Reports yesterday alleged that Metz have halted West Ham’s move for Diafra Sakho after claiming that the Premier League club sought to suddenly reconstitute the terms of the proposed transfer. It had appeared that the clubs had quickly agreed a £3.5m fee for the promising 24 year old Senegalese striker and the way lay open for medical clearance and the negotiation of the player’s personal terms.
However, Metz have now issued a statement alleging that West Ham have reneged on their agreement by seeking a season long loan deal agreement, with the option to buy next summer, rather than an permanent transfer. Furthermore, the French club have accused West Ham of being ‘disrespectful’ in their conduct and are currently considering their legal options, as Sakho missed the club’s opening Ligue 1 fixture last Saturday (a 0-0 draw with Lille) to complete his medical.
The Metz statement asserts:
‘The English club unilaterally decided to propose a loan deal with an option to purchase instead of a permanent deal, which does not correspond to FC Metz’s expectations and contradicts all the terms that had been agreed last week between the two clubs. FC Metz regret this clear lack of respect, which is unacceptable, from West Ham towards FC Metz and also the player. As a result, FC Metz reserve the right to approach the international sport court and assert their rights and defend their interests. FC Metz had released Diafra Sakho from his professional duties during matchday 1 of the Ligue 1 championship by giving him leave to take a medical in England to complete the last stage of the deal.’
So, based on the above statement, it would seem that Metz’s case is likely to be that they reached a binding (verbal or written) agreement with West Ham for the permanent transfer of the striker. And that Metz sanctioned Sakho to miss their opening fixture of the season (in order to complete his medical) on the basis that it was effectively a done deal. Metz dropped two points, in a 0-0 draw with Lille, and they may well argue that the voluntary absence of last season’s top scorer could have been a salient factor in the result. A risk that Metz were presumably prepared to accept on the understanding that they would receive the agreed transfer fee. If this is the thrust of their case, would they be successful at CAS? And, if so, would the CAS ruling be that the transfer should proceed on the original terms or, alternatively, would a compensation package be necessary? There is even a suggestion circulating that Metz might push for a points deduction! One only hopes that Metz are not relegated this season by two points or less or that will raise old spectres of a previous crazy compensation deal for an alleged injury to another football club!
Sakho is well worth a gamble at £3.5m, but it all depends what the club’s approach is with respect to the possible signing of Connor Wickham and how the transfer finances stack up? As the situation stood yesterday evening, it is understood that Metz’s lawyers have given West Ham until 12 noon today to agree to proceed with the transfer, on the orginal terms. If not, they will consider taking their case to EUFA/CAS.
SJ. Chandos