The great Vicente saga - 2012 edition [All quite exciting in the end]

[Hotchilidog]

String us along!? He went with the club's blessing to sort out his future. They new he was going to be a father again in June, and what, by the end of June he has to have made a decision?

No one forced Gus into a press conference to say the club WOULD NOT be invoking the 2nd year! It doesn't appear that anything was ever said to Vicente to contradict that.

Vicente is was a one club player, one of those rare players that played for his home town team for most of his career. He had his pick of any major moves around Europe at various points but was loyal throughout. Suddenly he's turned into a money grabbing villain? I don't buy it.

Vicente's family situation has been well known for a long time, if he wanted to move home for family reasons then it should have been a pretty clear, and an understandable decision. I do not see what has changed for him, and why we have had to wait to find out with any clarity what Vicente's intentions were. I'm sorry but we have been strung along, as there do appear to have been discussions about a new contract, or his situation, and we have not had an answer. This is why we had to exercise our contract option. Whatever Gus says he does not sign the contracts or control the purse strings, those will be held firmly by Tony Bloom, Paul Barber and whoever our new director of football who's name eludes me.

I do not think it unfair of the club to have expected an answer by now, does he want to stay, or does he want to leave, it's simple choice. We are protecting our interests as we quite rightly should, we shouldn't have to apologise for that either.

The problem we all have looking at this situation from the outside is that we have not been privy to any of the discussions and now only have a few shit-stirring comments from Vicente's agent to go on. I don't buy Vicente as money grabbing villain either (however his advisors may not be so squeaky clean), which is what makes this situation even more mystifying. I'm pretty sure if he wanted more money we would have been willing to give a fair chunk of it, so I am at a loss to explain why we are in this situation before.

If Vicente is not to be part of our team next season then we will have to adapt our plans accordingly. This affects the roles of existing players and also our targets in the transfer market. Having a key player leave us hanging on his future makes life a lot more difficult for us.

Personally speaking I hope we can thrash out a solution agreeable to all parties and that he stays, but we need a resolution to this situation and quick.

 

[kevtherev]

I think we need to be realistic about this. The player is gone. The activation of the clause was really only relevent if he wanted to play for say Reading. Cant see the point in forcing a player who would rather stay in Spain and if Elche dont have the funds for a transfer (which would be nice) what are we gonna do, force him to stay? It would hardly be good for the team, cost the Albion a years wages and for a player who can afford to sit out his contract.

Lessons need to be learned from this - one in particular is that Poyet needs reigning in on his comments, about contracts, other vacancies etc.

IF, and that is if...Vicente's contract with us as it stands atm, is pay as you play as some people have suggested. It would in fact cost us sweet fa to make him sit out the year on his contract. He can do it sitting on a beach in Spain for all I care. He signed it, make him stick to it or else someone has to pay up.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Vicente is was a one club player, one of those rare players that played for his home town team for most of his career. He had his pick of any major moves around Europe at various points but was loyal throughout. Suddenly he's turned into a money grabbing villain? I don't buy it.

Me neither. It's this more than anything that makes me believe there's been a serious misunderstanding somewhere along the way. It's very easy for all of us to sit in our ivory towers, bereft of any real facts/insight, and pass judgment on either Vicente or the club/Gus.

 

[macky]

It's all well and good saying he wants to go home If he is homesick fair enough But he could have said thatat the end of the season
He's being greedy and trying to get more

 

[Acker79]

That doesn't actually matter. In general terms, if a representative of a company is of a certain responsibility or standing within that company, then their instruction or agreement can be legally binding, regardless if it is a matter not normally within their job remit because they are representing the company and it would be reasonable for the other party to the contact or legal agreement to assume their word holds weight.

In this case Gus Poyet publicly stated that BHA wouldn't hold Vicente to his additional year if he wanted to go. At that point it would be hard to prove that GP doesn't have the required authority or standing within BHA on contractual matters, when he is making public pronouncements on them.

Personally, and I'll probably get flamed for this, I think BHA have acted pretty poorly. GP did state that they would not hold him to the extension if he wanted to move on. There was no reason for Vicente not to take him at his word. On the face of it, he's gone home to be with his family considering his future, and suddenly BHA have invoked this contractual clause which looks like has come as a big surprise to him.

To all those having a pop at Vicente saying he signed a contract and should live with it, that is true, but the other party to that contract publicly stated that the contract extension wouldn't be invoked. BHA have justified this as protecting their interests, however they've gone back on their word in doing so, and frankly I'd be f*cked off as well.

Vicente has been with the club since the end of last august. This is the second negotiation process, he should be well aware of who has what authority and know that Gus doesn't have the power to promise him anything.

