Gareth Barry, the Webster ruling and his future?

Bounty Hunter

Now im not saying Villa are going to miss out on CL football just like I didnt say they would get CL football when things looked far more positive, it is still a possibility but IF Villa failed to qualify what might happen to Mr Gareth Barry?

He has said that he wants CL football ideally at Villa Park but if thats not possible he would look elsewhere but...

Do Liverpool still want him? Or has Alonso changed Rafa's mind
would any other top 4 side take/need him atm?
would he go abroad?
Or would Villa still be the best option for him.

Im curious what non-Villa fans think as im not sure if Liverpool do still want him or if Chelsea or Man Utd would and I doubt Wenger would really be interested as he isnt going to have any re-sale value wherever he goes and will cost 10+mil imo. Plus i dont really see him going abroad although you never know

x in the city

I think he is over rated, and chelski or man u wouldn't want him.

Liverpool might sign him if Madrid get Gerrard for 230million or whatever is it they pay for players they want...:rolleyes:

jesus_thats_gre

I defo think that Rafa will make a move for him and also try to keep Alonso.. He will be available for relatively too, won't he?

As for him being over-rated.. Possibly the most under-rated player of the past 3 or 4 years.. Easily on a par with Hargreaves or Carrick.

eagle eye

Well I have the following to say on the matter. Firstly its sad to see a Villa fan start this thread.
Gareth Barry is better to stay where he is imo and Liverpool don't really need him with Lucas looking like a real prospect and Alonso and Mascherano there as well, not to mention Steven Gerrard who can step into that midfield role if needs be.

Liverpool need width, a player like David Silva is what they should be looking to sign.

Bounty Hunter

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I have the following to say on the matter. Firstly its sad to see a Villa fan start this thread.

well the first few lines of my OP where about how im not saying Villa for the CL and thus Barry certainly signing a new contract is a possibility but IF...

im not going to say its not a possibility that we wont get CL football and am curious as to what people actually think, do Liverpool still want him? if not do another team who would be in the champions league wanna spend 10m+ on him (hes not imo going to go the webster route) or should he actuallly just stay at Villa?

Personally of course id like to see Barry spend his entire senior club career at Villa but thats just one possibility.

Karmafaerie

UTD and Chelski'll never go for him, because he's not marketable to be honest.
While his talent and ability are plain for all to see, (if they're prepared to open their eyes that is).
But because of the money, they can afford to pay the extra money for the players with the big names, and the glamour to sell shirts!

I can still see both Liverpool and Arsenal going in for him.
Rafa always wanted both Alonso and Barry.
And Wenger's always been a fan.

I can see Citeh throwing their hats in too.
Barry, Ireland, and Kompany could be a very nice central trio!
Not CL yet, but they have obvious intentions that way.

Bounty Hunter

Karmafaerie wrote: »

I can see Citeh throwing their hats in too.
Barry, Ireland, and Kompany could be a very nice central trio!
Not CL yet, but they have obvious intentions that way.

This Summer atleast i really dont see City as a viable option as he has said he wants CL football (preferably with Villa) and City wont have that to offer until the following summer atleast.

MementoMori

If he does move I would say Liverpool is the likeliest destination

Given the Chelsea squad already have Lampard, Essien, Ballack, Cole, Deco, Malouda, Mikel I really cant see him moving there.

Likewise Arsenal have Fabregas, Arshavin, Rosicky, Dennilson, Diaby, Nasri, Song, Walcott, Bischoff along with the youngsters of Ramsey and Wiltshire.
If they lost Fabregas, which I dont think is likely, they would up their interest considerably.

Utd might be a possibility but I would be surprised.

Also think we might need to start doing some legal reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_ruling

I hadnt realised Gutierrez had signed for Newcastle using this.

If Barry used the Webster ruling, I think Villa would have to be compensated a year's wages. Pretty sure the figure of £42k p.w. came out during last summer's transfer so that would be £2,184,000. Could Villa come to regret turning down Liverpool's £15m offer from last year?

joe123

Well if Liverpool have the money in the summer (with the kuwait takeover) Rafa will certainly go for him I think. If we are low on funds, hopefully he will realise that we need to focus elsewhere as we dont need anyone else in place of Alonso.

