Jon Obi Mike....Man U or Chelsea

SteM

Emmo wrote:

Just as I thought, the kid will say he was unduely influenced by the club.

What age is he by the way?

If he is under 18 there are even more severe restrictions on the contracts he can make.

Emmo

Influenced by what club? He's 18 IIRC.

Emmo

That doesnt matter, you can be unduely influendced at any age at any time.

The reason why both parties in contracts have their own legal advise is to avoid complications and accusations like this.

If the lad can prove he was pressured into signing a contract without consulting his agent then he has a huge case.

Im not claiming Man United have done anything wrong. I think Lyn might have been the bold ones here.

Emmo

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

Take off those old blinkers JT. UNited did everything above board and by the book according to his club. The player has signed a contract with United so he must also have favoured United. Where did he say he was forced to sign for United?

Im not saying United are in the wrong, Im just waiting until I see the full picture before I come out all guns blazing for CFC, like all United fans are currently doing.

According to his club means nothing. They were displeased with how CFC persued the signature (youth manager on the phone all the time etc). They have an issue with Chelsea, which they have stated themselves, for this reason their view is hardly impartial.

The player on the other hand, as has been linked by Growler, said that he was FORCED to sign for United. That is not "above board and by the book".

However I said and will continue to wait until more conclusive information and proof is provided. It is far too messy a situation to claim that any party is sqeaky clean at this stage.

SteM

Jivin Turkey wrote:

The player on the other hand, as has been linked by Growler, said that he was FORCED to sign for United. That is not "above board and by the book".

Hold on now, he didn't say who forced him to sign. There could have been pressure on him by his club and United could still have done still have done things by the books as The Muppet said...

UNited did everything above board and by the book

You're right, it is a very messy situation.

Emmo

A contract by uts very nature consists of 3 things as I said above.

1 Offer
2 Acceptence
3 Consideration

Every contract has to have all 3 things, to offer and accept is to say that both parties are in agreement or that there has been a "meeting of the minds" where both parties have independantly come to a decision on the other parties position.

If a contract is obtained by undue influence, the document is invalid; as contract law theory sees it, no contract has been formed.

Within the conceptual framework of contract law, no contract can be formed unless there has been a "meeting of the minds" of independent, bargaining individuals.

If a contract is obtained through the use of undue influence, there has never been an actual meeting of the minds of two bargaining parties.

Therefore no contract, in this case I imagine what will be said is that the club advised him on his decision via the sporting director who may have had undue influence over the player due to their mentor / pupil relationship.

That fact that the club was also involved in the deal would render this contract voidable and mean that the lad was not actually contracted to United.

Jivin Turkey

growler wrote:

"I did something I did not want to do. Because of the pressure from Mr Morgan (Andersen, Lyn's sporting director) and a representative of United it became too much.

From the horses mouth.

He could be lying I dont know, Ill wait. But to be honest if I were a United fan I probably wouldnt want him signing now anyway.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

The player on the other hand, as has been linked by Growler, said that he was FORCED to sign for United. That is not "above board and by the book".

You said he was forced to sign fro United as well. Have you a source for that claim apart from another user of this forum.

There is a difference between pressuring someone to sign a contract and forcing someone to do it. I would imagine that players that are in demand from rival clubs are alwways pressured to sign contacts as soon as possible after they reach agreement.

Emmo

Muppet leagally there is very little difference between forcing and pressurising someone into signing a contract.

Emmo

growler

interesting twist to this reported in the Evening Standard, apparently Chelsea had a deal with Lyn to pay 400,000 a year to the club to cover the training costs of 4 young Nigerians who had come over from an academy in Lagos, this was done on the basis that Chelsea would have first refusal on any of the players when the reached professional standards. This was all written into a contract with Lyn in Nov 2004. The contract stated that Lyn could not sign the players permanently nor sell them without the permission of Chelsea.

Morgan Andersen the Lyn Oslo director is also an agent.

Oki first met Man Utd in Jan 2003.... perhaps Kenyon had a bit of additional knowledge regarding the contractual obligations involved ?

MrJoeSoap

growler wrote:

interesting twist to this reported in the Evening Standard, apparently Chelsea had a deal with Lyn to pay 400,000 a year to the club to cover the training costs of 4 young Nigerians who had come over from an academy in Lagos, this was done on the basis that Chelsea would have first refusal on any of the players when the reached professional standards. This was all written into a contract with Lyn in Nov 2004. The contract stated that Lyn could not sign the players permanently nor sell them without the permission of Chelsea.

