With 25 years of professional experience of contract's, written or verbal agreements I can safely say that a verbal agreement is worth zero without a neutral witness, and even with a bunch a witness you can end up short against a signed contract.
This is common sense and that's why players have professional agent's who supposed to have legal help or own legal experience. It's also why the law see's both parties as equal in a court. Simple and logical. Don't compare these negotiation's with private agreement's or a contract between a private person and a company. Not the same.
In this case Tottenham H.F.C., represented by David Levy, have a water tight long term contract with a unhappy player, who btw want's a pay rise and the opportunity to play in the CL.
Unless Levy decides to accept any bid the player will have to honor his contract. End of.
Luca Modric can do and say whatever he want's but it will not change anything and especially not the legal parts of the contract.
So this is why I think Modric, and his stupid agent, is a first class amateur who deserve's to pay the price for his naive actions. Verbal agreement or not.
I'm perfectly aware of the things you write about a unhappy player who destabilizing the club and create unpleasant feelings. But you have to look at it from Tottenham's view. Unless a very good bid, and I think we talk about 35-40m sterling it would be unwise and counter productive to sell Modric.
This saga will go on but let's be clear that it's Levy who's holding the important cards.
Why would CFC come back with a higher offer if Levi declared publicly that the player is not for sale and bids aren't welcome? You don't make any sense.
You see, we're not desperate to land Modric, there are other options out there if Levi decides to play power games, and every party involved knows that, no matter what they say publicly.Modric is clearly determined to leave Spurs and Tottenham are desperate to hold onto him. The first bid was made to show intent and the player's reaction made it clear he's more than willing to come.
It has all the signs of the protracted saga that lasts all the way until the last day of the transfer window and ends with the player in question inevitably leaving. 22 mil may not be enough but an offer in 30-35m region should be enough to satisfy both parties and give Spurs time and money to fetch a suitable replacement.
With 25 years of professional experience of contract's, written or verbal agreements I can safely say that a verbal agreement is worth zero without a neutral witness, and even with a bunch a witness you can end up short against a signed contract.
This is common sense and that's why players have professional agent's who supposed to have legal help or own legal experience. It's also why the law see's both parties as equal in a court. Simple and logical. Don't compare these negotiation's with private agreement's or a contract between a private person and a company. Not the same.
In this case Tottenham H.F.C., represented by David Levy, have a water tight long term contract with a unhappy player, who btw want's a pay rise and the opportunity to play in the CL.
Unless Levy decides to accept any bid the player will have to honor his contract. End of.
Luca Modric can do and say whatever he want's but it will not change anything and especially not the legal parts of the contract.
So this is why I think Modric, and his stupid agent, is a first class amateur who deserve's to pay the price for his naive actions. Verbal agreement or not.
I'm perfectly aware of the things you write about a unhappy player who destabilizing the club and create unpleasant feelings. But you have to look at it from Tottenham's view. Unless a very good bid, and I think we talk about 35-40m sterling it would be unwise and counter productive to sell Modric.
This saga will go on but let's be clear that it's Levy who's holding the important cards.
This saga will go on but let's be clear that it's Levy who's holding the important cards.
I think you are far too fixated on the legal side of things. Transfers of players under contract are commonplace in football, Levy has that as a bargaining tool but the reality is that when a player wants to leave, he will get his move eventually, despite all the posturing from Spurs.
Off course you are right.
But wait....why didn't Tevez and Fabregas leave last summer and this winter window? And according to the rumors one of them wrote a written transfer request and said all bridges was burned. Strange.
Why the feck did Modric sign a 6yr contract anyway?
Why the feck did Modric sign a 6yr contract anyway?
Why the feck did Modric sign a 6yr contract anyway?
Off course you are right.
But wait....why didn't Tevez and Fabregas leave last summer and this winter window? And according to the rumors one of them wrote a written transfer request and said all bridges was burned. Strange.
Higher wages and assurances that they'd listen to offers from any bigger clubs in the future.
Gives security to player and bargaining power to club. Contracts are worth nothing more.
.... size of transfer fee.
we're simply going by past experiences in the world of football which tends to favour the player.
In that case both the players agent and club failed in addressing the issue correctly. A release clause should be inserted into the contract.
Contracts are worth nothing more.
Dear Sultan. You wrote the key words.
Of course a legal written contract is worth more, but we're simply going by past experiences in the world of football which tends to favour the player.
Your quote's are challenging the whole legal system. Why on earth have written contract's, layers, judge's and court house's any longer. No worth a penny in this new world.
Let's just let players decide by them self where to play and for how much. Easy piecy one two three and they all go for free.
Gives security to player and bargaining power to club. Contracts are worth nothing more.
