Kyle Naughton

[atrottel]

lordyefc, don't worry, I would have given you more rep for your heroic efforts in this thread if I could have...

 

[davek]

Davek is mocking me for providing a link, and he also mocked me for using legal language. Could somebody please suggest a way of showing what the law says that doesn't involve either quoting the law or providing a link?

Apparently providing a link was a mistake. Rather than provide evidence, it's better to say I reckon I reckon I reckon, right? Evidence is overrated, wild speculation is where logic is at now. "I reckon this is like gazumping. Prove me wrong, without quoting either the law or providing a link."

The ability of some people on this board to follow an argument is pretty funny to be honest. I say that if the player wants to sign for Everton, he can do, if he waits it out. I also say he can sign for Spurs at any point. The player signs for Spurs. Everybody concludes that oral contracts aren't binding.

It kind of reminds me of Creationists, who believe the Earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a myth. Essentially their tactic is to ask scientists more and more questions, until inevitably the scientist reaches a stage where he can't 100% prove an answer. The creationist then concludes in the absence of proof that the creationism must be true as science can't provide all the answers. The burdon of proof lies totally with science, in their view.

I'm in a bad mood because we lost out on a player who looked decent, so sorry for the rant, but seriously some people need to learn how logic works.

But here's the thing, m'lud, it was about as obvious as the most obvous thing that's ever been that Sheff Utd were on firm ground should the likeliest event have occurred: the player's own freedom to choose was used to force a Dutch auction situation where they benefitted. I think that was Neb's point also. This lot have been to hell and back in the courts of late fighting like crazy to get their pound of flesh from a club that ****ed them over as a result of a doddgy transfer. I know they're not related, but It'd have perhaps been amazing if they'd left themselves open to such an attack themselves. In your own words it was a conditional acceptance only. All the legal stuff that's infested this thread concerning Everton's "comeback" was an absurd detour in this particular transfer saga.

 

[Andy Martin]

Both players will regret this move.

Back to the Championship in three years time.

 

[ChicagoToffee]

So, time to close thread?

It's not that Everton lost Naughton, it's that Everton got outplayed by Spurs. That's what bites. Good riddance to both and on to the next rumor.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

So, time to close thread?

It's not that Everton lost Naughton, it's that Everton got outplayed by Spurs. That's what bites. Good riddance to both and on to the next rumor.

Its not that Everton got outplayed by Spurs, its that Everton didn't fancy paying £3 or 4 million for Kyle Walker.

Fair enough I say.

 

[Brownie]

A superb saga. We're getting good at this.

 

[SLAVEN BILIC]

exactly, why pay 4mil for a player we didn't want? just get that ramos lad from madrid he looks alrite.

 

[Nebbiolo]

I know everybody has decided I made everything up, and this is proof, but I did say about 15 times that Naughton can sign for Spurs, and if he did then we have no recourse whatsoever. Didn't I? And I stated in my reasoning for why Sheff Utd would use delaying tactics that this is significantly more likely than them being fined by the FA. Didn't I?

I quote the above thing because this is the point: there is a specific law that says oral agreements don't count for land and property. That is necessary, because all other oral contracts are binding. The only place gazumping exists is in the property market, and that's the reason why: there is a specific cut out in law for it. I won't provide a link because I'll get mocked for it, but do the legwork yourself.

You make it sound so simple, as if an oral agreement must almost certainly be as enforceable as a written one. But this isn't often the case, and there is a practical difference in proving what the agreement was. Without a written copy, it is almost impossible to say what agreement A made with B, if A and B offer different stories. The point is, it very likely can't be proved that SU acted unlawfully on this. All that Everton can do is explain their side of the "story". As far as I remember, your posts have made the point that Everton could prove their case, but wouldn't due to the hassles involved. This is despite knowing nothing about the agreement reached or SU's take on that agreement.

I did say to Nebbiolo in a PM what my job is (I'm a corporate tax advisor, which is all tort cases ), but as I said to him, I prefer to try to explain things. However, I explained why, a legal professional agreed that the oral contract is binding, and I provided a link backing up (which cites proper links). I'm not sure what else I can provide.

Well I don't remember you producing a legal professional to explain why this verbal agreement is binding. And even if you had, he or she would not be able to comment on the verbal agreement between SU and Everton unless he was privvy to all the details of it. All your legal professional can do is tell us about the principle of the law.

Davek is mocking me for providing a link, and he also mocked me for using legal language. Could somebody please suggest a way of showing what the law says that doesn't involve either quoting the law or providing a link?

