Am I missing something in the whole Heinze transfer saga....

Hobart

I thought the player had the right to buy out his own contract? Why does he not just stump up for the 2 years left himself, and then take that outlay as a signing on bonus from Liverpool once he leaves. Surely that could not be more than the £6.8M that Liverpool have tabled for him?

Mitch Connor

Hobart wrote:

I thought the player had the right to buy out his own contract? Why does he not just stump up for the 2 years left himself, and then take that outlay as a signing on bonus from Liverpool once he leaves. Surely that could not be more than the £6.8M that Liverpool have tabled for him?

has to have nidicated his intention to buy out his contract within 15 days of the last game of the season. He didn't do that.

Mr Alan

Did we get a definative answer on whether or not he can indicate his intention to do so after the first game of the season? making him a free agent?

Plus perhaps the reason he didn't indicate his desire to do so was because Utd had already assured he could leave if they recieved the offer for the sum 6.7 million????!

If which case, BAD FORM ALEX! let the boy join us!

Nalz

He would be a decent signing for Liverpool, but Im really interested as to why he wants to leave OT after being a fans favourite, United looking after him whilst he was injured and showing loyalty and with Tevez on the way and his apparently great friendship with Ronaldo? Did the arrival of Evra really cause all this? Something must have happened behind the scenes, either that or Mascherano and the other South American guys are really sellin Liverpool as a club. He did state that "if any big offer came in he would consider leaving, and Liverpool are the only so far".

Strange one gotta say, but if this is a legitimate contract/legal document allowing him to leave at that fee of 6.8m sterling then United simply must let him go to Pool

Hobart

Tauren wrote:

has to have nidicated his intention to buy out his contract within 15 days of the last game of the season. He didn't do that.

Ah.... That makes sense. Looks like it will go to arbitration at this stage.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

Did we get a definative answer on whether or not he can indicate his intention to do so after the first game of the season? making him a free agent?

Plus perhaps the reason he didn't indicate his desire to do so was because Utd had already assured he could leave if they recieved the offer for the sum 6.7 million????!

If which case, BAD FORM ALEX! let the boy join us!

But then agin, it was apparently made PERFECTLY clear to both him and his agent, through phone calls, faxes and face to face meetings that he would NOT be sold to a title rival.

In which case BAD FORM GABBY YOU JUDAS.

Mr. Presentable

Tauren wrote:

But then agin, it was apparently made PERFECTLY clear to both him and his agent, through phone calls, faxes and face to face meetings that he would NOT be sold to a title rival.

In which case BAD FORM GABBY YOU JUDAS.

Surely it flatters Liverpool to refer to them as title rivals. Let him go - he's not all that anyhow.

Mitch Connor

Trilla wrote:

Strange one gotta say, but if this is a legitimate contract/legal document allowing him to leave at that fee of 6.8m sterling then United simply must let him go to Pool

To be a release fee clause - it would have to have been deposited with the PL as a contract amendment, which I really doubt happened. At best, also assuming United are lying when they say they made it clear he would not be sold to a title rival, it could be seen as a gentlemans agreement - but i'm fairly certain that would not be legally binding.

Mr Alan

I'd love to have a read of this letter.

if they don't mention it in that, and was an after thought. they should let him go - seriously.

if it is in it, then they have a fair point

Mitch Connor

nipplenuts wrote:

Surely it flatters Liverpool to refer to them as title rivals.

on previous seasons, yes. But i don't particularly want to get in to that. Anyway, liverpool are declared premiership champions elect every summer, and we all know this will be 'their year' so they are title rivals.

Mr Alan

Tauren, the same lawyers who sorted out the Tevez mess for you seem to disagree and think that it is binding.

Be interesting to see if anything happens.

Edit: lads, don't be so smug, the season before last, you finished a point ahead of us, hardly poles apart.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

I'd love to have a read of this letter.

if they don't mention it in that, and was an after thought. they should let him go - seriously.

if it is in it, then they have a fair point

Why should they though? He is completely and legally contracted to Man United. Man United are fulfilling every obligation on their part. So what if it was mentioned after, or before, or just not in the letter - unless that letter is legally part of his contract it is simply United being nice. They don't appear to be under any legally binding reason to sell him to Liverpool so why should they.

millersangel wrote:

Tauren, the same lawyers who sorted out the Tevez mess for you seem to disagree and think that it is binding.