Im still thinking downing will be a great bargain buy when boro get relegated this season.

micks

IMO he will sign for Liverpool early after season ends and prob for 7/8 Million or less. Didn't O'Neill come out with a strange comment a few weeks back saying he wouldn't stand in his way if he wanted to join Liverpool next summer because he only asked Barry to help him out this season?

MementoMori

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

if not do another team who would be in the champions league wanna spend 10m+ on him (hes not imo going to go the webster route) or should he actuallly just stay at Villa?

Why cant you see him going the Webster route?

Also given he has the possibility of using the Webster surely that would force his price down. I can't imagine any club willing to pay £10m plus for him when he could go on a Webster, but I could imagine a situation where a club would say to Villa look we'll give you £5m for him. Am I drinking the crazy juice or do people think that is a possibility if he does decide he wants to move?

Bounty Hunter

MementoMori wrote: »

Why cant you see him going the Webster route?

Also given he has the possibility of using the Webster surely that would force his price down. I can't imagine any club willing to pay £10m plus for him when he could go on a Webster, but I could imagine a situation where a club would say to Villa look we'll give you £5m for him. Am I drinking the crazy juice or do people think that is a possibility if he does decide he wants to move?

Well Gareth Barry is usually talked of as being the consumate pro and not the type of player that would be likely to go the webster route, the two big mistakes he made in this regard are believed to have been his choice of agent (whom this season he parted company with) and the NOTW article. Id more expect a repeat of last year MON will set a price which yes will be a lot lower with him only having a year left and if that price is met (unlike Summer) he will be sold. Im guessing an 8m drop in his price tag to 10m but of course its just speculation.

id say Villa would rate 5m for Barry an insult tbh and prefer another year with him before losing him on a free than 5m

PHB

Going the Webster route is really a pain in the ass. There's a reason no top player has done it yet, because its not as open and shut as people think. It takes months to get the sort of thing through, and you can easily get tied up in court for quite some time. It's there ultimately to get out if you need it, but its unlikely to be used except in extreme circumstances.

----

Karmafaerie wrote: »

UTD and Chelski'll never go for him, because he's not marketable to be honest.
While his talent and ability are plain for all to see, (if they're prepared to open their eyes that is).
But because of the money, they can afford to pay the extra money for the players with the big names, and the glamour to sell shirts!

That's just a stupid post. United and Chelsea have no doubt bought players because they are marketable, but there's not a chance in hell they have passed up a player because he isn't marketable.

If Fergie wanted Barry, he'd buy him regardless of his marketing value [Evra, Vidic, Carrick or Hargreaves aren't what you'd call marketable players]. United nor Chelsea don't need Barry as their squad depth in central midfield is strong [both with 5 well experienced players in there]. Liverpool's and Arsenals isn't, especially Arsenals.

Ultimately when it comes to Barry, he's a good solid midfielder who is very consistant. He isn't top class (ala Lampard or Scholes) and never will be. At his peak, he isn't better than Mascherano, Hargreaves, Carrick or Alonso with them at their peak. He may however be more consistant.

What's he worth? About 12 or so million in terms of the benefit he would give your squad.
Should Liverpool buy him? IMO they are looking for another squad CM, and imo the money should be spent on wingers, more wingers, and wingers. I would say that he should be 4th on their list of priorities which would be imo
Top Class Right Winger
Top Class Left Winger
Second Top Class striker [for the games when 4-4-2 is needed]
Backup in central midfield.

Should Arsenal buy him? Definately. He'd be great next to Fabregas.

Neil3030

This thread. <=

Cart.

Horse.

K4t

I said a month or two ago on here that the top four would remain the same and that Everton would get 5th spot. I still stand by that.

As for Gareth, I don't think he's good enough for a top 4 team. Besides, where would he fit in? Liverpool, United, Chelsea and Arsenal are all full up with top class midfielders.

I think he'll stay with Villa.

