Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
SheppyFox

Iheanacho

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, vanity said:

Can anyone explain to a stupid American attorney why this holds up a transfer? This appears to be a breach of contract claim between Nacho and First Eleven. What is it that holds up his transfer to LCFC? Neither MNC or LCFC are a party to the action, and whether Nacho comes to play for LCFC or MNC has no bearing on the value of his image rights (outside of a rather attenuated "he would be worth more on the bench at MNC than playing first team at LCFC," which is so speculative that I have trouble seeing it being taken seriously). I get it, there is clearly a reason here, I am just curious what it is so I can understand the reasoning.

This is my assumption based on what has been said in the media up to date and from my own conclusions.

 

The player had representatives who he changed. The contract between the player  and his first representative was far from a clean break. I'm guessing in between changing a media appearance, sponsorship deal or something along those lines fell into a grey area (I.e. The offer was negotiated by the first representative but concluded under the contract of the second representative). Subsequently, this led to the dispute which is now holding up the deal with Leicester as the first representative believes the player is in breach of its contract. As the first representative believes it is due payment for its part in the negotiation. This is obviously disputed by the player and it's new representative. 

 

The deal with Leicester is effected (and I'm guessing by a situation completely unrelated to the move here) because player transfer usually have media and PR responsibilities which the player is required to take part (I.e. Holding up the Puma/King Power sponsored shirt). There should be a pot which allocates payment to the player, it's representative and the club for taking part in such excercise. The issue is, because of this dispute, the player does not know who to allocate the sums too (as their is still a risk the courts could deem the break between the player and its representative as void and therefore the contract as still valid). 

 

Now, basic employment law (and European law) would mean that the player should be free to move to whichever employer club he sees fit. It's completely separate from one and the other. However, the contract with the player and its first representative (again, a guess) will have some sort of resolution clause or even a liquidated damages clause - which kicks in if either party is in breach. 

 

What the player is trying to avoid (especially while the matter is in dispute) is falling foul of a court ruling which means they are left with a hefty bill to its former representative for the disputed contractual claim and any subsequent deal thereafter (it can happen and courts have made some pretty bizarre reasons in the Past which suggests their caution is correct). 

 

So, how do you get around this - you asses the cost and make what's known as a Calderbank offer (could easily be a part 36 offer but it depends where the proceedings are at this stage), where you make a reasonable offer to the other party and allow a specific and reasonable time for the other party to either accept the offer or reject it (either expressly, in writing or a deemed rejection by no action at all). 

 

At the end of this period, the player can conclude its deal with its new club and when the court proceedings continue can rely on the calderbank on costs allocation governance by the courts. It's an alternative position If a part 36 has been made (however, I don't intend to go into great depth as to the difference between the two situations).

 

i doubt  very much that the players contract with Man City or Leicester makes any specific reference to the representatives. It be a pretty poor lawyer who specifically references a third party in a commercial contract, knowing full well that they have no control over who the third party is and can change at any time, which could simply frustrate part of the contract. It wouldn't be very clever. 

 

Therefore, the player has agreed a deal with Leicester, the player cannot sign the contract until such time that either: a) the time period in the Calderbank has expired; or b) they have allowed a reasonable period to expire in the part 36 offer. 

 

Why does this effect Leicester? As if the player says signs today, it's very likely that the contract between Puma and Leicester will have specific time periods on which a new player will be required to be flaunted in the Puma kit and if the dispute (though unrelated to an extent) is not at a stage where the player is comfortable to do this, there would be a breach between the player and the club and the club and its sponsors. 

 

Nothing is certain till its signed on the on the dotted line but it really is a cooling down period which had the player been in talks with a number of others would be slightly more worrying than where we are. He will sign and most probably in the next week (again, judging by the media reports and staged).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't get the lack of patience on here. There's been a hold up because of his image stuff and it's nothing the clubs can do until it's resolved. Unless we are weirdly gazumped at the last minute he'll be our player by the end of the window. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I really don't get the lack of patience on here. There's been a hold up because of his image stuff and it's nothing the clubs can do until it's resolved. Unless we are weirdly gazumped at the last minute he'll be our player by the end of the window. 

It worries me because he isn't getting a preseason... this needs to be resolved asap, otherwise he will not be match fit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, kingfox said:

Needs to get back on the topic of, Natalie Sawyer or Rachel Riley?

Im surprised nobodys put a poll up. Natalie's tits vs Rachel's arse. Its Natalie for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

It worries me because he isn't getting a preseason... this needs to be resolved asap, otherwise he will not be match fit

Worries you? Of course it'd be better if it was done and he was playing in a friendly today. But it's not and it's not in either clubs hands - so worry, frustration and other emotions are all a bit useless frankly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sm1 said:

Im surprised nobodys put a poll up. Natalie's tits vs Rachel's arse. Its Natalie for me. 

I can't see how, Rachel doesn't just have an arse though she is an all rounder for me, she is great at the back and upfront. I'm glad this thread has got back on topic :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

I can't see how, Rachel doesn't just have an arse though she is an all rounder for me, she is great at the back and upfront. I'm glad this thread has got back on topic :) 

An all rounder, so is Natalie :whistle:

 

IMG_1750.JPG.0a40b229270f71237a97cb410a995836.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...