Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

[Marvin]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

I agree with the last few posts:

The literal understanding of inducement could be to simply offer terms to a player who is under contract elsewhere without the other parties consent.

The initial authorisation of the transfer by the French FA - even if it was by mistake weakens their case.

The Independent's latest article suggests that City's solicitors viewed the original contract as void, however its a minefield as there are different rules in different countries, and football is run with its own rules

I don't really see how the Football Authorities can issue draconian transfer bans over the subject when the situation is so unclear. The response you'd expect would be to mediate the existing problem between the clubs, and to bring football into line with European Laws.

Rennes claim their case is stronger than Kakuta. How can that be so when the player concerned is taking legal action against the club? However he has lost the 1st two cases according to the paper which perhaps undermines our solicitors advise that the contract was void?

 

[mancboy123]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

I think these transfers could actually rpove to be a watershed moment in terms of football and bringing it into line with european laws. For too long the FA, UEFA and FIFA have been able to meet out punishment as they have seen fit with no clear guidelines or overall rules and the punishments given have been dependent on who the club or person is that has deemed to have done something.

I can really see a point where a player or club steps outside the bounds and risks the wrath of one of the organisations by calling them into account with regards to their actions.

 

[FCLB]

Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!

[quote="Watchman
as of 6pm today , they still have not made any complaint to FIFA...if their case was so watertight , then they would have appealed by now?

their president is now saying that United didnt act in the spirit of the law...but no laws were transgressed[/quote]

The story is simple. So far, Manchester United has breached no rule because Paul Pogba is not yet a Manchester United player. The FFF refused to deliver the ITC document and MU turned to FIFA to get the document.
So no infringement has been yet committed and it is useless to make a complaint.

Le Havre's president waits for the document to be delivered by FIFA and as it is, the procedure will be launched.

In Rennes' case, the document was delivered by mistake and this mistake was made known a week later. It seems to me that a number of people here are fooling themselves if they think it voids the case. Besides, they also discard the very fact that Manchester City was warned over the case several times and prefered to bully its way up to the conclusion. It was a lucky mistake until now.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

It's a pretty badly kept secret that the powers that be in football have been wanting to give us a slap for sometime now. This will be their perfect excuse. Expect us to be punished incredibly harshly. It will happen and it depresses me to my very core and makes me wonder why I even bother following football these days.

 

[lloydie]

Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!

[quote="Watchman
as of 6pm today , they still have not made any complaint to FIFA...if their case was so watertight , then they would have appealed by now?

their president is now saying that United didnt act in the spirit of the law...but no laws were transgressed

The story is simple. So far, Manchester United has breached no rule because Paul Pogba is not yet a Manchester United player. The FFF refused to deliver the ITC document and MU turned to FIFA to get the document.
So no infringement has been yet committed and it is useless to make a complaint.

Le Havre's president waits for the document to be delivered by FIFA and as it is, the procedure will be launched.

In Rennes' case, the document was delivered by mistake and this mistake was made known a week later. It seems to me that a number of people here are fooling themselves if they think it voids the case. Besides, they also discard the very fact that Manchester City was warned over the case several times and prefered to bully its way up to the conclusion. It was a lucky mistake until now.[/quote]

Think you're probably right regarding people fooling themselves as this will run and run, and I suspect there may be further and severe consequences for us. I would, however, also like to see your evidence of City "bullying" in this instance, or any other for that matter.

It would be nice if you put your cards on the table and state your allegiance, so we may judge your viewpoint accordingly.

 

[azatheblue]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

the fact that he signed a contract at 13 will probably be the breaking point of the whole case, city will argue he was too young to know which decision to make, you tell a 13 year old to sign a contract hes gonna say yes, by the time hes 16 massive clubs are after him hes obviously gonna make a move , making him sign a contract that young is terrible its exploiting youngsters and they are using that too get us ito trouble. and whoever is arguing citys case will be able to use it to our advantage .

 

[Dyed Petya]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

A lawyer writes, not that it makes what I have to say conclusive or anything. Anyway, fow ahet it's worth, I suspect that City's argument here is fairly simple. If Helan has breached his contract with Rennes, that doesn't automatically mean City have broken the rules. We've only contravened the rules if Helan's breach of contract was induced by City, and I'm guessing that, while City consider that he wasn't validly under contract to Rennes, we also claim that, if he actually was and breached that contract, we didn't induce the breach.

It has been reported that when United came calling for Helan, they were put off by the fact that he was under contract to Rennes. However, by the time City showed an interest, he was already in dispute with them over the validity of his contract. One presumes that he's arguing that he can't be obliged to sign a professional contract at 17 on the basis of a pre-contract signed when he was only 13. The French authorities have ruled that Rennes have right on their side under the rules as they stand, but it would appear, as far as we can judge from what is said in the media, that Helan believes those rules to infringe French labour law.

(I'd argue that, if the latter does actually permit a 13-year-old to make a binding long term career commitment, that is an absolutely astonishing state of affairs in a leading developed western economy. However, my view on that isn't relevant to the legal argument!).

Now, a couple of assumptions. It seems that Helan, after Rennes rejected the advances from United, may well have sought legal advice to see if (with a view to getting a more lucrative contract than he could at Rennes) he could get out of an arrangement he'd signed up to when he was too young to know better. And it would be entirely unsurprising if the player, when, on the basis of the advice he'd presumably obtained, taking legal action to have the contract declared void, had informed Rennes that he regarded the contract as void so was refusing to be bound by it.

