08/06/2007 13:04
Hammers striker Dean Ashton is spending the summer battling his way back to
fitness after nearly a year on the sidelines with an ankle injury. The
England international reflected on how tough the last year has been and how
much he is looking forward to completing his rehabilitation. "It's difficult
to describe how difficult it was," he said. "It's everything you've dreamed
of and the next minute it's gone. It was hard to take but I felt like I
dealt with it as well as I could. "I've always worked as hard as I could
have done every single day since I've been injured. Now, to be close to
getting back, it's exciting to be outside and working. But the hard work's
nowhere near over. It's going to take a long time before I feel fantastic
but I'll be grateful when I do. "There were many low points. Some days I was
fine, other days it wasn't nice. Coming to the games was very difficult,
because you get people asking when you're back and I wasn't sure. It's hard
to watch football when you're injured and I found it really difficult."
Dean broke his ankle training with the England squad on the eve of last
season. "There was no real remedy for it," he said. "Terry Venables, Steve
McClaren and all the players, they all called me up to make sure I was ok
and that gave me a lift. But other than that it's just one of those things
you have to deal with yourself and be strong. You just have to believe
you'll get back. "The break itself was as good as could be expected, it was
a clean break but because it's the ankle joint there's a lot of structures
around there. You're taking the full weight of your body on it and there was
a lot of build up of scar tissue over the months. "It could have been many
reasons but it wasn't be as easy for me as it might be for somebody else.
But you just have to take the injury as it comes and deal with it at the
time."
Dean is enjoying being back in training, working hard to get his fitness
back and strengthening his ankle, and is focused on returning in time for
the new season.
"I could start doing ball work, but that's not really the priority at the
moment," he said. "It's to get my base of fitness up. So it's just a case of
running as hard as possible every day and keeping my upper body strength
there. I'm running freely, that's not a problem. It's just a case of getting
myself fit and used to the work.
"I can definitely say that by the start of pre-season I'll be easily the
fittest I've ever been and the strongest I've ever been and I'm excited abut
how I'll feel."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Fittest-ever Ashton eager to play - BBC
By Julian Shea
West Ham striker Dean Ashton says he will be fitter and stronger than ever
when he returns next season after a year out with a broken ankle. Ashton
missed all of last season after being injured in training on his first
call-up to the England team and said he felt he had to make up for lost
time. "I can definitely say by the start of the season I'll be the strongest
and fittest I've ever been," he said. "I want to prove I'm not the forgotten
man - I'm still the player I was."
Ashton, 23, became West Ham's record signing when he joined from Norwich in
a deal worth £7.25m in January 2006. His goals earned them a place in the FA
Cup final and Uefa Cup, and also a call-up to the England squad for the
friendly against Greece in August 2006. But what should have been the high
point of his career so far turned into a nightmare as he broke his ankle in
training. He missed the whole of the Hammers' dramatic 2006-07 season and
battle against relegation, and has yet to kick a ball in anger under manager
Alan Curbishley. "After my operations, I had a good time at home sitting
there with my leg up so I'm more than happy to work all through to
pre-season," he said. "I could start doing ball work but that's not the
point, it's just about building up my basic fitness so it's a case of
running hard every day. "My brain hasn't got tired or hurt, it takes time to
adjust but after a few games I'll feel good. "It's hard to get back to full
fitness from nothing so I'm enjoying it at the moment - it's nice just to be
outside doing some work."
Ashton said watching from the sidelines while the club battled to avoid
relegation had been a frustrating experience. "Coming to watch games was
hard, because people kept asking when I'd be back and I couldn't tell them,"
he said. "Terry Venables, Steve McClaren and some of the players rang me to
give me a lift which was good but other than that it's just one of those
things where you've got to deal with it yourself and believe you'll be
back."
But Ashton said he drew inspiration from the example of fellow England
striker Michael Owen, who made a scoring return against Estonia after almost
a year out with a knee ligament injury. And if he manages to prove his worth
at West Ham, then Ashton is keen to earn another chance in an England shirt.
"Michael doesn't look like he's had the injury he had, which is a credit to
him and to physio John Green, who I'm working with now. "I would always want
to get back to being involved (with England) as soon as I ever could, so the
main thing is to get back right, and if that comes, then fantastic."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Wigan set sights on keeper - Sky
By Alex Livie - Created on 8 Jun 2007
Wigan boss Chris Hutchings has confirmed he is in the market for a keeper
and reports suggest West Ham's Roy Carroll is high on his wish list.
