Sol Campbell: Sueing Portsmouth

Stacksey

This bloke is a money hungry animal. he's sueing Portsmouth now, what next

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_5873389,00.html

Photi

They didn't pay him the money owed to him in his contract. He's entitled to look for it.


Wouldn't you?

Fuhrer

Hes gonna have to get in line

jesus_thats_gre

He has every right to do so but his timing could be better like.

leninbenjamin

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

He has every right to do so but his timing could be better like.

He waits and Portsmouth go bust he might not see a cent.

syngindub

Is he earning any money these days?

jesus_thats_gre

leninbenjamin wrote: »

He waits and Portsmouth go bust he might not see a cent.

Reasonable point.

Paleface

If they owe him money based on a contractual agreement then he's no different than anybody else who is looking for money from them.

GavRedKing

If he is owed anything he is fully entitled to look for any money he is owed. I know I would, wether your on 500 euro a wk or 50k a week its still money that is yours, that you have earned and I'd be looking for it to.

FutureGuy

The man is suing his former employers for money he is rightly owed. What's the problem? You wouldn't in his situation?

Mushy

Reason people get annoyed by this is because he would't exactly be stuck for money. Definitely fully entitled to do it, but maybe he could give some of it to charity, or something to benefit others.

Mitch Connor

apparently he is owed 1.7million. Not like it is a small amount to be fair to him.

JPA

It's money he's entitled to.
However Sol Campbell has never moved for a transfer fee so I'd say he's fairly minted.

noodler

Yeah, given he hasn't been at Pompey for months, this seems strange.

I mean didn't he just break a contractual obligation with Notts County and they didn't sue him, did they?

Strange timing is right, so soon after joining Arsenal. Maybe he has only really become worried at the situation at Pompey now but it seems weird he wasn't worried during the last 8 months when they must have been fobbing him off with excuses.

Kold

This does not make me dislike him any more than I do. There are only a couple of things he could do to do that though...

Fromvert

What a horrible man that Sol Campbell is, he actually wants to get paid for his work. He should bow his head in shame.


Thread fail OP.

super_furry

noodler wrote: »

I mean didn't he just break a contractual obligation with Notts County and they didn't sue him, did they?

He didn't break it, Campbell and Notts County negotiated its disullision.

Rekop dog

SSN where waiting for him outside Arsenals training ground this morning to talk about this, they missed him though, as he took the rear entrance- (not for the first time)

noodler

super_furry wrote: »

He didn't break it, Campbell and Notts County negotiated its disullision.

Didn't he break it and they cried bloody murder for a few weeks and then they sat down?

My understanding is that they just let him off the hook. Only one party got screwed over there.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

Didn't he break it and they cried bloody murder for a few weeks and then they sat down?

My understanding is that they just let him off the hook. Only one party got screwed over there.

Who cares tbh obviously both parties made an effort to resolve without resorting to legal proceedings. Football clubs aren't exactly known for leniency (or indeed fairplay) when it comes to matters of players and their contracts. While I'm not condoning, or defending, Campbell's actions, I doubt Notts County were the darling angels throughout the affair you suggest they were.

Either way, it's hypocritical for people to come out against Sol without knowing the specifics. This could have been going on behind the scenes for months. Remember, the papers today were saying Portsmouth FC are 21 days from being issued a winding up petition. Now I know that's paper talk, but If I were owed money but hem I'd be doing everything possible to make sure I don't have to write it off as bad debt.

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Who cares tbh obviously both parties made an effort to resolve without resorting to legal proceedings. Football clubs aren't exactly known for leniency (or indeed fairplay) when it comes to matters of players and their contracts. While I'm not condoning, or defending, Campbell's actions, I doubt Notts County were the darling angels throughout the affair you suggest they were.
.

What?!!

Jesus, talk about one rule for one....

Just because Notts County were good enough not to make the matter legal shouldn't allow us to sweep under the table the fact that he broke a contract with them.

Also, something vague like "I doubt Notts County were the darling angels throughout the affair you suggest they were" is a bit fecking weak to say the least.

Mitch Connor

for all we know Campbel reached a settlement with Notts County(i would wager that he did). If he did, then there is the possibility that Pompey had or have the chance to do the same.

I would very much doubt that Campbels first move has been to sue Pompey, 6 months after he left. I would imagine he has been trying to get the money since the day he left.

speculation on my part, but i would reckon there is a decent chance i am right.

noodler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

for all we know Campbel reached a settlement with Notts County(i would wager that he did).