Morgan Andersen the Lyn Oslo director is also an agent.

Oki first met Man Utd in Jan 2003.... perhaps Kenyon had a bit of additional knowledge regarding the contractual obligations involved ?

The plot thickens... Does anyone know if he is actually worth all this hassle?

The Muppet

Emmo wrote:

Muppet leagally there is very little difference between forcing and pressurising someone into signing a contract.

Emmo

Could you explain the difference for me?

To force someone to do something suggests wrong doing, to pessure them to does not.

Emmo

No in both situations the implication is that the parties did not reach an agreement on their own.

Feeling pressurised into doing something implies a malice or intention behind something where are being forced to do something has the implications of someone holding a gun to your head (maybe literally!).

Forcing someone (via duress or force of threat) is a lot easier to prove than pressurise (ala timeshare salesmen who wont let you leave till you sign) but they are both causes of contracts being redered voidable, IE the party that claims to have been unduly influenced can back out if they want.

Then again one persons use of language is very different to anothers, thats why without knowing the details I guessed that the kid would argue undue influence. His agents has most likely told him to say this.

If they can prove that he signed a contract without consulting his agent and having him review it while the Lyn club's representitives even once told him it was a good deal then the court would find in his favour.

My take on the whole thing. He signed fair and square, he was happy. Agent got told of a better offer from Chelsea and then saw a loophole. Kid wants big cash so goes along with the whole thing.

This whole thing stinks which im sorry to say so does a lot of dealings with young west African players.

The agents they have are generally steps up from the Lagos conmen you see doing to rounds via emails.

Emmo

The Muppet

Thank you . Would I be right in thinking that forcing someone to do something would be a criminal offence where as pressurising the to do it would not?

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

You said he was forced to sign fro United as well. Have you a source for that claim apart from another user of this forum.

There is a difference between pressuring someone to sign a contract and forcing someone to do it. I would imagine that players that are in demand from rival clubs are alwways pressured to sign contacts as soon as possible after they reach agreement.

"I did something I did not want to do. Because of the pressure from Mr Morgan (Andersen, Lyn's sporting director) and a representative of United it became too much."

That indicates he was forced. He was put under so much pressure that he did something he did not want to do. I fully agree that there is a difference between pressure and force, and that a lot of clubs would pressure potential targets to sign, but you are seeing what you want to see in the above quote if you think that it just constitutes pressure, particularly considering the age of the player.

As for other sources, apart from another user. Growler linked this source which I assumed would be enough. But for the record, here is another.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

"I did something I did not want to do. Because of the pressure from Mr Morgan (Andersen, Lyn's sporting director) and a representative of United it became too much."

That indicates he was forced. He was put under so much pressure that he did something he did not want to do.

What it indicates is that the guy signed a contract in haste without giving it due consideration. Considering his age that's not really surprising . Nowhere has he said he was "forced" to sign it so why did you change what he actually said?

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I fully agree that there is a difference between pressure and force, and that a lot of clubs would pressure potential targets to sign, but you are seeing what you want to see in the above quote if you think that it just constitutes pressure, particularly considering the age of the player.

What I am seeing is what the guy actually said, nowhere have i seen him use teh word Forced. Have you a link to him saying that? If he was Forced to sign I,m sure he would have said that as if that were true it would void his United contract.

PHB

Queiroz just joined in

Carlos Queiroz has accused Chelsea of virtually kidnapping Manchester United signing John Obi Mikel.
The United number two is furious that the Lyn midfielder is in London and, despite the teenager's denials, is presumably in talks with the Premiership champions.
Mikel told Sky Sports News that he no longer wants to go to Old Trafford despite initially enthusing about the prospect of playing for The Red Devils.
"It is unacceptable that a boy of 18 can almost be kidnapped from his home environment and taken to London and, within one day, be talking on television with an unhappy face," protested Queiroz.
"Football cannot live in such an anarchic environment. We do not know who is behind John's movements and who is taking responsibility for everything that happened yesterday.
"Two weeks ago, everybody could feel the boy had just made the best decision of his professional life. Now he is saying he signed the agreement under pressure.
"Everybody understands something happened in between. This is not an original situation, it has happened to other players."
United insist they have signed documents regarding the capture of one of the most promising young players on the planet and launched an appeal to the Premier League over the matter on Friday morning.
Lyn director Morgan Andersen says he is not upset with Mikel's actions because he believes the youngster is being pushed into trying to manoeuvre a move to Stamford Bridge.
"I don't think John went to England willingly," Andersen told VG.
"We are not upset with him.
"I don't dare go to London. Right now, it is dangerous to be there."

