A Murderer out on Bail

Neil Warnock has always had a way with words. "I felt really let down," Warnock apparently writes in his new book. "I've so much time for Sir Alex but he had said he'd play his best side against West Ham. And this was nowhere near his best side. And then Carlos Tevez, football's equivalent of a murderer out on bail, had scored the goal that kept West Ham up and put us down. So much for the integrity of the Premier League. So much for fairness and justice in English football."

Ghost written, no doubt, but that phrase "football's equivalent of a murderer out on bail" shines through as pure Warnock. And certainly Tevez, like Maradona, does look as if he could easily have turned out as a hitman for some drug cartel, if he hadn't had a talent for football.

Warnock's conversation with SAF the day Sheffield United went down is reported thus, "He [Ferguson] said he was sorry about what had happened at Old Trafford. 'We battered them, Neil,' he said. 'We had 25 shots. And the stats would back me up on that. The team was good enough to win'," Warnock writes. "'I know, Alex,' I said. 'It's just the psychological boost the other team gets when they see all those names not on your team sheet.' 'I can't tell you how sorry I am,' he said. He was quoted the next day saying everything was all right between us. But it's still difficult for me to digest what happened."

It is now clear that West Ham cleared Tevez for those last three games by this unilateral tearing up of contracts. The Premier League has said they offered West Ham various options for dealing with the situation, but that is the only option that freed the player for immediate appearances. And as part of the deal, West Ham were obliged to promise to defend their position if challenged legally, hence the current Court case. In due course, I fully expect the West Ham position to be proved untenable (although I'm intrigued by these current allegations of forgery they're making). When it is proved that West Ham couldn't unilaterally tear up the contract, it will presumably establish that Tevez shouldn't have been free to play the games. But by fighting the Court battle, they will presumably be held to have demonstrated "good faith" and will be let off. If good faith has to involve going to the Appeal Court if they lose the first time around, then we will certainly not see our new murderer until the New Year, at best. Unless, of course, the Court holds that he is a free agent, and not registered with any club, in which case I believe we are allowed to sign him outside any "window", because it wouldn't be a transfer.

Or, to adapt The Godfather, a man with a briefcase can steal much more money than a man with a football.

Source : The Guardian, Wednesday August 1, 2007