Silly Season January 2014

[riddick]

I'm pretty sure you can only talk to players who have 6 mnths on their contact if they're based abroad

which is correct. 6months out of country, have to wait until the contract is over in country.

 

[AndyZ]

which is correct. 6months out of country, have to wait until the contract is over in country.

which is fine. We don't need a pre-contract agreement with Barry. I think he will sign with us in the summer regardless.

 

[ijjysmith]

Fairly certain fourth official said Rodgelegagagaga was signing.

Only after Merro banged on about it for about 4 days.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

Pre contract agreements are not enforceable anyway are they ?

 

[riddick]

Pre contract agreements are not enforceable anyway are they ?

as far as i remember from previous ones they are essentially you signing a contract for when your current one expires. Same as if they were on a bosman.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

as far as i remember from previous ones they are essentially you signing a contract for when your current one expires. Same as if they were on a bosman.

I found this on a legal site. Basically says 'might' be binding...

http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/john-shea/item/the-enforceability-of-pre-contracts-in-football

Are pre-contracts binding?
The enforceability of a pre-contract will depend on the specific terms of the agreement. Pre-contracts are generally not binding under English law as they are usually marked “Subject to Contract” and are simply a commitment by the parties to enter into a later contract. The difference between a pre-contract and a contract is that the parties to the pre-contract have not agreed the essential terms and so the pre-contract does not reflect the final agreement. However, if a pre-contract contains all the essential terms that have been agreed, then the pre-contract is effectively a final contract and is likely to be binding.*
FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (“DRC”) has had to determine on a number of occasions whether a pre-contract has binding effect when a dispute between a club and a player has arisen. The DRC has generally held that a pre-contract is binding if it contains essential terms such as the duration of the contract, remuneration and additional benefits. Another factor taken into account by the DRC is whether the pre-contract has come into effect. If the pre-contract has been terminated prior to when it is due to take effect, then the DRC has been reluctant to find that the pre-contract is binding whilst if the parties have already begun to perform their obligations under the pre-contract prior to any termination, then this is usually evidence to prove that the parties intended to be bound by the terms of the pre-contract. In an attempt to release themselves from the obligations under a pre-contract, parties have attempted to allege that the validity of a pre-contract was conditional upon a player successfully completing a medical or obtaining a work permit however the DRC has rejected all such arguments on the basis that Article 18(4) of FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 2012 prevents the validity of a contract between a player and a club being “subject to a successful medical examination and/or the grant of a work permit.”

 

[Sona]

I found this on a legal site. Basically says 'might' be binding...

http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/john-shea/item/the-enforceability-of-pre-contracts-in-football

This. Pre-contract agreements can be binding if all of the salient details are inserted. However, more often than not, they become binding when formalised.

It's similar to when you buy a house; your accepted offer is made "subject to contract", but only becomes legally binding when contracts are exchanged (i.e. formalised). Incidentally, this is when the salient details are inserted (completion date, deposit, agreement date).

Hope this helps.

 

[CahillsCornerFlag]

Know what lads, I'd have Rodwell back if City wanted rid. I think he'd be top class under Martinez.

 

[Librarian]

Where's the Chris Eagles thread?

 

[tim cahill]

Know what lads, I'd have Rodwell back if City wanted rid. I think he'd be top class under Martinez.

You realise he's injured again though right? Hamstrings again.

 

[bicycleheader]

Did Martinez directly rule out a move for Batshuayi today or was he talking in general saying we need players who can fit in straight away?

Did a journo ask him directly about Batygol?

 

[emb]

Did Martinez directly rule out a move for Batshuayi today or was he talking in general saying we need players who can fit in straight away?

Did a journo ask him directly about Batygol?

Doesn't, as a rule, talk about other clubs' players. So my guess is he was talking in general.

 

[Phenom]

Doesn't, as a rule, talk about other clubs' players. So my guess is he was talking in general.

Exactly what I took out of it, think the journos twisted it (shock)

 

[Big Fat Sam]

How about signing Rodwell for 5m now then giving him to the end of the season on reduced wages and with no game time where he must simply stick to a strict fitness regime in order to get him to perfect fitness? That could sort out his dodgy hamstrings. Play the long game.

I'm sure City would sell, and he could still go on to be a great player for us.

Serious though, I think he can overcome his injury problems if he is afforded enough time 'off' to get himself sorted and in the right environment. Barkley - McCarthy - Rodwell

*touches self*

 

[maddison]

Know what lads, I'd have Rodwell back if City wanted rid. I think he'd be top class under Martinez.

If he could ever get over his injury problems, I reckon Martinez could convert him back to a CB and he'd be amazing with Stones next to him or playing in the centre of a back three.