Berbatov and CAS

[Berbati]

That decision of CAS partly explains why the big boys were reluctant to put big offers for Berbatov that window. Maybe they have been informed what can happen. It would be madness to throw 25-30 mill on a player who could be signed for 40-50% of that sum only 5 months later and for 15-20 % of it a year later.

 

[yanno]

This is a huge timebomb if, and only if, the Court of Arbitration for Sport genuinely has jurisdiction and is the ultimate court of appeal.

Judging by what wiki sez about the CAS, it seems to have come out of the Olympic movement and is a creature of that megalomaniac nutcase, Samaranch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport

I can't believe businesses with huge multi-million turnovers are going to allow their key assets - top players - suddenly to have their balance sheet value slashed by a factor of ten or more without first getting some very expensive lawyers involved to challenge such rulings.

As stoof sez, happy days for lawyers. But the first and most important question is: does the CAS genuinely have jurisdiction?

 

[Stoof]

I can't believe businesses with huge multi-million turnovers are going to allow their key assets - top players - suddenly to have their balance sheet value slashed by a factor of ten or more without first getting some very expensive lawyers involved to challenge such rulings.

I fully expect any attempt by any player to do this to be met with a whole lot of fuss, bother and writs for breach of contract. Definitely yanno.

Celtic said as much yesterday.

 

[Andy]

So we get Berbatov to sign a new contract in the summer or we sell him?,
as the article says

A player, if aged under 28 when he signs a contract, can breach it after three years. If he is 28 or over, he must serve at least two years. In 2006, Webster had served three of four years.

basically if we get Berbatov to sign a new contract before his 28th birthday then it's not a problem but we would have to renew his contract before his 30th birthday too,
It has put players more in control and it could only lead to higher wages being paid by clubs,
Shame that the FA is trying to put a cap on players wages then allow this to happen.

 

[gregga]

First Bosman and now Webster. It's why EU law is an absolute fupping pile of penis; and why Employment law shouldn't be directly applicable to Sport.

I love this phrase "unilateral termination" - Tevez anyone? Moore6 where are you? :-D

As Celtic said to The Times yesterday [I paraphrase]: "oh yeah this will happen - but anyone that does it will be sued" :lol:

Will mean more cases for Sports lawyers which means more potential jobs in the sector. :-D

Understand now why Levy wants everyone on a long term contract? Of course you do.

EU law is a complicated and boring beast but this decision is based on a fifa rule - not EC employment law.

The bosman decision was correct i feel as once a contract expires there is no reason why a player should not be able take his services wherever he likes.

This decision is plain wrong though. If a player breaks his contract the cost to the club has nothing to do with the value of the contract. The club is saving itself having to pay the wages but is losing something far more valuable - the contribution to the team and marketing (things which are near impossible to quantify), or the potential transfer fee.

Whatever happens though it seems that all players contracts will be adjusted to include a set buyout fee.

 

[Dibby]

Not a hope of this being implemented.

 

[Stoof]

EU law is a complicated and boring beast but this decision is based on a fifa rule - not EC employment law.

Splitting hairs?

If it goes the same route as Bosman it will be both.

My pop was more at Bosman and the impications that had for free movement of workers in a sport.

 

[idlepete]

Footballers should all be indentured slaves.

 

[vegassd]

Not a hope of this being implemented.

I think the point is that the latest ruling has set a legal precedent, and that structure will just be applied to any future hearings for other players.

The law is a funny business, as soon as one decision is made a whole barrel full of cases follow it up and effectively the lawyers just copy what happened before.

Lazy bunch of bandits!! :roll:

 

[DC_Boy]

well if we can keep Berbs till 2009 - that will make me happy

 

[bogosian]

well if we can keep Berbs till 2009 - that will make me happy

everybody apart from the shareholders will be very happy

his future club will get a 25 million discount, berba and his agent will be able to negotiate a lot of $$$ for themselves and berba will be able to move wherever he wants to, spurs will have him for one more year.

 

[gregga]

Splitting hairs?

If it goes the same route as Bosman it will be both.

My pop was more at Bosman and the impications that had for free movement of workers in a sport.

Bosman might have set the precedent for footballer's rights, but in this case the blame should be laid squarely at fifa, not brussels.

This ruling threatens to undermine the financial security of all but the biggest clubs. As if the game wasn't enough of an oligopoly as it is.

 

[Stoof]

Bosman might have set the precedent for footballer's rights, but in this case the blame should be laid squarely at fifa, not brussels.

Meh. My issues are with all of them. :lol:

 

[gregga]

Meh. My issues are with all of them. :lol:

I also have serious issues with th judges. They don't seem to realise that these decisions they are making will have effects on millions upon millions of fans for whom their team is their greatest passion.

These rules should be made by officials who know and love the sport, not some obscure and unaccountable swiss judge.

 

[DoublePivot]

a couple of thoughts

Perhaps, rather than 10 year contracts, we are going to see the market change that there will be no contracts over 3 years.

And could clubs back load a contract, say 15k a week with a huge final bonus payment that would cause players to not be able to afford this buyout?

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

I was thinking along similar lines Double D. Surely it would be possible to put some things in the contract that make them very valuable, so that it is not easy to buy out the contract.

 

[PLTuck]

I think there may well be many more loyalty bonuses in contracts from now on.

ie - Don't fuck us over and get an extra XXXmill at the end of it the contract period, even if signing a new contract.

eg.

player signs in 2008 till 2012. Loyalty bonus 2 mill
player signs new contact in 2010 until 2015, bonus 6 mill
in 2012 player gets 2 mill bonus
in 2015 player gets 6 mill bonus

all assuming the players stays with the club until 2015




or of course the 345 page legal version of the above :grin:

 

[MagicalTrevor]

Didn't Berbatov get a pay rise in the summer? While he didn't extend the length of his contract, is it not likely that he signed a fresh contract which won't have run 3 years until summer 2010? Not as daft as he looks that Levy chap, even if he is a Tab.

 

[Berbati]

Didn't Berbatov get a pay rise in the summer? While he didn't extend the length of his contract, is it not likely that he signed a fresh contract which won't have run 3 years until summer 2010? Not as daft as he looks that Levy chap, even if he is a Tab.

no, he didn't

 

[MagicalTrevor]

I'm not familiar with contract law, does changing such a fundamental as your pay not necessitate a new contract, I had to sign a new one when the terms of my pay changed even though it was a fixed term contract.