Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Gareth Barry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moomin said:
Legally as well, if we have signed and entered into a legal contract we abide by it.
Click to expand...

It's no longer a legal contract if neither City or Everton have rights over him.

Moomin said:
From a personal point of view, a few years back i left my job to join a competitor. Three months garden leave which was boss, but when i started my new job i was not able to speak to certain customers due to a clause in my old companies contract. I was not employed by them anymore, but legally i was not allowed contact to certain customers for a further six months. It happens, them the rules unfortunately.
Click to expand...

You entered that contract. You own your working rights.

Unless Barry entered this contract along with Everton and City (unlikely) then it can't be enforced.

It's not like your old company and your new company had a deal, they couldn't make such a deal. It's not the same thing.

In contract law you can't have a deal if neither of you own the thing.
 
Librarian said:
It's no longer a legal contract if neither City or Everton have rights over him.



You entered that contract. You own your working rights.

Unless Barry entered this contract along with Everton and City (unlikely) then it can't be enforced.

It's not like your old company and your new company had a deal, they couldn't make such a deal. It's not the same thing.

In contract law you can't have a deal if neither of you own the thing.
Click to expand...

Good point actually, I'm pretty sure that loan players still sign a contract though.

This will drag on, City's legal team are smarting from the UEFA FFP. They won't back down, which could make Barry go " Sod this, I'll goto the MLS "
 
Librarian said:
It wouldn't matter what language was used. They either have rights over Barry or they don't.
Click to expand...
The language they use absolutely matters. The contract is between the two clubs. While it's true the clubs cannot bind Barry to the agreement because he's a third party, it's also true that (at least in American law) the clubs could agree to a clause that requires Everton to pay a fee if they sign Barry within a certain time frame, and that time frame could extend even after Barry's old contract expires.

It is entirely dependent upon the language of the contract. Unfortunately contracts are all too often vague and result in two parties signing the same document whilst each party thinks it means something different. In that case, neither party is trying to squirm out from under a deal; there was an error in communication and sloppy contract drafting. When such a situation arises, the rules of contract interpretation govern the agreement. If it's true that lawyers are involved right now, they're probably hashing out how those rules should apply in this case.

It's possible that Everton is trying to pull a fast one, but it's also entirely possible that they aren't. Sloppy contracts are written all the time.
 
Surely the clause meant if we signed him permanently in January we'd have to pay City 1m 2m or 3m or whatever depending on the length of the contract? As a side-note, let's remember Liverpool just plain refused to sell Suarez to Arsenal even though they exceeded the £40m clause by a penny, just cos they wanted to.
 

Moomin said:
Good point actually, I'm pretty sure that loan players still sign a contract though.

This will drag on, City's legal team are smarting from the UEFA FFP. They won't back down, which could make Barry go " Sod this, I'll goto the MLS "
Click to expand...

I reckon Everton will pay some amount, not because they have to but it wouldn't be good reputationally to break an agreement even if it's no longer a legal one. They're bargaining. There's no way City are getting the full amount though.
 
If Barry's contract expired on 1st July then I can't see how City could enforce the fee, of we had tied up the contract before the 1st July, then we would have to pay the fee, but by letting the contract expire, we don't have to pay the fee, but we run the risk of him going elsewhere.

This reminds me a bit of when we had Arteta on loan from Sociadad, we paid £1m to loan him and if we wanted to sign him permenantly we could do for £2.5m, if we bid before the end of July, and no one lease could sign him before then.

We ended up getting him anyway and I don't think anyone else bid....

On the subject of morality in football, I don't think the two mix these days!
People only do what they are contractually obliged to do, nothing more
 

I agree with Everton dragging this out.
Arsenal could sign him for free for 2 years on 70k a week.
We have to pay City 2 million plus GB 60k + a week over 3 years. That is a commitment of over 10million with no resale value, very good player that he is that is alot of money for us.We could potentially sign Besic for example for 4 million on 30k a week who is almost half his age and would potentially increase in value offering us a chance to grow as a team or sell to recuperate funds.

I would love Barry back here but not for the money being touted currently.
 
Darth Toffeeman said:
I agree with Everton dragging this out.
Arsenal could sign him for free for 2 years on 70k a week.
We have to pay City 2 million plus GB 60k + a week over 3 years. That is a commitment of over 10million with no resale value, very good player that he is that is alot of money for us.We could potentially sign Besic for example for 4 million on 30k a week who is almost half his age and would potentially increase in value offering us a chance to grow as a team or sell to recuperate funds.

I would love Barry back here but not for the money being touted currently.
Click to expand...

Excuses ... excuses
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top