Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

[fbloke]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

I find myself stamping my feet and harrumphing on this one as the natural position of us Anglo-Saxons is to back the boys rights and freedoms to choose.

That, allied to my 'who the bloody hell do uefa and fifa think they are' mutterings are likely to give me indigestion.

I expect that, ignoring UK law as a standard and EU law as a bench mark, uefa and fifa WANT to stamp their authority on this issue and are close to losing support if they act against 'natural justice'.

It may be that they are happy to do that but I dont think so as they have a lot of battles in front of them for other things for which they need a consensus.

Just as we have found with the motivations behind EU legislation this certainly goes against the attitudes and values of many and sheds light on the shady legal status of minors in france.

Shame on you france.

It is interesting that the 'slavery' conversations when discussing an adult multi-millionaire are not being repeated in these cases?

Shame on you uefa and fifa.

 

[General Zukhov]

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?

Agree with most of what you've said Dyed Petya. However two points:

1) Here is what FIFA say with regard to inducements to breach a contract:

"In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting
sanctions shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of
contract or found to be inducing a breach of contract during the
protected period. It shall be presumed, unless established to the
contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated
his contract without just cause has induced that professional
to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration
periods."

The onus of proof will therefore be on us to prove that we did not induce Helan to sign with us. (we may be able to do this, but it is harder than if the onus were in our favour)

2) Surely we have not induced Helan to break his contract with Lens but to break his pre-contractual agreement with Lens. It is not French law that is important (At least from City's perspective (I assume we are more bothered about a transfer ban than any compensation)) but FIFA's rules and regulations. While French law recognises a pre-contractual agreement as binding what is FIFA's position on this? If it is not already clear then they will have to come to a binding decision as to whether for the purposes of inducement a pre-contractual agreement is a contract. Surely given that it is only France that recognises these kind of agreements they would not be willing to bind every other club outside France to such forms of agreements?


3) Can Helan at the time we signed him be considered a "professional"?

Would be interested in your thoughts

 

[FCLB]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

It seems to me that the reference to West Point Cadet academy was ignored.

Let's stay in the football field and stays in the US.

Can someone tell how old Freddy Adu was when he signed a professional contract with D.C United? What does it tell about the US? This question is of course addressed to people who are judgemental on France's laws. I quoted nobody because I think every one is grown up enough to know what their position is and assume it.

So please tell. I am eager to finding out what the US is.

On City acting in good faith:
The argument works for all the players in the following situation:
A player is contracted to a club A. A club B wants to sign the player.

The player can claim he is free.
Club B's legal advice tells that they think the player is indeed free.
Then Club B can claim they acted in good faith when signing the player.

Inducement on breaking the contract: the very fact of signing a player who is under contract with another club is the inducement.
Check Méxès' case. The player was signed while still under contract with his former club. Roma overode it.

FIFA's understanding of the contract between the french players and his club is indeed the key.

Many english clubs thought FIFA would not consider the contract as being legal. It took two years for Chelsea's case to bring an answer. FIFA considers them legally binding.

It was a gamble. City and others bet on FIFA supporting the non validity of the contract. It appeared they chose to consider them valid.

On the smaller club looking for undue compensation from a bigger club: the proposition can be reversed, suiting more the reality by the way.
Le Havre's spends 9 millions out of their 15M annual turnover on their academy. Manchester United is by facts a club who want to benefit from the work of another club without being charged for it.

On the number of english clubs being involved: stop being paranoid. It is factually explained by the number of english clubs who tour the academies around the world, trying to poach players.
It has nothing special as english clubs are largely involved in children traffick they are vastly represented in the complaints.

 

[Dyed Petya]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

Agree with most of what you've said Dyed Petya. However two points:

1) Here is what FIFA say with regard to inducements to breach a contract:

"In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting
sanctions shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of
contract or found to be inducing a breach of contract during the
protected period. It shall be presumed, unless established to the
contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated
his contract without just cause has induced that professional
to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration
periods."

The onus of proof will therefore be on us to prove that we did not induce Helan to sign with us. (we may be able to do this, but it is harder than if the onus were in our favour)

2) Surely we have not induced Helan to break his contract with Lens but to break his pre-contractual agreement with Lens. It is not French law that is important (At least from City's perspective (I assume we are more bothered about a transfer ban than any compensation)) but FIFA's rules and regulations. While French law recognises a pre-contractual agreement as binding what is FIFA's position on this? If it is not already clear then they will have to come to a binding decision as to whether for the purposes of inducement a pre-contractual agreement is a contract. Surely given that it is only France that recognises these kind of agreements they would not be willing to bind every other club outside France to such forms of agreements?


3) Can Helan at the time we signed him be considered a "professional"?

Would be interested in your thoughts

Am about to go to a meeting, so very briefly.