If it subsequently transpires that there was no valid contract between Helan and Rennes, then there's no issue anyway. But if there was a binding contract then, if the above assumptions are correct, Helan was in breach of it at the point he told Rennes that he didn't recognise it and wouldn't abide by it - i.e. before City came calling. QED, City cannot have induced a breach which took place before we had any contact with the player.

Presumably, we'll be able to show that Helan told us he was a free agent when we signed him, and our own professional advice suggested this to be true, notwithstanding any protestations to the contrary from Rennes. We therefore acted in good faith, and if we chose to regard any representations from Rennes as an opportunistic attempt to grab a few quid by a smaller club which was aware of our wealth, then that, surely, is a perfectly understandable position to have taken in the circumstances.

If our advice, and Helan's description of the position to us when we were negotiating his transfer, proves to be wrong, then of course there'll be consequences. For instance, presumably we'll either have to release the player or pay Rennes compensation for their loss of a player who was under contract. But if the analysis that we didn't induce the breach is correct, then I don't see how we can be punished.

Finally, one more interesting point. I see from a report quoted above that the French Football Federation contacted the FA to say that it issued the ITC in error. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Helan been playing for City representative sides since he came to us? Which implies that he must be registered as our player. So does this mean that the FA, having registered Helan to City, must, in refusing to take any action to rescind the registration, be casting doubt on what the FFF and/or Rennes is saying?

 

[Rösler's Dad]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

the fact that he signed a contract at 13 will probably be the breaking point of the whole case, city will argue he was too young to know which decision to make, you tell a 13 year old to sign a contract hes gonna say yes, by the time hes 16 massive clubs are after him hes obviously gonna make a move , making him sign a contract that young is terrible its exploiting youngsters and they are using that too get us ito trouble. and whoever is arguing citys case will be able to use it to our advantage .

Irrelevant mate, as it's what is legal under French law, not elsewhere, that matters and the French consider a pre-contract at 13 is legal. If that's upheld in the French Court in the case between the player and Rennes then prime facie we are guilty of inducement, like Chelsea, and the mandatory two window transfer ban kicks in.

 

[Bonol]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

rags refused to offer this guy a contract because they said he was under contract to Rennais, which begs the question where the fuck was our advise coming from. We were late in on this game so i can see us being left with the dynamite.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

A lawyer writes, not that it makes what I have to say conclusive or anything. Anyway, fow ahet it's worth, I suspect that City's argument here is fairly simple. If Helan has breached his contract with Rennes, that doesn't automatically mean City have broken the rules. We've only contravened the rules if Helan's breach of contract was induced by City, and I'm guessing that, while City consider that he wasn't validly under contract to Rennes, we also claim that, if he actually was and breached that contract, we didn't induce the breach.

It has been reported that when United came calling for Helan, they were put off by the fact that he was under contract to Rennes. However, by the time City showed an interest, he was already in dispute with them over the validity of his contract. One presumes that he's arguing that he can't be obliged to sign a professional contract at 17 on the basis of a pre-contract signed when he was only 13. The French authorities have ruled that Rennes have right on their side under the rules as they stand, but it would appear, as far as we can judge from what is said in the media, that Helan believes those rules to infringe French labour law.

(I'd argue that, if the latter does actually permit a 13-year-old to make a binding long term career commitment, that is an absolutely astonishing state of affairs in a leading developed western economy. However, my view on that isn't relevant to the legal argument!).

Now, a couple of assumptions. It seems that Helan, after Rennes rejected the advances from United, may well have sought legal advice to see if (with a view to getting a more lucrative contract than he could at Rennes) he could get out of an arrangement he'd signed up to when he was too young to know better. And it would be entirely unsurprising if the player, when, on the basis of the advice he'd presumably obtained, taking legal action to have the contract declared void, had informed Rennes that he regarded the contract as void so was refusing to be bound by it.

If it subsequently transpires that there was no valid contract between Helan and Rennes, then there's no issue anyway. But if there was a binding contract then, if the above assumptions are correct, Helan was in breach of it at the point he told Rennes that he didn't recognise it and wouldn't abide by it - i.e. before City came calling. QED, City cannot have induced a breach which took place before we had any contact with the player.

Presumably, we'll be able to show that Helan told us he was a free agent when we signed him, and our own professional advice suggested this to be true, notwithstanding any protestations to the contrary from Rennes. We therefore acted in good faith, and if we chose to regard any representations from Rennes as an opportunistic attempt to grab a few quid by a smaller club which was aware of our wealth, then that, surely, is a perfectly understandable position to have taken in the circumstances.

If our advice, and Helan's description of the position to us when we were negotiating his transfer, proves to be wrong, then of course there'll be consequences. For instance, presumably we'll either have to release the player or pay Rennes compensation for their loss of a player who was under contract. But if the analysis that we didn't induce the breach is correct, then I don't see how we can be punished.

Finally, one more interesting point. I see from a report quoted above that the French Football Federation contacted the FA to say that it issued the ITC in error. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Helan been playing for City representative sides since he came to us? Which implies that he must be registered as our player. So does this mean that the FA, having registered Helan to City, must, in refusing to take any action to rescind the registration, be casting doubt on what the FFF and/or Rennes is saying?

Top post mate. Cleared a few things up in my head anyway!