Hutchings has already added Titus Bramble and Antoine Sibierski to his ranks
as he endeavours to improve Wigan's squad following a season of struggle
last term. And he feels a keeper is needed to put pressure on the classy
but fragile Chris Kirkland and Carroll is rumoured to be his number one
target. "We are looking to bring another keeper in," Hutchings said in The
Sun. "We need competition all over the park." Carroll had a successful
spell at Wigan earlier in his career and he could be tempted by a return to
The JJB, having slipped behind Robert Green in the pecking order at Upton
Park. Kirkland, meanwhile, is reported to be making good progress after
picking up a shoulder injury, but Hutchings is aware it could be a long road
ahead for the former Liverpool man. "He's making progress and is working
hard at the training ground at the moment," Hutchings told the Wigan Evening
Post. "He's keeping his legs and body going, but can't do any handling work
or diving yet - he has to be careful."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers bid denied - Sky
By Graeme Bailey - Created on 8 Jun 2007
Fredrikstad supremo Morgan Andersen has confirmed to skysports.com that
starlet Tarik Elyounoussi is not on his way to West Ham United. Reports had
suggested that West Ham were close to agreeing a £3 million deal for the
highly-rated Elyounoussi. However, sporting director Andersen has denied
that his club's prized asset is anywhere near a move away from the club.
Andersen insists the 19-year-old, who he feels is on the brink of a call-up
to the Norwegian national side, is unlikely to move this summer. Speaking to
skysports.com, Andersen confirmed no approach from West Ham had been made.
"This is a typical media story, we would know if there was any interest and
there is nothing from West Ham - they have not made a bid for Tarik," he
told skysports.com. "There has been interest and we have big clubs watching
every week, which is normal for somebody as talented as Tarik. "I honestly
think he is amongst the top players in Europe for his age."
Andersen insisted that Fredrikstad and Elyounoussi would not be rushing into
any deal. "We work very closely with Tarik and his family, and we will
discuss his future when we need to. "He is a very level-headed boy and he is
just finishing his studies, and he will make the right choice. "But I cannot
see him leaving us this year, he still needs to develop and progress and I
think that this is the right place for him to do that."
Elyounoussi has been strongly linked with Chelsea and Portsmouth, but
Andersen says he has not heard from those clubs since their initial interest
last year. "Chelsea wanted Tarik last summer to go and train with what was
there youth side, but that was never going to happen," he continued. "He is
far too good for that, why would he go from playing for our first team - to
playing for a youth team. "With Portsmouth, they wanted to look at him late
last year, but it was the cup final so he was unable to make it and since
then there has been no direct contact with them."
Anderson helped nurture the talent of John Obi-Mikel when he was in charge
at Brann - but he does not want to see Elyounoussi compared to the Nigerian.
"Obi-Mikel was something special," added Morgan. "At 18 he was ready to go
into the Chelsea first-team, I would not put Tarik in the same bracket. "I
think Tarik will break into the Norway national team before this year is
finished."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Why West Ham should NOT have points deducted over Tevez - Soccerlens
Written by Ahmed Bilal.
In a recent comment on Soccerlens, a reader pointed out that the Premier
League had posted the transcript of the West Ham ruling on their website and
that one should read it before blindly commenting on the ruling. Now I know
that this is late (the ruling was made on 27th April 2007) and a lot has
already been said about final punishment meted out to West Ham. However, I
thought it would be negligent to not at least read the full transcript once.
I've discussed the transcript below along with my opinions on it.
Before I start though, I would like to point out two things:
One, I'm a Manchester United supporter, so no for or against bias here.
Actually, I started following West Ham more closely after watching them play
last season (2005/2006) and have liked them since.
Two, My initial view on the Tevez issue was that the Commission had been
lenient with West Ham and some of the reasons given for not deducting points
were whimsical and flimsy.
I'm happy to see West Ham stay up (and I hope that the independent tribunal
allows them to stay up) but that's the football fan in me. The critic
disagrees, but I'm open to different arguments, and because of that I wanted
to read the full transcript and find out what really happened.
It would be tedious and repetitive to walk you through the transcript, plus
if you want to understand the complete situation you really should take out
some time to read it - 6000 words so it shouldn't take you too long.
