Either way, I'm pretty sure if it was the major issue that many seem on here to think it is, I suspect it would have been picked up by far more legally intelligent minds, and not discussed by online pseudonyms on a football forum....

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suarez signed the verbal contract when the release clause was met so he belongs to Arsenal..
------------------------------
How can you sign a verbal contract????????

Plus there's no such thing as a verbal contract, you can have a verbal agreement but there's no such thing as a verbal contract and you certainly can't feckin sign one!

If you insist. A manager's sacking is covered by the terms of the contract which he signed. Large payments usually result from a sacking as stipulated by his own contract. It is not breaking the law.

However, refusing performance of the contract that you have signed is breaking the law.

Understand now?

------------------------------------------

Brilliant

So you think that a manager's contract covers what happens if he is sacked? You have no idea of employment law.

To protect employees, it's actually extremely difficult to sack someone on the spot (barring gross misconduct).

To get around this, employers use compromise agreements (google it). Which, once agreed, effectively prevents the employee from taking the employer to court for unfair dismissal.

Basically employees get paid off to keep schtum.

But I'm guessing you know all of that already

-----------------------------------
I had a nasty feeling you knew better on me on the subject from your invitation. Forgive me for assuming one who does not claim special knowledge does not have special knowledge. Like I said in an earlier post, my knowledge is of basic contract law and entirely irrelevant other legal areas. It seemed more likely that contracts would include a clause, but they're apparently unnecessary because of the industry practice.

Your scenario makes sense. And the parallels between a manager sacking and the Suarez situation exist. The difference is the said industry practice, I suppose. The law does not need to protect employees in this situation as both sides reach an amicable agreement. In Suarez's case, it is not industry practice to completely ignore release clauses and nor should it be. The fact that Suarez was repeatedly given bad advice is patently obvious here. The PFA's involvement is shady here. Gordon Taylor lied about the contract, according to your Henry. Question is, why?

comment by Kolo's Long Schłong - KLS! (U1695)
posted 1 minute ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suarez signed the verbal contract when the release clause was met so he belongs to Arsenal..
------------------------------
How can you sign a verbal contract????????

Plus there's no such thing as a verbal contract, you can have a verbal agreement but there's no such thing as a verbal contract and you certainly can't feckin sign one!
--------------

Right well that's simply untrue. He did not have a verbal contract with Arsenal. But they do exist. You create them all the time. Mostly when you buy your milk from the shop.

Not at all that's an agreement and not a contract!

Milk!

Kolo, are you genuinely stupid or simply pretending to be?

Giröulski Alt-153 forever (U14971)

I had a nasty feeling you knew better on me on the subject from your invitation. Forgive me for assuming one who does not claim special knowledge does not have special knowledge. Like I said in an earlier post, my knowledge is of basic contract law and entirely irrelevant other legal areas. It seemed more likely that contracts would include a clause, but they're apparently unnecessary because of the industry practice.

Your scenario makes sense. And the parallels between a manager sacking and the Suarez situation exist. The difference is the said industry practice, I suppose. The law does not need to protect employees in this situation as both sides reach an amicable agreement. In Suarez's case, it is not industry practice to completely ignore release clauses and nor should it be. The fact that Suarez was repeatedly given bad advice is patently obvious here. The PFA's involvement is shady here. Gordon Taylor lied about the contract, according to your Henry. Question is, why?

---------------------------------------

No need for me to forgive you - you don't know what you don't know

I work in HR - I've issue employment contracts all the time and have given a fair few compromise agreements.

Do you ever wonder why managers never spill the beans on a club after they've been sacked? Compromise agreement (Not always amicable though.)

Now, if Suarez was given bad advice then that's an issue for him and his advisors - not for Liverpool

The only difference between a written contract and a verbal one is that a written contract has evidence of said contract existing.

Theoretically you could have an incredibly detailed and explicit verbal contract and it would stand in court perfectly well. The issue is purely evidential. For convenience, contracts are written. A written contract is easier to reference and understand, and easier to enforce.

If you take a pint of milk to the shop counter, you are making an offer to buy following their invitation to treat. Following that, they agree to your offer and the contract is brought into being. Performance of the contract is completed when you pay the money and receive the product. Simple.

Giröulski Alt-153 forever (U14971)

I had a nasty feeling you knew better on me on the subject from your invitation. Forgive me for assuming one who does not claim special knowledge does not have special knowledge. Like I said in an earlier post, my knowledge is of basic contract law and entirely irrelevant other legal areas. It seemed more likely that contracts would include a clause, but they're apparently unnecessary because of the industry practice.

Your scenario makes sense. And the parallels between a manager sacking and the Suarez situation exist. The difference is the said industry practice, I suppose. The law does not need to protect employees in this situation as both sides reach an amicable agreement. In Suarez's case, it is not industry practice to completely ignore release clauses and nor should it be. The fact that Suarez was repeatedly given bad advice is patently obvious here. The PFA's involvement is shady here. Gordon Taylor lied about the contract, according to your Henry. Question is, why?

---------------------------------------

No need for me to forgive you - you don't know what you don't know

I work in HR - I've issue employment contracts all the time and have given a fair few compromise agreements.

Do you ever wonder why managers never spill the beans on a club after they've been sacked? Compromise agreement (Not always amicable though.)

Now, if Suarez was given bad advice then that's an issue for him and his advisors - not for Liverpool
------------------------
It is an issue for him and his advisers. But you must also realise that the whole situation is inequitable? Not only that the entire practice of player contracts could be reduced to absurdity if release clauses turn into a game of bluffs every time a club wants to keep a player. This is getting back to the good faith principle.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Greatteams, your club owner said there was a release clause, and that is where the fury at what occurred comes from.

John Henry says there was a clause, and the PFA said there wasn't. It's all a bit smoke and mirrors.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Well I'm more inclined to believe John Henry who, at the time of his egotistical boast, had little to gain from stating that there was a clause as opposed to opinions at a time where the issues were ongoing.

he would have to be insanely insecure to make that up just to brag to a bunch of students

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

This is getting back to the good faith principle.

-----------------------------

Good faith? In football? Those days are long gone

He will have known the legal opinion of Liverpool. And he'll have read the contract of his most valuable player at a time when he made the decision to ignore the clause.

There is no reason for him to not have perfect knowledge of proceedings, especially as he made himself out to know them when he made the statement.

Gazidis is a lawyer with vast experience in football contracts. You should be directing your anger at him instead because he should have advised Arsenal properly.

Arsenal fans still crying about this non-story? Haha, get over it. You tossed away your title chances yet again, like you do every season. Suarez wouldn't have helped you win it.

comment by The Grand Cannon (U18697)
posted 25 minutes ago
Gazidis is a lawyer with vast experience in football contracts. You should be directing your anger at him instead because he should have advised Arsenal properly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, although as I pointed out earlier Arsenal didn't/don't really have a leg to stand on in any legal dispute. Gazidis almost certainly knew that Liverpool were breaching Suarez's contract, but then the only thing they could really do about it would be to encourage Suarez to sue himself, which would probably raise all sorts of questions among the FA and the Premier League as to how exactly Arsenal found out about the exact detail of Suarez's contract. Liverpool played the whole situation incredibly well if you ask me.

There really are some sad, lame people on here.... He was never going to join Arsenal, get over it like most of the normal Arsenal fans have.....

I'm sure I read on here that he is DEFINITELY joining Arsenal? Is this not true? I burned my Suarez shirt and everything.

I hereby announce my intention to join Barcelona at £200k per week

It's official