Be interesting to see if anything happens.

And seemingly the same lawyers, the UNITED lawyers, think Liverpool/Heinze have no legal grounds at all.

Mr Alan

So Heinzes/Liverpools lawyers don't agree with Uniteds lawyers?!?!?!

who would've thought it

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

So Heinzes/Liverpools lawyers don't agree with Uniteds lawyers?!?!?!

who would've thought it

Indeed.

Anyway, i'm gonna try and not comment further cause Heinze's actions make me just to damn mad.

jobonar

if you believe the rags apparently there is a recorded conversation between David Gill and Gabby's agent stating that he wouldnt be sold to United's 3 big title rivals. but ya cant believe everything ya read but its possible.....

PHB

Well, apparently, the letter has some legal binding-ness, but it was further clarified by a conversation that Gill had with Heinze in which he stated that it did not count in a deal with a domestic rival. Now normally this would be a case of Gill's word vs. Heinze, but luckily, Gill apparently taped the conversation.

I wouldn't call him a JUDAS!!!??? United said he could leave the club. United expected one of the foreign clubs who were interested in him to make the bid. Heinze stalled for way too long. The other clubs made up their minds with other defenders. Liverpool are now the only club interested in him.
There's no doubt in my mind that if Juve or anyone who plays CL football in one of the top 3 leagues comes in for him he'll be gone to them within the day. It's not that he particuarly wants to go to Liverpool, he wants to leave United to go to another decent team.

Hobart

jobonar wrote:

if you believe the rags apparently there is a recorded conversation between David Gill and Gabby's agent stating that he wouldnt be sold to United's 3 big title rivals. but ya cant believe everything ya read but its possible.....

I don't think anybody really disputes this. What would be in dispute is the right of Manu to dictate to a player where and for whom he can play. I didn't think that this was allowed under EU laws. AFAIK any employee is free to work wherever he/she chooses. EU law, again AFAIK, supersedes any contract that may or may not state something different.

Mr Alan

ha ha ha recorded phone conversations! one of those two lads would wanna get a life if thats true!
Edit:wat a suprise, its Gill who needs to get a life!

Mr Alan

Hobart, correct far as i know.

If he challenges this, he will win, Utd can't decide who he can and can't work for.

Mitch Connor

Hobart wrote:

I don't think anybody really disputes this. What would be in dispute is the right of Manu to dictate to a player where and for whom he can play. I didn't think that this was allowed under EU laws. AFAIK any employee is free to work wherever he/she chooses. EU law, again AFAIK, supersedes any contract that may or may not state something different.

So what is the point in signing a 5 year contract if the player can decide he wants to leave and can dicate who he goes to?

United have a legal right not sell Heinze, they have a legal right to decide what bids they accept or reject, even under EU law. In order to bring football contracts closer to EU law it was agreed a player could buy their contract out - Heinze chose not to do this so he is bound by the contract he signed with Man United.

If United bid 2million for Gerrard in the morning and (i know it wouldn't happen) Gerrard said "Yep, i want to go to United, accept their 2million bid", do you think Liverpool would accept that, or be forced to accept it?

Mr Alan

No but if Liverpool had told Gerrard and all the clubs around Europe that he was for sale for 2 million and there was a letter with 'some' legal standing outlining this.
Then Liverpool may be forced to sell him!

That God we would never do something that stupid though!

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

Hobart, correct far as i know.

If he challenges this, he will win, Utd can't decide who he can and can't work for.

What are you talking about (I know i didn't want to comment but this is ridiculas)

Of course United can decide who he plays for - he is fully and completely contracted to United. They reserve the right to accept or reject bids as they please. Just as United can not force him to sign for someone, Heinze can not force them to accept a bid they do not want to. Unless he has a minimum fee release clause, which neither I, nor United think he does.

millersangel wrote:

No but if Liverpool had told Gerrard and all the clubs around Europe that he was for sale for 2 million and there was a letter with 'some' legal standing outlining this.
Then Liverpool may be forced to sell him!

That God we would never do something that stupid though!

I wonder if liverpool got that letter, and if they didn't.....

