Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Lord Pityme

New Contracts for Davis & Baird... Now!

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

All great Basil... but where is your silver bullet..?

just one case where a player properly challenged an extension clause in uk law, but lost....

c'mon... just one!

edit: do you know what the procedure is in all the cases you have quoted (and in every case) of clubs extending player contracts..?

if they wish to trigger/enact that clause they have to inform the player, who then has to agree (sign extension) or not...! The power as always drops right back in the players lap. If he's had/gets a better offer what do you think happens then..?

 

One example where they have challenged and won under these circumstances? Webster ruling was a ruling based on the length of his contract, nothing to do with extension clauses. Go on just one... 

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

All great Basil... but where is your silver bullet..?

just one case where a player properly challenged an extension clause in uk law, but lost....

c'mon... just one!

edit: do you know what the procedure is in all the cases you have quoted (and in every case) of clubs extending player contracts..?

if they wish to trigger/enact that clause they have to inform the player, who then has to agree (sign extension) or not...! The power as always drops right back in the players lap. If he's had/gets a better offer what do you think happens then..?

 

Evidence please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

All great Basil... but where is your silver bullet..?

just one case where a player properly challenged an extension clause in uk law, but lost....

c'mon... just one!

edit: do you know what the procedure is in all the cases you have quoted (and in every case) of clubs extending player contracts..?

if they wish to trigger/enact that clause they have to inform the player, who then has to agree (sign extension) or not...! The power as always drops right back in the players lap. If he's had/gets a better offer what do you think happens then..?

 

Does the player need to sign anything?  It is part of a contract that he has already signed.  I would imagine that the club would only have to inform the player in writing that they are exercising their right under the existing contract which the player has already agreed to and signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

For the umpteenth time... there isnt an example to quote. No club (in uk law) has been able to enforce a properly contested contract extension. See the post above, perhaps we might get a first hand look at that come may..?

So if, as you say, no club has been able to enforce a properly contested contract extension then there is no legal precedent then your argument would require it to be in Statute.

Perhaps you could direct us to the Act of parliament where this is written into UK law?

In any case, when it comes to the year end, the club are going to take up their extension and if someone else comes in for him a transfer fee will be required if he wants to go. I imagine somehow along the lines of when a development fee is required if the club have offered a new contract.

So, we are running away ahead on hypotheticals I'm just going to enjoy watching him for the rest of the season and if he's here next year then magic.

Signing off :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Does the player need to sign anything?  It is part of a contract that he has already signed.  I would imagine that the club would only have to inform the player in writing that they are exercising their right under the existing contract which the player has already agreed to and signed.

Yep, exactly right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Drew said:

Jesus wept, this thread has become absolutely f**king brutal<_<

It's amazing the number of comments posted by people that don't want to get involved in the debate. If a thread doesn't interest you don't post. An interesting fact about a discussion form, different people like discussing different things... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It's amazing the number of comments posted by people that don't want to get involved in the debate. If a thread doesn't interest you don't post. An interesting fact about a discussion form, different people like discussing different things... :rolleyes:

That may well be true.

It doesn't, however, take anything away from the fact that it remains f**king brutal:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Drew said:

That may well be true.

It doesn't, however, take anything away from the fact that it remains f**king brutal:)

I think it's pretty interesting. It's a very curious notion that someone will let their pride get in the way of overwhelming evidence they're talking rubbish :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Desnold said:

So if, as you say, no club has been able to enforce a properly contested contract extension then there is no legal precedent then your argument would require it to be in Statute.

Perhaps you could direct us to the Act of parliament where this is written into UK law?

In any case, when it comes to the year end, the club are going to take up their extension and if someone else comes in for him a transfer fee will be required if he wants to go. I imagine somehow along the lines of when a development fee is required if the club have offered a new contract.

So, we are running away ahead on hypotheticals I'm just going to enjoy watching him for the rest of the season and if he's here next year then magic.

Signing off :) 

Transfer fee? See the Webster Ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the main point being made is that we should use whatever mechanisms that are open to us as a club to retain our best players on extended deals in order a. To have a core of "premier league" standard players and b. To maximise any income we can from any transfers.  So far so good. The arguments into contract legalities is a bit like the panto season....oh yes it is.. oh no it isn't!  Above my salary grade (retired fan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Sorry wrong again, quote me one case in UK law where a UEO has been contested by the employee, but the employer won the case.... just one!

and having spent decades working in employment law, i can assure you if a contract is indeed 'unfair/weighted in favour of one party to the detriment of another' especially if the party suffering the unfairness is the employee, then it can be succesfully contested if proven unfair, or illegal, or both.

i could offer someone (over 21) who is desperate for a job a contract to be a steward at SMFc. And given their desperation they are happy to sign the contract of employment (a legal document) accepting £6.50 an hour. Its still a legal document, both parties signed it, but it falls below the minimum wage, therfor it is illeagal.

again, just because you include something in a contract both parties sign doesn't make it legal and binding.

meanwhile back on planet earth no one has been able to confirm if there even is a UEO on Davis's contract. 

