NUFC Transfer Rumours

[et tu brute]

2 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Maybe I misunderstood but I thought this isn’t a legal court case… it’s went to a two week arbitration case through the PL channels?

You still have to apply to what is in British law. If they don't, then they're going to be well fucked down the line

[jonny1403]

57 minutes ago, STM said:

We get scrutinised for selling a player to Saudi but Man United can flog a rapist for 40m. Aye nee bother.

 

Rules are fucked.

I mean if you ignore the rapey part (which Spanish clubs seem happy to do) he’s quite clearly a 40m player.

[STM]

21 minutes ago, jonny1403 said:

I mean if you ignore the rapey part (which Spanish clubs seem happy to do) he’s quite clearly a 40m player.

 

Quite an important part to ignore.

[Bimpy474]

While we all agree he's as guilty as sin, he's not been convicted. That's their (we'll just overlook the mountains of unpleasantness you can actually hear him say) get out.

Football clubs have no morals at times, they really don't.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2024 by Bimpy474

[morpeth mag]

2 minutes ago, Bimpy474 said:

While we all agree he's as guilty as sin, he's not been convicted. That's their (we'll just overlook the mountains of unpleasantness you can actually hear him say) get out.

Football clubs have no morals at times, it really doesn't.

 

 

 

I expect Man U will be donating the fee to a charity to support rape victims 

[FloydianMag]

2 hours ago, LFEE said:

Think it will be tricky to one for them to win if it’s went to arbitration? 3 man panel … City get to choose someone… opposition get to choose one… PL get to choose the 3rd so logic dictates they’ll lose 2-1 without a cast iron case/dirt to chuck.

The PL are the opposition, City choose one, PL choose one and one Independent with the agreement of both parties.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2024 by FloydianMag

[gdm]

14 minutes ago, STM said:

 

Quite an important part to ignore.

While I agree he’s clearly a scumbag but his personal life has no relevance to his price tag unfortunately but fuck Man Utd for being happy to loan him out then cash in on him. He should have been sacked. Money talks tho 

[Bimpy474]

3 minutes ago, morpeth mag said:

I expect Man U will be donating the fee to a charity to support rape victims 

 

I bet they feckin don't.

[Teasy]

Well I'd think that man united can still sell a player who was accused of rape because he's innocent until proven guilty.  Just a wild guess.  Meanwhile us selling players to Saudi is a compliance issue and not a matter of law (right now anyway).

[loki679]

27 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

The PL are the opposition, City choose one, PL choose one and one Independent with the agreement of both parties.

 

 

 

 

What's the point of that?  Might as well just have the one independent bloke.

[andycap]

No itk on here? Wheres ando when you need a morsal of transfer news whether that be shite or legit. 😂 

[jonny1403]

1 hour ago, STM said:

 

Quite an important part to ignore.

As I said, not for Spanish clubs willing to buy him. 

[timeEd32]

I'm ok with it being quiet. Just waiting for an Isak-like bomb out of nowhere.

 

 

(Though part of me is skeptical of how much we're going to spend this summer)

[FloydianMag]

1 hour ago, loki679 said:

 

What's the point of that?  Might as well just have the one independent bloke.

Clearly it’s been agreed that 3 person panel of very experienced legal experts was the way to go.

[LFEE]

3 hours ago, et tu brute said:

You still have to apply to what is in British law. If they don't, then they're going to be well fucked down the line

Are you saying that with 100% certainty? I think they just go off the PL rule book hence being able to keep it all confidential. Hence why we didn’t bother and a CAT case was the one that would everything out in the open. 

[et tu brute]

16 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Are you saying that with 100% certainty? I think they just go off the PL rule book hence being able to keep it all confidential. Hence why we didn’t bother and a CAT case was the one that would everything out in the open. 

Of course you have to apply everything to British law. That is the law of the land and supersedes everything else. Why do you think city are putting up a case, because it contradicts uk competition law and is also restraint of trade. So yes I'm saying that with 100% certainty

[madras]

15 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Of course you have to apply everything to British law. That is the law of the land and supersedes everything else. Why do you think city are putting up a case, because it contradicts uk competition law and is also restraint of trade. So yes I'm saying that with 100% certainty

I'm not so sure. In English Cricket there are rules on the amount of overseas players which would seem to be in contravention of UK employment law. Similarly both Rugby codes have salary caps.

[McDog]

Just now, madras said:

I'm not so sure. In English Cricket there are rules on the amount of overseas players which would seem to be in contravention of UK employment law. Similarly both Rugby codes have salary caps.

 

In the USA these sort of exceptions were specifically and narrowly applied by law. They can be retracted by lawmakers at any time. Is this not the case in the UK?

[madras]

4 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

In the USA these sort of exceptions were specifically and narrowly applied by law. They can be retracted by lawmakers at any time. Is this not the case in the UK?

I'm not sure as teams can break the rules whenever they want without breaking the law but they would face a sanction by the sports governing bodies. Could a player claim it's against the law because he's been sent off and banned for two games, losing appearance money ? No, it's a sporting sanction not a restriction of trade I guess.

[et tu brute]

12 minutes ago, madras said:

I'm not so sure. In English Cricket there are rules on the amount of overseas players which would seem to be in contravention of UK employment law. Similarly both Rugby codes have salary caps.

There must be something in the law which caters for this. Possibly as they're not British nationals. You can't just contravene UK laws, which are the laws of the country. The salary caps I would imagine have been agreed by the players union. 

[McDog]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

There must be something in the law which caters for this. Possibly as they're not British nationals. You can't just contravene UK laws, which are the laws of the country. The salary caps I would imagine have been agreed by the players union. 

 

 

That is a good point too. In matters of labour union negotiations, there is some leeway but they still can't contradict the laws of the land which is why the US law addressed those because some things simply wouldn't be allowed without such exceptions.

[LFEE]

I see Asprilla is attracting attention from Arsenal. Surprised there’s not a bit more chat about him on here. What’s people’s thoughts on him for RW?

[loki679]

48 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

There must be something in the law which caters for this. Possibly as they're not British nationals. You can't just contravene UK laws, which are the laws of the country. The salary caps I would imagine have been agreed by the players union. 

 

I think you're allowed to employ as many non-British as you like (work permits etc permitting) but the rules of the game are you're only allowed to play a certain number.  Gets round it because strictly speaking there's no limit on who you can employ, just who you can play.

[gjohnson]

41 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I see Asprilla is attracting attention from Arsenal. Surprised there’s not a bit more chat about him on here. What’s people’s thoughts on him for RW?

Well as long as he can nutmeg a Boro defender or two after a glass of merlot then I'm in

[Teslact]

1 hour ago, et tu brute said:

There must be something in the law which caters for this. Possibly as they're not British nationals. You can't just contravene UK laws, which are the laws of the country. The salary caps I would imagine have been agreed by the players union. 

 

53 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

That is a good point too. In matters of labour union negotiations, there is some leeway but they still can't contradict the laws of the land which is why the US law addressed those because some things simply wouldn't be allowed without such exceptions.

 

Every time that NFL negotiations drag on, the Players Union always threaten an anti-trust lawsuit which is dropped when the agreement is reached. No one wants to test that as the NFL minimum wage would probably also be threatened.