MementoMori

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Well Gareth Barry is usually talked of as being the consumate pro and not the type of player that would be likely to go the webster route, the two big mistakes he made in this regard are believed to have been his choice of agent (whom this season he parted company with) and the NOTW article. Id more expect a repeat of last year MON will set a price which yes will be a lot lower with him only having a year left and if that price is met (unlike Summer) he will be sold. Im guessing an 8m drop in his price tag to 10m but of course its just speculation.

id say Villa would rate 5m for Barry an insult tbh and prefer another year with him before losing him on a free than 5m

I didnt realise that he had gotten rid of his agent.

Basically the assumption seems to be that he will move for CL football. There was talk/rumours of MON agreeing that he could leave next summer if Villa didnt get CL football. Imagine a situation where Villa don't get CL football next year and Barry decides he wants to leave. He lets MON/Villa know this. He says this is his reason for moving. Villa know that if he goes the Webster route they get about £2m for him. Are Villa going to set a price of £10m then or are they going to go for a more nominal figure?

PHB wrote: »

Going the Webster route is really a pain in the ass. There's a reason no top player has done it yet, because its not as open and shut as people think. It takes months to get the sort of thing through, and you can easily get tied up in court for quite some time. It's there ultimately to get out if you need it, but its unlikely to be used except in extreme circumstances.

I think the original Webster case was probably a complete pain in the ass. However from what I have read I don't think it is an especially difficult process to complete. I really doubt it take months to get through in it's present form, given it is all based on freedom of movement.

I think the fact that more players havent used it as yet is because up until last Janurary {2008} when the CAS, which would be the final court of appeal, gave their final ruling there would have been an element of legal uncertainty about the whole process. Up until then there was always the risk that it would be overturned, but that risk is gone now. I would expect it to be become more popular in the next couple of years.

therecklessone

PHB wrote: »

Going the Webster route is really a pain in the ass. There's a reason no top player has done it yet, because its not as open and shut as people think. It takes months to get the sort of thing through, and you can easily get tied up in court for quite some time.

From my reading this morning on this, the process has been simplified considerably by the CAS judgement on Webster's appeal of FIFA's ruling re. the compensation due. Much of the legal argument has effectively been settled, as far as I can make out as long as Barry submits a request to cancel the remaining year of his contract within 15 days of the end of the season, then the only issue to be settled is the amount of compensation, and there's not much argument can be made over the sums there: 52xweeks wage.

I wouldn't be surprised if Barry's reps are already seeking legal advice on this. I imagine if Villa fail to get 4th place he'll want talks with MON asap, and while I don't believe he'll want to screw Villa over, I can't imagine him being interested in Villa pricing him out of a move. Unlike last year, the balance of power is in his favour.

If indeed he does seek a move, it would be in both parties interests to settle on an asking price of around £7m IMO, enough to allow Villa save face and reinvest in the squad, and low enough to entice a bid from Liverpool.

Bounty Hunter

If a mod would like to change the title to gareth Barry / The webster rule go ahead as even though i may have kinda dismissed the idea of him going that route I did expect it to come up im this thread and its relevant & interesting imo. Plus as is some people might resent the what if? type of thread this is, esp Villa fans as its all what if something positive doesent happen for Villa which obviously villa fans inc myself dont want

therecklessone

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Plus as is some people might resent the what if? type of thread this is, esp Villa fans as its all what if something positive doesent happen for Villa which obviously villa fans inc myself dont want

TBH, if people take exception to the thread then they really should grow a thicker skin, it's an interesting subject and one that may well dominate the summer's transfer window in much the same way as last year's.

I'll edit the thread title.

jesus_thats_gre

MementoMori wrote: »

Why cant you see him going the Webster route?

Also given he has the possibility of using the Webster surely that would force his price down. I can't imagine any club willing to pay £10m plus for him when he could go on a Webster, but I could imagine a situation where a club would say to Villa look we'll give you £5m for him. Am I drinking the crazy juice or do people think that is a possibility if he does decide he wants to move?

One of the United supporting lads on the forum (kryogen or mitch connor I think) posted that the top clubs all agreed not to use the ruling on each other.. I think that the scenario you posted is pretty likely.

