Disco Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 If nothing else at least he has shown he is very keen to play for us so we must've really sold the club to him which is very played on our behalf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie jamie Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 have you seen the setanta website claiming he wasnt majorca's player to sell and the club in argentina say he is due back for training. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 have you seen the setanta website claiming he wasnt majorca's player to sell and the club in argentina say he is due back for training. Yeah it is in all the papers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration periods. a deliberte ploy by ashley. get caught doing this then no-one can complain when we don't sign anyone as we can't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieglory Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Although we're the beneficiaries in this instance, is no one else worried about the Webster ruling in general? Since the original case, we're the first club to sign a player under the ruling, and I'm hoping this won't set a precedent for every club to start signing 'Webster players' as I think it will only be a bad thing for football - yet more power (and money) in the hands of the players and the agents? It's bad enough that we (as supporters) get robbed blind by the clubs as it is, let alone the idea that yet MORE of all of our hard-earned is going to line the pockets of the likes of Willie McKay and his ilk... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swissmag Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Sounds like Towelie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Sounds like Towelie :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Sounds like Towelie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mucky01 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it and he then chucked it in the crowd! not something I would be in a hurry to catch as a souvenir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Sounds like Towelie Haha. I think that's my favourite post of the entire decade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Sounds like Towelie mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniatmoko Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration periods. Not suggesting in the slightest that we have, but to be so glib about it is pretty ignorant. I'd guess this part of article 17 stopped any chance of him going to Portsmouth after he broke his contract. That doesn't apply in this case, and it still wouldn't have applied had he decided to sign for Portsmouth. The key phrase there is "without just cause" he had just cause to terminate his contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordieglory Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Although we're the beneficiaries in this instance, is no one else worried about the Webster ruling in general? Since the original case, we're the first club to sign a player under the ruling, and I'm hoping this won't set a precedent for every club to start signing 'Webster players' as I think it will only be a bad thing for football - yet more power (and money) in the hands of the players and the agents? It's bad enough that we (as supporters) get robbed blind by the clubs as it is, let alone the idea that yet MORE of all of our hard-earned is going to line the pockets of the likes of Willie McKay and his ilk... So, no one else then...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Sounds like Towelie mackems.gif Rocks and glasshouses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 he's just arrived at newcastle airport, picture exclusive....... http://www.dlisted.com/files/caption0618_0.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridman Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I don't understand this transfer... He terminates his contract and still we sign him for a undisclosed fee from Mallorca? Why not for free since he terminated the contract? And since we signed him for a undisclosed fee that means we must have reached an agreement with Mallorca about the price (which the media er reporting to be ~10m) and still they are going to sue us? Or is the undisclosed fee referring to his sign on bonus?? Can anyone please clarify this for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Sounds like Towelie mackems.gif Rocks and glasshouses? We'll see after tonight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Can't wait to see his goal celebration at St. James'!!! Which judging by statistics won't be very often, 6 goals in 195 games That means he had that thing in his pants for 189 games without using it Sounds like Towelie mackems.gif Rocks and glasshouses? We'll see after tonight. I'm almost done with her mate, I'll send her round soon as the vinegar strokes are all over with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Do you not understand the word 'murky', or can you not read? Murky meeds non-transparent, and the player's situation certainly isn't transparent right now to the outside world, look at the facts: We supposedly believe that we have signed him fair and square. Mallorca believe that he has broken his five year contract and that he therefore owes them millions. Velez Sarsfield believe that Mallorca got him on a 50% economic rights deal where Mallorca had to buy all of him by July 1st. Hence they think that the player is 100% theirs, and thus Gutierrez's 5-year contract at Mallorca must be considered by Velez as void in the first place. Velez now want Gutierrez to report to training. If this transfer is transparent to you Mick, you must have x-ray vision. James, the day I need you to teach me the meaning of a word will be the day I give up breathing. You seem to have latched onto the Webster ruling to try and make yourself look clever but you’ve failed miserably The player is entitled to cancel his contract because he signed his contract before he was 28 and because it's more than 3 years since he signed it. The player himself has to compensate his former club, the identity of the club or clubs who receive that compensation makes no difference to us as we don't pay it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration periods. Not suggesting in the slightest that we have, but to be so glib about it is pretty ignorant. I'd guess this part of article 17 stopped any chance of him going to Portsmouth after he broke his contract. I guess Gutierrez will have to pay half the compensation to Mallorca and half to Velez. It will probably drag on like N'Zogbia's transfer, but shouldn't affect us directly. Can you come up with any major difference between this possible transfer and the one that this ruling was based on? Obviously this one involves a different player moving from a different country, other than that, what’s the difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now