Hobart

Tauren wrote:

What are you talking about (I know i didn't want to comment but this is ridiculas)

Of course United can decide who he plays for - he is fully and completely contracted to United. They reserve the right to accept or reject bids as they please. Just as United can not force him to sign for someone, Heinze can not force them to accept a bid they do not want to. Unless he has a minimum fee release clause, which neither I, nor United think he does.

What are you talking about? He does have a release fee. Manu, Heinze and Liverpool have accepted this.

Mitch Connor

Hobart wrote:

What are you talking about? He does have a release fee. Manu, Heinze and Liverpool have accepted this.

What?????

If united 'accepted' this, then they would have accepted the bid. Clearly United don't think he has a release fee - what he has is a valuation. United hve said, all in all, from what i can gather, "we will let you leave for 6.8million, but not to a title rival."

This does not translate to "We agree to sell you to anyone who offers 6.8million"

PHB

Hobart wrote:

What are you talking about? He does have a release fee. Manu, Heinze and Liverpool have accepted this.

Not exactly. If he had a release fee, there would be no issue, Heinze would be a Liverpool player right now.

What has happened is that Man Utd agreed to sell him for a certain price in letter. Then in a voice conversation (which may suggest he has no life, or might suggest he is just very very smart and the fact that it is now an issue suggests he is very very smart) they clarified that to mean that they would sell him for a certain price to anyone bar their domestic rivals.

The issue is twofold:
Does the voice conversation have the same legal standing (not only because it is oral but because it was an addition to the previous letter. If the previous letter counts as a contractual obligation then Heinze would have had to agree to the addition. If it was just a gentlemens agreement then it's irrelevent)

If there is a contractual obligation, do United have the right not to sell to their rivals? Now afaik comparisions with EU law in general are kinda mute because football is effectively governed by slightly different laws. It may indeed be the case that United doing this is against EU law, but the PL will not decide on this. For this to happen Heinze would have to go to real court.

zing

Tauren wrote:

And seemingly the same lawyers, the UNITED lawyers, think Liverpool/Heinze have no legal grounds at all.

What legal grounds do Liverpool need to have here ? They submitted an offer for a player and it got rejected. There's nothing more they can do until the matter between Heinze & Utd is resolved one way or the other. And even then there is presumably little they can do other than submit a fresh offer for the player.

The matter is between Heinze & Utd and Liverpool are - publicly at least - taking a back seat until it is resolved. Whether there is ongoing contact - direct or otherwise - between them and Heinze's representatives behind the scene is unknown.

Mr Alan

He claims to have a letter advising him that he is for sale for 6.7 million with no mention of what club he can and can't go to. His lawyers and liverpools think thats legally binding and want to push it through.

If this is legally binding-Utd CANNOT decide which club he can and can't move to as it goes against EU law.

Obviously he might not want to take United to court over this, but if he did - he'd win.

Don't get so wound up Tauren, not good for your heart.

zing

PHB wrote:

Does the voice conversation have the same legal standing (not only because it is oral but because it was an addition to the previous letter. If the previous letter counts as a contractual obligation then Heinze would have had to agree to the addition. If it was just a gentlemens agreement then it's irrelevent)

Also when that conversation took place may be relevant. i.e. if it was before or after Liverpool made an offer for the player.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

He claims to have a letter advising him that he is for sale for 6.7 million with no mention of what club he can and can't go to. His lawyers and liverpools think thats legally binding and want to push it through.

If this is legally binding-Utd CANNOT decide which club he can and can't move to as it goes against EU law.

Don't get so wound up Tauren, not good for your heart.

how do you know i have heart issues....what else do you know about me??

STALKER!! STALKER!!

If the letter is legally binding, then unless the agent rejected the stipulations made in the recorded phone call i can't see how the phone call is any less legally binding.

Mr Alan

ha ha Stalker is a bit strong! Lucky guess - more acurate! Plus you are angry ALOT!

The only place I've heard of this recorded phonecall is in tabloid rags so i wouldn't hold my breath on that being true.

If it is true, i would doubt it would have the same legal standing as a written document though, but i can't be sure on that, i ain't a lawyer.

Theboinkmaster

millersangel wrote:

He claims to have a letter advising him that he is for sale for 6.7 million with no mention of what club he can and can't go to. His lawyers and liverpools think thats legally binding and want to push it through.