Mitch Connor

Karmafaerie wrote: »

UTD and Chelski'll never go for him, because he's not marketable to be honest.
While his talent and ability are plain for all to see, (if they're prepared to open their eyes that is).
But because of the money, they can afford to pay the extra money for the players with the big names, and the glamour to sell shirts!

I can still see both Liverpool and Arsenal going in for him.
Rafa always wanted both Alonso and Barry.
And Wenger's always been a fan.

I can see Citeh throwing their hats in too.
Barry, Ireland, and Kompany could be a very nice central trio!
Not CL yet, but they have obvious intentions that way.

What? Are you seriously suggesting United only sign marketable players? Yeah - i do suppose the Carrick, Hargreves and Vidic calendars are flying our of the magestore. Unbelievable, anything to take a pop, eh?

Mitch Connor

On the webster issue, I think it only applies to moves abroad (so going to Liverpool would be ruled out) and I think I read top clubs had agreed they would not sign a player who invoked this ruling, in order to protect themselves from it too.

therecklessone

Mitch Connor wrote: »

On the webster issue, I think it only applies to moves abroad (so going to Liverpool would be ruled out) and I think I read top clubs had agreed they would not sign a player who invoked this ruling, in order to protect themselves from it too.

On your first point it doesn't, and on your second point I'd imagine the European Commission might have something to say about restraint of trade.

Mitch Connor

On the second point, how? If a player decides to break his contract, and pay the compensation required, is there some European statute that declares another side MUST sign him? Don't think so.

For the first point, Hearts retained Websters Scottish registration so he was not able to play in Scotland until his contract was due to be up.

can't find anything specific, but have a look here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/tottenham/2628111/Spurs-have-15m-bid-for-Pavlyuchenko-accepted---Football.html

This option is theoretically also open to Berbatov next year, with the expectation that he would have to fund the balance of his contract as compensation. If that happened, Tottenham would only receive around £2.5 million. Spurs, though, would inevitably fight such a move and believe that a player can only invoke the ruling if he could also show that he had not contributed to his situation.
Tottenham also believe that Berbatov would be restricted to moving to a club abroad, although he could potentially then be loaned back to an English club

and here: https://www.evertonfc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21941&view=next&sid=bcdbb5d01e6bce3f66bb949fbe40bbb0

here's somrthiong from the BBC

The Premier League will not suffer an exodus of players taking advantage of a clause in Fifa's new transfer regulations, claims a top agent.

Players who have served three years of a contract they signed before the age of 28 can buy themselves out - as long as they give 15 days' notice.

Chelsea's Frank Lampard and Manchester United's Gabriel Heinze have been linked with transfers using the ruling.

But agent Barry Neville told BBC Sport: "It won't happen - not from England."

Nobody pays bigger salaries on average than in England

Agent Barry Neville

Neville, who represents Birmingham defender Matthew Upson and West Ham forward Teddy Sheringham, added: "I can't see any players using this as the transfer has to involve crossing borders and nobody pays bigger salaries on average than in England."

Last week the Times newspaper speculated that defender Heinze was thinking of "buying out" his contract, while the Mail on Sunday reported both AC Milan and Inter Milan would be interested in using the ruling to bring Lampard to Serie A.

Lampard's agent Steve Kutner has hinted that Lampard might be ready to exploit the Fifa ruling rather than extend his contract, contradicting Chelsea's claims that the England midfielder was close to committing his long-term future to the Blues.

If Lampard was to invoke the ruling, clubs would be able to sign him for a figure in the region of £8m rather than the much larger sum Chelsea would want for him from a normal transfer.

Contracts involving Chelsea defenders John Terry and Ricardo Carvalho, as well as Liverpool midfielders Xabi Alonso and Luis Garcia and Arsenal's Brazilian Gilberto Silva, will cease to be 'protected' in June, even though they run to 2009.

Last summer Scottish defender Andy Webster used the ruling to move from Hearts to Wigan.

Fifa gave Webster permission to leave Hearts to join Wigan in September and, although Hearts wanted £2m for the defender, the Scottish club are likely to receive £250,000, the sum he would earn in wages in a year at Tynecastle.

He has since returned to Scotland after he signed for Rangers in the January transfer window.

therecklessone

Mitch Connor wrote: »

On the second point, how? If a player decides to break his contract, and pay the compensation required, is there some European statute that declares another side MUST sign him? Don't think so.

