Premiership clubs will have to hand over every document relating to third party ownership of players after chairmen yesterday agreed to tighten their regulations following the Carlos Tevez affair.
The affair caused uproar as many felt The Hammers should have been hit with a points penalty, but the majority of the clubs gave a vote of confidence to the ruling at Friday’s AGM.
And despite the ongoing row with the so-called ‘gang of four’ over the West Ham controversy, Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore was given the backing of the rest of the clubs over his handling of the case.
Following a two-day meeting at Stapleford Park in Leicestershire, the chairmen also agreed to tighten the rule on third party ownership, which West Ham admitted breaching in the signing of Tevez and his Argentinian team-mate Javier Mascherano last August.
A statement issued last night by the League said: “In light of the independent commission’s West Ham United judgment, the clubs have reiterated their commitment to the principle of the rule.
“It was felt that, given West Ham United had pleaded guilty, the independent commission had not had the opportunity to fully test the rule.
“It was decided, for the sake of clarity, to adopt a rule making the disclosure of all documents relating to the transfer of a player’s registration and any other relevant third party contracts or arrangements explicit.”
With Charlton and Sheffield United relegated to the Championship, Fulham and Wigan are now the only Premiership clubs opposed to the decision by an independent commission to fine West Ham £5.5million for the Tevez affair instead of docking them points.
But the League refused to debate the issue in depth, claiming it to be sub-judice after they agreed to Sheffield United’s call for an arbitration hearing into the case on June 18.
The statement added: “The issues stemming from the independent commission’s West Ham United judgment were noted. However, given the board’s involvement in arbitration proceedings, a full discussion did not take place as the matters remain sub judice.
“Fulham FC had informed the board it was their intention to seek arbitration proceedings in relation to the West Ham judgment and the board’s subsequent actions. Other member clubs expressed their wish that Fulham FC withdraw these proceedings.”
