you kidding me?

WHU loaned two players illegally. When one of them looked capable of saving their wretched season, they 'unilaterally' terminated a contract to allow that player to continue playing after they were rumbled.
Now that player wants to move on, they are claiming ownership rights [despite Macherano having left in exactly the same way to Liverpool.]
I think WHU have already done nicely enough out of this affair already, by remaining a premiership club, without then WHU getting paid for 'owning' Tevez. - an asset they illegally loaned, for zero investment!
'Untouchable' accurately describes a club who should have been relegated and were then saved by the EPL, AND whom now the EPL are effectively trying to reward with a huge transfer fee for a player they never bought and illegally loaned.

Do me a favour....

djm, somerset, uk

It's very likely that the courts will find in Joorabchian's favour and ask West Ham to allow Tevez to leave as stipulated in the third party agreement unilaterally terminated by West Ham in April. For their part, West Ham will probably argue that they terminated the agreement on the advice of their legal counsel, believing it to be unenforceable and therefore invalid. Joorabchian will get his money. United will get their player. And that should be the end of the matter.

James, Manchester, Lancashire

The Tevez case and the issue with Heinze are chalk and cheese. MSI approached United as the owners of Tevez and offered to do a deal, United agreed. Subsequently WHU have claimed that Tevez belongs to them and United duly attempted to negotiate with West Ham. But there was a stalemate as WHU and MSI could not agree who was entitled to the transfer fee. Hence they are going to the High Court. MUFC are entirely blameless.
Heinze, on the other hand, is under contract to MUFC, there are no other parties involved. After LFC made United an approach, and it was turned down, that should have been the end of that. It is Benitez and (allegedly) Heinze's agent that are threatening to involve lawyers. Which is patently absurd, their interest should have ended the moment United turned down the bid.

Mick, Dublin,

A person owning another person is just slavery and is against the law. This is west ham's case and i for one think they'll win. Also, when Joorabchian turns up at the court i hope the international arrest warrant comes into play and he is sent to brazil for his trial.

NATHAN, Grimsby, UK

Morality?
Is that the Man Utd version of Sheffield's 'Justice' ?
It's all about self interest!

Just wait for the verdict. :-)

What goes around comes around.

John West, London,

David,
I second what Chris said. When the player is owned by so called "agent", he has to get the permission from him and then with the player's club. Usually players owners and his registration owners are the same. Here they are different. I dont understand the saying "unilaterally terminated the contract".When a contract is written with two parties the termination also have to be on mutual consent. and wait for another year...Do u think we are in that kinda era???

Shyam, Philadelphia,

Only West Ham fans seem to be confused by the morality of this issue.
Liverpool approached the rightful owners of Heinze’s economic rights, with an offer that was rebuffed.
Manchester United approached the rightful owners of Tevez’s economic rights, with an offer that was accepted.
Both clubs have acted correctly – it is other well-documented factors that are causing the difficulties.

Ray, London,

Dear me David, its quite simple. Man U are the SOLE proprietors of Heinze and can call the shots. Heinze was well within his rights to buy out his contract if HE wanted to leave under FIFA ruling but has allowed that window of oppotunity to lapse, hence Liverpool cannot buy him unless Man U say so. WHU have not complained to the FA that Man U are tapping up Tevez a clear admission of their guilt and indeed a brazen attempt to make profit on a commodity not owned by themselves (whatever the PL and WHU are saying). To add further insult to injury they evicted Tevez from his flat a few weeks ago. Man U are being opportunistic at the most, but at least they are willing to PAY SOMEBODY the going rate. The High Courts to decide who that is of course. Maybe I should sit in your car, tear up the log book, drive off and see how you feel?

Mo, Manchester,

David Laws - Isn't the point that WHU don't own his contract. That's why MUFC havn't just negotiated with them.

This could be bad news for WHU though. If the High Court find against them, they will owe £25m to Joorabchian. And the first thing Sheff Utd will do is sue them for the losses they incurred in gong down. Does their owner have that sort of money?

David Ward, London, UK

talk about a hypocrite. Ferguson talks about Tevez with total disrespect for West Ham seeing as he is under contract for 4 years and then out of the other side of his mouth knocks Liverpool for taking about Heinze "as if he's their player" and he has 2 years to run on his contract. Please !