Background
It's important to note that West Ham themselves forwarded the contracts of
Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano to the FA Premier League towards the end
of January 2007. It is quite possible that if they had chosen to do so, they
could have found a way to hide from this matter and drag it out even
further. While there was always the case that third party ownership would
cause problems there was no knowledge of the actual contractual details and
because of that no serious case could be made against West Ham without
looking at the contracts, and as far as the FAPL knew the contracts did not
violate any rules.
The Commission statement also quotes the agreement between member clubs of
the Premier League which states that each Chairman of the club members
commits themselves to ensure that their clubs inter alia "behave with the
utmost good faith and honesty to each other" and "will comply with the laws
of the game and follow Premier League Rules, not only to the letter but also
to their spirit and will ensure that our clubs and officials are fully aware
of such rules".
In essence, West Ham were, in respect of their FAPL agreement, expected to
be fully aware of the rules.
The key characters are West Ham legal and commercial director Mr Scott
Duxbury, West Ham CEO Paul Aldridge, FAPL secretary Ms Purdon (responsible
for the regulation of the management of players to clubs in the Premiership)
and FAPL general secretary, Mr Foster (responsible for player registrations
with FAPL). As witness statements go, that of Mr Richard Scudamore, the FAPL
chief executive, will be crucial to the proceedings.
Contracts
The crux of the whole argument. Essentially, both contracts (for Tevez and
Mascherano) stated that it was up to the third party owners to determine
when the player would be transferred away from West Ham, and that West Ham
or the player himself had no say in the matter. To make this happen, the
third party would have to pay a small sum to West Ham.
West Ham, under Terry Brown (chairman) and Aldridge (CEO) agreed to these
terms.
The contracts allowed for the possibility of West Ham's playing policies to
be affected by the third party in four different ways:
A) The third party may be able to determine when and to whom the player may
be transferred, which may not coincide with the wishes and interests of the
club for whom the player is playing, or the player himself, and thus
potentially influence the playing policies of the club.
B) In the event of the third party having a particular transfer in mind, it
may seek to influence the playing performance of the player.
C) The third party could prevent a transfer of the player against the
interests of the club.
D) The third party could prevent the termination of the player's contract
with the club and against the wishes of the club. The club's disciplinary
control of the player could be affected.
My personal view is that regardless of whether the third parties wished to
impact West Ham's playing policies or not, the clauses that allowed the
third parties to solely determine the future of the player were in direct
violation of rule U18, which states:
"No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that
contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the
performance of its teams in league matches or in any (other) competitions."
An argument was made that this rule did not apply to the Tevez / Mascherano
situation because it did not affect playing terms - however, it did give the
third parties the ability to influence the club's transfer policy, which is
covered in the rule above.
So yes, the contracts were illegal under the FAPL agreement. The interesting
part here is that Mr Duxbury, legal and commercial director at West Ham,
denied knowledge of the U18 rule. That is, in my view, gross misconduct.
Ignorance of the law is hardly an excuse. There's also the case of Paul
Aldridge, telling Richard Scudamore that there was nothing wrong with the
contracts, but that's not relevant as it happened after the players had been
transfered.
The contractual agreements related to Tevez and Mascherano was extremely
interesting, and I've posted that full section here.
Knowledge of rule breach
There is some argument (from West Ham's side) that they were not aware of
the rule breach - and that if Mr Duxbury had known of the breach he (and by
extension, West Ham) would have done things differently.
Short of calling it bullsh*t, I don't know what else to say here. As legal
director conducting transfers that clearly involve third parties and are
therefore potentially problematic, it was Duxbury's responsibility to be
aware of all rules and regulations relevant to their situation.
At best, Duxbury and Aldridge hid some information from the FAPL. At worst,
they openly lied to them. In either case, the rule violations still stand.
However, if this matter had been brought to the FAPL's attention earlier,
there's a good chance that West Ham would not be in the legal mess they
found themselves in at the end of the 2006/2007 season.
FA Premier League and the unnecessary delay
The Commission also takes care to protect FAPL by saying that they were
assured by West Ham that there were no irregularities and that the FAPL -
essentially, Mr Foster, Ms Purdon and Mr Scudamore, believed West Ham
(Duxbury and Aldridge).
That remained the position until 24th January 2007. On that date, Mr Igoe,
the finance director of West Ham, was informed by the FAPL of a proposed
report into third party ownership of footballers. He decided to forward the
contracts to the FAPL.
