Corluka Deal Agreed

Wendell Gee

The spurs official website has announced Corluka as a new signing. Big news in my opinion. Next Arshavin, as a further offer has been rejected. Not sure if we need him, but 2 russians and 2 croatians may keep each other up through the hard times. Hope we now get veloso or an equivalent.

SuprSi

Excellent news, strengthening our defence. I don't think we'll get Arshavin as it seems Milito is coming too, so we'd be back to having 4 strikers. I'd hope after Corluka/Milito we get a midfielder, and not an attacking one!!

The Muppet

Good signing for Spurs. If he only signed today how come the picture of him in the Tottenham shirt is dated the 8th august?

RichMc70

The Muppet wrote: »

Good signing for Spurs. If he only signed today how come the picture of him in the Tottenham shirt is dated the 8th august?

Because we'd already spoken to him previously, with the permission of city and a deal was struck. It was city who pulled out as an after thought following intervention of Mark Hughes but the contracts had been signed, so it was a matter of time or alternatively a legal situation.

The Muppet

RichMc70 wrote: »

Because we'd already spoken to him previously, with the permission of city and a deal was struck. It was city who pulled out as an after thought following intervention of Mark Hughes but the contracts had been signed, so it was a matter of time or alternatively a legal situation.

Thet's interesting, If the contract had been signed early August that would have made him a Tottenham player . How come he played for Man City yesterday?

RichMc70

The Muppet wrote: »

Thet's interesting, If the contract had been signed early August that would have made him a Tottenham player . How come he played for Man City yesterday?

Muppet i know the angle you're trying to use here but you're on weak ground mate. Unlike other current deals this one was carried out above board. Sure maybe city insisted that corluka work off a months notice.

The Muppet

RichMc70 wrote: »

Muppet i know the angle you're trying to use here but you're on weak ground mate. Unlike other current deals this one was carried out above board. Sure maybe city insisted that corluka work off a months notice.

I,m not on any angle it just seems strange that he played for City yesterday if he was already contracted to Tottenham. I would be suprised if that were the case as both clubs would be in breach of premiership rules and surely would not leave themselves open in such an obvious way. I assume everything is above board but you have to admit it does appear a little strange.

therecklessone

You probably missed this first time around seeing as you're banned from soccer:

Xavi can shed more light on this than I can I suspect, but what I've picked up from a couple of sources:

1. Due to Shinawatra's current problems back home City are very short of cash right now, at a time when they need quite a bit to make the next installments on many of last season's transfer in. That is what has prompted the proposed transfer of Corluka to Spurs, as we were prepared to pay the whole transfer fee up front (at a knock down price I'll add, certainly on City's valuation of the player)

2. Shinawatra and his people are responsible for the "move" of Corluka to Spurs, the transfer was arranged without Mark Hughes' input (or Executive Chairman Gary Cook).

3. Hughes is understandably furious at this, and has threatened (or at least suggested he will) to walk as a result. Hughes was assured when he took the job that there would be no more transfer in/out without his say so.

4. From a Spurs perspective, the deal for Corluka was effectively concluded subject the granting of a work permit, and we are now understandably pissed off at City for them attempting to renege on the deal. Who exactly at City is pulling the strings on that move I'm not certain.

For what it's worth, here's my 2c:

Gary Cook is backing Hughes as he knows if Hughes walks then City will struggle to attract anyone of similar quality to the club, and there is a real chance the club will be stripped bare of players if he does go (Dunne is one I could see putting in a transfer request) Cook also knows that Shinawatra needs to sell the club quickly, and so is hoping to hold on to the clubs best players (and manager) just long enough to allow a buyer take control of the club.

I wouldn't describe it as a power struggle as such, as Shinawatra can simply chuck Cook out and sell Corluka is he wants, but I imagine the Thai has enough on his plate right now and Cook is gambling on that allowing him enough breathing space to do the necessary until Frank sells up.

Its a dangerous game to play, but might be the only course of action open to those at the club who want it to survive in a reasonable healthy state (as opposed to the corrupt ex-Thai PM)

If Corluka is sold, I can see Hughes walking away and the club being a whole lot more of a mess than they appear to be right now.

In short, Spurs believed they had signed Corluka subject a work permit, City pulled out of the deal at the last minute. The only avenue open to Spurs would have been legal action to force City to hand over Corluka's regsitration, there is a belief that Spurs may have agreed to shelve that plan as long as City allowed Corluka move once they had signed his replacement (Zableyta)

Corluka was pictured in the Spurs shirt because he was at Spurs Lodge and had agreed his contract terms, plus we'd already agreed a deal with City for hos transfer.

All IMHO of course.

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote: »

Good signing for Spurs. If he only signed today how come the picture of him in the Tottenham shirt is dated the 8th august?

Just as a matter of interest, where exactly is that info?