If this is legally binding-Utd CANNOT decide which club he can and can't move to as it goes against EU law.

Obviously he might not want to take United to court over this, but if he did - he'd win.

Don't get so wound up Tauren, not good for your heart.

There is absolutely no way this letter is legally binding, only a proper legal document like a player's contract would form a contractual obligation

My point is that a contract is signed by both parties - an offer and acceptance whereas a letter is only signed by the offerer and thus not legally binding - what if utd claimed there was another letter, which heinze denies (maybe it got lost in the post, maybe utd just signed the letter yesterday and claimed the player received it).......without a signature accepting the offer it's not binding

I'd say legally it's like an "invitation to treat" in that when a shop advertises something at €100 and you go in to find it was a mistake and the item is really €1,000 - you cannot force the shop to accept the €100 - they simply invited customers to make an offer

Well that's my take anyway but i could be talking pure nonsense

Mr Alan

Not really a similar example.
A better one would be if a shop advertised something for £500 and then when the person tried to buy it, they refused to sell it to him because of his skin colour or something.

RE*AC*TOR

I wonder how much of this comes down to language. Apparently Heinze hasn't learned much English, and although there are many nationalities up at Salford, not many speak Spanish (do any?).

Obviously at Liverpool there is a big Spanish contingent.

However, here's the thing, Benitez likes to do everything in English, and impresses upon all the new signing to learn. Lucas Leiva had been taking lessons for some time before coming from Brazil (yes I know they speak Portugese - but you get the picture).

Anyway, I'm still curious as to the motivation. Will Heinze have any less of a challenge with Risse than the one with Evra? I think not.

On the contract issue, wasn't there something similar with Kewell's transfer to Liverpool? Possibly a precedent?

LostinBlanch

millersangel wrote:

If this is legally binding-Utd CANNOT decide which club he can and can't move to as it goes against EU law.

Obviously he might not want to take United to court over this, but if he did - he'd win.

millersangel wrote:

i can't be sure on that, i ain't a lawyer.

Can you spot the disparity in the above two statements? :rolleyes:

millersangel wrote:

The only place I've heard of this recorded phonecall is in tabloid rags so i wouldn't hold my breath on that being true.

No, this information has come from far more reputable sources than that. But hold your breath if you want.

Be careful for calling for contracts to be torn up at the drop of a hat, you never know where that might lead.

MrPillowTalk

millersangel wrote:

Not really a similar example.
A better one would be if a shop advertised something for £500 and then when the person tried to buy it, they refused to sell it to him because of his skin colour or something.

A still better example that doesnt imply racism (which is rich from Liverpool fans anyhow).

Plenty of retailers sell goods at low and sometimes below cost prices due to it being surplus stock/loss leaders etc, however they refuse to sell them to their competitors on the same basis that Utd wont sell their resource to a competitor, you dont sell your goods if it will help your rivals.

Personally Liverpool are welcome to him, he has never recovered from his injury and cant turn anymore, as soon as someone knocks the ball past him he gets found out every time trying to get back and has to result to lunges all over the pitch, also he is guaranteed to give away cheap frees in dangerous areas.

Mr Alan

No i can't spot any disparity. All i did was point out that even with my limited knowledge of the legal system, i can tell that if Heinze takes Utd to court he will win. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that any EU law will hold more sway than a law within a sporting organisation.

Wat other sources has the info come from?

~Rebel~

MrPillowTalk wrote:

A still better example that doesnt imply racism (which is rich from Liverpool fans anyhow).

What, the hell, is that supposed to mean?!?

Mr Alan

Pillowtalk . . are you implying I am racist or that Liverpool in general fans are?

LostinBlanch

millersangel wrote:

Wat other sources has the info come from?

Sources close to the club who post in different message boards. They have been proven to be correct in the past.

Mr Alan

ha ha ha are you for real!?

ok then

PHB

Ah shoot a post I posted didn't show up:

millersangel, I don't think that is exactly correct in terms of EU law. If tha twas the case, how is it possible to have minimum release fees for the top 4 but not for other teams? Surely that would be equally problematic under EU law?

Anyway, I'm still curious as to the motivation. Will Heinze have any less of a challenge with Risse than the one with Evra? I think not.

