2023/24 Dele

[MikeH72]

Without checking these could have

Kevin Campbell 99
Landon Donovan 2010
In 2013/14 Barry or Lukaku
Arteta 2005 Maybe?

Donovan was here for about 2 months, would be hilarious if he won it. I doubt we were that bad.

 

[Sean Ashley]

Donovan was here for about 2 months, would be hilarious if he won it. I doubt we were that bad.

I only included him as he had a noticeable impact on loan. I have checked it was Pienaar who won that year.

 

[MisterJ]

If he's fit, if the manager wants to keep him and if the wages can be agreed, then what is the issue with keeping him?

I grant you that's a lot of ifs, but if the manager, the club(s) and the player are all happy, why wouldn't we as fans be?

 

[Harry Catterick]

I know what you’re saying re the two contracts - they wanted to close a loop hole legal we play him under the appearances threshold for the remainder of his initial contract and then re-sign (extend) and then breach the threshold.

You make out like we are all stupid…we are not.

I was looking for the nuance in the contractual interpretation (and yes this could be looked at as a loophole). Is there no time cut off in the contract when a contract extension ceases to be a contract extension through the passage of time, Given your response which did not directly answer my question but just repeated your previously stated understanding of it ad nauseam it would appear not.

There must some end date to any agreement and as DA’s existing contract expired on 30 June 2024 then it can’t be extended as such?
If say DA signed a one year contact with Roma and was there for a year then surely if we signed him after that then Spurs couldn’t insist on us paying them anything?

 

[Swartzy]

 

[Moomin]

Can't we just reloan him from Spurs like we did with Jack Harrison?

 

[den]

Can't we just reloan him from Spurs like we did with Jack Harrison?

He’s a free agent and was never on loan.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

He’s a free agent and was never on loan.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Can't we just reloan him from Spurs like we did with Jack Harrison?

They were culottes.

 

[Jacko93]

I did say these things yesterday myself. Unfortunately, they weren't prepared to listen

There is a habit in the Everton fanbase to not want to hear things they don't wish to hear. Or not wish to hear bad news. That was going on yesterday on here.

I work in law myself.

Unfortunately, people made the mistake in thinking that Dele Alli's playing contract coming to an end meant that was it. They were wrong. He's a "free agent" to everyone BUT Everton. Due to the transfer agreement, that does not automatically terminate

But what he has explained above is contrary to what you were saying...

It is quite possible that Dele's employment contract is separate to his contract of transfer. If that was the case, then it could be quite possible that we're we to re-sign him, the contract of transfer agreement would remain the same, and we would owe a fee based upon completed games. It would matter if one of two things were in existence. 1, that the actual contracts were separate, and 2. That the contract of transfer was not time or event bound. That means it would effectively sit over Dele for the remainder of his playing career, regardless of current or number of employers in between.

What you argued yesterday was that if we were to offer him.a new contract now, it would be a contract of employment extension, meaning we would still owe money to Spurs. Now your saying that they're both separate contracts anyway, so even if it was a contract extension, it wouldn't make any odds anyway as the pertinent contract hasn't even ended.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.....

 

[Marius57]

But what he has explained above is contrary to what you were saying...

It is quite possible that Dele's employment contract is separate to his contract of transfer. If that was the case, then it could be quite possible that we're we to re-sign him, the contract of transfer agreement would remain the same, and we would owe a fee based upon completed games. It would matter if one of two things were in existence. 1, that the actual contracts were separate, and 2. That the contract of transfer was not time or event bound. That means it would effectively sit over Dele for the remainder of his playing career, regardless of current or number of employers in between.

What you argued yesterday was that if we were to offer him.a new contract now, it would be a contract of employment extension, meaning we would still owe money to Spurs. Now your saying that they're both separate contracts anyway, so even if it was a contract extension, it wouldn't make any odds anyway as the pertinent contract hasn't even ended.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.....