I think your use of Wikipedia was the issue. You do realise that it's not actually a reliable source?

Apparently providing a link was a mistake. Rather than provide evidence, it's better to say I reckon I reckon I reckon, right? Evidence is overrated, wild speculation is where logic is at now. I reckon this is like gazumping. Prove me wrong, without quoting either the law or providing a link.

Well we've just established that your use of Wikipedia wasn't that impressive. For somebody that isn't a lawyer, you seem to be very sure on your position on law. I suspect you're right about the principles of a verbal contract in this instance (although not of the practical aspects of proving the terms and conditions of it), but you've not provided any evidence that actually makes it obvious that it applies in cases like this (please don't Wiki me). Football is apart from "normal" life, and even if it is true that outside of the sporting sphere things are seen differently, it doesn't mean that within it, the rules of the game are the same. Why did the Bosman rule come into force? Was it because it had to be proved away from the sport that clubs had no rights on contracts that had run out? Why hadn't the footballing authorities "got with times" prior to that?

The ability of some people on this board to follow an argument is pretty funny to bet honest. I say that if the player wants to sign for Everton, he can do, if he waits it out. I also say he can sign for Spurs at any point. The player signs for Spurs. Everybody concludes that oral contracts aren't binding.

It kind of reminds me of Creationists, who believe the Earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a myth. Essentially their tactic is to ask scientists more and more questions, until inevitably the scientist reaches a stage where he can't 100% prove an answer. The creationist then concludes in the absence of proof that the creationism must be true as science can't provide all the answers. The burdon of proof lies totally with science, in their view.

Obnoxious. Science relies on verification, testing, rigour and falsification. It doesn't check Wikipedia for its answers, and it makes room for unexpected scenarios. To claim anyone is being like a Creationist is absurd. I have asked for evidence beyond a page on Wikipedia. I wanted something which would clarify your position in relation to whether this law is applied in the footballing world. You provided nothing like that. All you have done is reiterate the same position, which is verbal agreements are always binding.

There was no argument, no premises or conclusion. Anybody can follow an assertion and a Wikipedia page link. It takes a bit more effort to provide conclusive evidence that your position applies in the area we're discussing. If you presented your "argument" as evidence in court, you'd be laughed out of it.

I'm in a bad mood because we lost out on a player who looked decent, so sorry for the rant, but seriously some people need to learn how logic works.

No, you need to know what logic is. You've not used logic beyond the most simplistic way. Logic is argument. It uses premises and a conclusion. For an argument to be valid, the premises entail the conclusion. For an argument to be sound, true premises entail a true conclusion. All you have done is made reference to Wikipedia. You dealt with no other issue that was presented.

 

[Brownie]

You make it sound so simple, as if an oral agreement must almost certainly be as enforceable as a written one. But this isn't often the case, and there is a practical difference in proving what the agreement was. Without a written copy, it is almost impossible to say what agreement A made with B, if A and B offer different stories. The point is, it very likely can't be proved that SU acted unlawfully on this. All that Everton can do is explain their side of the "story". As far as I remember, your posts have made the point that Everton could prove their case, but wouldn't due to the hassles involved. This is despite knowing nothing about the agreement reached or SU's take on that agreement.

Well I don't remember you producing a legal professional to explain why this verbal agreement is binding. And even if you had, he or she would not be able to comment on the verbal agreement between SU and Everton unless he was privvy to all the details of it. All your legal professional can do is tell us about the principle of the law.

I think your use of Wikipedia was the issue. You do realise that it's not actually a reliable source?

Well we've just established that your use of Wikipedia wasn't that impressive. For somebody that isn't a lawyer, you seem to be very sure on your position on law. I suspect you're right about the principles of a verbal contract in this instance (although not of the practical aspects of proving the terms and conditions of it), but you've not provided any evidence that actually makes it obvious that it applies in cases like this (please don't Wiki me). Football is apart from "normal" life, and even if it is true that outside of the sporting sphere things are seen differently, it doesn't mean that within it, the rules of the game are the same. Why did the Bosman rule come into force? Was it because it had to be proved away from the sport that clubs had no rights on contracts that had run out? Why hadn't the footballing authorities "got with times" prior to that?

Obnoxious. Science relies on verification, testing, rigour and falsification. It doesn't check Wikipedia for its answers, and it makes room for unexpected scenarios. To claim anyone is being like a Creationist is absurd. I have asked for evidence beyond a page on Wikipedia. I wanted something which would clarify your position in relation to whether this law is applied in the footballing world. You provided nothing like that. All you have done is reiterate the same position, which is verbal agreements are always binding.

