Nathan Ake

Zin 'messiah' Zimmer said:
You can’t pay a player off if found not guilty, especially as others won’t touch him with a barge pole… he’d have a claim for restriction to practise, should we force the issue!
Click to expand...
Yes you can pay a player off - any player at any time you like.
The relationship between the club and player is a financial contract and if the club pays all that’s due under the contract then the club has met all of it’s obligations and the player suffers no financial loss.
Thus there is no case for a claim.

You can also simply not play a player and then the player can make a claim for loss of earnings and that loss is, you’ve guessed it, exactly the sum that the club would be due to pay if the player wasn’t ostracised (plus legal fees).

Look at the many and very regular examples of managers being sacked (happens at old Trafford every other season).
The club pays whatever was due under the contract minus whatever can be reasonably determined to be the amount that the said sacked manager is likely to earn elsewhere once sacked.
That sum is the only area for argument and if the club stumps up the full amount due, without any account of what the sacked manager will likely still earn, then the manager walks and there is no legal issue whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t be ideal but say we sold ake and then signed cucurella it wouldn’t be the end of the world imo.

Potential cb options:
Dias, Laporte, stones
rodri, Phillips and at a push Walker

Although cucurella has technically played there it was as a left sided cb of a three and I would imagine he is too small to play in a two.

Should be enough cover but would still rather we sign a replacement if he goes
 
OccupiedPalestineBlues said:
Yes you can pay a player off - any player at any time you like.
The relationship between the club and player is a financial contract and if the club pays all that’s due under the contract then the club has met all of it’s obligations and the player suffers no financial loss.
Thus there is no case for a claim.

You can also simply not play a player and then the player can make a claim for loss of earnings and that loss is, you’ve guessed it, exactly the sum that the club would be due to pay if the player wasn’t ostracised (plus legal fees).

Look at the many and very regular examples of managers being sacked (happens at old Trafford every other season).
The club pays whatever was due under the contract minus whatever can be reasonably determined to be the amount that the said sacked manager is likely to earn elsewhere once sacked.
That sum is the only area for argument and if the club stumps up the full amount due, without any account of what the sacked manager will likely still earn, then the manager walks and there is no legal issue whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You totally missed the tone or my delivery was off, it was more ‘you can’t do that’ rather than categorically ‘that’s not allowed’…
 
Zin 'messiah' Zimmer said:
You totally missed the tone or my delivery was off, it was more ‘you can’t do that’ rather than categorically ‘that’s not allowed’…
Click to expand...
I suspected that I’d missed something because I generally regard your opinions as sharply accurate (hence the likes I pin to them), so I was baffled but I hadn’t read the build up to the post so I’m guessing that my response lacked appreciation of the full context.
 
If Chelsea really want him then get your money out (It'll take more than the £40 Mill we paid for him) and put it on the table and we'll think about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.