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
moore_94

Sheffield Wednesday pursuing legal action against Foxes over George Hirst

By moore_94, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

moore_94

moore_94

Posted
Posted

Sheffield Wednesday are seeking significant compensation from Leicester City for striker George Hirst, The Star understands.

 

Hirst rejected a long-term deal, which the Owls claimed would have made him the best-paid player for his age in their history, and left the club at the end of his contract to join Belgium team OH Leuven, Leicester’s sister club, in July 2018.

 

After an unsuccessful season at Leuven, Hirst, the son of Wednesday great David, moved to the King Power Stadium last summer.

 

Had Leicester signed him straight from the Owls, the Premier League side would have had to negotiate a compensation fee for Hirst, who was still under the age of 23.

 

However, Leuven’s status as an overseas club meant they bypassed those regulations and any compensation was paid on a fixed tariff, based on FIFA’s regulations.

 

Now it is understood the Owls are pursuing legal action against the Foxes over the loophole they exploited to circumnavigate the usual compensation process.

 

Leuven forked out no more than £150,000 to land Hirst, who has represented England at Under-20s, U19s, U18s and U17s level.

 

The 20-year-old came through Wednesday’s academy and his stellar goal-scoring exploits at youth level saw him earn plenty of plaudits. Sheffield-born Hirst notched 40 goals for club and country in the 2016/17 campaign.

 

He made two substitute appearances totalling 41 minutes in the blue and white stripes. His senior debut came as a substitute in their 2-1 EFL Cup defeat to Cambridge United.

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/latest-owls-news/exclusive-sheffield-wednesday-set-take-legal-action-against-leicester-city-over-george-hirst-transfer-1349697

StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted

What's the loophole they're moaning about? It's a FIFA regulation so surely they should be taking on FIFA instead of us. This is the important bit - compensation paid on a fixed tariff. If we didn't pay the compensation or broke that rule then fair enough, take legal action. But we/Leuven abided by the rules, no?

 

Quote

However, Leuven’s status as an overseas club meant they bypassed those regulations and any compensation was paid on a fixed tariff, based on FIFA’s regulations.

 

And why only now that they're taking legal action? Do they need the money desperately now? 

urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted

The same Sheffield Wednesday who are under investigation for breaking FFP rules because they sold their stadium back to themselves? Seems to be like they're expecting a huge fine and are trying everything to recoup the money to pay for it. They shot themselves in the foot with Hirst and they know it. I think our lawyers will handle this quite easily.

DB11

DB11

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, StanSP said:

And why only now that they're taking legal action? Do they need the money desperately now? 

Well that’s not that hard to work out - it’s not until he moved from Leuven to us that Sheff Weds would have felt our owners had orchestrated that first move rather than going straight to Leicester. 

ithuriel

ithuriel

Posted
Posted

Surely this will not go far, taking LCFC to court for an out of contract player signed by a foreign club even if it is owned by the same peeps as Leicester, seems they are grasping for non existent straws here.

Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted

Think some of you guys are being a bit blase about this.

 

We'd be livid if someone did this to us and it's pretty clearly us using Leuven to try to bend the rules.

 

It is a bit shitty what we've done tbf.

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Think some of you guys are being a bit blade about this.

 

We'd be livid if we did this and it's 0retty clearly us using Leuven to try to bend the rules.

 

It is a bit shitty what we've done tbf.

 

 

Which law have we broken?

 

 

if the loopholes aren’t there, they can’t be ‘exploited’

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, DB11 said:

Well that’s not that hard to work out - it’s not until he moved from Leuven to us that Sheff Weds would have felt our owners had orchestrated that first move rather than going straight to Leicester. 

 

 

But that was several months ago is his point...

 

 

 

They are probably already trying to get us on the blower for an ‘out of court settlement’

mozartfox

mozartfox

Posted
Posted

The Star ‘understands‘. Love that quote.  I cannot take credit for this superb FT member quote.... SLB.       Sounds Like Bollox.;)

Gerard

Gerard

Posted
Posted

IIRC they also tried to shaft George Hirst in his development by refusing to play him at any level because he wouldn't sign a contract extension with them.