We do know that. A few weeks after he walked out on them.

Mitch Connor

noodler wrote: »

We do know that. A few weeks after he walked out on them.

so then looking for money from Pompey is reasonable despite the Notts County thing because it was legally dealt with and settled, as you would imagine Pompey have/had the chance to do.

noodler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

so then looking for money from Pompey is reasonable despite the Notts County thing because it was legally dealt with and settled, as you would imagine Pompey have/had the chance to do.

Nothing wrong with looking for money you are owed.

However, he was allowed to get away scott-free with breaking his own commitments to Notts.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

However, he was allowed to get away scott-free with breaking his own commitments to Notts.

Are you privy to the specifics of the arrangement that was made between the two parties?

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Are you privy to the specifics of the arrangement that was made between the two parties?

From the guy assuming Notts County must have done something wrong.

I know they didn't put up a huge fight over his registration, I know he was allowed to play for another club.

Mitch Connor

noodler wrote: »

However, he was allowed to get away scott-free with breaking his own commitments to Notts.

No he was not.

They simply settled the case before it went to court. He did not get away 'scott free', you simply do not know what did happen.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

From the guy assuming Notts County must have done something wrong.

You're accusing me of reading into the situation, yet you're doing the same with my posts.

I never said Notts County did anything wrong. You said they just let him off the hook, with an implication that they were exceptionally generous or lenient towards Campbell. I'm saying I find it hard to believe. After all, it's not in their interests to do so.

They settled out of court and arrangement you aren't privy to. For all you know County could have demanded compensation from Campbell. Heck, County seeking excessive payment may be why Campbell felt the need to sue Portsmouth, did you think of that? We simply don't know.

noodler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

No he was not.

They simply settled the case before it went to court. He did not get away 'scott free', you simply do not know what did happen.

He was allowed to break his contract.

Notts County knew they couldn't force him to stay so did the right thing rather than hold onto his contract just to screw him over.

OhNoYouDidn't

Like it or not, the allegation of money grabbing has followed Sol Campbell from day one. So soon after walking out on Notts County, this simply looks greedy. Fair enough, he appears to have a case. But this money might be the difference between life and death for Pompey and he simply doesn't need it.

While I'm sure he is right in a legal/contractual sense, he looks like a pampered fool talking this case and its very I'll advised.

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

For all you know County could have demanded compensation from Campbell. Heck, County seeking excessive payment may be why Campbell felt the need to sue Portsmouth, did you think of that? We simply don't know.

Did I consider that Notts County took so much money of Sol Campbell that he was forced to sure Pompey for 1.8m?

No, in fairness I did not.

OhNoYouDidn't

noodler wrote: »

He was allowed to break his contract.

Notts County knew they couldn't force him to stay so did the right thing rather than hold onto his contract just to screw him over.

Rubbish. He knew they couldn't afford to bury him in the reserves and leveraged/bullied his way out.

And then sues Pompey.

He is a poster boy for what too much money has done to the English game.

leninbenjamin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

and he simply doesn't need it.

Again, you have no evidence either way towards this end. His earning potential dropped substantially after he left Arsenal. He may have accumulated debts like so many in the wake of the recession, for example. Players playing career's a short, and there's no guarantee of income after he retires. A pension is as important to him as any other individual facing retirement.

I'm not trying to portray Campbell as an angel here who can't do no wrong (God knows he's blown that back at us many times over), but I do feel people are very quick to judge him without taking on board the full facts of the situation. I'd prefer to wait and see how this plays out in court, then it will be clear if he's simply money grabbing or not.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

He was allowed to break his contract.

Notts County knew they couldn't force him to stay so did the right thing rather than hold onto his contract just to screw him over.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Rubbish. He knew they couldn't afford to bury him in the reserves and leveraged/bullied his way out.

And then sues Pompey.

He is a poster boy for what too much money has done to the English game.

Based on what you quoted from me above and then how your responded, what part of it is rubbish exactly?

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Again, you have no evidence either way towards this end. His earning potential dropped substantially after he left Arsenal. He may have accumulated debts like so many in the wake of the recession, for example. Players playing career's a short, and there's no guarantee of income after he retires. A pension is as important to him as any other individual facing retirement.