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

What it indicates is that the guy signed a contract in haste without giving it due consideration. Considering his age that's not really surprising . Nowhere has he said he was "forced" to sign it so why did you change what he actually said?

What I am seeing is what the guy actually said, nowhere have i seen him use teh word Forced. Have you a link to him saying that? If he was Forced to sign I,m sure he would have said that as if that were true it would void his United contract.

You are being pedantic. So I will respond in kind. I fully accept he never used the word "forced" but a quick look at the dictionary shows:

tr.v. forced, forc·ing, forc·es
To compel through pressure or necessity

He "did something" he "did not want to do", "Because of the pressure it became to much". Maybe I need an English lesson but it appears to me that he was compelled to do something through pressure. I was simply showing off my knowledge of the English language by shortening that to "forced".

Im not accusing United of anything here. What I am saying is that people should wait before they paint them as white knights. Neither United nor Chelsea have an unblemished history when it comes to player transfers or allegations.

Emmo

Well it all depends on on your use of the language.

If someone holds a gun to my head or says they will kill my family I could said to be forced, pressurised, coerced, influenced, manipulated. The basic fact is that behind the words the are used to descibe them the act is criminal.

The same words could be used in the instance where a investor buys up all the supply of something and then sells it for a bigger price than normal. He has forced people to buy the product at his price because they cannot get it else where. This is not illegal.

In my opinion clubs pressurise players into deals all the time. Sign or we will get someone else. Thats why clubs are generally linked with 2 or 3 players for one position. Players pressurise clubs by getting offers from else where, this is all part of the bargaining position. It happens with every contract.

The issue only arises when someone arrives to sign a deal and the way in which one of the offereror or the acceptee arrive at a consensus is achieved in other the equitable ways.The main basis a contract situation like this will be voided is around the area of consent

Emmo

Emmo

Nice piece on the whole thing of contracts and influence.

---

As noted above, a contract involves a "meeting of the minds". For this, all parties must be capable of consent.

It is a common feature of corporation legislation to give companies the ability to contract, as long as their contracts are within the scope of their stated purpose. To get around this, many companies make sure their incorporation documents are very generally worded so as to prevent any restriction on their ability to contract.

With mentally-challenged persons, the contract may be void or voidable at the minor's or mentally-challenged person's option. With children, contracts can be voided at their request if they are not beneficial to the child. One exception exists and that is a contract for necessaries of life. The rule was stated in a 1925 case, Miller v. Smith & Co., in which the judge said an " infant may bind himself to pay for his necessary meat, drink, clothing, medicines and likewise for his teaching or instruction." Remember also that if a minor ratifies a contract upon reaching the age of majority, he or she is then bound to it.

The situation is different with regards to a person judicially declared to be mentally incompetent. Here, the contract is voidable at the option of the incompetent person if the other party knew about the mental incompetency or ought to have known under the circumstances. Again, an exception is made for contracts for the delivery of necessaries of life for which even a mentally incompetent person would be liable.

A totally drunk person also lacks the ability to consent to a contract and has the option of voiding a contract signed while intoxicated, providing it is done at the earliest opportunity upon sobriety.

"Capacity to buy and sell is regulated by the general law concerning capacity to contract, and to transfer and acquire property; except that where necessaries are sold and delivered to a person who by reason of mental incapacity or drunkenness is incompetent to contract, he must pay a reasonable price for them. Necessaries ... means goods suitable to the condition in life of the person, and to his actual requirements at the time of the sale and delivery." {section 7 of B.C.'s Sale of Goods Act.}
A contract accepted under threat of physical, mental or economic harm, may be voided by the party so threatened. Acceptance must be freely given. The same is true for contracts entered into between persons in a relationship of power imbalance. The law calls this "undue influence" and it will be presumed in some cases such as parent-child, trustee-beneficiary or doctor-patient contracts. The case law offers two varieties of undue influence. Duress is a common law doctrine and, technically, includes the element of compulsion. Contracts executed under duress are voidable. Undue influence per se is an equity remedy and involves the "unconscientious use by one person of power possessed by him over another in order to induce the other to enter a contract. Duress falling short of the common law requirements may also constitute undue influence in equity (Brooks v. Alker 1975 DLR 577).