1. No one really knows what went on, and we're all guessing to a degree, pieceing things together from the versions of the clubs and media reports. The onus is on City, but my best guess is that we believe we can show that Helan himself decided to break his contract with Rennes in the wake of the aborted interest of Manchester United, having taken his own legal advice. We'll be able to show documentary evidence (I presume) of the course of our negotiations with him, and if it clearly post-dates those events and there's no other evidence putting our approaches to him earlier than we've claimed, in my view we've rebutted the presumption of having induced the breach.

2. The pre-contract agreement with Lens was, as I understand it from reports, actually a contract which created a binding option under which the player was obliged to sign a professional contract with Rennes if he played for the French under-16 side, or similar - can't remember the exact terms and no time to look it up. (Rather one sided: "If you're good, we'll take you, but if you're cr@p, then you can f**k off!"). So he's broken a contractual commitment to sign a professional contract with Rennes if not the contract itself. I doubt that the distincition matters for the purpose of FIFA's rules.

3. Not sure without checking the regulations, but I guess it would refer to anyone who's beyond the schoolboy stage so would include Helan.

 

[Marvin]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

It seems to me that the reference to West Point Cadet academy was ignored.

Let's stay in the football field and stays in the US.

Can someone tell how old Freddy Adu was when he signed a professional contract with D.C United? What does it tell about the US? This question is of course addressed to people who are judgemental on France's laws. I quoted nobody because I think every one is grown up enough to know what their position is and assume it.

So please tell. I am eager to finding out what the US is.

On City acting in good faith:
The argument works for all the players in the following situation:
A player is contracted to a club A. A club B wants to sign the player.

The player can claim he is free.
Club B's legal advice tells that they think the player is indeed free.
Then Club B can claim they acted in good faith when signing the player.

Inducement on breaking the contract: the very fact of signing a player who is under contract with another club is the inducement.
Check Méxès' case. The player was signed while still under contract with his former club. Roma overode it.

FIFA's understanding of the contract between the french players and his club is indeed the key.

Many english clubs thought FIFA would not consider the contract as being legal. It took two years for Chelsea's case to bring an answer. FIFA considers them legally binding.

It was a gamble. City and others bet on FIFA supporting the non validity of the contract. It appeared they chose to consider them valid.

On the smaller club looking for undue compensation from a bigger club: the proposition can be reversed, suiting more the reality by the way.
Le Havre's spends 9 millions out of their 15M annual turnover on their academy. Manchester United is by facts a club who want to benefit from the work of another club without being charged for it.

On the number of english clubs being involved: stop being paranoid. It is factually explained by the number of english clubs who tour the academies around the world, trying to poach players.
It has nothing special as english clubs are largely involved in children traffick they are vastly represented in the complaints.

And the French teams do they recruit young African players?

What are your views of signing a 13 yr old to a contract?

Helan was already in dispute with Rennes, so how can you regard this as poaching?

 

[Dubai Blue]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

Can someone tell how old Freddy Adu was when he signed a professional contract with D.C United? What does it tell about the US? This question is of course addressed to people who are judgemental on France's laws. I quoted nobody because I think every one is grown up enough to know what their position is and assume it.

So please tell. I am eager to finding out what the US is.

If Freddy Adu was forced to decide his future professional career by signing a legally binding contract whilst he was a 13 year old child, then the US is just as backwards, third-world and tin-pottish as the French in that respect.

Trying to excuse the French system because the US does the same will not wash with me, I'm afraid.

 

[General Zukhov]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

but then the legal ramification of FIFA deciding that this pre-contractual agreement is binding on him in terms of inducement is that

a) any minor, in any country (not just France) would be bound by a PCA, whether or not they are applicable under the law of that juristiction,

or

b) precontractual agreements signed in France by minors are binding (for the purposes of inducement) but in other juristictions are not, which would give French clubs a protection not afforded to others.


????????????

 

[fbloke]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

Here are some words from the dad of a youngster who moved to Citys academy.

It sorta supports what I said in an earlier reply, if an academy is holding a kid back or even harming his progress contract or no he should be allowed to leave.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5548290,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 90,00.html</a>

 

[Bluemoon115]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

The fact is that these Frenchists are claiming that we recieved a document in error.

It doesn't matter, we still recieved the document, so it's their oen federations fault, not ours.

Maybe the French Football Federation should be banned from sanctioning transfers for the next two windows as punishment.

 

[fbloke]

Re: Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)

The fact is that these Frenchists are claiming that we recieved a document in error.

It doesn't matter, we still recieved the document, so it's their oen federations fault, not ours.

Maybe the French Football Federation should be banned from sanctioning transfers for the next two windows as punishment.

BUt of course they cant be as they are independent of FIFA *** puzzled****