LAWYERS TEND to divide opinion. Some see them as the keepers of the rule of law, ensuring the rights of the individual are not trampled on. Others view them as leeches, selling themselves to whoever will pick up the tab while twisting the words of our legal code and refashioning it into a weapon to serve their client's purposes.

If you fall closer to the latter end of the spectrum, you won't be surprised to hear that lawyers will play a big part in deciding the fate of Carlos Tevez. But what makes this case unusual is that it's not a question of two competing interpretations of the law, as much as it is two competing sets of laws.

At the heart of the matter is the issue of third-party-ownership and who "owns" Tevez. It is generally understood that Tevez is "owned" by a consortium of businessmen led by Kia Joorabchian, who loaned him to West Ham last season and who would stand to profit if he were sold to another club.

The problem is that, according to the laws of football, there is no such thing as "third-party ownership". A player is "owned" by whichever club hold his registration. And since only clubs - not individuals or consortiums - can hold a player's registration, there can be no "third-party ownership". And if anyone agrees to private deals which amount to even some cursory form of "third-party ownership" then they are breaking footballing law and must be punished. Which is part of the reason why West Ham were find £5.5 million in April.

The Upton Park club thought they had resolved the situation. Or, at least, that's what they told the Premier League. They claimed whatever documents linked Tevez to Joorabchian had been ripped up and voided and that the Argentine was, legally and otherwise, 100% a West Ham player.

West Ham pretty much had to do this to satisfy the Premiership inquiry and avoid more severe punishment, which could have included losing points. The problem was that, according to Joorabchian and his crew, they never bothered to square things with them. Which is why Joorabchian has spent much of the summer trying to peddle Tevez around Europe, soliciting bids in excess of £20m. Such a fee would have represented a healthy profit for Joorabchian, whose consortium purchased Tevez's rights for £14m in 2003.

However, the current economic climate, coupled with the threat of legal wrangles with West Ham, has meant no bidder thus far has met Joorabchian's "reserve price" for the player. Which is why, for the time being at least, the proposed move to United would be structured as a two-year loan deal plus a buy-back option with a price set in excess of £35m, according to sources. In the meantime, United have agreed personal terms "in principle" with Tevez's agent, Fernando Hidalgo, offering a package worth about £3.75m a season.

"For £30m or even £20m Joorabchian would have let him go," said a source. "But United were not going to go that high. And, in some ways, it's good that they don't go that high, because it means two things. First and foremost, Joorabchian believes Tevez will only get better and the price will continue to rise. And if United want to exercise the buy-back option, they will have to pay through the nose."

Which brings us back to the Premier League's ruling in April. The terms of their ruling mandated that West Ham had to clarify Tevez's situation, which meant ensuring he was 100% owned by the club. Did West Ham comply with the judgment? If they did, then Joorabchian is like the guy trying to sell you the Empire State Building: hawking something you don't own is generally the sign of a fraudster or a lunatic. But, assuming for a minute that Joorabchian (and United, who have been negotiating with him) are neither crooked nor insane, the implication would be that West Ham had not, in fact, resolved Tevez's position. Which would mean that he remained an ineligible player even after the Premier League's ruling. That eventuality, if proven, would heap ridicule on the Premiership and probably see the Upton Park club punished even further.

For their part, the Premier League say they consider Tevez a West Ham player and would therefore expect them to receive the bulk of any transfer fee. A statement from Hammers chairman Eggert Magnusson backed this up: "Carlos Tevez is a registered West Ham United player, contracted to the club until June 2010 no decision on his future can be reached without the agreement of West Ham United." Joorabchian feels differently. So do Manchester United.

United's chief legal counsel, Maurice Watkins, was at Premier League HQ on Friday illustrating his club's case. Part of the argument hinges on the fact that West Ham never made Tevez's original loan deal permanent.

West Ham are now stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If they do nothing to stop Joorabchian from arranging Tevez's move to Old Trafford, they are effectively acknowledging they do not own the player. And that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt - even as Sheffield United drag them to the High Court.

But if they do insist they have full control over Tevez, Joorabchian could simply sue them, producing all the documents his camp claim to possess. Supposedly signed by the club, this reaffirms that Tevez is "owned" by Joorabchian and his partners and they are free to sell the Argentine. And while it may have little legal validity with the Premier League or even Fifa, every indication is that, in court, these documents would be pretty much unassailable. Civil law, after all, trumps whatever laws football gives itself.

All of which points to two likely outcomes: West Ham screwing things up for themselves (again) and United getting themselves one hell of a player (again). It's just a shame lawyers (or the threat thereof) feature so prominently in this tale.