And if Barkley had done something last summer to actively stop Everton from being able to sell him and profit on his ownership, then I'd expect them to be in court with him in the near future.
-
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
Son Heung-Min
- Thread starter Denmark Spur
- Start date
He did - he said no to Chelsea. Come on you know how contracts work.
Saying no to a team is not the same as saying no to all teams and blocking any sale at all - the equivalent to swanning off to play army for a couple of years.
We give him a contract to play for us for a number of years, he fulfills that contract and can extend or leave at the end of it. As long as he fulfills this he has upheld his side of the bargin. This is the same regardless of National service. If he came out in the summer and said, I am leaving at the end of my contract (as many other players have done over the years) he would not owe us any cash.
Take a deep breath, admit you are wrong and move on.
Take a deep breath, admit you are wrong and move on.
If he told us in the summer he was leaving next year we'd have sold him and recouped some of his transfer fee. We don't let players get into the last year of their contracts for good reason.
How do you sell him if he doesn't want to go? Come on take that breath and have a think.
You tell them that you'll ruin their career by sticking them in the stiffs and come up with excuses to fine 50% of their wages every week.
When was the last time a player ran down their contract against our will?
We wanted shot of Ade and had to pay him out.
Are we the only club in the world - right now Barkley is doing it at Everton and there have been about high profile Dortmund to Bayern. And these are only players that the club wanted to keep. There are tones where the club wanted rid and they stayed to the end of their contract.
I'd managed to block Ade from my mind! I'd say that's (he's) a special case though - out inability to sell him was down to massively inflated wages that City caused.
IMO we're the most soundly run club in the world. We don't lose players for free, we don't let them run down contracts (Ade aside). Son has no right to deprive us of a transfer fee that we deserve, especially not for something like military service.
we don't lose players on a free due to the fact we don't let them get into their last 2 years of contract, if they don't sign we try to ship them out then. We don't use any of the underhand things you state and there is no indication we would. If we are so well run you would hope we would be aware of the Military service issue prior to buying him and account for that in the transfer fee offered.
Regardless of all this in your scenario how are you going to get him to pay compensation for a contract he fulfilled? You can't so take that deep breath and admit you are wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Why don't we let players get into the last 2 years of their contract? Because we have an expected asset value that we realise on sale of the player. A player who takes action to stop that happening is depriving us of financial gain.
I think it's perfectly fair for us to have worked on the basis that a professional footballer would choose to further their career than play army for a couple of years. The contract only relates to his pay - his actions in leaving to serve are a loss of asset value and if I were in Levy's position I would be telling Son that either he or his backwards military system would be paying some of that value. Either that or we would have him in court.
If one of my employees, through their intentional actions, devalued one of my assets to the tune of a few £M, I would absolutely have them in court. Especially if that employee had significant assets of their own for me to chase.
The way in which courts decide whether this is a simple mistake made in the course of employment or a recoverable action is to look at whether their actions are in the normal course of their employment. As an example, if Son went into a dangerous tackle and injured himself until the end of his contract, that's not recoverable (although we'd be insured to some of the value). If he decides to go and play army for two years, knowingly lowering the value of one of our assets - that is.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
An hour by car from the border to Seoul. We've seen enough atrocities to know what an angry army attacking civilians looks like. How do you stop soldiers attacking civilians?
In a potential conflict the end game for South Korea most likely includes an occupation of at least part of North Korea. How do you occupy territory?
A conflict will most likely result in one of the worst humanitarian and refugee crises we've seen in a long time. There will be a need to help, vet and control millions of people who have been brainwashed all their lives into thinking that South Korea is a manifestation of pure evil.
A nuclear attack isn't inevitable, won't necessarily succeed and most likely won't be the end of a war. It's more likely to be the beginning I think.
I would imagine that Rocketman (Trump may have done some fudging awful things, but coining that term is a good one), will refrain from war until or unless he has the nuclear capability to pretty much end any chance of the South retaliating.
You are wrong - its a contract and he fulfilled his contract from time A to time B. Based on your views if someone announces that they decide to retire early once they finish their contract you would sue them.
We know you are wrong because there are numerous examples where players have done just what you have said, announced they are leaving at the end of their contract and left.
Deep Breath...
Those employees aren't assets.
Again, any employee knowingly causing an asset to lose £Ms of value should and would be taken to court for damages. Just because the player in question is that asset, there's no legal distinction that I know of.
This isn't about his contract, this is about his behaviour as an employee, acting outside the normal scope of how an employee should. This is not a normal situation and should not be judged by the contract-based events you're describing. This is an employee wilfully (and IMO, negligently) harming their employer's financial status.
You are wrong - you can tell you are wrong as loads of footballers have done what you say is not legal.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jul/04/robin-van-persie-arsenal-no-deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eer-maverick-striker-turned-Chievo-offer.html