Lionel Messi | Joins Inter Miami (pg4111)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Coop said:
It’s possible he could be wrong about the contract.. Not sure how the new club would be liable for misinterpretation of a contract between a player and another club. It’s a separate agreement and only those parties are privy to the details of it, and ensuring it is followed as legally intended. If Messi says he can walk away from Barca and signs a new contract with City, what have City done wrong in that?

CAS have shown that football is not in a bubble outside of the law in the real world. If I rob a car and sell it to you, you are not responsible for stealing the car because you are the new owner.
Click to expand...
From what i had read previously :
"If a professional is required to pay a compensation, the professional and his new club shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment. This is for the economic sanction.

For the sporting sanction, the club who has enticeed the player to breach the contract without just cause can be banned for registering players for two windows.

Article 17 FIFA transfer rules.
 
So difficult to assess the outcome.

Barca don't want to go to court with Messi, but they don't want to lose him for nothing.

However, had this happened pre-Covid, which it very well could have, he'd be gone for free & they'd be helpless.

How far will Messi be willing to take this is the BIG question. He’s clearly angry enough to go this far and had enough. Impossible to see him come back.

You might suggest we could plausibly placate Barca and the view that we didn't destroy them entirely as a club, which will surely wind up as part of the story for some, by including Garcia and another player.

However, how do we know other players want to go anyway and I don't like giving them away like this.

Such a bizarre situation.
 
Zin 'messiah' Zimmer said:
View attachment 956
Click to expand...
Looks like there is a nasty transfer tutting turf war brewing between @tolmie's hairdoo and Zin.

Everyone get out your flak jacket gifs.

tenor.gif
 
Mancity1980 said:
I don’t care how professional they were, no one was that clever they drew up contracts with a possible global pandemic in mind.
Click to expand...
Article 17 does not enable a player or club to unilaterally terminate the contract without “Just Cause” but rather, it declares each and every unjustified unilateral termination to be a contractual breach giving rise to a liability to pay compensation.

Where a player is ordered to pay compensation, his new club is deemed under the transfer rules to be jointly and severally liable for any compensation payable, regardless of whether or not that new club is at fault.

While this joint and several liability position tends to favor players, as highlighted by the Matuzalem award discussed below, a major issue arises where the new club is in financial distress, and liability for compensation falls solely on the player.

Article 17 also imposes sporting sanctions for breaches during the “Protected Period”. The “Protected Period” is defined as three entire seasons or years (whichever comes first) from the date the playing contract was entered into by a player under 28, or two seasons/years for players 28 and over.

A breaching player shall receive either a 4 or 6 month playing suspension and clubs in breach (or which induce breach) shall be banned from registering new players for two registration periods. Any club that signs a breaching player will be presumed to have induced the player’s breach unless the club can satisfy the judging authority to the contrary.

Source :
 
Parisian said:
Article 17 does not enable a player or club to unilaterally terminate the contract without “Just Cause” but rather, it declares each and every unjustified unilateral termination to be a contractual breach giving rise to a liability to pay compensation.

Where a player is ordered to pay compensation, his new club is deemed under the transfer rules to be jointly and severally liable for any compensation payable, regardless of whether or not that new club is at fault.

While this joint and several liability position tends to favor players, as highlighted by the Matuzalem award discussed below, a major issue arises where the new club is in financial distress, and liability for compensation falls solely on the player.

Article 17 also imposes sporting sanctions for breaches during the “Protected Period”. The “Protected Period” is defined as three entire seasons or years (whichever comes first) from the date the playing contract was entered into by a player under 28, or two seasons/years for players 28 and over.

A breaching player shall receive either a 4 or 6 month playing suspension71 and clubs in breach (or which induce breach) shall be banned from registering new players for two registration periods. Any club that signs a breaching player will be presumed to have induced the player’s breach unless the club can satisfy the judging authority to the contrary.

Source :
Click to expand...

but he has no compensation to pay so what you are quoting is null and void. You also have to have cast iron proof City ‘courted’ Messi and persuaded him to hand in his request... You can’t and there lies your issue. Messi is exercising a right that’s in his co tract, regardless of what Barça believe, FIFA outlined that ALL contracts are extended until the new end date of the season. Barça wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. What we now see if an Ex Barça contingent trying to purchase a current Barça player who wants to join them, they are all trying to do right by their old club by not taking the puss and willing to pay a compensation fee. The reality is they’ll not see anywhere near what they want as the clause is now in the open, he has 10 months left and he’s 33!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top