James Trafford (now playing for Manchester City)

[enthusiast]

"stole" ffs 

[Matt1892]

I’m not sure that would even be legal under freedom of movement.

 

Also, would it mean that he doesn’t have to agree a new wage? Keeping him on the same as when he was at Burnley?

[Checko]

16 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

I’m only going on Hope and Downie’s reporting… I’m sure the Geordie Journos mentioned it in one of their videos too. 

I've found Downie saying it tbf, though I think he's misunderstanding the matching clause personally.

 

EDIT: I think the only way it could work legally would be if Trafford had already signed 'a precontract in the event he should return' when he left, which would be madness and was reported he signed a new contract on rejoining.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Checko

[Jesse Pinkman]

As a lawyer, you can’t force someone to sign an employment contract against their will. 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Jesse Pinkman

[Shadow Puppets]

30 minutes ago, Jesse Pinkman said:

As a lawyer, you can’t force someone to sign an employment contract against their will. 

 

 

 

But they can force Burnley to only sanction one of the deals?

[80]

I wasn't aware of that reporting - and I'd not normally believe it - but the whole thing sounds mental if true.

 

Pretty sure that would be challengeable legally, but whether Trafford would have the wits and - very understandably - the desire to sink a couple of years of his career into that battle is another story.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by 80

[Kimbo]

Hopefully Ramsdale is a success here and we don’t need to bother with this little scam.

[Jesse Pinkman]

18 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

But they can force Burnley to only sanction one of the deals?

 

A clause forcing the buying club to sell only back to the original club, and preventing sales to any other club, would almost certainly be rejected as unlawful under FIFA/FA rules and possibly unenforceable under UK law.

 

[Swissmag]

56 minutes ago, Jesse Pinkman said:

As a lawyer, you can’t force someone to sign an employment contract against their will. 

 

 

 

Jesse Pinkman, the lawyer 👍😉

[gbandit]

Those years hanging out with Saul paid off 

[Andy]

19 minutes ago, 80 said:

I wasn't aware of that reporting - and I'd not normally believe it - but the whole thing sounds mental if true.

 

Pretty sure that would be challengeable legally, but whether Trafford would have the wits and - very understandably - the desire to sink a couple of years of his career into that battle is another story.

 

 

 

 

I'd imagine the situation was very simple tbh, we made an offer, Man City matched it, Trafford chose Man City because it's Man City. 

 

He may have been "desperate" to come here at one stage, but once City were involved I'm sure the picture was different, you'd question the ambition of any player that rejected the most dominant team in the country, and you'd also question the mentality of any player who didn't fancy himself as good enough to start for them when they were interested. 

[Conjo]

1 hour ago, Jesse Pinkman said:

As a lawyer, you can’t force someone to sign an employment contract against their will. 

 

 

If Trafford agreed to a contract with Man City, as part of his transfer to Burnley, that would be activated if Man City activated their buy-back/matching clause, then he hasn't signed an employment contract against his will.

 

If it was a regular buy-back/matching clause, he could have rejected Man Citys contract offer even if Burnley had to accept Man Citys bid.

 

Doesn't really matter now which one is true. He did in practical terms choose them over us whether it was this window or the window he went to Burnley.

 

[El Prontonise]

There's a surprise Hope and Downie being wrong in how matching offers work.

 

[Jesse Pinkman]

36 minutes ago, Conjo said:

 

If Trafford agreed to a contract with Man City, as part of his transfer to Burnley, that would be activated if Man City activated their buy-back/matching clause, then he hasn't signed an employment contract against his will.

 

If it was a regular buy-back/matching clause, he could have rejected Man Citys contract offer even if Burnley had to accept Man Citys bid.

 

Doesn't really matter now which one is true. He did in practical terms choose them over us whether it was this window or the window he went to Burnley.

 

Having a pre-contract which is automatically triggered on buy back, which forces the player to sign isn’t enforceable and is likely void. 

 

A footballer’s circumstances can change and a player might not want to go back in 3 years — even if there’s a pre-contract. Employment law in the UK requires that contracts of employment to be based on mutual consent under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Then you have the Human Rights Act and FIFA CAS case law which clearly prohibits forced labour and restrictions on employees freedom. No way Man City go down that rabbit hole even with their army of lawyers. 
 

Trafford could have rejected the deal if he wanted to. Fact is he came through their academy so has an affinity with the club, likely got higher wages and got the chance to be the No1 at a PL and CL challenging team. 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Jesse Pinkman

[80]

44 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

I'd imagine the situation was very simple tbh, we made an offer, Man City matched it, Trafford chose Man City because it's Man City. 