Gordon v. Roebuck (1992) It was suggested that a contract between lawyers be set aside on the grounds of economic duress. The court assessed the facts based on the four tests first put forward in the Pao On v. Lau Yiu case (also summarized in From The Case Books, page 3 of the Canadian Contract Law Centre). Did the party claiming economic duress protest? Was there an alternative course open to him? Was he independently advised? After entering the contract, did he take steps to avoid it? The judge concluded that there was economic duress but then went on to say that "the appellant, in claiming unjustifiable economic duress, had the onus of proving that (the defendant) was not entitled to the amounts required under the impugned agreement." This was a matter of evidence and the onus having not been satisfied, "the agreement was not one which could be set aside as one executed under unjustifiable economic duress."

Another category of contract situations where consent seems to be fatally affected are what the law calls "unconscionable" contracts. This is a slippery area of the law which suffers from a lack of judicial unanimity. In essence, the theory is that the court will rescind contracts which are totally unfair and, while just short of being fraudulent, are considered "unconscionable." Although legal academics try to do so, it is difficult to intellectually differentiate this from the theory of undue influence discussed above because, in both cases, it deals with a power relationship imbalance and the taking advantage of this imbalance. Also, opening up the flood-gates of judicial review of contracts on the grounds of "unconscionability" could result in a plethora of contracts being brought to court as every person who had improperly negotiated a contract would seek judicial relief. Luckily, many provinces of Canada have enacted consumer protection legislation which allows the cancellation of consumer contracts within a certain time. This legislation was designed to cover most of the situations that the contract common law claim of "unconscionability" might have alleviated.

Morrison v. Coast Finance Ltd. (1965) A 79-year old widow was induced into mortgaging her home to allow two men to buy cars. "Undue influence attacks the sufficiency of consent ... that a bargain is unconscionable invokes relief against an unfair advantage gained by an unconscientious use of power by a stronger party against the weaker. On such a claim, the material ingredients are proof of inequality in the position of the parties arising out of the ignorance, need or distress of the weaker which left him in the power of the stronger, and proof of substantial unfairness of the bargain obtained by the stronger. On proof of these circumstances, it creates a presumption of fraud which the stronger must repel by proving that the bargain was fair, just and reasonable." The court held the finance company responsible because they "undertook the preparation of the documents" and took "advantage of her obvious ignorance and inexperience to further their respective business" raising a presumption of fraud. The mortgage was set aside.
Marshall v. Canadian Permanent Trust Company (1968) According to doctors, John Walsh was "definitely not capable of transacting business" having just suffered a stroke. This did not stop Marshall from seeking and obtaining his signature on an offer to purchase Walsh's land. Two months later, Walsh's affairs were formally turned over to the administration of Canadian Permanent Trust, appointed under provincial mentally incapacitated persons legislation. The trust company refused to close the deal arguing that it was unconscionable. The court said there were two criteria to be met: "(1) that Walsh was incapable of protecting his interests; (2) that it was an improvident transaction for Walsh. With respect to (1), it is not material whether Marshall was aware of Walsh's incapacity. With respect to (2), the onus rests with the plaintiff (Marshall) to show that the price given for the land corresponded to its fair value." The plaintiff succeeded on both accounts and the contract was rescinded.
Lloyds Bank v. Bundy (1975) In this British case, an old farmer mortgaged his farm to the hilt to help out his son and soon enough, the bank moved in to foreclose. The court acknowledged that "in the vast majority of cases a customer who signs a bank guarantee or a charge cannot get out of it. There are many hard cases which are caught by this rule.... Yet there are exceptions.... where the parties have not met on equal terms." The court went on to mention that cases of duress of goods are voidable; when a party is taken advantage of because of a desperate need of the goods. And then there was the "unconscionable transaction ... when a man comes into property - and then being in urgent need - another gives him ready cash for it, greatly below its true value.... Even though there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, nevertheless the transaction will be set aside." The third category is undue influence where a relationship gives some advantage. Then there are the cases of undue pressure and the salvage agreements (the latter when a vessel is in danger of sinking .. and the rescuer takes advantage of his position). The court suggested that all these instances "run on a single thread: inequality of bargaining power" and that "undue" does not mean wrongdoing nor "that every transaction will be saved by independent advice but the absence of it may be fatal." The court then concluded that the bank had a relationship of confidence with the farmer, a conflict of interest and by failing to suggest that he seek independent advice, the court disallowed the foreclosure action.
Harry v. Kreutziger (1978) A fishing boat was sold in a high pressured bid by the defendant. When "a claim is made that a bargain is unconscionable, it must be shown for success that there was inequality in the position of the parties due to ignorance, need or distress of the weaker, which would leave him in the power of the stronger, coupled with proof of substantial unfairness in the bargain. When this has been shown, a presumption of fraud is raised, and the stronger must show, in order to preserve his bargain, that it was fair and reasonable." The court then proceeded to rescind the contract because the "appellant was so dominated and overborne by the respondent that he was ... within the power of the respondent in these dealings." Another judge hearing the case agreed but for slightly different reasons, invoking "community standards of commercial morality." Both principles prosper in Canadian case law.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

