Why West Ham pipped Man United and Arsenal
Posted by DavidM in West Ham | 13 September 2006
Following my article about Kiavash Joorabchian - the man proposing a bid for West Ham - I was lying awake thinking about specifically about the transfer of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.
These players weren't owned by Corinthians but by MSI, the company Joorabchian headed until earlier this year. Although the details of the deals have not been disclosed it seems likely that they remain assets of MSI rather than West Ham.
This is unusual in the English game though apparently is more common in South America, but is it good for the English game?
If handled properly, it could well be. Fans of several Premiership teams have been delighted recently to get rich new owners who have ploughed large sums into the playing squad. Chelsea are the obvious example but more recently Portsmouth have bought almost a new first eleven and we're waiting to see what happens at Villa.
While this is great for those clubs, it is likely to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. It makes it harder for the other clubs to compete because they don't have the financial might to buy the best players.
But the MSI model could ease this.
Effectively it would change the player market from one of purchasing assets (players) to leasing them.
Thinking of it like property, I have two choices. I can buy my house which requires a very large upfront sum of money but gives me ownership of the bricks and mortar that will hopefully go up in value. Or, I can rent someone else's house, requiring no upfront expense but smaller ongoing payments. The downside of course being that at the end of the rental agreement I have no asset.
Currently, clubs pay large transfer fees as the price takes into account both the likely impact of the player for the period of their contract and their future resale value.
Under the MSI model you would only pay a fee based on the value you can extract from the player during their contract period - impact on the pitch, merchandising sales and so on.
So clubs with big pockets could still buy assets and clubs with limited cash hordes could take the rental route.
This may be why Tevez and Mascherano are at West Ham rather than Man United, Arsenal, etc. These are large powerful clubs who don't need to change their behaviour yet and are unlikely to want the power base to shift towards third parties. However a club like West Ham is more open to new opportunities and gaining two world-class players without investing tens of millions of pounds upfront looks like good business.
There are of course big potential issues with the leasing approach.
While this system may help clubs buy better players than they can currently afford, what happens to the clubs that survive by nurturing then selling talent? If that talent is owned independently, how do they get payback for thier investment in developing the player? One answer would be for them to become part of player-owning consortia.
The other big question is whether there should be limits on consortium ownership. Is there a conflict of interest is a consortiums players are on opposing sides in a crucnh match What if a club is part of a consortium and one of it's players is fielded against them?
The MSI model has the potential to disrupt the English football system. This could be in a good way or a bad way. Ideally the FA will accept it but take the time to think through the surrounding issues and put in place sensible policies that protect the game while allowing clubs and players to make the most of it.
I still have my concerns over the background of Joorabchian and his effect on West Ham but the transfers of Tevez and Mascherano look like a great deal for the Hammers.
Comments
Sorry mate but this certainly does not represent any sort of power shift from the 'haves' to the 'have nots.' Couldn't be further from the truth. MSI is at least partially if not entirely funded by Ambramovich and maybe other corrupt oligarchs the Argies are at West Ham (besides money laundering) purely because Chelski dont have room for them and dont want them at Manu or Arsenal. West Ham are Chelskis reserve team for the season. Fifas afraid to dig too deep for fear of what they might find.
Simply put, it seems to me just another layer of people taking money out of the game.
These people have no love for football and are there purely to make money, not a problem in its self only in its potential effect. What happens when the popularity of football wains and the profits are not there?
Another problem is that as more clubs are able to splash out on these players, their cost goes up as the demand increases. Maybe ok for many premiership teams but what about lower leagues and what about the developement of British players?
Completely disagree that off the rack footballers controlled by shady companies is good for football - south american business models are not what we should aspire it! This model eliminates whatever remaining loyalty (no 8 year contracts ala Cesc) that footballers have to clubs and fans. This would ultimately lead to fans loyalty dissappearing. It is a disgrace that West Ham don't feel it appropriate that they explain this deal to their fans in a transparent and open way.
Re Doubter's comments:
It's laughable that West Ham is Chelsea's reserve team. Chelsea pre Abromovitch was not a big club and still has a smaller (and quieter) fan base than many of its rivals, including West Ham. Yes, 2 or 3 of our better players were sold to Chelsea after relegation, but that was then and this is now. Yossi Benayoun has just signed a 5 year deal after interest from Liverpool and Arsenal, but has decided to stay with a club that is on the up. We’ve had offers for Harewood, Zamora and Reo Coker from other clubs, but the board and management have made it clear that we are building, not selling.
This deal was just one of many whose details were undisclosed, but the Hammers are getting all this attention because they've had the sheer nerve to sign 2 great players that bigger clubs were interested in.
I hope David M is right and this deal is the first of many. It will be the only way that clubs like ours can hope to compete with the usual the big boys in the Premier League. Of course there are problems with conflicts of interest, but these are commonly dealt with elsewhere by rules and codes of practice - there's no reason at all why can't we do the same in football. Who thinks our present system of ownership, with its bungs and shady deals, is perfect anyway?
Anyone who wants an even playing field and not the predictable Premier League we've had to put up with should think of this as a great opportunity, not a reason to panic.
doubter.
Wrong.
Simple put the players are at West ham as a carrot. If the take over goes through they stay. If not they can leave for 20m each, most of which will go to MSI.
Good way for Joorbachian to convince West ham to sell and at the same time put the players in the shop window in case anything goes wrong.
Laying in bed thinking of 2 argie men!!
Hmm. I really must watch how I phrase things.
Tevez just isn't my type though.
The two argies have stated that they would eventually like to win trophies so that rules Chelsea out as they only buy trophies.
I think a lot of people here are deluding themselves.
There will always clubs who have money and clubs who don't. And everybody wants their club to be succesful and resents the good fortune of others. Most (genuine) football fans would'nt give a toss about the 'damage done to the game' if it was their club that was being given a cheque for £100mill. Everyone said that Blackburn bought the title. Had Newcastle won it, everyone would have harped on about it again. Since the Premeirship was formed the rich clubs have been getting richer. Sky TV, bigger stadiums, sports betting, they've all made football bigger and the clubs at the top make the overwelming majority of it. Even Reading would be nowhere without Madejski, and Wigan without that JJB bloke.
It's like a Cathrine wheel the bigger the club, the more money you can make, and every club/chairman/manager wants a piece of it.
It's only going one way, lads.