 

He may have been "desperate" to come here at one stage, but once City were involved I'm sure the picture was different, you'd question the ambition of any player that rejected the most dominant team in the country, and you'd also question the mentality of any player who didn't fancy himself as good enough to start for them when they were interested. 

Yeah that's my normal reading of it.

 

Even putting the attractiveness of Man City aside, if he'd made it clear he'd wanted to join us for so long but we'd dicked around for 18 months failing to seal the deal, and upset his current owners with Mitchell's scabby conduct, while also having shitshow with other transfers and general boardroom mayhem going on, you could forgive him for making the more traditional choice.

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, Jesse Pinkman said:

Having a pre-contract which is automatically triggered on buy back, which forces the player to sign isn’t enforceable and is likely void. 

 

A footballer’s circumstances can change and a player might not want to go back in 3 years — even if there’s a pre-contract. Employment law in the UK requires that contracts of employment to be based on mutual consent under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Then you have the Human Rights Act and FIFA CAS case law which clearly prohibits forced labour and restrictions on employees freedom. No way Man City go down that rabbit hole even with their army of lawyers. 
 

 

Not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand - would the contract in play not be the one agreed with Burnley which includes a mandatory buy back to Man City and he consented to/signed?

[80]

4 minutes ago, Jesse Pinkman said:

Having a pre-contract which is automatically triggered on buy back, which forces the player to sign isn’t enforceable and is likely void. 

 

A footballer’s circumstances can change and a player might not want to go back in 3 years — even if there’s a pre-contract. Employment law in the UK requires that contracts of employment to be based on mutual consent under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Then you have the Human Rights Act and FIFA CAS case law which clearly prohibits forced labour and restrictions on employees freedom. No way Man City go down that rabbit hole even with their army of lawyers. 
 

Trafford could have rejected the deal if he wanted to. Fact is he came through their academy so has an affinity with the club, likely got higher wages and got the chance to be the No1 at a PL and CL challenging team. 

 

 

 

I do agree with all that, but really the entire football transfer and employment system is wide open to being overthrown legally. Just about everyone has conspired not to kill the golden goose though. I could see Trafford just not having a strong enough reason to go against the flow.

[Cf]

1 hour ago, Andy said:

 

I'd imagine the situation was very simple tbh, we made an offer, Man City matched it, Trafford chose Man City because it's Man City. 

 

He may have been "desperate" to come here at one stage, but once City were involved I'm sure the picture was different, you'd question the ambition of any player that rejected the most dominant team in the country, and you'd also question the mentality of any player who didn't fancy himself as good enough to start for them when they were interested. 

 

Exactly. I'm not sure why city would feel the need to put in such an alleged clause - they'd be confident he picks them anyway. 

[Conjo]

35 minutes ago, Jesse Pinkman said:

Having a pre-contract which is automatically triggered on buy back, which forces the player to sign isn’t enforceable and is likely void. 

 

A footballer’s circumstances can change and a player might not want to go back in 3 years — even if there’s a pre-contract. Employment law in the UK requires that contracts of employment to be based on mutual consent under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Then you have the Human Rights Act and FIFA CAS case law which clearly prohibits forced labour and restrictions on employees freedom. No way Man City go down that rabbit hole even with their army of lawyers. 
 

Trafford could have rejected the deal if he wanted to. Fact is he came through their academy so has an affinity with the club, likely got higher wages and got the chance to be the No1 at a PL and CL challenging team. 

 

I don't know enough about employment law/workers rights so you're probably right, but isn't football is a bit different? By those standards couldn't Isak just rip his contract up as well?

[Menace]

All this commotion... over James Trafford 

[Erikse]

2 hours ago, enthusiast said:

"stole" ffs 

 

Semantics. Everyone should know what I meant. "Hijack" doesn't sound any less dramatic, and people use it all the time? Do you laugh then also?

[madras]

38 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

Semantics. Everyone should know what I meant. "Hijack" doesn't sound any less dramatic, and people use it all the time? Do you laugh then also?

There's been a rise in this laughing emoji thing of late. I think it's funny, its like "if I laugh at you it proves my point" So childish its hard to take them seriously when its not a safety smiley.

 

Its the forum version of the fake laugh kids use to goad other kids.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2025 by madras

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

[Kid Icarus]

Going well Jimmy? 🤭

 

 

Edited August 23, 2025 by Kid Icarus

[La Parka]

Bullet dodged