Sunderland

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

[OCK]

If the player was clever he'd have turned up with a plaster on his finger citing Marcelino, and he'd have easily had another 4 months off work until the next transfer window.

[cp40]

director calling their fans parasites today

[LRD]

Not that difficult to do a Bogarde and just turn up at training and collect your pay cheque. No idea what the two players were thinking.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

In terms of the Johnson thing, could Papy/N'Dong's lawyers use it against them? i.e you didnt sack this player despite illegal activity?

 

No. The dispute is contractual so what matters is the terms between the two parties. They could (and should) have dismissed Johnson but ultimately if the contracting party wishes to keep a contract going in spite of breach they can do.

[geordiesteve710]

In terms of the Johnson thing, could Papy/N'Dong's lawyers use it against them? i.e you didnt sack this player despite illegal activity?

 

No. The dispute is contractual so what matters is the terms between the two parties. They could (and should) have dismissed Johnson but ultimately if the contracting party wishes to keep a contract going in spite of breach they can do.

 

fair enough. I'm interested to see how this plays out. I find it extremely weird that over the years of modern football I havent seen players sacked (as far as i remember) and now sunderland have just sacked two. If if was that simple I wonder why no on else is doing it

 

I think it's as simple as Chris R has explained it. Normally when players carry on like this it's either in the knowledge that they're important to the club and won't be let go or because they're trying to force a move and in actual fact would welcome the sack as it would leave them free to sign for the other club.

 

And normally when a player isn't wanted because they're on a high wage but not contributing/shit/not considered for selection they've got enough common sense to go through the motions and fulfil their side of the contract or at least pretend to be injured I.e. bogarde, various nufc players in recent years. These silly fuckers didn't have the common sense to do either and were probably arrogant enough to not realise the reality of the situation and/or think they wouldn't get sacked because, as you said earlier, it very rarely happens in football. Footballers not normally being noted for their intelligence or sense of humility and all.

[Chris_R]

Maybe not sacked, but players have contracts cancelled by mutual consent all the time. Often that's a sacking in all but name, the player agrees not to dispute it and it goes down as "mutual consent" so they can say they weren't sacked when they approach their next club. See Ranger, Nile.

 

There's good reason you don't see sackings often though - 99% of unwanted players on silly contracts they'll never replicate elsewhere are clever enough to at least turn up their place of employment.

[Disco]

director calling their fans parasites today

 

Ey?

[Scoot]

director calling their fans parasites today

 

Ey?

 

The ones that sit in the pub rather than going to the game.

[jonny1403]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

 

Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs  You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever  I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

[jonny1403]

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

Have they? that's completely indeterminable though.

 

Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

 

Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs  You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever  I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing.

[jonny1403]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

 

Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs  You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever  I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing.

 

If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario.

[jonny1403]

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

Have they? that's completely indeterminable though.

 

Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed.

 

You mean between academies? they don't anymore, they have agreed compensation structures in place for Age/Cat of club. Either way that isn't really applicable here.

 

His contract is terminated, therefore they aren't in a position to be looking at potential transfer fees. He does not belong to them, he is not their player. You can't sack a player, and then demand that you get the money from a theoretical transfer that might have materialized somewhere down the line if you hadn't sacked him for breach of contract. And a new club will no way pay them anything for that. Why would they? he's a free agent now.

 

Again...obviously this is quite a unique scenario but of course you can claim damages for a breach of contract. One of those heads of damage will be the transfer fee Sunderland have lost as a consequence of his breach. You absolutely can do that as a matter of law, its whether the employment and football context affects this somehow.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

 

Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs  You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever  I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing.

 

If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario.

Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement.

 

Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract.

 

I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like.

[jonny1403]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

 

Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs  You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever  I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing.

 

If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario.

Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement.

 

Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract.

 

I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like.

 

Again, they have unilaterally terminated his contract because he has breached it, in my opinion materially so. They are entitled to claim damages as a consequence of that breach and one of those heads of damages will naturally be the value of his transfer fee. They may or may not be successful as there is virtually no precedent here in a football context but as a matter of contract law its a natural course of action to assess loss suffered by that breach. They aren't preventing him for moving somewhere else, but saying that if he does so, that's a transfer fee they have missed on as a direct result of his breach.

 

The Bosman case has nothing to do with this I'm afraid - the facts are completely irrelevant.

[jonny1403]

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

Have they? that's completely indeterminable though.

 

Obviously I wouldn't know the figure but it clearly is determinable - young players moving on at the end of their contract have their values determined by a tribunal so that a compensation fee can be agreed.

 

You mean between academies? they don't anymore, they have agreed compensation structures in place for Age/Cat of club. Either way that isn't really applicable here.

 

His contract is terminated, therefore they aren't in a position to be looking at potential transfer fees. He does not belong to them, he is not their player. You can't sack a player, and then demand that you get the money from a theoretical transfer that might have materialized somewhere down the line if you hadn't sacked him for breach of contract. And a new club will no way pay them anything for that. Why would they? he's a free agent now.

 

Again...obviously this is quite a unique scenario but of course you can claim damages for a breach of contract. One of those heads of damage will be the transfer fee Sunderland have lost as a consequence of his breach. You absolutely can do that as a matter of law, its whether the employment and football context affects this somehow.

 

Right, I get that they can pursue damages from Ndong, though I very much doubt they will get it but that statement specifically said they'd pursue a new club for compensation. I can not see how there is anyway that a buying club is going to pay that and surely they are restricting his employment opportunities by threatening them with that. The only comparable case I can remember is Mutu, and he was banned for 7 months from playing and sacked for gross misconduct. He paid them personally but none of his subsequent clubs did.

 

Yes, I agree with you on the new club part. I think what they are trying to say (but badly worded) is that as they are entitled to sue for (let's say £5m for sake of argument) £5m as lost transfer income, while NDong is technically liable for that they would expect the buying club to pay that on his behalf.

 

But as a standalone point, it doesn't seem as if they are restricting his employment opportunities because regardless of where he ends up, Sunderland have lost £5m as a consequence of that breach and are entitled to claim for it.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

 

Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs  You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever  I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing.

 

If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario.

Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement.

 

Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract.

 

I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like.

 

Again, they have unilaterally terminated his contract because he has breached it, in my opinion materially so. They are entitled to claim damages as a consequence of that breach and one of those heads of damages will naturally be the value of his transfer fee. They may or may not be successful as there is virtually no precedent here in a football context but as a matter of contract law its a natural course of action to assess loss suffered by that breach. They aren't preventing him for moving somewhere else, but saying that if he does so, that's a transfer fee they have missed on as a direct result of his breach.

 

The Bosman case has nothing to do with this I'm afraid - the facts are completely irrelevant.

Bosman is relevant if they're holding his registration or if they're deemed to be restricting his right to free movement by threatening his future potential employers.

 

You appear very confident in your assertions but I don't agree with your conclusions. Time will tell I guess.

 

End of the day the facts are they can't afford him, have found an excuse to stop paying him and sack him, but now also want to make money out of the deal. I'm really not sure that's gonna fly in the real world mate.

[jonny1403]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

 

Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs  You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever  I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing.

 

If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario.

Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement.

 

Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract.

 

I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like.

 

Again, they have unilaterally terminated his contract because he has breached it, in my opinion materially so. They are entitled to claim damages as a consequence of that breach and one of those heads of damages will naturally be the value of his transfer fee. They may or may not be successful as there is virtually no precedent here in a football context but as a matter of contract law its a natural course of action to assess loss suffered by that breach. They aren't preventing him for moving somewhere else, but saying that if he does so, that's a transfer fee they have missed on as a direct result of his breach.

 

The Bosman case has nothing to do with this I'm afraid - the facts are completely irrelevant.

Bosman is relevant if they're holding his registration or if they're deemed to be restricting his right to free movement by threatening his future potential employers.

 

You appear very confident in your assertions but I don't agree with your conclusions. Time will tell I guess.

 

End of the day the facts are they can't afford him, have found an excuse to stop paying him and sack him, but now also want to make money out of the deal. I'm really not sure that's gonna fly in the real world mate.

 

I'm confident because I'm required to know about cases such as the Bosman ruling as part of my job  I have explained to you several times the reasons why Sunderland would be entitled to claim a transfer fee. They are entitled to under the law of contract. I'm not saying they'll be successful but there's a clear basis for claim there.

 

'Finding an excuse to stop paying him' is certainly one of saying he's massively breached his contract and the club are trying to claim associated damages, yes. 

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

pursue the player and any club that subsequently employs him for compensation

 

What compensation are they after? That's what I'm saying. They've terminated his employment, so no more wages. So what money are they after? why should a new club pay them anything?

 

They've probably lost £5m-£10m in transfer fees tbh. None of us are employment law experts but that's a direct consequence of his actions.

 

They chose to sack him rather than allow him to get fit (can't think why), losing a future fee is a direct consequence of their actions.

 

Because he didn't turn up for work for three months ffs  You can't say that an employee who doesn't turn up for work for three months is allowed to say ok, I wasn't here so I won't get paid for those three months, but expect to receive no other disciplinary measures whatsoever  I work for a law firm and it's pretty common in our litigation department for clients to sue beyond the direct value of the contract (i.e. for additional loss caused by the breach of the contract). It's trickier given that this has an employment aspect rather than being two third parties but there's clearly some element of reasonableness to it.

You were on about compensation. Assuming I believe what safc said about how this went down, and I've made the point previously that having had Ashley as owner for 11 years we should be very careful with that shit, but assuming it's correct they can't sack the lad and seek compensation. It literally makes no sense and again I'm fairly sure Bosman was intended to stop clubs doing this very thing.

 

If he has breached his contract, of course they can terminate the contract and then claim damages beyond the value of the contract for loss suffered. As I said, it may be different in this specific context but as a general matter of contract law it's perfectly fine. The Bosman ruling concerned the right to enforce EU law rights of free movement of labour and is completely irrelevant in this scenario.

Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement.

 

Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract.

 

I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like.

 

Again, they have unilaterally terminated his contract because he has breached it, in my opinion materially so. They are entitled to claim damages as a consequence of that breach and one of those heads of damages will naturally be the value of his transfer fee. They may or may not be successful as there is virtually no precedent here in a football context but as a matter of contract law its a natural course of action to assess loss suffered by that breach. They aren't preventing him for moving somewhere else, but saying that if he does so, that's a transfer fee they have missed on as a direct result of his breach.

 

The Bosman case has nothing to do with this I'm afraid - the facts are completely irrelevant.

Bosman is relevant if they're holding his registration or if they're deemed to be restricting his right to free movement by threatening his future potential employers.

 

You appear very confident in your assertions but I don't agree with your conclusions. Time will tell I guess.

 

End of the day the facts are they can't afford him, have found an excuse to stop paying him and sack him, but now also want to make money out of the deal. I'm really not sure that's gonna fly in the real world mate.

 

I'm confident because I'm required to know about cases such as the Bosman ruling as part of my job  I have explained to you several times the reasons why Sunderland would be entitled to claim a transfer fee. They are entitled to under the law of contract. I'm not saying they'll be successful but there's a clear basis for claim there.

 

'Finding an excuse to stop paying him' is certainly one of saying he's massively breached his contract and the club are trying to claim associated damages, yes. 

Ok dude, we'll see how they get on eh.

 

EDIT: actually given your in depth knowledge of football contract law is this something that's been done often in the game and if not why not?

[Optimistic Nut]

Maybe if they’d not given the likes of Ndong and Djilibodji stupid wages they may have been more inclined to leave. Amazing they didn’t just do the bare minimum (ie, turn up for training). If they’d done that and decided they were happy to sit on their wages then they couldn’t have touched them.

[Karjala]

Well done to the mackems for this. Can't believe some people are defending the players, as if they are some sort of god.

 

What idiots the players are!  Turn up, go through the motions and pick up your fantastic wages.

[cp40]

 

 

What idiots the players are!  Turn up, go through the motions and pick up your fantastic wages.

 

 

 

totally

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Well done to the mackems for this. Can't believe some people are defending the players, as if they are some sort of god.

 

What idiots the players are!  Turn up, go through the motions and pick up your fantastic wages.

 

I actually hope they succeed in this because player power and agent power is getting beyond silly. Mind, when silly clubs managed by silly managers with silly owners throw so much silly money at these players and their agents, it’s kind of expected.

 

Me though, even if I wanted out of a club badly, I would never just down tools and would always be a team mate at least and try and help my team-mates. I’d like to think I’d give my all while part of a team, if not in training like flying into tackles or doing club duties when it comes to PR, certainly on the pitch. Mind, when you’re a millionaire even when you sit on the bench or are shit, I guess other things can mean more to you.

 

The importance of character is never greater today in football and nor the manager who must be able to have full control over whoever it is he signs and not some DOF or a thank you or favour to an agent. Look at the mess it left us in when it started to interfere with KK’s role at the club and how it has effected Rafa in terms of the quality scale and type of market he has to shop in. Loan markets etc.

 

Again, I hope sunderland succeed here and set a precedent.

[Raconteur]

Bosman was about clubs holding registrations once contracts had expired because they wanted a fee, and that restricted free movement.

 

Someone here has suggested they've held his registration but even if that's not the case they're in effect restricting his right to free movement by threatening to sue his next employer despite them unilaterally terminating his contract.

 

I'll be amazed if they come out on top in this one like.

 

Yep, still confident that’s what they’ve done. It seems to be a punitive measure - they wanted to sell him, and feel that his failure to secure a move (combined with his refusal to attend work, and to be in an unfit state to work when he did turn up) means they have incurred possess and they want the player to make good those losses. If he can’t even be bother to do a Bogarde, then he deserves to have his pants sued off.

 

As said earlier, hope they win. Will be hilarious either way, if it goes to court