To add to this, no part of any contract that requires an individual to surrender their legal rights  is enforceable in law, however the pther parts of the contract may well reamin enforceable .  Both parties may well agree to honour a surrender of legal rights, but it usually costs one party a pretty penny to get out of such deals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Yip quite probably, that would be a "mutually" (this is this detail Basil and other dont get) agreed option that protected both parties.. i.e. Davis isnt tied ti league one football, the club arent tied to paying him over the odds to play in league one.

FFS. Make sense man. You're digging a hole so deep it'll take a 24hr flight to get you back home! The contract Davis signed was obviously mutually agreed. The club didn't forge his feckin' signature. I'm sure they didn't add the clause in after he signed the thing.

ETA. It also could be argued it did protect both parties as it gave Harry a club while he was recovering and professional help to do so .

Edited by stlucifer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stlucifer said:

FFS. Make sense man. You're digging a hole so deep it'll take a 24hr flight to get you back home! The contract Davis signed was obviously mutually agreed. The club didn't forge his feckin' signature. I'm sure they didn't add the clause in after he signed the thing.

ETA. It also could be argued it did protect both parties as it gave Harry a club while he was recovering and professional help to do so .

Thanks for repeating what i said to the letter. See you did understand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Thanks for repeating what i said to the letter. See you did understand

So the reversing manoeuvre is complete? and Davis' contract is binding?  What a walloper you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Transfer fee? See the Webster Ruling.

Hearts had initially placed a valuation of £5 million on Webster. However, because he had served more than three years of his contract he was outside of FIFA's "protected period", and any compensation due to Hearts would, per Article 17, be based primarily on the amount of Webster's salary still outstanding—a figure estimated by Webster's advisors at approximately £250,000.

FIFA's transfer arbitration tribunal, the Dispute Resolution Chamber, met on 4 April 2007 and ruled that Hearts were due £625,000, based on Webster's future wages, his earning potential, and the legal costs. They also found Webster guilty of breaking his contract "without just cause", although only on a technicality; he and his agent were late informing the club of his intention to leave, because of confusion over the final match of the season (Hearts had reached the 2006 Scottish Cup Final, but the time limit was calculated from the club's last league game, four days prior to the Cup match). For this he was suspended for the first two weeks of the 2007–08 season.

Hearts were quick to lodge an appeal against the ruling, disputing the figure which they said had not been unambiguously calculated.  Webster had also indicated a desire to appeal, believing the fine against him was excessive. On 30 January 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the highest arbitration authority in sport, met in Lausanne and clarified the original ruling. They also reduced the compensation due payable by Webster to £150,000.

---

CAS later amended the amount payable to the equivalent of one year's salary and found Wigan jointly liable with Webster.

https://www.fifpro.org/attachments/article/5281/Webster CAS ENG.pdf

---

Info on FIFA Article 17 (mentioned in above link) as found in LordyLordyLookAtMe's link:-

Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players is entitled "Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause", and is the fifth article of Chapter IV, "Maintenance of Contractual Stability between Professionals and Clubs". It outlines the provisions which apply if a contract is terminated without just cause, and the requirement for the party in breach to pay compensation.  Specifically, it states that any player who signed a contract before the age of 28 can buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed.  If he is 28 or older the time limit is shortened to two years.

---

Davis is 26 and definitely hasn't been under contract at Saints for three years.

---

And, last but definitely by no means least, there's also this :) :- 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/may/20/webster-ruling-matuzalem-cas-compensation

Players hoping to buy themselves out of their clubs under the Webster ruling this summer will need very deep pockets following a landmark verdict at the Court of Arbitration for Sport yesterday.

The previous ruling, which saw Andy Webster move to Wigan Athletic from Heart of Midlothian for a nominal sum equivalent to the year's salary he had remaining on his contract, has been overtaken by a more in-depth decision, which has swung the pendulum back in favour of the clubs. The case arose after the Brazilian Matuzalem, captain and top scorer at Shakhtar Donetsk, unilaterally ripped up his contract with that club, moving on to Real Zaragoza, who have since agreed his transfer to Lazio. Shakhtar took the case to Fifa and then appealed to CAS after Fifa's €6.8m (£6m) compensation award.


But yesterday the higher authority raised Shakhtar's compensation. Its decision took into account the value of the player to his former club, his salary, the difficulty he placed them in with the timing of his departure and deducted the salary Shakhtar would not have to pay him. CAS calculated this amount at more than €12m (£11m).

Stephen Sampson, the Hammonds lawyer who represented Hearts in the Webster case, told this column: "The decision removes the harmful effect of the Webster decision. Players cannot now assume they can walk out on a club and only pay the residual value of their contracts. CAS will consider compensation based on the value lost to the club."

The timing of yesterday's decision – nine months after the case was heard – is surely deliberate. Players have only until mid-June to register their intention to buy themselves out of their contracts.

Edited by Slartibartfast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

no need for these abusive online comments, i sit right near you in W3. Its good to talk!

That just means you're a walloper who sits near me.  And your point? 