 

That is their right not to play him but it's also Hirst's right to be able to refuse a contract. It sounds to me that Wednesday played hardball with him and Hirst retaliated with a big **** You. 

DB11

DB11

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MPH said:

 

 

But that was several months ago is his point...

I suspect it’s been going on/planned in the background for a while. It’s not going to have just been done on Boxing Day? As to why it’s only just been leaked or made it in the media today who knows 

ithuriel

ithuriel

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Think some of you guys are being a bit blase about this.

 

We'd be livid if someone did this to us and it's pretty clearly us using Leuven to try to bend the rules.

 

It is a bit shitty what we've done tbf.

Maybe they should look into how they handled their player that led him to run his contract out and move where he wanted, I'd be more annoyed at the club, then the player, then the buying club tbh.

SemperEadem

SemperEadem

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, DB11 said:

He only made two sub appearances for them - they can’t have valued him that highly 

They did, wanted to make them their biggest youth team earner etc but he refused to sign and acted like a tart.

Got all a little sad as his Dad a legend there burnt his bridges over it all.

Ashley

Ashley

Posted
Posted

So let me get this right. 

 

Sheff Wednesday ****ed around not give GH a new contract, GH eventually ran his contract down. Leuven signed him, to eventually come to us.

 

Not great what happened but why didnt Wedneaday give him the contract he wanted? They're partly to blame in this, weve spotted a loophole and used it. 

 

Move on. 

 

Edit: like above Wedneaday refused to play him at a higher level due to contractual issues too... 

Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

Which law have we broken?

 

 

if the loopholes aren’t there, they can’t be ‘exploited’

We haven't broken any laws, but it's like when Watford loaned half of Udinese's B-team a few years back or RB Leipzig managed to get round Germany's 50+1 ownership rules.

 

It's finding way round the rules to make things uncompetitive and it's a bit shitty.

 

If ManCity owners had signed an exciting young player from us to some Saudi club for a season and then ManCity signed them from that Saudi club on the cheap and we got no compensation for an exciting young player we'd invested in our academy for, when it was obviously predetermined we'd all be saying it's bullshit and anti-competitive and just the big clubs bending the rules to favour themselves.

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sampson said:

We haven't broken any laws, but it's like when Watford loaned half of Udinese's B-team a few years back or RB Leipzig managed to get round Germany's 50+1 ownership rules.

 

It's finding way round the rules to make things uncompetitive and it's a bit shitty.

 

If ManCity owners had signed an exciting young player from us to some Saudi club for a season and then ManCity signed them from that Saudi club on the cheap and we got no compensation for an exciting young player we'd invested in our academy for, when it was obviously predetermined we'd all be saying it's bullshit and anti-competitive and just the big clubs bending the rules to favour themselves.

see my post above... they are trying to find their own loopholes to get out of the FFP situation they are in then complain about someone using a loophole. Hypocrisy.

Bossman Blessed It

Bossman Blessed It

Posted
Posted

It's a bizarre loophole which does seem rather exploitative if we're being completely unbiased here. Obviously from a financial perspective, we are right to use any loopholes that we can to pay the least that we possibly can to get any player, which of course isn't the issue here. An incredibly wealthy club using their sister club to bypass a fairer compensation for one of the brightest prospects from a much less wealthy club is morally wrong. I'm not saying other clubs don't use their power in this way too. But just remember what it was like for us before we had money - you can't blame Sheffield Wednesday for wanting to rectify this situation a little, at least from a moral perspective. 

MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, DB11 said:

I suspect it’s been going on/planned in the background for a while. It’s not going to have just been done on Boxing Day? As to why it’s only just been leaked or made it in the media today who knows 

 

 

i think they will try and settle out of court and try and get that money to added to their 2018 accounts ( as that’s when Hirst left them) to offset their FFA issues. that’s probably why they have gone down the legal route

Bryn

Bryn

Posted
Posted

Said at the time what we did was pretty wrong, the loopholes we used need closing. Clear abuse of the system and would set a horrible precedent, imagine if Man City took Chilwell to NYFC a few year ago for peanuts and then took him to Man City and cost us millions. 

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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