I think less. I would imagine he has been told he will be first choice at Liverpool, otherwise why would he be pushing for the move so much?

Mr Alan

Heinze is miles better than Riise defensively in my opinion. Riise is the weak link there at the moment.

PHB: Good point about the top 4 club/ buy out clause, not sure how that'd work. Not quite the exact same thing though, cause Heinzes pickle here seems to be that the letter has some sort of legal standing and makes no reference to Liverpool or exclusions. And that the reason he is not allowed go is because of a verbal stipulation made after, which wouldn't really have any legal standing.

Edit:maybe if someone challenged the top 4 thing they would win in the courts?

Hobart

PHB wrote:

Not exactly. If he had a release fee, there would be no issue, Heinze would be a Liverpool player right now.[/PHB] Not exactly. He has a release fee, however there is a stipulation, he cannot sign for (Arsenal, Chelsea or Liverpool) a prem competitor.

What has happened is that Man Utd agreed to sell him for a certain price in letter.

Exactly. Manu agreed to sell him for a price (reportedly £6.8M) what they failed to do in this letter is to specify what clubs they would accept an offer from.

PHB wrote:

Then in a voice conversation (which may suggest he has no life, or might suggest he is just very very smart and the fact that it is now an issue suggests he is very very smart) they clarified that to mean that they would sell him for a certain price to anyone bar their domestic rivals.

or read another way, once the letter was issued he realised how fooking stupid he had been by not adding in a clause that stipulated that he could not sign for a top 4 club in the prem and was now panicking by recording a conversation whereby he was trying to ensure that the player could not.

PHB wrote:

The issue is twofold:
Does the voice conversation have the same legal standing (not only because it is oral but because it was an addition to the previous letter. If the previous letter counts as a contractual obligation then Heinze would have had to agree to the addition. If it was just a gentlemens agreement then it's irrelevent)

I don't actually think that it matters. i.e. The voice versus the written word has no real distinction (in absolute contract terms) one is as binding as the other (as far as Irish law is concerned) the point is one of restrictive practice, in that Manu are not saying he can't leave and work, only that he can't leave and work for xyz......This, in strict legal terms, is not allowed.

PHB wrote:

Now afaik comparisions with EU law in general are kinda mute because football is effectively governed by slightly different laws.

Let me set you straight on this. Moot is the word, and the law applies to everyone, including players, carpenters and IT workers. There are NO exceptions in this instance.

An Citeog

millersangel wrote:

Tauren, the same lawyers who sorted out the Tevez mess for you seem to disagree and think that it is binding.

Be interesting to see if anything happens.

Edit: lads, don't be so smug, the season before last, you finished a point ahead of us, hardly poles apart.

And the same lawyers that sorted out the Mascherano deal for you seem to think that it isn't. Or at least that the added stipulations are legally enforceable.

I don't know if this has been posted up already but I think it's an interesting take on the situation from the footballing side:

Gabriele Marcotti wrote:

Curtain Call

THEATRE FOLK call it "breaking character". It's the shattering of an illusion, rather like when, as an eight-year-old, you might have run into the goody and the villain amicably having a G&T at the bar after a Christmas panto. Or perhaps discovering that the guy you thought was Father Christmas is actually your dad, and, no, he doesn't even bother dressing up in the suit.

The footballing equivalent occurs when supposed rivals sit down and do business together. We like to think that our heroes on the pitch feel about opposing teams pretty much the way we do. There are some opponents we harbour a secret admiration for, some opponents for whom we don't care either way and some opponents who we just plain hate.

As a rivalry, Liverpool and Manchester United falls into the latter category. And it's rivalry which goes beyond the two managers. After all you would imagine that Arsene Wenger would be further down Sir Alex's Christmas card list than Rafa Benitez and that if the Spaniard had to describe his least favourite colleague, his sights would turn to Stamford Bridge rather than Old Trafford.
advertisement

Yet while there is no animosity between the two bosses, the long-standing grudge match between England's two most successful clubs infects everyone, whether it's Liverpool fans stoning Alan Smith's ambulance or Gary Neville candidly announcing that he doesn't like Scousers.

