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.

 

Negredo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everton's deal for Alvaro Negredo could be back on with Fazio's move to Zenit St. Petersburg breaking down.

[FONT=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]The cash starved club were hoping to complete a deal for defender Fazio to join the Russian club for £7 million but the deal has broken down over personal terms. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]Sevilla are in need of money and may be forced to sell Negredo in order to raise some.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]Sevilla have a cup semi-final with Atletico Madrid tonight so any deal for the Spaniard will need to be completed before kick-off.

source: http://www.sportpulse.net/content/evertons-negredo-deal-not-dead-6644 46mins ago[/FONT]
 
toffeestillidie said:
Your post that I responded to was based entirely on legal theory, that Everton would not make a bid they did not intend to follow through with because they would be contractually bound to follow through. All my example meant to demonstrate is that a party can feel secure making a bid they never intend to make good on if the bid is sufficiently low that there is no chance that the other party will accept it.

So just like with my example, would Seville ever accept bid of about half of what they value their player at? If not, than just as in my example with Apple, the incentives are there for a party to submit a bid that they don't intend to make good on just to save face.
Click to expand...

"Save face" seems a bit naive in this day and age with the media. Would the club alienate its entire fanbase for one good news cycle? No, it's absurd.

It's not even worth discussing, yet here I am.
 
I've posted this several times, so at the risk of beating a dead horse (which may or may not belong to Fer's bird):

There is a distinct difference in a firm offer and an agreement subject to conditions precedent. Player contract discussions always involve the latter with medicals, etc. being a condition precedent to a formal agreement. As a result, there is no breach of contract for EFC proposing amended terms after the medical and there is no breach of contract for pulling out of the deal.
 

pfim said:
"Save face" seems a bit naive in this day and age with the media. Would the club alienate its entire fanbase for one good news cycle? No, it's absurd.

It's not even worth discussing, yet here I am.
Click to expand...

It would be to appease the fanbase, not to alienate them. So they can say "we tried."

Mind, I'm not saying this particular bid is a fake bid, but that Samps guy tried to argue that no club would ever make a non-serious bid, which is just idiotic.
 
pfim said:
"Save face" seems a bit naive in this day and age with the media. Would the club alienate its entire fanbase for one good news cycle? No, it's absurd.

It's not even worth discussing, yet here I am.
Click to expand...

We need to sign someone lads. This contract law debate is bringing back some horrible memories of 3 hour lectures and mind numbing seminars discussing the ins and outs of offer and acceptance, including; consideration, invitations to treat, duly authorised agents etc etc...

Come on, don't turn on each other!
 
toffeestillidie said:
It would be to appease the fanbase, not to alienate them. So they can say "we tried."

Mind, I'm not saying this particular bid is a fake bid, but that Samps guy tried to argue that no club would ever make a non-serious bid, which is just idiotic.
Click to expand...

They can say whatever they want. It doesn't matter if no one is signed by the end of the day, their credibility will be shot. Which is the point, they wouldn't risk such a thing for 24-48 hours of "good" spin.
 

toffeestillidie said:
Your post that I responded to was based entirely on legal theory, that Everton would not make a bid they did not intend to follow through with because they would be contractually bound to follow through. All my example meant to demonstrate is that a party can feel secure making a bid they never intend to make good on if the bid is sufficiently low that there is no chance that the other party will accept it.

So just like with my example, would Seville ever accept bid of about half of what they value their player at? If not, than just as in my example with Apple, the incentives are there for a party to submit a bid that they don't intend to make good on just to save face.
Click to expand...

You're missing a vital component of a successful claim here, and that's context.

Is offering half the amount a player's worth normal in football? I'd say it certainly wasn't abnormal, especially when a club is in financial difficulty to the extent that all the bargaining power lies with the buyer. It's eminently understandable and therefore reasonably forseeable.

Is offering one million pounds for Apple Inc. normal? No, it's ridiculous. Anyone who actually tried to make such an offer would be wasting their time, or trying to get their name in the tabs for a day. No sane lawyer would try and argue a claim for breach of contract on these facts whilst they were in the business of maximising their LLP's net profit margins.

Do you really wish to labour this point any further? If you do, give me an hour and a half to get home and I'll start substantiating these statements with references from Gill Poole's 11th Edition of 'Contract Law'. Would actually help me revise for my mocks coming up in a fortnight.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top