comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 17 seconds ago
LordDowlias
Not really sure where you are coming from. He may well be at Barcelona – the deal may already be done however are just awaiting the FIFA registration process to be completed. Truth is we don’t know. In regard to the contract etc my previous comments refer.
Wessie Road
In regard to the previous release clause JW Henry has openly admitted LFC were in breach of contract. Were you under a rock?
Suggest in regard to the current situation you read my previous comments (clause etc) before commenting further.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He did not admit we breached the clause.
He said that the wording of the clause would not stand up to scrutiny. That's the issue your all missing here you can have infinite release clauses, it all comes down to the wording.
If the suarez clause says anythings the effect of "payment terms agreeable to liverpool" (which we can guarantee it does, or barca could set up a payment plan of a penny a week) then Liverpool cam be deliberately difficult to frustrate the transfer.
As for the pap about selling shirts with his name on, I can pop in sports direct and have Ronaldo 7 put on a pool shirt.
Doesn't mean we can buy him from real for whatever payment plan suits us.
The suggestions here from oppo fans are ludicrous..
Think you'll find the last contract had a clause stating if £40m bid was registered then we were obliged to look at it.
We looked at it and didn't want to sell, so we were in no way in breach of contract!
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 minute ago
The clause will be worded along the lines of x sum payable on terms agreeable to liverpool fc.
If we don't want to sell we will demand it all up front, this is the point everyone's missing. Liverpool can request unrealistic terms up to the release clause to try and keep suarez
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do that and you could be entering a world of trouble though. If young players from across the world see that we are stopping a player go to Barca, and are deliberately sabotaging the move by making unrealistic demands, will they want to come to us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they will great, we used to be a top destination for players and could be again.
Any young player moving to us from anyone but the very top teams in Europe would probably be happy at the time to play for a club of our stature, and they will have advisors who will be clued up on release clauses anyway.
Retaining suarez shows ambition, which is extremley attractive to players
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 50 seconds ago
LordDowlias
I think you read too many tabloids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I do not read any tabloids, what you will find though, is that I agree with all the LFC fans on this issue and I am not blinded by the fact that because I support another team I wish LFC to be bent over on this deal. First, fans like you were praying for Suarez to leave Liverpool, now that he is going, it is not enough for you, you would like LFC to be fooked over in the deal as well.
As an outsider looking in, all I can see is Barcelona deliberatley trying to upset the whole apple cart on purpose to meet their own ends.
I'll ask you a question, do you own a car, and how much is it worth ?
In regard to the previous release clause JW Henry has openly admitted LFC were in breach of contract. Were you under a rock?
=================================================
That's not what he said. He said there was a buyout clause, but the terms of it were unenforceable.
Ian Ayre said at the time that the terms of the contract only required LFC to "consider" an offer. That's not the same as being in breach of it. He also pointed out that there was a confidentiality clause, which raises the question of how Arsenal knew about it, so if anybody was in breach, it was Suarez's agent.
The suggestions here from oppo fans are ludicrous..
===================
im either classed as on oppo fan or ive been filtered, because everything "oppo fans" are saying are a lot more FACTUALLY correct than the almost every other liverpool fan post ive read to be honest.
Release clauses are listed in a contract under section usually titled something along the lines of "buy out/termination/transfers" and have a number listed in full and worded figure, with stipulations listed below (yes, archaic, but it works).
If the figure says "75,000,000.00*" and below it does not say -to be paid .......
then the 75 mil can be paid in whatever order, timeframe the buying club wants (maximum of 6 years now under "new" fifa rules, but more along the lines of guidelines, because classic fifa, its not written or worded).
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Please, most players that come will always have the next move in the back of their mind. You think Suarez thought he was staying with us for the rest of his career when he joined?
=================
no, but if thats what they are openly thinking, thanks, but no thanks.
I know for a fact, the player and agent always map out certain players likely move after x years from joining a team. However, joining a team, in order to move into another path, is the same as the "mercenaries" everyone on this board goes on about not wanting
For reference:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26414167
Henry admitted there was a release clause (which both parties were contractually bound by) yet chose to ignore it.