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote: »

You probably missed this first time around seeing as you're banned from soccer:



In short, Spurs believed they had signed Corluka subject a work permit, City pulled out of the deal at the last minute. The only avenue open to Spurs would have been legal action to force City to hand over Corluka's regsitration, there is a belief that Spurs may have agreed to shelve that plan as long as City allowed Corluka move once they had signed his replacement (Zableyta)

Corluka was pictured in the Spurs shirt because he was at Spurs Lodge and had agreed his contract terms, plus we'd already agreed a deal with City for hos transfer.

All IMHO of course.

Thanks for that Ronan I don't read the soccer forum very much these days so I hadn't seen that.

Did he not already have a work permit ? He would have needed one to play for City. Maybe I just don't understand the situation fully but I find the fact that he played for city yesterday strange if he was already contracted to Tottenham. I'm sure if there is anything untoward we will hear about it in the days ahead.

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote: »

Did he not already have a work permit ? He would have needed one to play for City. Maybe I just don't understand the situation fully but I find the fact that he played for city yesterday strange if he was already contracted to Tottenham. I'm sure if there is anything untoward we will hear about it in the days ahead.

I believe for a player to leave one club so soon after the granting of an initial work permit a new application must be lodged with the authorities.

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote: »

I believe for a player to leave one club so soon after the granting of an initial work permit a new application must be lodged with the authorities.

That makes sense. I read about the picture on RedCafe, why do you ask?

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote: »

That makes sense. I read about the picture on RedCafe, why do you ask?

I can't see anything on the news item that indicates the pic is from August, article is dated the 1st September and the picture properties say it was created today as well. Maybe I'm missing something?

The Muppet

Redcafe is in meltdown at the moment so I cant access it to give a link but I'm pretty sure that where I read it. I,m also sure I read that the picture has been published on the official Tottenham site , maybe someone else here can confirm this. If I'm wrong with any of that I apologise.

I did a google and found this. Its conclusive proof that what I said is right. it was taken on the 8th of august at half past two with a Nikon D50 camera.

http://theshelf.blogspot.com/2008/09/corluka-done-three-weeks-ago.html

That blog suggest that he signed a contract with Tottenham on the 8th of august which if true does leave a question mark over his appearance for city yesterday.

Wendell Gee

Methinks the Muppet is trying to muddy the water. for the record, tottenham only seem to poach managers Hoddle, Graham, Ramos, unlike Manyoo. If Corluka was snapped in a Spurs shirt on August 8th, it is hardly surprising, as a fee had been agreed, a medical had been passed, and all that remained was exchange of contracts, as I understand. This is no Paul Ince situation. by the way, hughes did what we should have, only selling Corluka after adequate replacements had been brought in.
As he's wandering these fair aisles, perhaps he knows if the Campbell loan has a buy option built in.

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote: »

That blog suggest that he signed a contract with Tottenham on the 8th of august which if true does leave a question mark over his appearance for city yesterday.

As I explained above, City refused to release his registration. Until they did release his registration, he could only play for City.

The options open to us were:

1. Sue City, and drag the issue out over months of legal wrangling

or

2. Allow City sign a replacement then complete the formalities on a deal that was about 95% complete already.

Until we did complete part 2 then City were free to play Corluka (and to fail to do so would look suspect when they were trying to appear in good working order and willing to back Hughes' decision making)

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote: »

As I explained above, City refused to release his registration. Until they did release his registration, he could only play for City.

The options open to us were:

1. Sue City, and drag the issue out over months of legal wrangling

or

2. Allow City sign a replacement then complete the formalities on a deal that was about 95% complete already.

Until we did complete part 2 then City were free to play Corluka (and to fail to do so would look suspect when they were trying to appear in good working order and willing to back Hughes' decision making)

I fully accept that Ronan but it still means that in their win over Sunderland, Man City fielded a player that was legally owned by another club. That cannot be right. I would think Sunderland have grounds for complaint.

Third party Ownership of Players is against PL rules, thats what all the hassle over Macherano and Tevez at West Ham was about.

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote: »

I fully accept that Ronan but it still means that in their win over Sunderland, Man City fielded a player that was legally owned by another club. That cannot be right. I would think Sunderland have grounds for complaint.

Third party Ownership of Players is against PL rules, thats what all the hassle over Macherano and Tevez at West Ham was about.

That is an issue for another forum, I've explained the situation from a Spurs perspective, any discussion re. other clubs belongs elsewhere.

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote: »

That is an issue for another forum, I've explained the situation from a Spurs perspective, any discussion re. other clubs belongs elsewhere.

Maybe so but Tottenham being the owners means it has implications on them too. Its probably best not to speculate without the full facts.

