or to join or start a new Discussion

36 Comments
Article Rating     Not Rated Yet

Barcelona

Finally get Antoine Griezmann ... Robb wont be happy

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

I was responding to Flashy.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

I was looking for answers on this, I have no clue legal matters in this case. But this makes sense:

(U10026)
"They can only be activated when the funds are deposited with the relevant authorities in Spain to break the contract."

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

The argument being made is the higher release clause should be met as that was the amount at the time Griezmann agreed to join Barca

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

Players agree to join clubs for free before their contracts run out all the time don't they? Don't see how this is any different.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

theyve taken the 7 off of coutinho

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 3 minutes ago
Players agree to join clubs for free before their contracts run out all the time don't they? Don't see how this is any different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because his contract hadnt run out Nd didnt for another 4 years

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

I know what the argument is, I just don’t think Atletico have a leg to stand on with that because the buyout clause was never activated at that point.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 14 minutes ago
I know what the argument is, I just don’t think Atletico have a leg to stand on with that because the buyout clause was never activated at that point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. But it should have been.

posted 6 days, 8 hours ago

comment by Disappoint-Ed (U22147)
posted 22 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 14 minutes ago
I know what the argument is, I just don’t think Atletico have a leg to stand on with that because the buyout clause was never activated at that point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. But it should have been.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?

posted 5 days, 13 hours ago

I'm intrigued to know what Atleti's thought process and real intentions are here.

What they basically did was giving him a hefty pay rise in exchange for staying on a season. The €200M clause ensured he wouldn't leave mid-season, while the drop to €120M was basically their acquiescence to him reconsidering at the end of it.

So this definitely can't have come as a shock.

I'm unsure as to whether they really believe they have a case they can win in court (doubt it, but that's one for the legal eagles), whether they just want to give Barça a headache, or if perhaps they might be trying to use this to get some kind of concessions from Barça on potential future deals.

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 0 from 0 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article Ranking304/500
Article Views721
Average Time(mins)1.15
Total Time(mins)751.38