It’s as black and white as it gets in regard to a breach of contract.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 31 seconds ago
For reference:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26414167
Henry admitted there was a release clause (which both parties were contractually bound by) yet chose to ignore it.
It’s as black and white as it gets in regard to a breach of contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're wrong on that I'm afraid.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The PFA reviewed the contract Stuart Pearce and said we weren't in breach of contract.
God knows why Henry said otherwise but if there was a proper clause then the PFA would have found it wouldn't they?
Robbing_Hoody
If you don't believe me speak to any contract law solicitor. Have worked with a few myself.
Anyway - it's a mute point now.
comment by stonfacd (U1298)
posted 2 minutes ago
The suggestions here from oppo fans are ludicrous..
===================
im either classed as on oppo fan or ive been filtered, because everything "oppo fans" are saying are a lot more FACTUALLY correct than the almost every other liverpool fan post ive read to be honest.
Release clauses are listed in a contract under section usually titled something along the lines of "buy out/termination/transfers" and have a number listed in full and worded figure, with stipulations listed below (yes, archaic, but it works).
If the figure says "75,000,000.00*" and below it does not say -to be paid .......
then the 75 mil can be paid in whatever order, timeframe the buying club wants (maximum of 6 years now under "new" fifa rules, but more along the lines of guidelines, because classic fifa, its not written or worded).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And where the cräp are you getting this information?
If you think for one minute that fsgs lawyers dident lock that release down as tight as possible you are incredibly naive.
No business is ever required to sell one of their assets on terms not agreeable to themselves, I'm surprised you can't see what a ridiculous assumption you are making, that Fifa can step in and force liverpool to sell suarez on a payment plan that does not suit them!
Law does not work like that.
Moot point.
Anyway - People did have a contract lawyer look at it (you haven't) and Ayre said it wasn't enforcable so it's not a breach is it.
It even says in your link "Liverpool insisted last summer that there was nothing in Suarez's contract obliging them to sell the player."
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
Robbing_Hoody
If you don't believe me speak to any contract law solicitor. Have worked with a few myself.
Anyway - it's a mute point now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the only quote from henry in that article, it clearly states that they knew the clause wouldn't hold up legally so they ignored it.
Your bias shines through like a facking sun.
to be fair, it doesnt clear up whether or not it was a 40 million BUY OUT or a 40 million RELEASE clause.
If it was a 40 mil buy out, it can only be activated by the player himself buying his contract.
If it was a 40 mil release clause, the club that wants to buy him have to offer the 40 million.
If therefore it was a 40 million buy out clause, like henry is saying, then quite rightly they rejected arsenals 40 mil and 1 pound bid, because it was 40 mil for suarez to buy his own contract.
You all sound so stupid debating a contract that none of you have seen
And where the cräp are you getting this information?
==============
do i have to be getting my information from somewhere, and not just know it? Its actually a very plausible explanation as to why i am so certain and not trying to spread any 'sauce' over any of it.
Stonfacd
Give it a rest lad you haven't a fecking clue
comment by stonfacd (U1298)
posted 17 seconds ago
to be fair, it doesnt clear up whether or not it was a 40 million BUY OUT or a 40 million RELEASE clause.
If it was a 40 mil buy out, it can only be activated by the player himself buying his contract.
If it was a 40 mil release clause, the club that wants to buy him have to offer the 40 million.
If therefore it was a 40 million buy out clause, like henry is saying, then quite rightly they rejected arsenals 40 mil and 1 pound bid, because it was 40 mil for suarez to buy his own contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now i know your talking shït with your contract knowledge.
The "buy out" refers to the fact that player transfers traditionally (and it still applies to staff) were determined by the value of his remaining contract at the club. You essentially pay the club equal to the time remaining on the assets contract multiplied by the assets wage.
This was the only fair way of valuing the assets "worth" to the company.
The buy out refers to buying him out of his contract.
If it was the clause you are claiming, suarez could have bought out his contract and signed for any Club offering him a 40 million signing on fee..
Anyone having a pop at FSG on here for selling Suarez needs their head looking at.