You are being pedantic. So I will respond in kind. I fully accept he never used the word "forced" but a quick look at the dictionary shows:

tr.v. forced, forc·ing, forc·es
To compel through pressure or necessity

He "did something" he "did not want to do", "Because of the pressure it became to much". Maybe I need an English lesson but it appears to me that he was compelled to do something through pressure. I was simply showing off my knowledge of the English language by shortening that to "forced".

Im not accusing United of anything here. What I am saying is that people should wait before they paint them as white knights. Neither United nor Chelsea have an unblemished history when it comes to player transfers or allegations.

I'm not being Pedantic. I am going by what the guy actually said and not your interpretation of what he said. I can understand any club pressuring him to sign the contract once he had agreed to join them. It a completly different matter to say they forced him to sign it. Can you not see the difference?

thejollyrodger

player doesn't want to play for united, must be mafia involvement

hahaha : )

seriously though, wont obi not want to play for the best club ?

Its all swings and round abouts.. The Man Utd were pinching players who were about to sign for lesser teams in the past..

I can see this One Obi fella going to the Chelski tbh

PHB

Agent Rune Hauge has waded into the row over John Obi Mikel's controversial move to Manchester United by claiming the transfer is illegal.

Hauge, who is best known for being involved in the transfer 'bung' scandal with George Graham, insists he had a legally-binding agreement with Mikel's former club Lyn which meant he needed to be consulted before any deal could be completed.

Chelsea are known to be furious that United pushed through a deal for a player they thought they had already captured, and the Nigerian youngster only added fuel to the fire on Friday by claiming he was coerced into a move to Old Trafford.

Now Hauge claims that the matter could end up in court because of the agreement he had in place with Lyn.

"My company has an agreement with Lyn whereby the club are not allowed to sell Mikel without my knowledge," Hauge stated.

"There has to be consultation before anything can be done, but there was not any over the deal that Morgan Andersen (Lyn's sporting director) claims to have done with United.

"I don't know what will happen now, but it is possible that it could become a legal matter.

"In my view, we have a watertight case.

"The problem is entirely Lyn's, they have stepped out of line.

"I'm sorry if this has called any upset for United. That is unfortunate but perhaps understandable because I think that they simply did not know about my agreement with Lyn."

Agent and Lyn problems happening.
My one question is, why go to London?

Big Ears

PHB wrote:

Agent and Lyn problems happening.
My one question is, why go to London?

fairly simple , to look for a deal with either Chelsea or Arsenal , almost certainly Chelsea though .

PHB

Yeh exactly, but he can't appear to have looked for a deal with CHelsea or Arsenal right?
Since he doesn't have permission to talk to them.
It makes no sense to me, just raises suspicions about tapping up which wouldn't be the best thing to happen to Chelsea right now.
If he didn't go to London, there could be no suggestion of that.
Seems silly to me

The Muppet

Rune Hauge.


Enough said.

PHB

Lyn have slammed suggestions from agent Rune Hauge that he has a legal right to challenge the sale of John Obi Mikel.

