-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Michel Vorm
- Thread starter billyiddo
- Start date
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Monaco paid €69m for Rodriguez and €1m for Moutinho, so that Porto could avoid paying Sporting Moutinho’s sell-on fee.
Moutinho has now played nearly 40 games for Monaco.
Rossi22
Pedro Mendes
That never happened GB.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
It is what was quite widely reported at the time e.g.:
http://www.fanatix.com/news/tottenh...for-joao-moutinho-and-james-rodriguez/120338/
Sandman
Dean Austin
The problem For Utrecht and for Sporting in the case of Moutinhio is that they cannot tell the sellling club how much they sell a player for and there is no rule to say it has to be a market value. So in these cases where a club buys more than one player from another club they have a way around it. There is no law that prevents Swansea from selling him to us for 1p. Its up to them.
I think one of the reasons that QPR still have Taarabt is that they dont want us to get a large chunk of any sell on fee.
I think one of the reasons that QPR still have Taarabt is that they dont want us to get a large chunk of any sell on fee.
Rossi22
Pedro Mendes
It never happened though. Moutinho cost 25m and James Rodriguez 35m.
Rossi22
Pedro Mendes
Actually I think there is, kind of. As it's an obvious ploy to circumvent the rules it would end up with an independent panel assigning a fee to the player
Either way it won't affect us. The question will be how much he represented of the total value of the deal.
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
Of course it will affect us. If we colluded with Swansea to structure the deal for Siggy, Davies and Vorm so that Ultrect got a much reduced sell on fee we should be in trouble.
I think there is something in this or else Vorm would at least have been registered for Europa League.
And Levy has done similar with the Fryers deal.
Money and players have changed hands. It's Vorm's percentage of the total value that's in question.
We can't be in trouble for our valuation of a player. There is no legal basis for judging it.
All that can happen is that an independent UEFA tribunal could dictate that Swansea owe a certain amount to Utrecht.
Seedy Ron
Nick Barmby
The Europa League squad we've named so far only counts for this qualifying stage, so just these 2 games. Teams already in the group stage haven't named squads. I'm sure he'll be in the one for the group stages.
Good to see someone sharing my concerns. IF we colluded with Swansea in price fixing, how could it not affect us? At the very least it doesn't look good, at worst, it may be illegal, a cause for civil action or breaking some football-related law.
It may be we can't get in trouble over this, I sincerely hope not. But until I see Vorm on the bench or better yet playing for us, I shall continue to be concerned.
The fact that Utrecht are pursuing this case vigorously, indicates they think they have been 'stitched up' and want compensation.
Last edited:
Armenia Spur
Steven Caulker
To me it seems that Swansea and Spurs struck a deal to make it appear that Vorm came for free thus Swansea avoiding paying a sell on, and pegged his transfer fee onto the fee we paid for Davies. thats the only way we can possibly be involved in this.
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
Indeed and we got a reduction in the overall fee by arranging our payments like this.
We benefited. Swansea benefited. Utrecht were ripped off.
Seedy Ron
Nick Barmby
Where do you get that bit from?
Something like that is what I expect Utrecht are suspicious of. IF something like that happened, the question is then, are we in the clear, legally at least. Morally, I think we would be outraged IF something like that happened to us.
Understandably, there is quite a lot of misunderstanding re what our potential liability might be.
For the avoidance of doubt, we don't have any form of contract with Utrecht and therefore their only civil claims could be against Swansea (if they can prove Swansea acted in breach of contract). Utrecht can of course make a complaint to the powers that be about our role and if it was discovered that we conspired with Swansea to pretend we paid less for a player than we in fact paid, that might open us up to punishment. It would however be extremely difficult for it to be proved that we acted inappropriately - we are entitled to do whatever deal we like with Swansea - it is they (assuming Utrecht's lawyers inserted a specific clause regarding using best endeavours to only sell Vorm for his market value/best price achievable) who have the agreement with Utrecht and only they who will have benefitted if they have avoided paying money on to Utrecht. Difficult to see it being argued that the sum we paid for Vorm and Davies was other than market rate.
So i suspect this will either die a death or Swansea will get punished for apparent underselling. Id be staggered if we ended-up feeling any heat over it. Ultimately it demonstrates the farce of these sell-on agreements - they're not worth the paper on which they're written unless the terms make absolutely clear that the team in Swansea's position can only sell for a price deemed 'market value' by an independent appointed third party, must use beast endeavours to secure highest sum possible and cannot enter an agreement with another club which is structured in such a way as to try to avoid paying what is intended.
For the avoidance of doubt, we don't have any form of contract with Utrecht and therefore their only civil claims could be against Swansea (if they can prove Swansea acted in breach of contract). Utrecht can of course make a complaint to the powers that be about our role and if it was discovered that we conspired with Swansea to pretend we paid less for a player than we in fact paid, that might open us up to punishment. It would however be extremely difficult for it to be proved that we acted inappropriately - we are entitled to do whatever deal we like with Swansea - it is they (assuming Utrecht's lawyers inserted a specific clause regarding using best endeavours to only sell Vorm for his market value/best price achievable) who have the agreement with Utrecht and only they who will have benefitted if they have avoided paying money on to Utrecht. Difficult to see it being argued that the sum we paid for Vorm and Davies was other than market rate.
So i suspect this will either die a death or Swansea will get punished for apparent underselling. Id be staggered if we ended-up feeling any heat over it. Ultimately it demonstrates the farce of these sell-on agreements - they're not worth the paper on which they're written unless the terms make absolutely clear that the team in Swansea's position can only sell for a price deemed 'market value' by an independent appointed third party, must use beast endeavours to secure highest sum possible and cannot enter an agreement with another club which is structured in such a way as to try to avoid paying what is intended.
Good post Cotswold, but I notice despite your calming and informative comments, which I welcome by the way, you nevertheless point out 'if it was discovered that we conspired with Swansea to pretend we paid less for a player than we in fact paid, that might open us up to punishment.'
Lawyers love these type of cases, with 'intent', 'reading between the lines' etc up for 'interpretation'.
Lawyers love these type of cases, with 'intent', 'reading between the lines' etc up for 'interpretation'.
Rossi22
Pedro Mendes
Villarreal and Mallorca tried ripping us off with Gio, I think Levy was on to it though and scared them off