Sir Alex understands those sentiments which is why, on Thursday, he categorically vetoed Gabriel Heinze's move to Anfield. "We have received a written offer from Liverpool for Heinze and we have rejected it because it's Liverpool. We wouldn't sell to Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea and we have relayed that to the agent. We have told him that in no uncertain terms," said United's chief executive, David Gill, who added that it would be a different matter if an offer came in from abroad.

When news of the veto reached Rafa Benitez, he was somewhat perplexed. Attitudes over such matters vary greatly on the continent. In his native Spain, of course, Barcelona and Real Madrid do not enjoy doing business with each other. True, the likes of Bernd Schuster (now, ironically, in charge at the Bernabeu), Michael Laudrup, Luis Milla and, most notoriously, Luis Figo moved from Barca to Real, while Luis Enrique went in the opposite direction. And just last month, Javier Saviola swapped the Camp Nou for the Bernabeu.

But in each of those transfers, the selling club had little control over the move, either because it was a Bosman or because a release clause was involved. The one exception was Samuel Eto'o. When he joined Barcelona in 2004, after five years on loan at Mallorca, he was part-owned by Real Madrid. In one of the most bone-headed moves in history, Real, after much discussion, opted to let him go, believing he "wasn't needed".

But, according to a source close to the Liverpool manager, Benitez genuinely believed there was a chance to do business with United. Part of it had to do with the fact that, in real terms, United and Liverpool isn't exactly a rivalry of equals in the way that Barcelona and Real is. After all, in the past 15 years, United have finished in the top two 12 times, Liverpool have done it once. But part of it had to do with the fact that Benitez saw it as the kind of deal which would genuinely help both clubs.

In Italy, such moves are far from rare. No fewer than four Champions League-winning Milan players, including Andrea Pirlo and Clarence Seedorf, came directly from crosstown rivals Inter in various swap deals. In fact, a few years ago, Benitez himself spoke admiringly of these cases as evidence that while rivaly on the pitch is important, if there is a deal to be done, there is no point in cutting off your nose to spite your face.

In fact, some of the Milan clubs' "mutually beneficial deals" are somewhat suspect and, indeed, the Italian FA have opened an enquiry. Between 2003 and 2005, the two clubs regularly "swapped" no fewer than eight players (mostly obscure ones who would then get shipped off on loan to the nether divisions) in what allegedly amounted to "creative accounting". The "trick" allegedly worked like this: Milan would sell players like goalkeeper Simone Brunelli (who has made a total of zero professional appearances in his six-year career to Inter for £2 million. At the same time, Inter would sell a guy like midfielder Matteo Deinite to Milan for £2m. No money would actually change hands and both players would then be loaned out to lower division clubs. But, on the balance sheet, it made sense. Both players would be signed to five-year deals, allowing the clubs to amortise the expense, which meant that, in that year's accounts, they would show up as a £400,000 debit.

Meanwhile, the transfer fee itself would be included straight away, as a £2m credit. And - presto! - with the stroke of a pen and a few contracts, both clubs would make a "paper profit" of £1.6m without actually spending a penny. The following year they could always sell both players back to each other, perhaps this time for £3m and the house of cards would continue to grow.

But back to Heinze. Obviously his move would not fall into this category. And you can see just why Benitez felt it would be mutually beneficial. United have spent close to £50m on Nani, Anderson and Owen Hargreaves. And, if and when the Carlos Tevez move goes through, that figure will rise to somewhere between £70m and £80m. The Glazers would like to see that figure clawed back to close to £50m. Selling Kieran Richardson to Sunderland brought in £5.5m, another £10m could be raised by off-loading two out of Alan Smith, Darren Fletcher, Mickael Silvestre and Giuseppe Rossi. That would still leave them short of the target, which is why Liverpool felt the £6m to £7m that Gabriel Heinze would have fetched would have seemed attractive.

Heinze is not the player he was in his first season at Old Trafford. At 29, he isn't getting any younger and, after missing most of the 2005-06 campaign through injury, he is now the second-choice left back behind Patrice Evra. Given that Silvestre and John O'Shea are adequate alternatives, one would have thought that the Argentine might have been expendable. While players who move to rival clubs often become hate figures (just ask Figo or Sol Campbell or, closer to home, Mo Johnston), Heinze isn't exactly Gary Neville in terms of being "United through and through".

