You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Antoine Griezmann
- Thread starter kiam06
- Start date
asahartford1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 8,833
It's not that Barca and Real have different rules, they always have had.
It's the way they criticise others that want to play by their rules.
It's the way they criticise others that want to play by their rules.
take this puta barça
Official statement regarding the unilateral termination of the contract that links Antoine Griezmann with our club
Antoine Griezmann, represented by his lawyer, has appeared at the headquarters of the Professional Football League to unilaterally terminate the contract that links the player with Atlético de Madrid, with Fútbol Club Barcelona having deposited the sum of 120 million euros in the name and on behalf of the footballer.
Atlético de Madrid considers that the deposited amount is insufficient to cover his buyout clause, since it is obvious that the agreement between the player and FC Barcelona was closed before the clause was reduced from EUR 200 million to EUR 120 million. It was also prior to the date on which the clause was modified the communication that the player made on 14 May announcing his disassociation from the club.
Atlético de Madrid believes that the termination of the contract happened before the end of the last season due to facts, acts and demonstrations made by the player, and therefore has already initiated the procedures it has deemed appropriate to protect their rights and lawful interests.
this is what bothers me most....everyone is allowed to spend massive amounts of money except city and psgIt's not that Barca and Real have different rules, they always have had.
It's the way they criticise others that want to play by their rules.
Jacob Smith
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 2,011
take this puta barça
Antoine Griezmann, represented by his lawyer, has appeared at the headquarters of the Professional Football League to unilaterally terminate the contract that binds the player with Atlético de Madrid, having deposited Fútbol Club Barcelona in the name and on behalf of the player the amount of 120 million euros.
Atlético de Madrid believes that the amount deposited is insufficient to meet its rescission clause, since it is obvious that the commitment of the player and the Football Club Barcelona was closed before the aforementioned clause was reduced from 200 to 120 million euros. euros It was also prior to the date on which the clause was modified the communication that the player made on May 14 announcing his disengagement from the club.
Atlético de Madrid believes that the termination of the contract occurred before the end of last season due to events, acts and demonstrations carried out by the player and that is why he has already started the procedures he considered appropriate for the defense of his rights and interests legitimate.
nmc
Well-Known Member
Oof. Saw it coming from a mile away but funny that it's actually happened. Wonder how the Spanish FA and La Liga will rule on this. I get Atletico's stance but at the same time Barca waited to pay the clause until after the date that it dropped, so I would assume that the language in the contract would say Barca haven't done any wrong.
I guess there’s two things.... firstly, Barca’s attitude to this is light years from their childish tantrum when PSG paid the release clause for Neymar - didn’t they and the League intimate they wouldn’t accept the payment at first! More importantly it looks like Barca have been clumsy in this case. If Atletico can prove that the contract between Griezmann and Barca was struck before today - then their is an argument- which would have to be tested under Spanish law that the new contract between Barca and the player was established at a time when the buy-out clause was higher. I’m sure personal terms were agreed months ago - so it’s gonna be interesting to see how this plays out. Could be very funny.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
this is what bothers me most....everyone is allowed to spend massive amounts of money except city and psg
I know - I am waiting for the Der Spiegel article on this one too
OccupiedPalestineBlues
Well-Known Member
I guess there’s two things.... firstly, Barca’s attitude to this is light years from their childish tantrum when PSG paid the release clause for Neymar - didn’t they and the League intimate they wouldn’t accept the payment at first! More importantly it looks like Barca have been clumsy in this case. If Atletico can prove that the contract between Griezmann and Barca was struck before today - then their is an argument- which would have to be tested under Spanish law that the new contract between Barca and the player was established at a time when the buy-out clause was higher. I’m sure personal terms were agreed months ago - so it’s gonna be interesting to see how this plays out. Could be very funny.
It’s quite legitimate to negotiate and agree to enter into a contract at a future date, agreeing to go into contract at a future date doesn’t mean that you have entered into that contract already. You can even sign a contract that will become effective at a future date. Most contracts have a signatory date (2 of) and an effective date. I can’t see a possible reason for a Spanish court to have any concern with that aspect whatsoever.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 12,884
Silly money.
But what about this from the FIFA Regs on transfers:It’s quite legitimate to negotiate and agree to enter into a contract at a future date, agreeing to go into contract at a future date doesn’t mean that you have entered into that contract already. You can even sign a contract that will become effective at a future date. Most contracts have a signatory date (2 of) and an effective date. I can’t see a possible reason for a Spanish court to have any concern with that aspect whatsoever.
It is only legitimate if you inform the parent club. See this. Proving it will be difficult.
"A club intending to conclude a contract with a professional must inform the player’s current club in writing before entering into negotiations with him. A professional shall only be free to conclude a contract with another club if his contract with his present club has expired or is due to expire within six months. Any breach of this provision shall be subject to appropriate sanction." I don't know when the player's contract was up, or when the alleged contact was made. I am not that interested because we are not a direct party, but I find it amusing that Mr Tebas, who was so critical of Manchester City, now has his hands full.