Luis Suarez is an amazing player do not get me wrong. He tried holding our beloved club to ransom last summer after we backed him publicly. We could of thrown him out then.
According to reports BR has to build his team around Luis and has to change this whenever he loses the plot and gets banned.
It is bad publicity and we can't miss our star player for 10 games every season.
What example would it set for the other players. apparantly they are all digusted at Suarez for what he has done.
our club has just had it's best year in a long time and we wanted to build for the future.
Our sponsors are not happy with the bad publicity.
We don't want to be held to ransom by a looney every summer. It unsettles the squad.
FSG stood strong last summer and they are the first owners i have seen that have stood up to Barca's classless tactics.
Every year Barca tap players up. They get the press to write loads about the player and they get their own players to talk highly of their target. This usually forces the player to hand in a transfer request and the value dramitically reduces.
I think FSG wanted Luis out before the world cup. He is 28 next year and he is in his prime. We would never be able to get any more money for him.
In FSG i trust!!
They saved our club from going under and within 2 years we were challenging for the league.
Sort your heads out you negative bunch
comment by stonfacd (U1298)
posted 2 minutes ago
And where the cräp are you getting this information?
==============
do i have to be getting my information from somewhere, and not just know it? Its actually a very plausible explanation as to why i am so certain and not trying to spread any 'sauce' over any of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody gains their knowledge from somewhere, otherwise you are just making it up, which it has been clear for sometime on thos thread you are doing.
Stonfacd
Give it a rest lad you haven't a fecking clue
===================
no worries, ill give it a rest. I have no need to prove anyone right or wrong, just offering some knowledge (experience) on the issue, but go ahead, believe what you read, hear or play in fm, or seemingly want to believe.
Sign in if you want to comment
Oh dear Barca... !
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 8/7/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 17 seconds ago
LordDowlias
Not really sure where you are coming from. He may well be at Barcelona – the deal may already be done however are just awaiting the FIFA registration process to be completed. Truth is we don’t know. In regard to the contract etc my previous comments refer.
Wessie Road
In regard to the previous release clause JW Henry has openly admitted LFC were in breach of contract. Were you under a rock?
Suggest in regard to the current situation you read my previous comments (clause etc) before commenting further.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He did not admit we breached the clause.
He said that the wording of the clause would not stand up to scrutiny. That's the issue your all missing here you can have infinite release clauses, it all comes down to the wording.
If the suarez clause says anythings the effect of "payment terms agreeable to liverpool" (which we can guarantee it does, or barca could set up a payment plan of a penny a week) then Liverpool cam be deliberately difficult to frustrate the transfer.
As for the pap about selling shirts with his name on, I can pop in sports direct and have Ronaldo 7 put on a pool shirt.
Doesn't mean we can buy him from real for whatever payment plan suits us.
The suggestions here from oppo fans are ludicrous..
posted on 8/7/14
Think you'll find the last contract had a clause stating if £40m bid was registered then we were obliged to look at it.
We looked at it and didn't want to sell, so we were in no way in breach of contract!
posted on 8/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/7/14
comment by Greatteamswinit4times I'm dogmatic (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 minute ago
The clause will be worded along the lines of x sum payable on terms agreeable to liverpool fc.
If we don't want to sell we will demand it all up front, this is the point everyone's missing. Liverpool can request unrealistic terms up to the release clause to try and keep suarez
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do that and you could be entering a world of trouble though. If young players from across the world see that we are stopping a player go to Barca, and are deliberately sabotaging the move by making unrealistic demands, will they want to come to us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they will great, we used to be a top destination for players and could be again.
Any young player moving to us from anyone but the very top teams in Europe would probably be happy at the time to play for a club of our stature, and they will have advisors who will be clued up on release clauses anyway.
Retaining suarez shows ambition, which is extremley attractive to players
posted on 8/7/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 50 seconds ago
LordDowlias
I think you read too many tabloids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I do not read any tabloids, what you will find though, is that I agree with all the LFC fans on this issue and I am not blinded by the fact that because I support another team I wish LFC to be bent over on this deal. First, fans like you were praying for Suarez to leave Liverpool, now that he is going, it is not enough for you, you would like LFC to be fooked over in the deal as well.