Because it is an artificial constraint on free movement of labour. If every club agreed to the same, would it be a bit more obvious?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

For the first point, Hearts retained Websters Scottish registration so he was not able to play in Scotland until his contract was due to be up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/wigan_athletic/6218221.stm

Meanwhile, any possible transfer could be made more complicated by the way Webster joined the English club.

Webster remains registered as a Hearts player with the Scottish Football Association and Scottish Premier League.

Wigan were given permission to sign the defender by Fifa.

But world football's governing body has yet to decide on whether Hearts are due compensation from the English outfit.

And Hearts will not sign a release form until the matter of a fee has been concluded and any further transfer would also require Fifa approval.

Article 17 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players provides the grounds for "Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause". I can see no mention within the regulations of those grounds being limited to movement across borders:

1. In all cases, the party in breach shall pay compensation. Subject to the
provisions of Art. 20 and annex 4 in relation to Training Compensation,
and unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation
for 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.

2. Entitlement to compensation cannot be assigned to a third party. If
a Professional is required to pay compensation, the Professional and
his New Club shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment. The
amount may be stipulated in the contract or agreed between the parties.

3. In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions
shall also be imposed on any player found to be in breach of contract
during the Protected Period. This sanction shall be a restriction of
four months on his eligibility to play in Offi cial Matches. In the case
of aggravating circumstances, the restriction shall last six months. In
all cases, these sporting sanctions shall take effect from the start of
the following Season of the New Club. Unilateral breach without just
cause or sporting just cause after the Protected Period will not result
in sporting sanctions. Disciplinary measures may, however, be imposed
outside of the Protected Period for failure to give due notice of termination
(i.e. within fi fteen days following the last match of the Season).
The Protected Period starts again when, while renewing the contract,
the duration of the previous contract is extended.

4. In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions
shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract or
found to be inducing a breach of contract during the Protected Period.
It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club
signing a Professional who has terminated his contract without just
cause has induced that Professional to commit a breach. The club
shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for two Registration Periods.

5. Any person subject to the FIFA Statutes and FIFA regulations (club
officials, players’ agents, players etc.) who acts in a manner designed
to induce a breach of contract between a Professional and a club in
order to facilitate the transfer of the player shall be sanctioned.

Full regs are here

Webster appealed FIFA's original ruling of £625k and the CAS reduced that to £150k, the residual value of his contract based on his salary for the remaining year.

Their judgement is here

From your quote:

Spurs, though, would inevitably fight such a move and believe that a player can only invoke the ruling if he could also show that he had not contributed to his situation.

The CAS judgement left open the legal question of contributory negligence by either party due to insufficient evidence, but stated that they were not convinced that such matters were legally relevant. The only impact of such a legal argument would be to adjust the amount of compensation payable. They would not preclude a player from invoking the Article.

MementoMori

Mitch Connor wrote: »

On the second point, how? If a player decides to break his contract, and pay the compensation required, is there some European statute that declares another side MUST sign him? Don't think so.

On the second point - the top clubs having agreed not to use the Webster ruling - there couldn't be a legal agreement between the clubs not to use the Webster ruling, as this would in effect by collusion by them in coming together to get around the law. It would be similar to a group of companies in one industry coming together and agreeing not to hire someone who had say suffered unfair dismissal. As such I just can't see there being any legal agreement.

Given there isn't a legal agreement there would leave open the possibility of a gentleman's agreement but even if this existed there would be no way to actually enforce it so that breaking the agreemenrt would have a penalty. The Webster ruling can only be used in a certain percentage of cases and if a certain player came along that a club wanted they would be in effect have to consider the advantages of signing the player using the Webster route against the disadvantages of possibly maybe losing a player under the Webster ruling at some uncertain date in the future. Also given that the rumoured gentlemen's agreement is only supposed to exists between top clubs,there is nothing to stop clubs outside this taking advantage. Once these clubs just outside the clubs start to do it, I really cant see the top clubs not joining in as they just have too much to loose. With these factors it is only a matter of time before there is a big-name Webster ruling transfer.