I'm not arguing the club are right and vicente is wrong, or vice versa (I think this whole mess is one big grey area, with situations not being as entirely predictable as some suggest (e.g. he knew he was having another baby, but he didn't know how hard it would be to live in a foreign country with a new born, or commute to one or whatever, he doesn't know how his wife is reacting to the second baby, etc.), I don't think letting a player go or not standing in his way necessarily equals giving him away for nothing, I think a lot of what some people see is bad behaviour is simply posturing or negotiation tactics, etc).

I am simply saying that Gus saying in the press, or even direct to Vicente he wouldn't force Vicente to stay isn't in any way legally binding.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Gus is no mug and I don't believe he says anything publicly without there being a good reason for it. You might not agree with some of the statements he makes, but that's not the same as him going off at the hip without thinking things through. I think it was telling that he made reference to looking forward to the end of Vicente's personal problems in his last statement on the subject. There seems to be a lot of issues with Vicente's state of mind at times. Add a new born baby, possible family friction, his management company trying to earn as much as possible out of any deal, and his anger at a perceived breach of trust, then it's no wonder things have got to this stage. I really hope that things can be concluded soon so all parties can come out with credit and move on. What definitely doesn't help is people judging before all the facts are known.

 

[Rugrat]

To all those having a pop at Vicente saying he signed a contract and should live with it, that is true, but the other party to that contract publicly stated that the contract extension wouldn't be invoked. BHA have justified this as protecting their interests, however they've gone back on their word in doing so, and frankly I'd be f*cked off as well.

You have to believe something provoked that sort of action ... such like Vicente suggesting he was going to return by engaging in discussions about improved terms whilst all the time using what he was getting from us to negotiate a better deal with Elche. No doubt in my mind it was a reaction by the club.

I also believe that if Gus came out publicly that Vicente could go if if he wanted then that in itself is sufficient grounds for Vicente to argue his case legally. Gus is (was), in every respect Vicente's boss and I'd also be surprised if the agreement that he could go wasn't conveyed by other "officials" in the club directly. Vicente didn't just happen to pick up the Argus one morning to discover he would be freed of his contract.

Unfortunately I think we screwed up and I also think that Vicente has taken advantage of that ... we're trying to save a bit of face now.

Reckon Gus and playing staff will already have moved on and Barber trying to salvage something from it

 

[B.W.]

That doesn't actually matter. In general terms, if a representative of a company is of a certain responsibility or standing within that company, then their instruction or agreement can be legally binding, regardless if it is a matter not normally within their job remit because they are representing the company and it would be reasonable for the other party to the contact or legal agreement to assume their word holds weight.

In this case Gus Poyet publicly stated that BHA wouldn't hold Vicente to his additional year if he wanted to go. At that point it would be hard to prove that GP doesn't have the required authority or standing within BHA on contractual matters, when he is making public pronouncements on them.

Personally, and I'll probably get flamed for this, I think BHA have acted pretty poorly. GP did state that they would not hold him to the extension if he wanted to move on. There was no reason for Vicente not to take him at his word. On the face of it, he's gone home to be with his family considering his future, and suddenly BHA have invoked this contractual clause which looks like has come as a big surprise to him.

To all those having a pop at Vicente saying he signed a contract and should live with it, that is true, but the other party to that contract publicly stated that the contract extension wouldn't be invoked. BHA have justified this as protecting their interests, however they've gone back on their word in doing so, and frankly I'd be f*cked off as well.

Are you a lawyer? Because I think you'll find the written contract takes precedence over anything said by Poyet in the press...

 

[B.W.]

And the behaviour of the club in saying publicly it was up to him if he wanted to come back or not. Perhaps it's you that should 'wind yer' neck in'.

I think not my friend... Poyet is not the club...

 

[B.W.]

Totally agree. Vicente left with the club's blessing that his future was in his own hands. He's had that choice removed, and we as a club have acted very poorly in this matter in order to protect a fee that might not even exist in real terms. We've made ourselves look publicly shoddy and frankly unprofessional. If GP has nothing to do with contracts, then he shouldn't be publicly talking about them. If someone at the club believes that he was wrong, then a statement should have be made (even if to the player privately) that GP was wrong. It is apparent this didn't happen.

BUT... you are missing the point... the LEGAL contract was signed by Vicente and the club a year ago... neither of which are Poyet... that contract provided the club with the option to extend to 2 years... the club have exercised that option...

To repeat, Vicente signed the contract, and he is now in breach (not training)... don't throw mud at the club... by all means throw mud at Gus (I agree he should have kept his mouth shut on this, and have said so repeatedly)...

 

[B.W.]

I can't argue with any of that and certainly don't think that the club have acted well here, at least not from a public point of view.

The only counter argument I can put forward is that (and this is presumptuous) Vicente also made a verbal promise to come back at some stage of the summer. Otherwise, Poyet was an idiot for his 90-95% comment. Perhaps when he started stalling, the decision was "well you have gone back on your word, now we'll go back on ours".