In hindsight the FAPL should have been more vigilant and should have
investigated the contracts fully.
According to my understanding, the FAPL had knowledge of the player
contracts but not of the agreements made between the third parties and the
club, West Ham. In my opinion the Premier League SHOULD have questioned how
the players had been brought to West Ham if there had been no agreement
between West Ham and any other club (as far as I'm aware, West Ham only
signed agreements with the third parties) and if there WAS a deal made with
those third parties, then Scudamore should have asked West Ham to share
those documents.
The FAPL waited till January 24th before raising the matter again with West
Ham. Around 4 1/2 months after that conversation between Scudamore and
Aldridge.
In my view, certain individuals in the FA Premier League made grave errors
of judgment and are responsible for this matter being resolved in late April
and not early on in the season. Could this have affected the Commission's
decision in not giving a points penalty to West Ham?
The Penalty and Reasoning
The Commission decided to award a monetary fine and not a points deduction.
They took the following factors into account:
One, the club's pleas of guilty.
Two, the fact that the club is under new ownership and management. True it
is that Mr Duxbury remains, but we are impressed by Mr Sturman's point that
Mr Magnusson could have cynically dispensed with his services so as to
reflect more favourably upon the club.
Three, had the club in time made disclosure of the third party contracts to
the FAPL, then, in all probability, contracts could have been entered into
which would not have offended the Rules. Mr Mascherano is now playing
football for Liverpool. He is doing so pursuant to a contract entirely
different in form to these contracts, and which has been approved by the
FAPL. We have no reason to suspect that the same could not have been
achieved with West Ham in August 2006.
Four, there has been a delay between the discovery of these breaches and
these proceedings. Whilst that delay is due to no party's fault, the
consequence is that a points deduction, say in January, whilst unwelcome,
would have been somewhat easier to bear than a points deduction today which
would have consigned the club to certain relegation.
Five, Tevez has continued to play for the club after the discovery of these
breaches. The FAPL had the power to have then terminated his registration.
For understandable reasons, they did not. Had it not been for these
proceedings, the club and the FAPL might have reached a similar situation to
that pertaining to Liverpool and Mascherano. Tevez, we note, has played in
more games post-24th January than before it.
Six, we have considered the position of the players and the fans. They are
in no way to blame for this situation. Of course, if the impact upon players
and fans was to be the overriding consideration, there may never be a
deduction of points. However, in this case, the fans and the players have
been fighting against relegation. They have been doing so from between
January and April. They have been so doing against the ever-present threat
of a deduction of points. Those efforts and that loyalty would be to no
avail were we to now, on what might be termed the eve of the end of the
season, to deduct points.
Seven, it was Mr Igoe, thus the club, then under new ownership, who brought
attention to these breaches.
The only factor that is credible is the new ownership of West Ham, although
that factor is undermined by this:
When Magnusson took over, it's believable that his advisers would have
raised the issue of the two Argentinian players. At this point if Magnusson
was lied to, and if at that point his advisers ALSO did not ask to see the
third-party agreements, then they too are guilty of negligence.
And if West Ham's new management was aware of those contracts AND they did
not themselves offer that information to the Premier League until the
Premier League talked about investigating into third party ownership of
footballers, then West Ham's new management are also guilty of a breach of
rule B13.
In my view, the new management was in violation of rule B13. It can be
argued that they had, by their inaction, agreed to the 'invalid' player
contracts. I disagree with that - while the new management should have been
more careful and diligent in dealing with the contracts, they cannot be held
responsible for agreeing to the contracts.
Conclusion
As I said at the start, I'm biased towards West Ham. I want to see them in
the Premiership, and I have no sympathy for a team that threw their
Premiership status away on the last day in a home game, nor for a manager
and chairman who have whinged so much this season that they came second
place behind Jose Mourinho in the whinger's league (personal opinion - I do
respect Sheffield United's spunk on the field this season though).
The main problem with the ruling is the caveat that if this hearing had
happened earlier in the season, or if West Ham were not in a relegation
battle, there is a very good chance (almost certain) that West Ham would
have had points deducted.
The Premier League were also, directly or indirectly, responsible for
delaying these proceedings.
I think the Commission weakened their own arguments considerably by taking
into consideration the impact of relegation on the players and the fans. By
making the punishment contingent on present circumstances, a precedent has
been set for the future.
