The Guardian:
The Carlos Tevez saga took a dramatic twist in the high court yesterday when West Ham United's lawyers challenged the authenticity of a document presented by Media Sports Investment and Just Sports Inc. The document, filed at a depositions hearing, was a contract drawn up on December 1 at the insistence of the West Ham chairman, Eggert Magnusson. It stated that on July 1 Tevez would be released from the club and stipulated that, if he remained at Upton Park, MSI-JSI would have to make payments that would effectively cover his wages.
MSI-JSI consider the document central to their breach-of-contract case against the Hammers, in which they demand that Tevez be freed from his obligations with West Ham and permitted to move to Manchester United. The hearing will take place over three days from August 22.
West Ham say the document was rescinded and its terms were never executed because it was not countersigned by Tevez. But the copy of the document filed at yesterday's hearing was furnished with dates and signatures, prompting West Ham's challenge over its authenticity.
The Telegraph:
The Carlos Tevez affair reached a new low yesterday as lawyers for West Ham challenged the player's 'owners' in the High Court over the authenticity of a critical new document which would appear to give the club's blessing to his departure this summer.
During a 15-minute hearing in front of Mr Justice Blackburne, West Ham accused the player and the two companies who control his economic rights, MSI and Just Sports Inc, over the timing of signatures on a contract which amended the controversial third-party agreements.
Lawyers for Kia Joorabchian, the frontman for MSI and Just Sports, claim West Ham chairman Eggert Magnusson ordered the third-party agreement to be amended following his successful takeover on Dec 1.
Instead of allowing MSI and Just Sports a say over when Tevez could leave the club and for how much in January, the Icelandic businessman proposed that a new deal be struck whereby Tevez could leave Upton Park in July.
Joorabchian's lawyers say the Dec 1 contract proves Magnusson and the club agreed to let the player go once the season ended.
But, in a fascinating new twist, West Ham insist that, although the document has now been signed by Joorabchian and Tevez, it was not signed in December, meaning it was invalid.
West Ham add that the unsigned document was sent to the Premier League in February, and that the signed version of the contract only emerged in June.
Their line is backed by the Premier League, who say they received an "unexecuted" copy of the contract ahead of the independent commission which fined West Ham £5.5 million for breaking rules on third-party ownership in April.
Yesterday, as a three-day injunction hearing to establish if Tevez can move to United was set for Aug 22, it was confirmed that the 23-year-old player will himself be called to give evidence in the case. He is expected to be cross-examined on exactly when the contract was signed.
West Ham are to call handwriting experts to try to prove the Dec 1 contract was not signed at the time it was drawn up.
The Indie:
The Carlos Tevez dispute could hinge on a document produced in the High Court yesterday which both the player's advisers and West Ham believe will be crucial to the case. The contract between Kia Joorabchian, who owns the player's rights, and the West Ham chairman, Eggert Magnusson, states that Tevez could leave the club this summer for a nominal fee of £100,000.
That is the outcome that Joorabchian has pressed for as he attempts to pave the way for a lucrative £20m move for Tevez to Manchester United. West Ham are prepared to claim that the agreement was never signed when it was offered by them to Joorabchian in December.
The paperwork in question was sent by Magnusson to Joorabchian on 1 December after he had examined the nature of the Tevez deal which would ultimately end in a record £5.5m fine for its "third-party" element that broke Premier League rules. The West Ham chairman, who had then only gained control of the club 10 days earlier, drew up the contract.
Joorabchian's lawyers will claim that contract entitles the player to leave for Manchester United now. However, West Ham will claim that the deal referred to in the contract was never "executed" within the time frame and is thus invalid.
A copy of the 1 December document was sent by West Ham to the Premier League's independent commission which ruled on the dispute last season.
The court's decision could come down to the exact date that the 1 December deal was signed by Tevez. After the independent commission handed down their judgement, Tevez was switched to a four-year deal and the original illegal third-party agreement was discarded. West Ham have claimed that this would entitle them to any transfer fee generated.
Ferguson is confident though:
"I am not worried because I am confident the player will eventually arrive. But it has been dragging on and it has become a bit frustrating. At the moment it is going to the High Court. I am sure we will get a final decision on the matter there. But if something happens before that, it is something we would welcome.
"The deadline is coming up at the end of August, so we do have to think about alternative plans that way. I just want the matter settled, the sooner the better as far as everyone is concerned. I am sure even West Ham think that way. They have their own plans and they have done a lot of buying and selling, so they will want some kind of conclusion in terms of how their team is shaping up."