Also as an added point if this gentlemen's agreement among the top club did exist, you have to ask would Villa be party to this agreement. This isn't a slur on Villa but the most likely venue for this rumoured gentlemen's agreement would seem to have been among the 18 G-14 clubs, a group of which Villa was never a member.

On the first point, about the Webster ruling only being applicable to cross-border transfers. This is just a red herring in so far as I can see. While it isn't directly addressed in the Webster ruling, the extract below from the report would seem to take a pretty strong stance against one rule being used for cross-border transfers and another rule for internal transfers. It goes strongly against the concept of natural justice so I would be quite strongly of the opinion that it isn't true.

This principle is confirmed in the CAS Case 2005/A/983 & 984 CLub Atletico Penarol v Carlos Heber Bueno Suarez and Christian Gabriel Rodriguez Barotti & Paris Saint Germain, in which the CAS held "Sport is, by its nature a phenomenon which transcends borders. It is not only desirable, but essential that the rules governing sport on an international level have a uniform and broadly consistent nature throughout the world. To ensure its respect on a world level, such regulations cannot be applied differently from one country to another, particularly because of the interferences between state law and sports regulations.The principle of the universal application of FIFA rules- or any other international federation- meets the requirements of rationality, safety and legal predictability...The uniformity which results tends to guarantee equality of treatment between all destinees of theses standards whatsoever country they are in".

If anyone wants to have a trawl through the actual ruling [WARNING - a lot of legal speak]

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/363/5048/0/CAS%201298%201299%201300%20Award.pdf

Highsider

Some good points in this thread TBH. I'm a Liverpool fan and think the guy could offer a hell of a lot to the team/squad but also find it sad that he will more than likely end up at Anfield. It must be heartbreaking for fans of clubs like Villa when their best players are snapped up by the big boys year after year when the manager is trying to build a team. I'd like to see the likes of Villa,Newcastle,Spurs etc... challange for the league or even top 4 on a consistent basis but tbh it's never going to happen as long as the likes of sky run the game and the big guns keep coining it in in the champions league

leninbenjamin

PHB wrote: »

Going the Webster route is really a pain in the ass. There's a reason no top player has done it yet, because its not as open and shut as people think. It takes months to get the sort of thing through, and you can easily get tied up in court for quite some time. It's there ultimately to get out if you need it, but its unlikely to be used except in extreme circumstances.

nope, it's far less complicated than that.

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

One of the United supporting lads on the forum (kryogen or mitch connor I think) posted that the top clubs all agreed not to use the ruling on each other.. I think that the scenario you posted is pretty likely.

yeah this is pretty close to what I heard. There was a rumour a while back that one the big players at United wanted to excercise this, but if he did none of the bigger clubs would touch him for fear of him doing the same to them two or three years down the line.

therecklessone wrote: »

On your first point it doesn't, and on your second point I'd imagine the European Commission might have something to say about restraint of trade.

what isn't on paper, can't be legislated for. I'm not even sure if it could be called a gentlemens agreement, more like a taboo...

MementoMori

leninbenjamin wrote: »

yeah this is pretty close to what I heard. There was a rumour a while back that one the big players at United wanted to excercise this, but if he did none of the bigger clubs would touch him for fear of him doing the same to them two or three years down the line.

Clearly this had to be one of the younger players as if it were one of the older players I don't think any of the clubs would have been so worried about him doing a another Webster down the line. Also I don't know how much of a worry this fear of a player who has done a Webster turning around and doing a Webster a few years later would be given that the club who would be buying him initially wouldn't have paid a transfer fee and would also recoup a year of the player's wages.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

what isn't on paper, can't be legislated for. I'm not even sure if it could be called a gentlemens agreement, more like a taboo...

Yeah It probably does seem like it would be more of a taboo thing that an actual agreement. However I just think that over time it will prove too tempting to break the taboo given how much the potential advantages could outway the potential disadvantages, especially when clubs see it working for other teams. It might still be a bit of a wait-and-see situation still but gradually as clubs see the advantages they will gradually come around to the idea.

astrofool

I think the first club that goes down this route will find themselves very quickly at the mercy of every other club that takes advantage of it with that club's players.

eagle eye

I don't think it was a young player, it was Gabriel Heinze iirc. Liverpool were looking to buy him back then and there was something about him being able to be bought out of his contract at that time.