There was no argument, no premises or conclusion. Anybody can follow an assertion and a Wikipedia page link. It takes a bit more effort to provide conclusive evidence that your position applies in the area we're discussing. If you presented your "argument" as evidence in court, you'd be laughed out of it.

No, you need to know what logic is. You've not used logic beyond the most simplistic way. Logic is argument. It uses premises and a conclusion. For an argument to be valid, the premises entail the conclusion. For an argument to be sound, true premises entail a true conclusion. All you have done is made reference to Wikipedia. You dealt with no other issue that was presented.

Just wanted to get this on the forum at least twice because it's so ******* long.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

A superb saga. We're getting good at this.

Too true. Who's next? Kylie with nought on?

 

[lordyefc]

But here's the thing, m'lud, it was about as obvious as the most obvous thing that's ever been that Sheff Utd were on firm ground should the likeliest event have occurred: the player's own freedom to choose was used to force a Dutch auction situation where they benefitted.I think that was Neb's point also.

No, Neb was saying that SU had the right to withdraw their acceptance. I was saying they didn't.

I was saying exactly what you said above; that even though Everton and Naughton could TOGETHER force the deal through EVENTUALLY (no guarantee of timing), that the player had full rights to do what he wanted, and that SU were using that fact to force an auction.

(I think in a Dutch auction the price goes down as time goes on.... )

This lot have been to hell and back in the courts of late fighting like crazy to get their pound of flesh from a club that ****ed them over as a result of a doddgy transfer. I know they're not related, but It'd have perhaps been amazing if they'd left themselves open to such an attack themselves.

I understand what you are saying, but as I said there's no history of the FA taking any action at all in contract disputes (and any report by Everton could be withdrawn), and fines are tiny. How much more money did they get off Spurs? £2m, plus the Walker money? Compare that to the possible fine (e.g. Chelsea fined £300k for getting caught bang to rights tapping up Ashley Cole, a £20m player), and wouldn't you say it was worth a shot? I mean, let's just say that Everton bothered to report SU, and the FA decided that it could be proven that SU were dishonest, and fined them £100k. Still a great deal, right?

Plus, that's just heresay evidence, against the fact that oral agreements are binding. You hit the nail totally on the head in the first part of you post - what's more important here is not the exact legal position, but what the likely outcomes are.

In your own words it was a conditional acceptance only.

And conditional acceptance is 100% binding once the conditions are met, thus if Naughton agreed terms and was willing to push it through the courts he could have. He didn't, and I don't really blame him for that TBH. If I were him I'd want to get on with my career.

 

[Goat]

Too true. Who's next? Kylie with nought on?

Heres your coat.

 

[Brownie]

No, Neb was saying that SU had the right to withdraw their acceptance. I was saying they didn't.

I was saying exactly what you said above; that even though Everton and Naughton could TOGETHER force the deal through EVENTUALLY (no guarantee of timing), that the player had full rights to do what he wanted, and that SU were using that fact to force an auction.

(I think in a Dutch auction the price goes down as time goes on.... )



I understand what you are saying, but as I said there's no history of the FA taking any action at all in contract disputes (and any report by Everton could be withdrawn), and fines are tiny. How much more money did they get off Spurs? £2m, plus the Walker money? Compare that to the possible fine (e.g. Chelsea fined £300k for getting caught bang to rights tapping up Ashley Cole, a £20m player), and wouldn't you say it was worth a shot? I mean, let's just say that Everton bothered to report SU, and the FA decided that it could be proven that SU were dishonest, and fined them £100k. Still a great deal, right?

Plus, that's just heresay evidence, against the fact that oral agreements are binding. You hit the nail totally on the head in the first part of you post - what's more important here is not the exact legal position, but what the likely outcomes are.



And conditional acceptance is 100% binding once the conditions are met, thus if Naughton agreed terms and was willing to push it through the courts he could have. He didn't, and I don't really blame him for that TBH. If I were him I'd want to get on with my career.

Keep rolling boys.

 

[davek]

Goat ^^^^^ - I told you Neb would tie this lad up eventually didn't I?

 

[kikoefc]

Taken from football-rumours.com:

For all Everton fans saying Delph will join. This is straight from the horses mouth. Everton made one call about him but did not follow up the interest. Delph himself says Villa and maybe Man U will go in for him. But he is defintly not coming to Everton.

BARLOWS BOOTS

Which players dont you know?