Pure conjecture, but highly likely Vicente and his agent were/are dicking us around... as you say, why Poyet's infamous 90-95% statement then, shortly afterwards, the hardline by the club...

 

[B.W.]

String us along!? He went with the club's blessing to sort out his future. They knew he was going to be a father again in June, and what, by the end of June he has to have made a decision?

No one forced Gus into a press conference to say the club WOULD NOT be invoking the 2nd year! It doesn't appear that anything was ever said to Vicente to contradict that.

Vicente is was a one club player, one of those rare players that played for his home town team for most of his career. He had his pick of any major moves around Europe at various points but was loyal throughout. Suddenly he's turned into a money grabbing villain? I don't buy it.

If he wants to go so badly, then he can buyout his contract himself, or persuade his best mate at Elche to pay the fee we are asking for him... otherwise, tough... he signed the contract, he has to live with it...

 

[B.W.]

IF, and that is if...Vicente's contract with us as it stands atm, is pay as you play as some people have suggested. It would in fact cost us sweet fa to make him sit out the year on his contract. He can do it sitting on a beach in Spain for all I care. He signed it, make him stick to it or else someone has to pay up.

He is NOT on pay as you play, believe me...

 

[B.W.]

Me neither. It's this more than anything that makes me believe there's been a serious misunderstanding somewhere along the way. It's very easy for all of us to sit in our ivory towers, bereft of any real facts/insight, and pass judgment on either Vicente or the club/Gus.

No, he is not a money-grabbing villain... he understandably want's to play in Spain for family reason, I suspect, but his decision not to turn up to training is bang out of order AND in breach of the contract HE signed, so he certainly ain't the Saint some on here are making him out to be...

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

No, he is not a money-grabbing villain... he understandably want's to play in Spain for family reason, I suspect, but his decision not to turn up to training is bang out of order AND in breach of the contract HE signed, so he certainly ain't the Saint some on here are making him out to be...

You must be so high up at The Amex, you have currently made 120 posts out of 1034, insider knowledge.

 

[B.W.]

You have to believe something provoked that sort of action ... such like Vicente suggesting he was going to return by engaging in discussions about improved terms whilst all the time using what he was getting from us to negotiate a better deal with Elche. No doubt in my mind it was a reaction by the club.

I also believe that if Gus came out publicly that Vicente could go if if he wanted then that in itself is sufficient grounds for Vicente to argue his case legally. Gus is (was), in every respect Vicente's boss and I'd also be surprised if the agreement that he could go wasn't conveyed by other "officials" in the club directly. Vicente didn't just happen to pick up the Argus one morning to discover he would be freed of his contract.

Unfortunately I think we screwed up and I also think that Vicente has taken advantage of that ... we're trying to save a bit of face now.

Reckon Gus and playing staff will already have moved on and Barber trying to salvage something from it

No, sorry, this is wrong... the contract prevails over Gus' press mumblings...

 

[B.W.]

You must be so high up at The Amex, you have currently made 120 posts out of 1034, insider knowledge.

I just know a high-up...

 

[WallyBanana]

No, sorry, this is wrong... the contract prevails over Gus' press mumblings...

Instead of working yourself up about it, why don't we just wait and see what happens!? That way you won't have to speculate any further, trying to correct people when even you don't know what's going on!

 

[macky]

String us along!? He went with the club's blessing to sort out his future. They knew he was going to be a father again in June, and what, by the end of June he has to have made a decision?

No one forced Gus into a press conference to say the club WOULD NOT be invoking the 2nd year! It doesn't appear that anything was ever said to Vicente to contradict that.

Vicente is was a one club player, one of those rare players that played for his home town team for most of his career. He had his pick of any major moves around Europe at various points but was loyal throughout. Suddenly he's turned into a money grabbing villain? I don't buy it.

He has had 3 clubs if he go,s that wil be four no where near a loyal one club man bloody hell he's nearly as many as frank worthington
if you re going to fight his corner geta little more real than that

 

[peterward]

No, sorry, this is wrong... the contract prevails over Gus' press mumblings...

not neccesarily, even though that simplistically sounds like it should be the case, I just pulled this off a legal Q&A site in relation to verbal agreements (which seeing as they were made in Public may well be explored by Vicente's representatives)

Are verbal agreements legally binding?

"It depends upon the jurisdiction. In many places a verbal contract is just as good as a written one in the eyes of the law - it is an enforceable agreement. However, it can be harder to prove the terms of a verbal agreement as both sides may (and usually will) have different recollections.

However, in some countries contracts are not enforceable unless they are in writing (in some countries the rule only applies to certain types of contract - for example, in England, verbal contracts are legally enforceable except in the one exception of if they relate to the transfer of land, where a written contract is required). Also be aware that in some countries (particularly South American and Eastern Europe) many contracts cannot be enforced unless they have been notarised, and clearly you can only notarise a written contract."