He was told by a Premier League arbitration panel yesterday afternoon that wish to move to Dirtyside is blocked
A Premier League statement read: "The hearing concluded that nature and intention of the disputed June 13, 2007 letter, especially when taken in context of verbal discussions and Manchester United transfer policy, was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer.
"Furthermore, the hearing finds the letter constitutes an 'agreement to agree', and did not create an obligation or binding agreement for the club to transfer the player to any particular club."
A United spokesman said: "We are pleased that the panel has endorsed our case."
Meanwhile, The Sun claim he could move to West Ham in a loan deal.
Heinze:
"For me it is bad because my hope was to negotiate my transfer to Liverpool.
"This is not a war and I am not being anti-United. I only wanted to defend my right to search for another club without restriction. But I have to consider that my stay at United is finished.
"My fight is for the freedom to negotiate with any club. United never wanted me to leave for one of the big clubs, but this anti-Liverpool clause is incredible."
The Times:
The league's decision came as a significant blow to Rafael BenÍtez, the Liverpool manager, who had been confident of a favourable decision, but the repercussions for Heinze are more serious. Having campaigned for the past six weeks to move to Anfield, he testified against United and Sir Alex Ferguson during the two-day hearing in London, with the result that the 29-year-old appears to have burnt his bridges at Old Trafford. Although his instinct is to launch an appeal, Heinze's most viable escape route now may be to France, Italy or Spain.
The verdict came as a shock to Heinze and his agent, Roberto Rodriguez, who felt that a letter from David Gill, the United chief executive, on June 13 entitled him to join any club offering £6.8 million for his services, as Liverpool did on July 16.
United rejected that bid on the basis that they did not want to do business with Liverpool — they have not sold a player to their big rivals since Phil Chisnall in 1964 — and the three-man panel ruled in the club's favour on the basis that Gill's letter did not constitute a binding legal document.
The Guardian:
Gabriel Heinze is facing an ignominious departure from Manchester United, and English football, after the Premier League rejected his attempt to force a transfer to Liverpool. No player has moved from Old Trafford to Anfield since 1964 and, after two days of legal discussions, Heinze was informed that he would not be permitted to be the first in 43 years to do so.
Heinze indicated that he wants an appeal to be heard before the transfer window closes in nine days and the 29-year-old was described as bitterly disappointed at the end of a fraught hearing in which he openly defied Sir Alex Ferguson by using a Merseyside-based firm of solicitors that specialises in work for Liverpool.
The Argentina international has pursued the case so aggressively it is inconceivable that he can ever play for United again and moves are already under way to find a foreign buyer before the end of the transfer window. Lyon have registered a firm interest while almost every major club in Europe has been notified of his availability, for a fee of £6.8m.
Liverpool offered that amount last month only for United to dismiss it because they did not want to do business with such fierce rivals. Heinze challenged the decision on the grounds that he had been faxed a letter, signed by the chief executive, David Gill, on June 13 stating he was allowed to join any club that matched United's valuation. The Premier League ruled that it "did not create an obligation or binding agreement". Gill told the hearing he had made it clear to Heinze's agent that the agreement excluded any of the club's major rivals.
The Telegraph:
Although the Premier League could hear the appeal immediately, United would have 14 days to respond and might therefore push the matter beyond the closure of the transfer window.
"The initial reaction was to appeal but they will think about it first," said a source close to yesterday's hearing.
Heinze had thought that a letter signed by Manchester United gave him written permission to pursue a transfer to another club for a fee of £6.8 million.
The panel, however, backed United and ruled that the letter did not constitute an obligation to sell to a rival Premier League club.
Should Heinze decide not to appeal or is unsuccessful in overturning yesterday's verdict, a move abroad looks the most likely solution.
Lyon have already expressed their interest in recruiting Heinze to replace their captain Cris, who faces six months out injured.