As an outsider looking in, all I can see is Barcelona deliberatley trying to upset the whole apple cart on purpose to meet their own ends.
I'll ask you a question, do you own a car, and how much is it worth ?
posted on 8/7/14
In regard to the previous release clause JW Henry has openly admitted LFC were in breach of contract. Were you under a rock?
=================================================
That's not what he said. He said there was a buyout clause, but the terms of it were unenforceable.
Ian Ayre said at the time that the terms of the contract only required LFC to "consider" an offer. That's not the same as being in breach of it. He also pointed out that there was a confidentiality clause, which raises the question of how Arsenal knew about it, so if anybody was in breach, it was Suarez's agent.
posted on 8/7/14
The suggestions here from oppo fans are ludicrous..
===================
im either classed as on oppo fan or ive been filtered, because everything "oppo fans" are saying are a lot more FACTUALLY correct than the almost every other liverpool fan post ive read to be honest.
Release clauses are listed in a contract under section usually titled something along the lines of "buy out/termination/transfers" and have a number listed in full and worded figure, with stipulations listed below (yes, archaic, but it works).
If the figure says "75,000,000.00*" and below it does not say -to be paid .......
then the 75 mil can be paid in whatever order, timeframe the buying club wants (maximum of 6 years now under "new" fifa rules, but more along the lines of guidelines, because classic fifa, its not written or worded).
posted on 8/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/7/14
Please, most players that come will always have the next move in the back of their mind. You think Suarez thought he was staying with us for the rest of his career when he joined?
=================
no, but if thats what they are openly thinking, thanks, but no thanks.
I know for a fact, the player and agent always map out certain players likely move after x years from joining a team. However, joining a team, in order to move into another path, is the same as the "mercenaries" everyone on this board goes on about not wanting
posted on 8/7/14
For reference:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26414167
Henry admitted there was a release clause (which both parties were contractually bound by) yet chose to ignore it.
It’s as black and white as it gets in regard to a breach of contract.
posted on 8/7/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 31 seconds ago
For reference:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26414167
Henry admitted there was a release clause (which both parties were contractually bound by) yet chose to ignore it.
It’s as black and white as it gets in regard to a breach of contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're wrong on that I'm afraid.
posted on 8/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/7/14
The PFA reviewed the contract Stuart Pearce and said we weren't in breach of contract.
God knows why Henry said otherwise but if there was a proper clause then the PFA would have found it wouldn't they?
posted on 8/7/14
Robbing_Hoody
If you don't believe me speak to any contract law solicitor. Have worked with a few myself.
Anyway - it's a mute point now.
posted on 8/7/14
comment by stonfacd (U1298)
posted 2 minutes ago
The suggestions here from oppo fans are ludicrous..
===================
im either classed as on oppo fan or ive been filtered, because everything "oppo fans" are saying are a lot more FACTUALLY correct than the almost every other liverpool fan post ive read to be honest.
Release clauses are listed in a contract under section usually titled something along the lines of "buy out/termination/transfers" and have a number listed in full and worded figure, with stipulations listed below (yes, archaic, but it works).
If the figure says "75,000,000.00*" and below it does not say -to be paid .......
then the 75 mil can be paid in whatever order, timeframe the buying club wants (maximum of 6 years now under "new" fifa rules, but more along the lines of guidelines, because classic fifa, its not written or worded).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And where the cräp are you getting this information?
If you think for one minute that fsgs lawyers dident lock that release down as tight as possible you are incredibly naive.
No business is ever required to sell one of their assets on terms not agreeable to themselves, I'm surprised you can't see what a ridiculous assumption you are making, that Fifa can step in and force liverpool to sell suarez on a payment plan that does not suit them!
Law does not work like that.
posted on 8/7/14
Moot point.
Anyway - People did have a contract lawyer look at it (you haven't) and Ayre said it wasn't enforcable so it's not a breach is it.