Jay, Toronto, Canada

I'm not sure why you're pointing the finger at Utd. They want to buy a player, and they've approached the party whom they believe owns the player - the agent. The wrongdoing here clearly lies with West Ham - they've been backed into a corner by their own misdeeds. They had an agreement with Tevez's agent, the Premier League didn't approve, so West Ham ripped it up and kept the player. Is this right? Now, if it transpires that West Ham don't actually own Tevez, West Ham were in the wrong and the FA look like mugs. Utd, on the other hand, just want to sign a player.

Likewise, Liverpool just want to sign a player in Heinze, but Utd do not want to sell. He's United player, with no shady third-party agreements, so they decide his future, unless Heinze himself makes moves to go. Completely different situation., except for United being entitled to their stance in both cases.

Jay, Dublin, Ireland

The simple question to ask is 'How much did West Ham pay for Tevez's registration?' This is then how much compensation they are entitled to when the player transfers to ManU. The Premier league is at fault also by backing West ham into a corner and banning 3rd party agreements after a third party agreement was in place. The transfer will not leave West ham out of pocket because they didn't pay any transfer fee in the first place. The solution is blindingly obvious - just trace all the steps in this ridiculous saga back and start again.

Gary, York, England

Presumably if the High Court decide Joorabchian owns Tevez, the Premier League will have to revisit West Ham's position, as it will then be clear that the third party agreements were not torn up on April 27th and that West Ham were still in breach of League rules at the end of the season. Perhaps Sheffield United might finally get the justice they deserve(although it will be too late to keep them in the Premiership)

Chippy, Bristol,

i think garby should show his loyalty yo united,why the fuss anyway, its not like he will not get a run in the united squad.even if he has come to think of walking out on united going to liverpool is not the best he can do

dennis, blantyre, malawi

Are you Stupid or what? WHU never paid a single penny for Tevez and now they are claiming that the player is their's.
I wonder if I could rip up my mortgage contract and claim that the house is mine.

Dave, Berks,

I think the cases are different. Heinze is a Manchester United player and as such Liverpool have to contact United if they wish to buy him. Tévez, on the other hand, may or may not be a West Ham player. That will be decided in court. I'm sure United approached Joorabchian on the understanding that Tévez became a free agent at the end of the season.

Ella, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Difference is Man U definately own Heniez therefore can decide if anyone can approach him.

Man U went for Tevez believing they were dealing with his owner.

Mick, Belfast,

David, think you have got confused here, Utd have not really done anything wrong, Tevez is owned by Joorabchian, so normally any prospective buyer would go to the players owner when trying to buy them,Just because west Ham 'supposedly' own his registration does not mean utd have made any illegal approach. Do you hear West Ham crying foul play at Utd as i can't. the Heinze deal is somewhat different for a fact everyone knows he has a binding contract at Utd.

Ian, Holbeach, Lincs

Claims of duplicity are ludicrous. Manchester United's lawyers are apparently the only people working on the correct basis: ie. that Tevez is not owned by West Ham. It is not an illegal approach. They have gone to his owners and signed him accordingly. Those owners just aren't West Ham, which the High Court will find in the next few weeks. Has everyone completely forgotten the manic stories of "how did they afford those two?" that accompanied Mascherano and Tevez's arrival last year? It was quite commonly reported that they were effectively being loaned to West Ham on a 'shop window' basis. Legal or not? Who knows.
Heinze, on the other hand, is a nailed down Man Utd player and he should be watched as closely as your car stereo when the scousers come lurking. :)

Chris, Worthing, England

Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the Tevez affair last season, which the new administration at West Ham have tried to set straight, is it my imagination that Man Utd are trying to play both ends of the system here? On the one hand, Man Utd have made a direct approach to an agent for Tevez, offering the player a dream transfer and luring him away from WHU. They have not done what any normal club would do and ask WHU for permission to talk to the player. Then, they cry foul when another team, Liverpool, make ovetones to Heinze against Man Utd wishes. Tevez is an innocent party to a game being played by Man Utd and Kia Joorbachan here. Why couldn't Man Utd wait a season before going for him in the more normal manner? It looks like they are trying take advantage of the emotion surrounding last season to get Tevez, keep Heinze and at the same time punish WHU. Who voted Man Utd as the untouchables who have a right to play this duplicitous game?

David Laws, Brussels,

Who does Ferguson think he is , sitting in his ivory tower Moaning about Liverpool reckoning Heinze is there player, when he has tapped up Tevez and showed him around the ground etc while still registered to West hamand with out our permission. Why is Taggert not getting done for tapping Tevez up, any other club it would happen.

Simon Horn, Reading, England