The situation around Mikel's transfer to England has quickly become a media circus, with Manchester United believing they had snapped up the Nigerian, but then shocked when the player appeared on Sky Sports News suggesting that he has not wanted to sign.

Chelsea are now apparently in pole position to sign the talented teen, but Hauge - mired in infamy for his part in the George Graham bung scandal - had thrown a further spanner in the works by suggesting he was legally entitled to be included in any negotiations.

However, Lyn lawyer Erik Nadheim insisted any binding contract with Hauge ended when Mikel turned 18 last month, and questioned the validity of the claims.

"First of all Profile Sports (Hauge's company) claim to have a right in this deal they can't have," said Nadheim.

"It is not companies, but clubs who get juridical rights to players during the contract period.

"When Lyn were negotiating the Mikel transfer with Chelsea it was accepted that Profile Sports did not need to be involved.

"Obviously the same applies for the deal with Manchester United."

Meanwhile, Lyn director Morgan Anderson continues to insist that the Manchester United deal is legal and binding - but did open the door to negotiations with Chelsea if things fell through.

"We will negotiate with Chelsea in case he goes there," said Anderson.

"It is us who have the right to the player.

"There are no doubts that we own the player.

"John Obi Mikel said that he has signed no deal with any club and asked that the club to start negotiations with Manchester United."

So confusing
How is it that they own the player if he has signed for Man Utd?

The Muppet

PHB wrote:

So confusing
How is it that they own the player if he has signed for Man Utd?

"John Obi Mikel said that he has signed no deal with any club and asked that the club to start negotiations with Manchester United."

And what's that last line about?

LegacyUser

**** him at this stage. He is going to think he is like a God now before he has even kicked a ball for either club!

The Muppet

The Nigerian FA are getting involved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/4551413.stm

20 Times 20 Times

the problem is peter kenyon , he left man united with the clubs long term plans on dos .. he knew where that club wanted in the next few years and what players and goals they had in mind

Gileadi

judging from some of the preformances this year united fergie didnt look like he knew where they were going then let alone in the future,isnt fergie meant to be quite a private character so would probably only would have mentioned names of the immediate players he was intrested in and to the transfer funds in the future so as time goes by since kenyon crossed that bridge (harhar!) the info is less and less accurate

other clubs are often intrested in the same players and this is obviously not based on any inside info so why could chelseas case not be the same


btw i would want some proof,other than hearsay or something from the daily mirror to believe otherwise

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

johnor

I think Mikel's agent is very dodge too aint he...he was the one involved in the george graham cash scandal...

PHB

Kenyon hasn't done anything wrong.
He had huge huge files on all the scouting networks from all over Europe that United had and still have in place.
He was hired for Chelsea not only because of this, but because of his building up of the United brand name.

PHB

Lyn Oslo kit manager Tom Erik Jorgensen has offered his opinion on the John Obi Mikel transfer row.

Jorgensen, like agent Dan Fletcher, claims the Nigerian midfielder is happy to join Manchester United but is being pushed into heading for Chelsea.

Even though Mikel has appeared on Sky Sports News stressing he is no longer keen on a move to Old Trafford, soon after arriving in London to stay at a hotel in the English capital, Jorgensen has indicated that this is not the player's true opinion.

"I stayed at the hotel with him," Jorgensen told TV2 Sport.

"He came and told me that he had talked to [agent] John ****tu on the phone and that people in the background had threatened his life.

"He was happy for the transfer to United. He said that they were good at developing talent and, therefore, it could be better to join them.

"He was relaxed the days after the transfer.

"Therefore, it feels comical for me to hear what he has said on the television."

The transfer saga shows no signs of being settled with United and Chelsea fighting out for the services of the hugely promising African.

United have appealed to the authorities over the matter as they already have a signed document from the player and Lyn and believe they have beaten Chelsea to the capture of the midfield prodigy.

Seems to be looking better for United, hopefully.


As more and more time goes on, I'm beginning to think that neither Man Utd, CHelsea or Lyn have done anything wrong, and it is simply down to the agents

Emmo

Thats what I said days ago.

Was asking my mate who is an agent in London and he told me a very funny story about the whole thing.

There are 16 agents who each claim to represent the kid or some party involved due to sell on clauses and earlier agreements. At one stage he was partially owned by himself, his father and two agents.