I'm not trying to portray Campbell as an angel here who can't do no wrong (God knows he's blown that back at us many times over), but I do feel people are very quick to judge him without taking on board the full facts of the situation. I'd prefer to wait and see how this plays out in court, then it will be clear if he's simply money grabbing or not.

You are going off on a tangent there, practtically nobody in this thread disagrees with going after money you are owed. We are on the subject of Notts County alone.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

Did I consider that Notts County took so much money of Sol Campbell that he was forced to sure Pompey for 1.8m?

No, in fairness I did not.

Well, to be blunt, you should have. He was a party in a contract like any other. Anyone in breach of a contract can potentially be liable for substantial financial penalties.

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Well, to be blunt, you should have. He was a party in a contract like any other. Anyone in breach of a contract can potentially be liable for substantial financial penalties.

Oh dear. Try and keep the speculation realistic won't you?

The very idea Campbell gave them that much money and nobody mentioned it anywhere is absurd.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

You are going off on a tangent there, practtically nobody in this thread disagrees with going after money you are owed. We are on the subject of Notts County alone.

Well, you were the one who brought it up in relation to his suing of Portsmouth, since when did the thread become about Notts County alone?

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Nothing wrong with looking for money you are owed.

See?

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Well, you were the one who brought it up in relation to his suing of Portsmouth, since when did the thread become about Notts County alone?

So continually making th point about how he is right to sue anyone who owes him money is pointless - preaching to the choir etc

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

Oh dear. Try and keep the speculation realistic won't you?

How is it absurd to point out a party of a contract has obligations to fulfill regardless of whether the contract is honoured?

noodler

leninbenjamin wrote: »

How is it absurd to point out a party of a contract has obligations to fulfill regardless of whether the contract is honoured?

Nice try.

What you were trying to do was speculate that Campbell may have had to pay a figure os somwhere close to 2m to Notts County. That is what is absurd.

Mitch Connor

Campbel broke his contract with Notts County.

Settled out of court.

Pompey broke their contract with Campbel (apparently)

Has not been settled out of court (and I would doubt there was no attempt to)

In both instances, one party broke a contract and the other looked for recompense.

So, noodler, what exactly is your issue here.

You are bitching that Campbel got away scott free from the notts county issue (he did not) but seem to be advocating that Pompey should do based your ill-conceived notion that Campbel did.

noodler

Mitch Connor wrote: »

You are bitching that Campbel got away scott free from the notts county issue (he did not) but seem to be advocating that Pompey should do based your ill-conceived notion that Campbel did.

Lies.

OhNoYouDidn't

noodler wrote: »

Based on what you quoted from me above and then how your responded, what part of it is rubbish exactly?

You are all over the place.

Campbell welched on his Notts County contract.

He then sues Pompey for welching on his.

While he is probably in the right with Pompey, he looks like a right old hypocrite here.

leninbenjamin

noodler wrote: »

What you were trying to do was speculate that Campbell may have had to pay a figure os somwhere close to 2m to Notts County. That is what is absurd.

He had a 5 year deal with Notts County. He's one of the most familiar faces in football because of his time spent with Arsenal and England, and, as illustrated by the amount he is suing Portsmouth for, his image rights are still worth a substantial amount. It may be an overestimation, but it's not as absurd as you might think.

noodler

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You are all over the place.

Campbell welched on his Notts County contract.

He then sues Pompey for welching on his.

While he is probably in the right with Pompey, he looks like a right old hypocrite here.

?

You are kind of repeating my points there and then telling me I am all over the place?

Is this all because of our disagreement in another thread? Don't do that - it is counterproductive.

Pepe LeFrits

People on the internet already think he's a money grabber. May as well go along with it and go for his £1,700,000.

astrofool

Wasn't the Notts County contract broke off because of broken promises on player signings? and didn't Munto put them up for sale soon after? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/notts_county/8405269.stm

Pompey are circling the drain, no doubt there are a lot of parties owed money by them.

Mitch Connor

noodler wrote: »

Lies.

which parts? Elaborate please?

THe part where I elude to Campbl and Notts County settling out of court (so he did not get away scott free) or the part where I say you seem to want pomepy to get away with their breach of contract?

You can't have it both ways - you either want to see contracts enforced or not. which is it?

OhNoYouDidn't

Mitch Connor wrote: »

You can't have it both ways - you either want to see contracts enforced or not. which is it?

Look back at his posts. He knows nothing and contributes less. All his posts are arguing against people for the sake of it.