It even says in your link "Liverpool insisted last summer that there was nothing in Suarez's contract obliging them to sell the player."
posted on 8/7/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
Robbing_Hoody
If you don't believe me speak to any contract law solicitor. Have worked with a few myself.
Anyway - it's a mute point now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the only quote from henry in that article, it clearly states that they knew the clause wouldn't hold up legally so they ignored it.
Your bias shines through like a facking sun.
posted on 8/7/14
to be fair, it doesnt clear up whether or not it was a 40 million BUY OUT or a 40 million RELEASE clause.
If it was a 40 mil buy out, it can only be activated by the player himself buying his contract.
If it was a 40 mil release clause, the club that wants to buy him have to offer the 40 million.
If therefore it was a 40 million buy out clause, like henry is saying, then quite rightly they rejected arsenals 40 mil and 1 pound bid, because it was 40 mil for suarez to buy his own contract.
posted on 8/7/14
You all sound so stupid debating a contract that none of you have seen
posted on 8/7/14
And where the cräp are you getting this information?
==============
do i have to be getting my information from somewhere, and not just know it? Its actually a very plausible explanation as to why i am so certain and not trying to spread any 'sauce' over any of it.
posted on 8/7/14
Stonfacd
Give it a rest lad you haven't a fecking clue
posted on 8/7/14
comment by stonfacd (U1298)
posted 17 seconds ago
to be fair, it doesnt clear up whether or not it was a 40 million BUY OUT or a 40 million RELEASE clause.
If it was a 40 mil buy out, it can only be activated by the player himself buying his contract.
If it was a 40 mil release clause, the club that wants to buy him have to offer the 40 million.
If therefore it was a 40 million buy out clause, like henry is saying, then quite rightly they rejected arsenals 40 mil and 1 pound bid, because it was 40 mil for suarez to buy his own contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now i know your talking shït with your contract knowledge.
The "buy out" refers to the fact that player transfers traditionally (and it still applies to staff) were determined by the value of his remaining contract at the club. You essentially pay the club equal to the time remaining on the assets contract multiplied by the assets wage.
This was the only fair way of valuing the assets "worth" to the company.
The buy out refers to buying him out of his contract.
If it was the clause you are claiming, suarez could have bought out his contract and signed for any Club offering him a 40 million signing on fee..
posted on 8/7/14
Anyone having a pop at FSG on here for selling Suarez needs their head looking at.
Luis Suarez is an amazing player do not get me wrong. He tried holding our beloved club to ransom last summer after we backed him publicly. We could of thrown him out then.
According to reports BR has to build his team around Luis and has to change this whenever he loses the plot and gets banned.
It is bad publicity and we can't miss our star player for 10 games every season.
What example would it set for the other players. apparantly they are all digusted at Suarez for what he has done.
our club has just had it's best year in a long time and we wanted to build for the future.
Our sponsors are not happy with the bad publicity.
We don't want to be held to ransom by a looney every summer. It unsettles the squad.
FSG stood strong last summer and they are the first owners i have seen that have stood up to Barca's classless tactics.
Every year Barca tap players up. They get the press to write loads about the player and they get their own players to talk highly of their target. This usually forces the player to hand in a transfer request and the value dramitically reduces.
I think FSG wanted Luis out before the world cup. He is 28 next year and he is in his prime. We would never be able to get any more money for him.
In FSG i trust!!
They saved our club from going under and within 2 years we were challenging for the league.
Sort your heads out you negative bunch
posted on 8/7/14
comment by stonfacd (U1298)
posted 2 minutes ago
And where the cräp are you getting this information?
==============
do i have to be getting my information from somewhere, and not just know it? Its actually a very plausible explanation as to why i am so certain and not trying to spread any 'sauce' over any of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody gains their knowledge from somewhere, otherwise you are just making it up, which it has been clear for sometime on thos thread you are doing.
posted on 8/7/14
Stonfacd
Give it a rest lad you haven't a fecking clue
===================
no worries, ill give it a rest. I have no need to prove anyone right or wrong, just offering some knowledge (experience) on the issue, but go ahead, believe what you read, hear or play in fm, or seemingly want to believe.
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8