- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Thibaut Courtois
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:34 pm to Dandy Lion
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:34 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
was pretty icknerrent.
If so, how? Is there no such thing as tortious interference with a contract (Hint - there is. Even in the civil law)? A smart common law judge or civil law MP, who was pro club contractual rights, could solve this problem easily.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 11:36 pm
3
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:35 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
I have no idea how his contract is written, however, the transfer fee will compensate them.
If they hold little to no leverage it may not compensate them enough.
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:52 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:stating European judges are against capitalism and big business.
If so, how?
quote:
Is there no such thing as tortious interference with a contract
Again, I don´t know how the contract reads. I seem to recall that there have been players who have not been able to get out of contracts before, but I´d imagine Courtois´s advisers must feel Chelsea may be somehow in breach of the agreement, as well.
I am only speculating, but his demand of being the starter must correspond to a clause in the agreement, which his stellar play has somehow triggered.
The fact that he hasn´t a Real Madrid clause may make it more complicated, but then again, Bale didn´t have one, either.
He will have a transfer fee, which I´d imagine is quite substantial. Whether or not that encapsulates sufficient compensatory damages, remains to be seen, but a transfer fee is a sort of indemnification, is it not?
ETA Chelsea´s legal team is top notch, as is Real Madrid´s. Real Madrid has been known to back off before, upon thoroughly scrutinizing a contract and seeing no viable resolution. Anyway, I´m sure there will be a lot more to see concerning this situation, over the next few months. All this started when Atlético only recently approached Chelsea about signing him, whereupon Courtois had informed Atlético´s GM that he had given his word to Real Madrid.
This post was edited on 3/9/14 at 11:59 pm
Posted on 3/9/14 at 11:56 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
If so, how? Is there no such thing as tortious interference with a contract (Hint - there is. Even in the civil law)? A smart common law judge or civil law MP, who was pro club contractual rights, could solve this problem easily.
You're using American logic to try and figure out how they do things in Europe. That's a lost cause, my kopite friend.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:04 am to Dandy Lion
I was a bit misleading. I'm speaking broadly about the way business is done in general, not specifically about Courtois. I know nether of us knows what's actually in that agreement.
Well if the club doesn't want to sell him, then it likely isn't sufficient damages. He's widely regarded as the best young goalkeeper on the planet. With little to no leverage I'm sure they won't get what they want. The point is that if Chelsea really wanted to sell they would do so. They don't want to, and their hand is being forced, against the legal obligation of the player.
There needs to be a strict penalty for such a situation. At least stricter than what exists. Whatever it takes to discourage players from throwing aside their legal obligations under the threat of just deciding not to play. That's clearly a abusing the legal system, is it not?
quote:
but a transfer fee is a sort of indemnification, is it not?
Well if the club doesn't want to sell him, then it likely isn't sufficient damages. He's widely regarded as the best young goalkeeper on the planet. With little to no leverage I'm sure they won't get what they want. The point is that if Chelsea really wanted to sell they would do so. They don't want to, and their hand is being forced, against the legal obligation of the player.
There needs to be a strict penalty for such a situation. At least stricter than what exists. Whatever it takes to discourage players from throwing aside their legal obligations under the threat of just deciding not to play. That's clearly a abusing the legal system, is it not?
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:04 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
Is there no such thing as tortious interference with a contract (Hint - there is. Even in the civil law)? A smart common law judge or civil law MP, who was pro club contractual rights, could solve this problem easily.
I believe contracts are sanctioned by FIFPro (Trade Union); EPFL (European Professional Football Leagues), ECA (European Club Association) - and UEFA.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:07 am to BleedPurpleGold
while i see your larger point, it is humorous that this argument is revolving around CHELSEA ffs 
look what they just did with Matic, who forced his way out of Benfica. the whole breach of contract suit with Mutu leaves a sour taste in my mouth as well.
look what they just did with Matic, who forced his way out of Benfica. the whole breach of contract suit with Mutu leaves a sour taste in my mouth as well.Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:07 am to AirRaidTT
quote:
You're using American logic to try and figure out how they do things in Europe. That's a lost cause, my kopite friend.