None of the agreements the kid signed before he was 18 apply any more due to Fifa legislation so they where all risking their arm by claiming some part of the contract. The ****tu will settle quite quickly now because really there are only 5 main parties involved

Lyn
Obi-Wan
United
Chelsea
Agent with legal contract

And 3 of them are in agreement on the whole thing. I think that Obi might bin his agent and get a new one.

The kid has attracted so many Cling'ons that he doesnt know what to do.

My mate thinks he will eventually sign for United but on better terms than the orginal contract and may be loaned for while.

Emmo

~Rebel~

Emmo wrote:

Thats what I said days ago.

Was asking my mate who is an agent in London and he told me a very funny story about the whole thing.

There are 16 agents who each claim to represent the kid or some party involved due to sell on clauses and earlier agreements. At one stage he was partially owned by himself, his father and two agents.

None of the agreements the kid signed before he was 18 apply any more due to Fifa legislation so they where all risking their arm by claiming some part of the contract. The ****tu will settle quite quickly now because really there are only 5 main parties involved

Lyn
Obi-Wan
United
Chelsea
Agent with legal contract

And 3 of them are in agreement on the whole thing. I think that Obi might bin his agent and get a new one.

The kid has attracted so many Cling'ons that he doesnt know what to do.

My mate thinks he will eventually sign for United but on better terms than the orginal contract and may be loaned for while.

Emmo

Christ with all these starwars characters and klingons this is turning into a sci-fi thread!!

Emmo

guess you know im a sci-fi nerd at heart.

Emmo

TheMonster

Good summary in MEN
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/sport/football/manchesterunited/s/161/161939_mikel_transfer_creates_a_riddle.html

Mikel transfer creates a riddle
Paul Hince

CHELSEA face the most severe sanctions ever imposed on a football club if FIFA investigators find that anyone representing the Premiership champions attempted to persuade John Obi Mikel to turn his back on Manchester United.

The bizarre transfer saga involving the Nigerian wonderkid, which has led to the full-scale probe by football's world governing body, began on April 29 - one week after Obi's 18th birthday. That was the day the midfielder agreed to move to Old Trafford on a four-year contract.

A day earlier, the Reds had negotiated a transfer fee with Obi's Norwegian club FC Lyn Oslo, which was widely reported at 10 million euros.

As part of that deal, the two clubs agreed that Obi would continue to develop his fledgling professional career at Lyn Oslo before moving to Manchester permanently at a later stage once his work-permit qualifications had been met.

On May 11, the youngster described by the Lyn coach Henning Berg as "better than Steven Gerrard at the same age" was accompanied to a cup tie between Lyn and Klemetstrud by the agent John ****tu, who had previously arranged for Obi to train at Chelsea through his Sports Entertainment and Media Group plc.

When the highly-rated teenage midfielder was approached by reporters after that cup tie, he said that he no longer wanted to move to Old Trafford. He claimed that he had been "coerced" into signing his pre-contract document with the Reds - and that he now wished to join Chelsea.

His father, Mikel senior, also said that his son had made a mistake in agreeing to join the United and he now wanted his son to pursue a career in England at Stamford Bridge.

On May 12, Obi failed to report for training with his Norwegian club. The following day, United reported Chelsea to the Premier League, asking the body to investigate whether Chelsea had played a part in the youngster's sudden change of heart.

London

Five days later, Obi and three other young Lyn players were in London in the company of the agent ****tu.

Within 24 hours, both United and Lyn Oslo had lodged an official complaint with FIFA. On May 21, Obi failed to report at the Flying Eagles camp in Holland for the Terborg Tournament.



Nothing was seen or heard of him until he reported for duty with the Nigerian Under-21 team earlier this week. He has not contacted any official at Old Trafford to confirm that he intends to honour the agreement he signed with the Reds.

However, fresh evidence has now emerged that an inquiry needs to be carried out into why Obi, who had signed a pre-contract document, had an apparent change of heart about moving to United within 12 days.

Whether Obi was "persuaded" to change his mind about his pending move to Old Trafford is part of the inquiry.

Threats

Norwegian newspapers reported on May 10 that the player had received death threats and had gone into hiding at a secluded hotel near Oslo.

M.E.N. Sport has obtained a transcript of an interview Obi gave to Nigerian reporters Samm Audu and Colin Udoh only two days after he agreed his four-year contract with United. The interview was subsequently printed in the football magazine Kick Off.