From Liverpool's perspective it certainly made sense. Heinze knows the Premiership well, he can provide cover in central defence as well and, crucially, when he plays at left back, he does so with a defender's mentality, which is something Benitez values - as evidenced by the fact that, in key matches, he moved the marauding John Arne Riise into midfield and played the right-footed Alvaro Arbeloa on the left of his back four.

And yet, if Gill and Sir Alex are to be believed, this is one deal that won't happen. No matter how much sense it might make for both teams, nobody wants to "break character".

Here's the link.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole situation but I think that Gabby's position at the club has become untenable. This situation just seems to be dragging out and it's not going to do us any favours on the pitch.

PHB

You're still missing the point. Maybe it is illegal under EU law, but it happens in football. Lots of things are illegal under football laws but not EU laws. Just like Anelka has a clause saying he can leave if a top 4 club comes in for him Heinze can have a clause saying he can leave if a non-top 4 club come in for him. Maybe this is illegal under EU law, but currently, it's irrelevent, as the PL will rule based on their regulations, under which, this is most certainly allowed.

DSB

Normally I wouldn't criticise open discussion and even in the Tevez saga I'd have held it to have a little bit of fact considering West Ham had been already punished for their activities. But in this case arguing over what will and won't happen with respect to EU law and such is just a little bit silly. No1 really knows what the letter or phone call says and people can quote whatever laws they want but in reality they only have a bearing on the ideal situation in the mind of the bearer. Man United fans are clearly going to contest this on the basis that it wasn't an enforcable contract and they'll have tonnes of 'relevant precedents' to back the point up. Liverpool fans will say the opposite with the same. But the reality of the matter is that no1 on the forum has any idea what the letter says and whether it is in fact legally binding. Just seems a bit silly bringing EU laws on employment and such into a situation without really having any basis on where the situation is at.

The_B_Man

Tauren wrote:

has to have nidicated his intention to buy out his contract within 15 days of the last game of the season. He didn't do that.

...of the 06/07 season, or the 07/08 season?

mike65

Sure its gone to an arbitration panel so its all going to be resolved one way or the other pretty quickly.

Mike.

Mr Alan

PHB-i understand it happens in football, despite the fact that it may be entirely legal.

My point is that if it was challenged in a court, i don't think it would hold up. And that way, it wouldn't happen anymore.

DSB-this is a discussion forum, people are talking, about possible problems and solutions to this situation. You seem to quite often feel that you are the sheriff on here in relation to wat is acceptable and unacceptable to talk about?! If you don't like a conversation, just don't particiapte in it-as opposed to just calling the people involved in it, silly. Cheers.

Mike- yea i see its gone to arbitration now, hopefully there will be some resolution reached asap. Wonder if he'll appeal it if he loses?

Hobart

PHB wrote:

You're still missing the point. Maybe it is illegal under EU law, but it happens in football. Lots of things are illegal under football laws but not EU laws. Just like Anelka has a clause saying he can leave if a top 4 club comes in for him Heinze can have a clause saying he can leave if a non-top 4 club come in for him. Maybe this is illegal under EU law, but currently, it's irrelevent, as the PL will rule based on their regulations, under which, this is most certainly allowed.

You are actually missing the point totally.

Just because such and such has an agreement that "allows" him to do such and such, it does not necessarily transfer that the reverse is true. Maybe Anelka has an agreement that says he can move if a "top 4 club" (whatever that may or may not mean) comes in for him. I'm not privy to his arrangement with his club at the moment.

What I can tell you, irrespective of his contract, is that any player can play for any club across the EU, irrespective of what the PL say or not.

PHB

I'm not privy to his arrangement with his club at the moment.

In all fairness you're not privy to the Heinze situation either.

You have claimed that EU law doesn't allow the club to have a say in where the player can go, and hence why United cannot say Heinze cannot go to a domestic rival.
Anelka has a clause which states that a player can only leave if a top 4 club comes in for them, i.e. cannot leave for any of their domestic rivals (albeit for UEFA)

It is the exact same situation, yet it is allowed. Perhaps this would suggest that the EU law you seem to be putting so much faith in doesn't apply in football to the extent you think. Or maybe, and more probably, you have misinterpreted the law.