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

By SheppyFox, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

vanity

vanity

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

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).

Great response, thank you. If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like a Calderbank is similar to what we'd call a 998 out here in California, basically a statutory offer to compromise with dramatic cost shifting if the verdict in a case is less than the 998 offer. That makes a lot of sense to me here, where it appears defendants have the leverage of the transfer window closing and are being stubborn in asking for six times what Nacho is offering to settle. 

 

I had initially assumed this was a matter in the UK, but when I dug in a bit, it turns out Iheanacho has filed in Pennsylvania state court seeking to void the contract, with the primary argument being Nacho was not being aware of Zanicky being suspended from the practice of law at the time he signed the contract. It also seems the complaint alleges First Eleven received more compensation than it was due for use of Nacho's likeness, though without knowing what sort of numbers we are talking about, it is impossible to say whether it could constitute a material breach. A minor breach would be unlikely to relieve Nacho of his duties of performance under the contract, it would just entitle him to damages. On the other hand, a material breach would allow him treat the contract as at an end and would have an immediate right to damages. The question of minor vs. material hinges on whether Nacho received the substantial benefit of the bargain. 

 

Re the argument that Nacho did not know about the suspension of Zanicky, kinda sounds like a fraudulent misrepresentation/fraud in the inducement claim, which would potentially make the contract voidable. For any non-lawyers, if a party induces another to enter into a contract by using fraudulent misrepresentation -- that is, by asserting information that he knows to be untrue --  the contract may be voidable by the innocent party if he justifiably relied on the fraudulent misrepresentation. 

 

If I were his counsel, I'd probably also try a lack of capacity argument. I am too lazy to track down case law on it, but it would be a variant of a standard mental incapacity defense based upon language difficulty -- perhaps Nacho wasn't capable of understanding the nature and significance of the contract at its time of signing and can consequently void it. I am sure there is support in the case law for this sort of argument, but it would be dependent on the context of the signing, and we don't know the circumstances under which the signing occurred (though it is reported he signed the first contract with First Eleven when he was 16 with his father present, for $1000.00 no less, and the First Eleven came back and had him sign again when he turned 18, likely to prevent precisely this sort of claim, so if they did it properly, I doubt this would have legs).

 

Anyhow. Interesting stuff, thanks again for taking the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

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).

 

39 minutes ago, vanity said:

Great response, thank you. If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like a Calderbank is similar to what we'd call a 998 out here in California, basically a statutory offer to compromise with dramatic cost shifting if the verdict in a case is less than the 998 offer. That makes a lot of sense to me here, where it appears defendants have the leverage of the transfer window closing and are being stubborn in asking for six times what Nacho is offering to settle. 

 

I had initially assumed this was a matter in the UK, but when I dug in a bit, it turns out Iheanacho has filed in Pennsylvania state court seeking to void the contract, with the primary argument being Nacho was not being aware of Zanicky being suspended from the practice of law at the time he signed the contract. It also seems the complaint alleges First Eleven received more compensation than it was due for use of Nacho's likeness, though without knowing what sort of numbers we are talking about, it is impossible to say whether it could constitute a material breach. A minor breach would be unlikely to relieve Nacho of his duties of performance under the contract, it would just entitle him to damages. On the other hand, a material breach would allow him treat the contract as at an end and would have an immediate right to damages. The question of minor vs. material hinges on whether Nacho received the substantial benefit of the bargain. 

 

Re the argument that Nacho did not know about the suspension of Zanicky, kinda sounds like a fraudulent misrepresentation/fraud in the inducement claim, which would potentially make the contract voidable. For any non-lawyers, if a party induces another to enter into a contract by using fraudulent misrepresentation -- that is, by asserting information that he knows to be untrue --  the contract may be voidable by the innocent party if he justifiably relied on the fraudulent misrepresentation. 

 

If I were his counsel, I'd probably also try a lack of capacity argument. I am too lazy to track down case law on it, but it would be a variant of a standard mental incapacity defense based upon language difficulty -- perhaps Nacho wasn't capable of understanding the nature and significance of the contract at its time of signing and can consequently void it. I am sure there is support in the case law for this sort of argument, but it would be dependent on the context of the signing, and we don't know the circumstances under which the signing occurred (though it is reported he signed the first contract with First Eleven when he was 16 with his father present, for $1000.00 no less, and the First Eleven came back and had him sign again when he turned 18, likely to prevent precisely this sort of claim, so if they did it properly, I doubt this would have legs).

 

Anyhow. Interesting stuff, thanks again for taking the time. 

Too many letters innit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rossiman

Rossiman

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I imagine the contract relating to his image rights is qualified by references to his contractual employer being Manchester City. 

 

Whatever legal disputes he has, they clearly need to be resolved before his registration changes hands. The fact that first eleven seem to have questions about their respectability makes this even more difficult to sort out. As referenced earlier, this could be the guys only chance to make any money for the rest of his days. someone is going to have to dig deep. It may already have been done but the clubs and the player are going to have to pay this guy off and it won't come/have come cheap.

 

True. I don't think he'll take 400 grand for Iheanacho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GaelicFox

GaelicFox

Posted
Posted

From MEN today apparently said last night ? 

 

"Nearly two weeks on and as the players prepare to head back to Manchester, the Nigerian striker has still not secured his exit although it seems ineviatble.

"I think Kelechi leaves us in favor of Leicester" said Guardiola. "I think so, but I do not want to say anything wrong either. We will see. If that does not happen, he will be part of the group."

Leicester boss Craig Shakespeare was still hopeful of completing the transfer when asked about Iheanacho.

"I'm hoping so, but I am like every other manager at the moment. I think we all find it frustrating but it is the current market," he said." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, GaelicFox said:

From MEN today apparently said last night ? 

 

"Nearly two weeks on and as the players prepare to head back to Manchester, the Nigerian striker has still not secured his exit although it seems ineviatble.

"I think Kelechi leaves us in favor of Leicester" said Guardiola. "I think so, but I do not want to say anything wrong either. We will see. If that does not happen, he will be part of the group."

Leicester boss Craig Shakespeare was still hopeful of completing the transfer when asked about Iheanacho.

"I'm hoping so, but I am like every other manager at the moment. I think we all find it frustrating but it is the current market," he said." 

he said it on SSN after the mk dons game. I'm trying to work out which one of you lot is indeed Craig! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sylofox

sylofox

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

We have now been trying to sign Kalechi for TWO TIMES more days than Spurs have spent on top of the Premier League in the last 25 years.

 

Spurs: 33 days on top of the Premier League. 

Leicester: 69 days since we were first linked with Iheanacho. 

You forgot to add the 15 minutes from the 15/16 season.

 

33 days 15 minutes.

 

How the fvck could anyone miss the world stopping event.

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.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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