And in that interview, the sought-after youngster made it clear that he was delighted to be joining United. "I am really happy to get a chance to play for a big club like United," he said. "My family and I thank God for everything. It is a dream come true for a kid like me who has always loved football.

"Hopefully I should be with United by January next year, because I have not played the required 75 per cent of Nigeria's international games in the last two years.

"United are a very big club and I like everything about them. I have been to the club twice, once before the 2003 FIFA Under-17 tournament in Finland and then again after the competition. I found the players to be very friendly.

"My favourite shirt number is 10 but, at Old Trafford, Ruud van Nistelrooy has that number.

"I would have also loved the number 20 but that belongs to Ole Gunnar Solskjaer so I've had to settle for 21. I hope it brings me luck.

"I don't have a contract with Chelsea. I only trained with them for two or three weeks. I am happy with the way the transfer was handled, although I know that Chelsea will not be happy. But both United and Chelsea are big clubs and will therefore find a way to solve whatever differences they may have.

"Chelsea are a big club with big money and they've just won the title. Any player would love to play for them but, all the same, I am happy with my deal with Manchester United."

United's chief executive David Gill admits to being baffled and disappointed by Obi's dramatic U-turn on his "dream" move to Old Trafford.

"We have been monitoring Obi's career since we saw him playing in the Nigerian Under-17 side in 2003," he said. "When he signed his agreement with us he was all smiles. He looked really pleased to be joining us.

"Everything about his transfer was done legally and in accordance with FIFA rules. We did everything strictly by the book. We dealt with his club first, settled on the fee, and then we talked to the player.

"The situation is very clear. He is still contracted to Lyn Oslo and no other club can approach Obi without his club's permission."

Because of the international aspect, the English Premier League have passed over United's request for an investigation to FIFA, who must now decide whether Chelsea had any influence over Obi's change of heart.

Although the talented young midfielder appended his signature to a pre-contract document rather than a contract itself, the agreement he made with United is legally binding. Obi has no option now but to report for duty at Old Trafford when he is cleared to work in this country.

Having already received the first instalment of the player's transfer fee from the Reds, FC Lyn Oslo cannot give permission to any other club to speak to Obi with a view to signing him.

After their highly-publicised and costly breaches of football regulations last season, Chelsea will be only too aware that if they are deemed by FIFA to have made an illegal approach to Obi, they will almost certainly start the defence of their Premiership title in August with a massive points deduction as well as a fine of such proportions that it would make a dent in Roman Abramovich's bank balance

andyman

Havent heard about that story in a while Thanks for that

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

PHB

John Obi Mikel has pleaded with FIFA to cancel the contract he signed with Manchester United so he can join Chelsea instead.

The Nigerian youngster's future is currently under investigation by FIFA's player status department after he walked on Norwegian club FC Lyn, saying they'd sold him to United against his wishes.But he told The Daily Mail that he had been training with Chelsea since the Claudio Ranieri era and considered himself their player.

He also added that for the past two years Chelsea paid his expenses and helped support his family.

He said: "Everything is with FIFA now. I just want them to take decisions for me."

The situation is just totally confusing, I have no idea what the hell is going on.
I just hope that FIFA rule our way, 2 weeks in Carrington and he'll love United

---

That said, this wasn't covered at all in Norway, and they are pretty up to date, so it could just be made up.

wheres me jumpa

has anybody seen this guy? is he worth the hassle?

Pepe LeFrits

Apparently he was runner-up for player of the tournament at the U-18(?) World Cup when Fabregas got the award. So he's probably pretty handy, i'd imagine.

wheres me jumpa

well no doubting he must be handy. but then again they said that about djemba djemba!

PHB

Double D was very good in France, I Saw him play and was quite enthused about him joining. He just didn't hit it off at United, still think he is an amazing buy for Villa

wheres me jumpa

i thought he would do it for villa as well, but from what i saw of him there, imo he just doesnt have it in him to make a top premiership team.

RVN10

ok but united payed money for him didnt they, was his agent holding a gun to his or something because i wouldnt sign a contract under those cirumstances like.

Pepe LeFrits

Read in the Times today that the fee United are paying for Mikel is £6.75m!?! (750k up front, the rest over time). That ain't no small change, and I can't see them giving him up without a serious fight.

scuba steve

Anyone know the latest on this transfer?