[Football] Blimey - this IS a contract clause

[Stat Brother]

[tweet]1065213370851344385[/tweet]

 

[Bozza]

[tweet]1065213370851344385[/tweet]

Pretty sure they copied the clause that Barbs put into the sale of Ashley Barnes to Burnley. It's why they were hoping Stephens would let his contract run down.

 

[NooBHA]

[tweet]1065213370851344385[/tweet]

A good contract lawyer could pull that to bits. Especially if the contract of an ''arms length party'' (football player in question) has his freedom of movement restricted, due to an agreement entered into by another two independent parties (Liverpool FC and Barcelona FC)

I think a Court might possibly deem the clause invalid.

 

[beorhthelm]

A good contract lawyer could pull that to bits. Especially if the contract of an ''arms length party'' (football player in question) has his freedom of movement restricted, due to an agreement entered into by another two independent parties (Liverpool FC and Barcelona FC)

I think a Court might possibly deem the clause invalid.

it means Barca have to deal with the clause to even consider any player at Liverpool, so steer them elsewhere.

 

[Stat Brother]

A good contract lawyer could pull that to bits. Especially if the contract of an ''arms length party'' (football player in question) has his freedom of movement restricted, due to an agreement entered into by another two independent parties (Liverpool FC and Barcelona FC)

I think a Court might possibly deem the clause invalid.

it means Barca have to deal with the clause to even consider any player at Liverpool, so steer them elsewhere.

Exactly.

All a bit of a ballache that could easily vanish with say an extra £20m.

 

[clippedgull]

Hmm, money making opportunity here...

Buy a player from Liverpool and then flog him to Barcelona for a 50m Euro premium

Win. Win, Liverpool (lose!)

 

[nwgull]

Pretty sure they copied the clause that Barbs put into the sale of Ashley Barnes to Burnley. It's why they were hoping Stephens would let his contract run down.

Doesn't make sense, as they still made a bid of 8m in 2016. I'm sure that they'd have been hoping Stephens would've been available on a Bosman regardless.

 

[Wozza]

Doesn't make sense, as they still made a bid of 8m in 2016. I'm sure that they'd have been hoping Stephens would've been available on a Bosman regardless.

Woooooosh!

 

[Bakero]

Woooooosh!

Double whoosh?

 

[Southern Scouse]

Probably because they still owe LFC money from Suarez and Coutinho......

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

A good contract lawyer could pull that to bits. Especially if the contract of an ''arms length party'' (football player in question) has his freedom of movement restricted, due to an agreement entered into by another two independent parties (Liverpool FC and Barcelona FC)

I think a Court might possibly deem the clause invalid.

In effect it’s a no-poaching clause....which are fairly routine in certain sectors. Why would this differ?

 

[NooBHA]

In effect it’s a no-poaching clause....which are fairly routine in certain sectors. Why would this differ?

Poaching is ''Standard Practice'' within Football. That's what a Transfer essentially is. It is ''poaching'' - A Transfer fee is in effect payment / compensation for poaching a player.

The player themselves are at ''arms length'' to the two clubs who previously made the agreement. In my opinion, there would not be many judges who would bind a third party (the future player) to an agreement made by a separate two parties (the two clubs Liverpool and Barcelona)