Just wait, you are now going to be told that you are wrong and that he was always right in what he was saying, he just meant it different to what he actually said

 

[kenada_blue]

But what he has explained above is contrary to what you were saying...

It is quite possible that Dele's employment contract is separate to his contract of transfer. If that was the case, then it could be quite possible that we're we to re-sign him, the contract of transfer agreement would remain the same, and we would owe a fee based upon completed games. It would matter if one of two things were in existence. 1, that the actual contracts were separate, and 2. That the contract of transfer was not time or event bound. That means it would effectively sit over Dele for the remainder of his playing career, regardless of current or number of employers in between.

What you argued yesterday was that if we were to offer him.a new contract now, it would be a contract of employment extension, meaning we would still owe money to Spurs. Now your saying that they're both separate contracts anyway, so even if it was a contract extension, it wouldn't make any odds anyway as the pertinent contract hasn't even ended.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.....

He still doubling down on his crazy?

Never change

 

[billypatrick]

He still doubling down on his crazy?

Never change

Doubling down on knowing exactly what was in a contract that he has never seen.

 

[Damo_1878]

lets give him 1 year contract and see could then move on in next window if doesnt work

Who is going to take him from us if it "doesn't work"? We will still have to pay Spurs a fee either immediately or within seven appearances too. Money we won't get back. This is multiple millions of pounds.

But what he has explained above is contrary to what you were saying...

It is quite possible that Dele's employment contract is separate to his contract of transfer. If that was the case, then it could be quite possible that we're we to re-sign him, the contract of transfer agreement would remain the same, and we would owe a fee based upon completed games. It would matter if one of two things were in existence. 1, that the actual contracts were separate, and 2. That the contract of transfer was not time or event bound. That means it would effectively sit over Dele for the remainder of his playing career, regardless of current or number of employers in between.

What you argued yesterday was that if we were to offer him.a new contract now, it would be a contract of employment extension, meaning we would still owe money to Spurs. Now your saying that they're both separate contracts anyway, so even if it was a contract extension, it wouldn't make any odds anyway as the pertinent contract hasn't even ended.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.....

No. I didn't argue that. I said that people thinking he would sign to us as a "free agent" are wrong. That as a player registration perspective it would amount to a contract extension of his last contract.

The new player contract now, would be a new contract extension. A continuance of his previous player contract with us. He's not a "free agent" where Everton are concerned.

Whereas this is irrelevant to the separate transfer agreement contract. This is the contract that matters. That contract does not care about any other contract. As it will have terms that explicitly state it is unaffected by any other third party contract.

This transfer agreement contract is between Spurs and Everton as parties. It only concerns Dele Alli playing for Everton. It either has no expiry or more likely an expiry beyond Alli's retirement.

It doesn't impact Dele Alli playing for any other club, so people thinking it can be challenged based on a restriction of his ability to work are grossly mistaken. Everton are bound by a commercial contract between two parties : Spurs and Everton, relating to Dele Alli playing for Everton.

This third party contract exclusion also destroys any idea of Roma signing him then loaning him to Everton. That amounts to another third party contract by loan agreement. If Everton go signing new contracts deliberately trying to breach previous contracts, they will get into unnecessary trouble

Everton could get sued and/or into further trouble with Premier League over these sorts of ideas people are suggesting. Both as a related parties transaction and breaching contracts.

 

[Damo_1878]

Just wait, you are now going to be told that you are wrong and that he was always right in what he was saying, he just meant it different to what he actually said

You guys are the ones trying to perform mental gymnastics to try and sign him

I'm saying his original transfer agreement precludes this. It's too expensive. Too much of a risk to Everton Football Club and he needs to be let go

Everton would have to pay millions to Spurs and unless they waive those fees there is no chance to sign him for free (why would they allow that to potentially strengthen a competitor for Europe without a benefit to them?)

He needs letting go

For Everton Football Club's sake

Also I see some on here + in the fanbase engaging in delusional over sentimentality in there thinking here. We're a business and we need to look after the business.