In that case both the players agent and club failed in addressing the issue correctly. A release clause should be inserted into the contract.
I think you are far too fixated on the legal side of things. Transfers of players under contract are commonplace in football, Levy has that as a bargaining tool but the reality is that when a player wants to leave, he will get his move eventually, despite all the posturing from Spurs.
Chelsea, Modric and his agent have created a problem (likely behind the scenes) for Spurs where they have avoided an auction for the player - which means they will not get the same amount of transfer fee had the player said he simply wants to move to another club.
As Datura commented you're too fixated by legalities mate. Realities are somewhat different.
I wrote earlier in this thread that every case is individual. You can't judge earlier agreements with every new case. Off course when a player has only a few years left on his contract the "power" shift's from the club to the player. That's what happened in Ronaldo's case.
But look at Tevez. Who do you think holding the cards?
You can also look at Arsenal's situation. It's not crystal clear that it's better to cash in regarding Nasri. One year is a long time and Arsenal can't loose to many players at the same time.
Don't pre judge every case and assume that the players always have the power. Not true and it's by no mean moral and legal right.
I did not think Modric would be the type of player who would openly accuse his club just two days after accepting their decision for not letting him go.
Somewhat related to the topic, starts at page 13:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/06/30/78/statusinhalt_en_122007.pdf
Should shed some light on contracts and what's possible to do/not to do when a professional player is under contract.
I'm looking forward for you and Datura to end up in a court. Actually I don't, you both look's like two nice guys so I hope you don't.
You talk about reality's like contract doesn't matter. I bet you are wrong and history prove's I'm right.
Off course today's players have more power then before but that doesn't mean the clubs are powerless. Especially the big one's.
Ronaldo 80m
Berbatov 31,5m
Hargreaves 18m
Tevez Not sold
Fabregas Not sold
Every case is special and unique.
I'm looking forward for you and Datura to end up in a court. Actually I don't, you both look's like two nice guys so I hope you don't.
You talk about reality's like contract doesn't matter. I bet you are wrong and history prove's I'm right.
Off course today's players have more power then before but that doesn't mean the clubs are powerless. Especially the big one's.
Ronaldo 80m
Berbatov 31,5m
Hargreaves 18m
Tevez Not sold
Fabregas Not sold
Every case is special and unique.
Article 13.
A contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated
upon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement.
Article 13.
A contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated
upon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement.
In all cases, the party in breach shall pay compensation. Subject
to the provisions of article 20 and Annexe 4 in relation to training
compensation, and unless otherwise provided for in the contract,
compensation for the breach shall be calculated with due
consideration for the law of the country concerned, the
specifi city of sport, and any other objective criteria. These criteria
shall include, in particular, the remuneration and other benefi ts
due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract,
the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of
fi ve years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club
(amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual
breach falls within a protected period.
Protected period: a period of three entire seasons or three years,
whichever comes fi rst, following the entry into force of a contract,
where such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the
professional, or two entire seasons or two years, whichever comes
fi rst, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract
is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional.
If clubs were refusing to sanction a transfer of a player under contract despite receiving a transfer request etc then I'd imagine they'd soon enough find themselves in an EU court and the legality of that contract will be challenged.
There is almost a tacit agreement that when the player signs the contract that if he wishes to leave and the club receive an offer they deem to value the player correctly he will be allowed to leave.
City and Chelsea can afford to lose Millions and can let Tevez rot in the reserves. Teams like Arsenal, Spurs, and United can hardly lose players worth 10's of Millions on a Bosman. The reality is both Arsenal and Spurs will have to sell or break their wage structures and pay both obscene amounts of money if they want to keep Nasri and Modric. The remaining terms of their contracts are worthless to their respective clubs (in the real world).
Yeah a lot of things are said around the negotiating table to give a warm fuzzy feeling - they don't get incorporated in a written contract. Levy probably said something like: 'If a big offer comes in and it looks good for both of us we'll consider it'.With 25 years of professional experience of contract's, written or verbal agreements I can safely say that a verbal agreement is worth zero without a neutral witness, and even with a bunch a witness you can end up short against a signed contract. .
Yes, but then you have this under article 17:
Protected period defined:
I think you are wrong, especially regarding Spurs.
The long term consequences to always sell their best players for variable fee's are in economical terms not always the best thing to do. Sometimes a player has more value playing for the club then money can compensate.
What is the cost for loosing a CL place?
Yeah a lot of things are said around the negotiating table to give a warm fuzzy feeling - they don't get incorporated in a written contract. Levy probably said something like: 'If a big offer comes in and it looks good for both of us we'll consider it'.