West Ham's relegation rivals will argue that the gravity of the situation
required that circumstances be ignored and the letter of the law be applied.
In that case, West Ham would certainly have had points deducted.
There's also the argument that this allows clubs to field players illegally
and get away with it by paying a fine if they can argue for the right
'circumstances'.
I don't think this sets a precedent - deducting points (and thus affecting
league standings) is a grave punishment and as such it is necessary to
consider the club's circumstances.
For me, the most convincing factor was the new ownership AND the delays -
the first because FAPL did not inquire enough, and the second between seeing
the contracts and the conclusion of these proceedings.
The Commission gave the right punishment, but perhaps the FA Premier League
needs to be investigated as well - who will they pay the fine to? Shouldn't
Sheffield United be paid compensation by the FAPL?
Post-Commission
At the end, it was ordered that registration of Carlos Tevez be terminated
by the FAPL. That date was 27 April. On 28 April, Tevez played for West Ham.
Was a new contract signed with the third parties in time? I think so - the
proceedings gave West Ham and the third parties enough time to draft new
contracts.
Would MSI agree to a new contract that DID not give them the complete
transfer rights of the player? If they had, as I suspect, a gentleman's
agreement in place, or if West Ham have paid MSI a sum, or if any other
outside agreement has taken place in which there is no legal, documented
evidence that a third party has the ability to influence the club's
policies, then West Ham are legally clear and MSI would be open to signing a
new agreement - and I'm sure this would have been drafted in advance.
Of course, it opens the possibility of West Ham employing the same legal
stipulations that allowed Liverpool to enter an agreement for Mascherano.
Thank you for taking the time to read this extra-long article
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Villa must wait to tie up Reo-Coker - TeamTalk
Aston Villa will not complete the signing of Nigel Reo-Coker until he
returns from England Under-21 duty at the European Championships. The West
Ham midfielder has arrived in Holland with his international team-mates with
his £7million move away from Upton Park still to be resolved. Villa have
made it clear to Hammers officials they are willing to offer something like
the asking fee to land the 23-year-old's services, although it has
transpired no formal bid has been registered. But Villa boss Martin O'Neill
is likely to have to wait until at least after England's final group game
with Serbia on June 17 before he can complete what he hopes will be the
formalities of the transfer. Given the mix-up over Villa player Gabriel
Agbonlahor's availability for the Under-21 squad, Stuart Pearce is unlikely
to be in any mood to allow his skipper Reo-Coker to become involved in
transfer negotiations while England remain in the tournament. Reo-Coker, who
joined West Ham from Wimbledon for £500,000 three and a half years ago, has
made it clear that is also where his immediate priorities lie. He said: "I
see myself as a professional and I have got my professional hat on and right
now it is all about England Under-21s and the European Championships."
Reo-Coker will join up with two of his potential Villa team-mates of the
future in Ashley Young and Gary Cahill if the deal gets the green light. He
is poised to replace Gavin McCann whose £1million plus move from Villa to
Bolton is poised to go through subject to him passing a medical.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Defoe About to Sign? -West Ham Till I Die
June 8th, 2007
Rumour is that West Ham have agreed a fee with Spurs for Jermain Defoe. He's
worried about the fans' reaction, though. Views? Personally, I'd take him
back like a shot, as long as the fee isn't higher than what Spurs paid us
for him originally.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Coppell issues Hammers, Pompey warning - eleven-a-side.com
June 8, 2007
Reading manager Steve Coppell has warned Premiership rivals West Ham United
and Portsmouth off Irish international winger Stephen Hunt. The Hammers are
reportedly interested in the 25-year-old, who rose to fame with a fine
season at the Madejski Stadium last term. But Coppell has no plans to sell
the Waterford lad this summer. He said: "He never stops working hard on his
skills. Sometimes people go as far as they can then settle for that, but he
proves that's not always the case. He shows that with hard work and
dedication you can keep improving and he's a key member of the team. "He
was fantastic for us all season. He took his opportunity and he never looked
back. He became a mainstay of the side and that's all down to him and his
hard work. "I remember him breaking his ankle at Crystal Palace when he was
young. He had only just come over from Ireland and he worked tirelessly for
a year to get back. He's such a strong little so-and-so."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hammers won't attend Blades hearing - The Star Sheffield
SHEFFIELD United's legal battle with the Premier League has taken another
dramatic twist after it emerged that West Ham - the club at the centre of
the dispute which threatens to plunge English football into chaos - have
declined an invitation to represent themselves at the forthcoming
arbitration hearing.