Maybe so, but I know European civil law very well. And I know the way international contracts are abused could be solved by a heavy handed judge or parliamentary member if they chose to do so. They don't and we're stuck with players strong arming their way out of obligations they committed to.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:09 am to Friend of OBUDan
I know, i realized that after I started, but as I said it's just an example of my larger issue with the way business is done on the continent.
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 12:10 am
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:10 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
There needs to be a strict penalty for such a situation. At least stricter than what exists. Whatever it takes to discourage players from throwing aside their legal obligations under the threat of just deciding not to play. That's clearly a abusing the legal system, is it not?
maybe. though i'm hesitant to give more power to clubs as opposed to the talent. the balance does seem a tad off at the moment, but i fear correcting would lead to an overcorrection worse than the status quo.
it's clubs putting feelers out and making their interest known that sets all of this in motion anyways. all these clubs are involved in it. they're all poaching from smaller fish than themselves.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:11 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:These days, to fans at large, transfers (and the corresponding drama), are nearly as important as the matches.
we're stuck with players strong arming their way out of obligations
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 12:12 am
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:19 am to Friend of OBUDan
Anyway, I saw the other day that Atlético has found the new Kun Agüero. He´s Ángel Correa, an 18 year old striker for San Lorenzo de Almagro (Argentina).
This post was edited on 3/10/14 at 12:24 am
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:22 am to Friend of OBUDan
quote:
it's clubs putting feelers out and making their interest known that sets all of this in motion anyways. all these clubs are involved in it. they're all poaching from smaller fish than themselves.
Good point. Although its been happening between bigger clubs lately, I think normally this is still the status quo. I can see how it could overcompensate the balance. However, what if the smaller club wants to keep the player (think Like Shaw)? Wouldn't that help the smaller clubs and hinder the swooping/interfering club?
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:25 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:until the bigger club´s offer makes it impossible to say no.
what if the smaller club wants to keep the player (think Like Shaw)? Wouldn't that help the smaller clubs and hinder the swooping/interfering club?
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:33 am to Dandy Lion
quote:
until the bigger club´s offer makes it impossible to say no.
Then everyone's happy. Not an issue.
What happens if the offer isn't big enough? The club wants to keep Shaw, Shaw says "frick you, not playing," and Southampton get screwed.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:52 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
What happens if the offer isn't big enough? The club wants to keep Shaw, Shaw says "frick you, not playing," and Southampton get screwed.
- They save paying his wages
- He´s got to figure out how to stay in shape (match-fit shape, impossible)
- He´ll be forced to capitulate ( sooner or later ), OR the offer will have to gravitate towards the club´s figure.
These are high stakes cat and mouse dealings, for sure. However, they´re not that frequent (normally when Real Madrid is involved, or the dream club of the player in question).
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:53 am to Dandy Lion
quote:
However, they´re not that frequent (normally when Real Madrid is involved, or the dream club of the player in question).
I think that's probably because, more often than not, the smaller club feels like they have to capitulate.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 12:57 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:Many clubs have ´feeder´agreements, and are compensated not only financially, but also with useful compensatory player loans.
the smaller club feels like they have to capitulate.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 1:14 am to Dandy Lion
Which is fine with me. Terms of the agreement are being carried out. Everybody is happy.
Posted on 3/10/14 at 5:34 am to BleedPurpleGold
Nice to see that tapping up is still being regulated.
If he did start being difficult, Chelsea should just stick him in the youth team training until 2016...wonder if Madrid still want him after not plying for 2 years.
They are in a situation that many teams in a similar situation aren't. They don't need the money and him not starting isn't a detriment to the team
If he did start being difficult, Chelsea should just stick him in the youth team training until 2016...wonder if Madrid still want him after not plying for 2 years.
They are in a situation that many teams in a similar situation aren't. They don't need the money and him not starting isn't a detriment to the team
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News