MementoMori

astrofool wrote: »

I think the first club that goes down this route will find themselves very quickly at the mercy of every other club that takes advantage of it with that club's players.

The thing is that it's only possible to use it in certain circumstances, so it's not as if a whole squad can be targeted. It's not simply the case that say if Liverpool sign Barry, it's then possible that all of Liverpool's squad could be targeted. You still need to convince the player themselves to move. Also clubs arent going to target Liverpool's players all of a sudden because they did a bad thing.

I think Barry would a quality signing and hopefully if he does leave Villa he joins Liverpool.

I still think Villa are a good bet for 4th though. They have Liverpool and united away next but they have 10 win away wins this season, only chelsea can boast that record and they could easily snatch a draw at old trafford

PHB

Well first off, it only works when you are moving country isnt that right? So unless Barry is moving to Madrid, it won't be able to be used by him?

Secondly, the G14 clubs all agreed not to use it on each other.

Third, the legality surrouding the issue is still nowhere near established. Two other players have used it afaik. Gutierrez and somebody else. The club has not accepted the Gutierrez transfer and are demanding higher payments. This is still in court.

Beyond that, it is a CAS ruling, not a legal ruling. Celtic for example have stated if anybody does try to use it, they will take them to a real legal court, where their case is fairly strong to be honest. It's not a banker, but its not a banker for the player either. It could really go either way.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/scotland/article2797091.ece

All in all, if a very high profile and expensive player does this, and a major club loses money on it, you can bet your high horses that it will go to a real court, and that player will be possibly unable to play while its going through that process, and be risking huge personal financial resources.
Because CAS cases take so long, the unilateral breaching of contract will be allowed in the short term unless they deal with the current cases. This is new jurisprudence though, it takes a while to get properly established.

All in all, the clause isn't as strong as people think. It's there for extreme situations where a player is being sent to the reserves because a chairman doesnt like him and stuff like that. Then the player will do it. But for general transfers, its still quite a while away from being in full use. Hence why even though its been there for 2 years, we've only had 3 uses of it afaik.

mayordenis

Was Behrami the other one?

jesus_thats_gre

He is only on loan isn't he?

Zatman

Rafa will be bad for Barry's career. he thinks of him as a left back so would ruin Gareth's England career in the process as he is first choice centre midfielder under Capello.

the webster ruling is a lot more complicated than Bosman and playes have to give a months notice before the season ends to implicate it plus their is a lot more technacalities involved

jesus_thats_gre

Zatman wrote: »

Rafa will be bad for Barry's career. he thinks of him as a left back so would ruin Gareth's England career in the process as he is first choice centre midfielder under Capello.

You are incorrect..

Rafa was trying to sign Barry. He was apparently told by Parry that he had enough central midfielders. He then pointed out that Barry's versatility meant that he could also be used along the left. He was told that he just signed a left back and has enough cover there.

Rafa played up Barry's ability to play along the left in an attempt to cirvumvent an overly involved chairman..

The finer details of the above was discussed here over the past 8 months..

Him eventually trying to sell Alonso to raise funds to replace him with Barry is sort of a clear indication of where he wants to play him and how highly he rates him..

Bounty Hunter

Zatman wrote: »

the webster ruling is a lot more complicated than Bosman and playes have to give a months notice before the season ends to implicate it plus their is a lot more technacalities involved

IS this 100% the case as i really cant see anyway Barry will do this with a month left in this season?

therecklessone

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

IS this 100% the case as i really cant see anyway Barry will do this with a month left in this season?

It's not. From the regs I quoted above:

Disciplinary measures may, however, be imposed
outside of the Protected Period for failure to give due notice of termination
(i.e. within fi fteen days following the last match of the Season).
The Protected Period starts again when, while renewing the contract,
the duration of the previous contract is extended.

That doesn't mean he couldn't invoke Article 17 after the 15 days are up, but he would face a match ban of some sort.