Wendell Gee

remember Ince, you don't have to have a player signed to get him in a shirt. The only difference is in Corluka's case, the clubs had agreed a fee, the player had agreed terms and passed his medical, but when =Hughes found out he went ape**** (rightly), and pulled the plug on the deal, which then fell through, but Hughes then signed his replacement, as Corluka made it plain he wanted the move, and shipped Corluka out. hughes happy, Spurs happy, Corluka happy, and no funny business.
The funny business was a few hours later, when having won the arab lotto, Hughes bids 34m for Berbatov. I would just love to have seen fergie's face when he heard that, and that the bid had been accepted. We then got berbatov's value, as opposed to the knockdown tapped up price we had been offered.
Allah be praised

The Muppet

Wendell Gee wrote: »

remember Ince, you don't have to have a player signed to get him in a shirt. The only difference is in Corluka's case, the clubs had agreed a fee, the player had agreed terms and passed his medical, but when =Hughes found out he went ape**** (rightly), and pulled the plug on the deal, which then fell through, but Hughes then signed his replacement, as Corluka made it plain he wanted the move, and shipped Corluka out. hughes happy, Spurs happy, Corluka happy, and no funny business.

It went further than that, Contracts were signed otherwise City would have been able to pull out when they wanted to. Spurs owned Corluka before yesterday.

WhiteWashMan

i would have thought to make it all official to the league, they had to be informed.
if they are not informed, then officially, you can sign as much as you want, but the league still sees you as a registered player for your original club.

as far as i am aware, man city didnt complete the registration of the player to another club and therefore he remained a city player by definition in the eyes of the league, and uefa.

had it gone to the legal system, i have no idea what sot of ruling would have come from.

therecklessone

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

i would have thought to make it all official to the league, they had to be informed.
if they are not informed, then officially, you can sign as much as you want, but the league still sees you as a registered player for your original club.

as far as i am aware, man city didnt complete the registration of the player to another club and therefore he remained a city player by definition in the eyes of the league, and uefa.

had it gone to the legal system, i have no idea what sot of ruling would have come from.

Summed up perfectly.

I hope Oz is treating you well?

The Muppet

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

i would have thought to make it all official to the league, they had to be informed.
if they are not informed, then officially, you can sign as much as you want, but the league still sees you as a registered player for your original club.

as far as i am aware, man city didnt complete the registration of the player to another club and therefore he remained a city player by definition in the eyes of the league, and uefa.

had it gone to the legal system, i have no idea what sot of ruling would have come from.

That makes sense from a playing perspective but doesn't really address the legalaties surrounding Third party ownership, or does it? Is the registration that can not be held by a third party?

therecklessone

You're like a dog with a bone on this one, why I don't know, maybe you feel there's some point to be scored against either club?

For what it's worth, the posts explaining the situation here are based on so-called ITK info posted elsewhere, neither club has provided much in the way of public statement on the prolonged transfer. Spurs never announced Corluka's signing until Monday night, City were quoted a bit in August denying Corluka was going to Spurs. That's about it.

What is entirely possible is that City asked Spurs to allow them time to sign a replacement then they would complete the Corluka deal. Perhaps we threatened legal action and that prompted some compromise? Perhaps the documents that were "signed" back in August were cancelled and City retained possession of Corluka as a player in accordance with the rules? Did money change hands for the player before Monday night?

Either way, I think you're made your point (repeatedly) so unless you have anything new to add?

WhiteWashMan

The Muppet wrote: »

That makes sense from a playing perspective but doesn't really address the legalaties surrounding Third party ownership, or does it? Is the registration that can not be held by a third party?

indeed, but I dont think the FA or uefa can be invovled in inter club shennanigans, or blamed for anything 2 clubs decide to do or not do.

they only deal in offical registrations.

hence why i figure the legalities are outside the remit of the league and the business of the 2 clubs.

as for third party registration, i really dont understand it myself.

is this your new hangout muppet, whats the story? ye old spurs fans not a bad bunch


and yeah ro, its just coming into spring, and the weather is turning beautiful.
am deperately hoping spurs come over to play melbourne victory a some stage
dont worry, next time im back, we'll be meeting to take in a match!

The Muppet

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

indeed, but I dont think the FA or uefa can be invovled in inter club shennanigans, or blamed for anything 2 clubs decide to do or not do.

they only deal in offical registrations.

hence why i figure the legalities are outside the remit of the league and the business of the 2 clubs.

as for third party registration, i really dont understand it myself.

Cheers , I suppose there would be more of it if there was anything untoward in the deal.

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

is this your new hangout muppet, whats the story? ye old spurs fans not a bad bunch

Any port in a storm.:)

There are some good contributers here so maybe I will post a bit more than I used to. Spurs fans tend not to have the Hang Ups about United as some others do so yes ye are not a bad bunch at all.

rocky25

The Muppet wrote: »

Any port in a storm.:)

There are some good contributers here so maybe I will post a bit more than I used to. Spurs fans tend not to have the Hang Ups about United as some others do so yes ye are not a bad bunch at all.

We all know Manure and Spuds Go together well.
L:)L

therecklessone

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

and yeah ro, its just coming into spring, and the weather is turning beautiful.
am deperately hoping spurs come over to play melbourne victory a some stage
dont worry, next time im back, we'll be meeting to take in a match!

Excellent stuff Eamo, have a cousin and his wife living out there now, his bro is on his way and if they both settle their mother (my Godmother) is out after them, so I may see you in the sun before you see me in the rain...;)

WhiteWashMan

you'll be welcome to come and drink beer under my alfresco anytime