ETA Or, if that is some sort of threat, does it mean you are now conceding you were in fact, typing sh!te and are admitting  doing so?

Edited by stlucifer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

That just means you're a walloper who sits near me.  And your point? 

ETA Or, if that is some sort of threat, does it mean you are now conceding you were in fact, typing sh!te and are admitting  doing so?

Threat? No, but you have the opportunity to talk to me face to face. And if you feel it's appropriate to call someone you dont know 'a walloper' then you've got that option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Hearts had initially placed a valuation of £5 million on Webster. However, because he had served more than three years of his contract he was outside of FIFA's "protected period", and any compensation due to Hearts would, per Article 17, be based primarily on the amount of Webster's salary still outstanding—a figure estimated by Webster's advisors at approximately £250,000.

FIFA's transfer arbitration tribunal, the Dispute Resolution Chamber, met on 4 April 2007 and ruled that Hearts were due £625,000, based on Webster's future wages, his earning potential, and the legal costs. They also found Webster guilty of breaking his contract "without just cause", although only on a technicality; he and his agent were late informing the club of his intention to leave, because of confusion over the final match of the season (Hearts had reached the 2006 Scottish Cup Final, but the time limit was calculated from the club's last league game, four days prior to the Cup match). For this he was suspended for the first two weeks of the 2007–08 season.

Hearts were quick to lodge an appeal against the ruling, disputing the figure which they said had not been unambiguously calculated.  Webster had also indicated a desire to appeal, believing the fine against him was excessive. On 30 January 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the highest arbitration authority in sport, met in Lausanne and clarified the original ruling. They also reduced the compensation due payable by Webster to £150,000.

---

CAS later amended the amount payable to the equivalent of one year's salary and found Wigan jointly liable with Webster.

https://www.fifpro.org/attachments/article/5281/Webster CAS ENG.pdf

---

Info on FIFA Article 17 (mentioned in above link) as found in LordyLordyLookAtMe's link:-

Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players is entitled "Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause", and is the fifth article of Chapter IV, "Maintenance of Contractual Stability between Professionals and Clubs". It outlines the provisions which apply if a contract is terminated without just cause, and the requirement for the party in breach to pay compensation.  Specifically, it states that any player who signed a contract before the age of 28 can buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed.  If he is 28 or older the time limit is shortened to two years.

---

Davis is 26 and definitely hasn't been under contract at Saints for three years.

---

And, last but definitely by no means least, there's also this :) :- 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/may/20/webster-ruling-matuzalem-cas-compensation

Players hoping to buy themselves out of their clubs under the Webster ruling this summer will need very deep pockets following a landmark verdict at the Court of Arbitration for Sport yesterday.

The previous ruling, which saw Andy Webster move to Wigan Athletic from Heart of Midlothian for a nominal sum equivalent to the year's salary he had remaining on his contract, has been overtaken by a more in-depth decision, which has swung the pendulum back in favour of the clubs. The case arose after the Brazilian Matuzalem, captain and top scorer at Shakhtar Donetsk, unilaterally ripped up his contract with that club, moving on to Real Zaragoza, who have since agreed his transfer to Lazio. Shakhtar took the case to Fifa and then appealed to CAS after Fifa's €6.8m (£6m) compensation award.


But yesterday the higher authority raised Shakhtar's compensation. Its decision took into account the value of the player to his former club, his salary, the difficulty he placed them in with the timing of his departure and deducted the salary Shakhtar would not have to pay him. CAS calculated this amount at more than €12m (£11m).

Stephen Sampson, the Hammonds lawyer who represented Hearts in the Webster case, told this column: "The decision removes the harmful effect of the Webster decision. Players cannot now assume they can walk out on a club and only pay the residual value of their contracts. CAS will consider compensation based on the value lost to the club."

The timing of yesterday's decision – nine months after the case was heard – is surely deliberate. Players have only until mid-June to register their intention to buy themselves out of their contracts.

http://gdknowledge.co.uk/restraint-of-trade-competition-law-and-the-transfer-window-a-level-playing-field/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

no need for these abusive online comments, i sit right near you in W3. Its good to talk!

 

10 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

That just means you're a walloper who sits near me.  And your point? 

ETA Or, if that is some sort of threat, does it mean you are now conceding you were in fact, typing sh!te and are admitting  doing so?

As Harry Hill said. "There's only one way to find out "    :boxing  or  :argue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pod said:

 

As Harry Hill said. "There's only one way to find out "    :boxing  or  :argue:

So sad the amount if people happy to try and set saints fans against each other on here, no chance the mods will ever deal with it either.  Its a dark cloud hanging over this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

So sad the amount if people happy to try and set saints fans against each other on here, no chance the mods will ever deal with it either.  Its a dark cloud hanging over this forum.

Funny how all this "saints fans against each other" line comes from you after acting like a bit of a diddy.

The same pattern is followed in quite a few threads, you spouting pish, people pointing out you're wrong, you perseveering and people getting fecked off with your relentless guff.

Aye, time the mods done something right enough. :byebye

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×