The Star understands that the three man team, charged with investigating the
decision not to deduct Alan Curbishley's side points following a breach of
transfer regulations, approached officials at Upton Park about the matter
immediately after their appointment.
But West Ham, who subsequently escaped relegation at United's expense, said
they would not be attending.
Their refusal means that panel members Lord Justice Ottan, David Pannick QC
and Nicholas Randall will not hear any fresh 'advice' from the club when
they start examining the original 24 page report into the matter on Monday,
June 18.
That process is scheduled to last two days and United hope that if they rule
in their favour then Bramall Lane's membership of Europe's richest domestic
competition will be restored.
The development is the most important since Kevin McCabe, United's plc
chairman, revealed that a senior FAPL figure had told him that they should
be reinstated if the thinking behind the organisation's failure to impose
the ultimate punishment is proven flawed.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Magnusson delighted with new West Ham sponsorship
tribalfooball.com - June 08, 2007
West Ham United yesterday announced a £7.5m three-year sponsorship deal with
travel company XL Leisure Group. "The XL deal says a lot about the financial
muscle of West Ham," Hammers chairman Eggert Magnusson said. "Slowly but
surely we are now moving towards becoming one of the top six clubs in the
country."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Football: Once in a lifetime - disexpress.co.uk
Attleborough U10s played at West Ham United's stadium D07/06/050.
YOUNGSTERS enjoyed a once in a lifetime opportunity to play at a famous
Premiership stadium. Attleborough U10s reached the quarter-finals of the
George Parris Boys Tournament at West Ham United's 35,000 capacity Upton
Park on Bank Holiday Monday. Team manager Peter Venables said it was a day
his players would never forget. He said: "They were thrilled to bits with
the day. As well as playing on the Upton Park pitch, they got to look round
the home team's dressing room and had their names read out over the loud
speaker when they came down the tunnel. I was very proud of them."
Attleborough drew their first game 1-1 with a goal by Jakob Meppem, lost
their second game 2-0 and won their final group game 1-0, with Sam Culyer
netting the crucial strike. But they came unstuck in the quarter-finals,
losing 3-0 in the competition organised by the former Hammers player Parris.
The tournament, which raises money for Great Ormond Street Hospital, cost
£600 to enter and was paid for by sponsors, Donna Kissinger Estate Agents,
and parents Richard Bunn and Martin Broom, of Pallet Services of East
Harling.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bent Auction Opens - TWTD
By Philip Ham
Date: 8/6/2007
Charlton are reported to have received two firm bids for ex-Town striker
Darren Bent. Spurs are said to have offered £8 million for the England
frontman, while West Ham have tabled a bid of £12 million plus a player.
The Hammers are understood to have offered the Addicks either former Town
loan striker Marlon Harewood or midfielder Hayden Mullins in addition to the
cash. However, Charlton are believed to want neither player and continue to
hold out for a straight £15 million. Everton, Newcastle, Arsenal and
Liverpool have all also been linked with Bent since Charlton's relegation to
the Championship in May all but confirmed his move away from the Valley.
Town are due 20% of the profit the Addicks make on the £2.6 million they
paid the Blues for Bent. A fee of £15 million would land Town a £2.48
million windfall.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bellamy can be a Hammer for £9m - Daily Mail
Last updated at 08:24am on 8th June 2007
Craig Bellamy will be offered a double your- money deal to join West Ham as
replacement for Carlos Tevez, but the Wales striker believes he could also
make an audacious return to Newcastle. As Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez
put the finishing touches to new contracts for Xabi Alonso, Pepe Reina and
Momo Sissoko, he was bracing himself for a £9million bid for frontrunner
Bellamy. West Ham boss Alan Curbishley has a high regard for Bellamy and is
ready to see off competition from Aston Villa and Blackburn by offering
terms of £70,000 a week. Bellamy, however, has told friends he would relish
another chance at Newcastle although the £9m fee and Mark Viduka's switch to
St James' Park could have put paid to his dreams. Newcastle chairman Freddy
Shepherd has sold his 29 per cent stake to billionaire Mike Ashley, who is
aiming to take sole control of the club while leaving the current board in
place.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment