TheBrownBottle Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 5 minutes ago, et tu brute said: And? One ruling doesn't constitute anything and that's why Man City have challenged the current rules. This one was re contracts. The Webster Ruling was thought to be seismic at the time - it basically ruled that football contracts breached the worker’s freedom of movement rights. Nowt happened, though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Sorry mate, was being sarcastic - apologies The general point stands - this is not an open goal for Man City (and us by proxy). Folks are waiting for a magic bullet. I don’t think this is it. Time will tell mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: I’ve read plenty on here claiming that the PL would get obliterated under commercial law without any substantiation, but I’ve got to cite case law and clauses? I respect that you know your stuff FM, but I’m suggesting that the hanging the PL on commercial law isn’t the shoo-in that many are anticipating. FIFA and the PL attempted to cap agents fees under their ‘rules’ and this happened.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: This one was re contracts. The Webster Ruling was thought to be seismic at the time - it basically ruled that football contracts breached the worker’s freedom of movement rights. Nowt happened, though Yeah I know what the Webster ruling was. This is totally different though as it's a rule brought in to stop two clubs in particular and are totally against competition rulings and are a restraint of trade against a business. We will see what happens as that is the only way. I can't see anything else but a Man City win, which was touched on by the Premier League's mouthpiece in the media and pulled from the table at very late notice at the last meeting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted 15 hours ago Share Posted 15 hours ago 7 minutes ago, et tu brute said: Yeah I know what the Webster ruling was. This is totally different though as it's a rule brought in to stop two clubs in particular and are totally against competition rulings and are a restraint of trade against a business. We will see what happens as that is the only way. I can't see anything else but a Man City win, which was touched on by the Premier League's mouthpiece in the media and pulled from the table at very late notice at the last meeting. Agreed they are different things - was referring to Webster in terms of the potential unenforceability of players’ contracts Re PL rules - yep, ultimately that’s all we can do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted 13 hours ago Share Posted 13 hours ago Absolute mayhem this will cause Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted 12 hours ago Share Posted 12 hours ago To be honest that’s why those organising parties shouldn’t impose that much rules that forced different parties to go the legal tribunal route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted 12 hours ago Share Posted 12 hours ago 40 minutes ago, Paully said: Absolute mayhem this will cause Players have had the option to buy out their contracts for a while now, this ruling reads like their previous club can't withhold their registration until they have paid the contract back. It probably won't change a great deal except that top players will get bigger contracts that would cost players more to buy out and they'll get them more often so the timeframe where they're allowed to buy the contracts out is limited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted 12 hours ago Share Posted 12 hours ago 7 minutes ago, ikri said: Players have had the option to buy out their contracts for a while now, this ruling reads like their previous club can't withhold their registration until they have paid the contract back. It probably won't change a great deal except that top players will get bigger contracts that would cost players more to buy out and they'll get them more often so the timeframe where they're allowed to buy the contracts out is limited. Isn't that how we ended up with Jonas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted 11 hours ago Share Posted 11 hours ago Won't clubs just insert WWE style 'no compete' clauses? I'm sure Chelsea will find a way to get around it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted 11 hours ago Share Posted 11 hours ago Here’s a bit more breaking the ruling down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted 11 hours ago Share Posted 11 hours ago 1 hour ago, Zero said: To be honest that’s why those organising parties shouldn’t impose that much rules that forced different parties to go the legal tribunal route. Agreed, Governing bodies should organise competitions and not get involved in clubs or players commercial or financial activities. 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