Berbatov's Contract

[Petyr]

It would do him no good, as no one would want to buy him.

I still think there is more to that ruling. The player has to apply to FIFA to be able to buy out their contract and stuff.

Why not?

The rule exists and can be applied. Applying to FIFA is a formal procedure. If the requirements of the rule are satisfied, then there is no problem. The problem rather is that it takes several months. But when a great player can be signed in this way, this is hardly a big problem.

 

[Petyr]

It looks like a mixture of the posts is correct, so my apologies you weren't completely talking out of your anus

However the thing that confuses me now though is if we activate the 2yr extension, then he will be signing the 'new' contract after turning 28 so in effect from now he only has 2yrs on his contract that we can tie him to being that he only has to serve 2yrs of his 'new' contract...

I think i am starting to understand now why the club dont want to just invoke the 2yr clause now, obviously the optimum time to invoke it is next summer??

But yes the 2yr exension clause was a stroke of genius however, i'm not sure it was put in for ths reason as neither party would have been aware of the rule when negotiating the contract?

Anyway it does though seem that they have to have a maximum of 2yrs on the contract remaining if they signed the deal when they were under 28?

"so long as he has served three years of a four or five-year contract."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3279498.ece

The crux of the discussion is whether the extension will be deemed as a new contract as it is regulated by the old contract and the player doesn't sign the extension.

 

[adiepf]

That's very important.

Would you please explain it? Why the activation is deemed as a new contract, provided that the player doesn't need to sign it? If the possibility for the activation is regulated by the old contract, then why it should be deemed as a new contract. This is the most important point in this discussion. Personally, I'd find it strange that it's not necessary the player to agree with the activation, given that it will be deemed as a new contract.

The cited artcile says further:

"But, more controversially, any player aged 28 or over can also now terminate his contract so long as he has served two years of its duration. Article 17, in effect, goes some way to abolishing huge transfer fees. For example, if a 29-year-old player wishes to leave one club for another – such as was the case with Thierry Henry last season – the only compensation due would be the value of his wages left on his contract."

Hence, Berbatov doesn't have the right to buy ut his contract after next season IF Spurs activate that 2 years option AND the activation is deemed as a NEW contract. I'm not sure about the latter.

petyr....any contract extension, be it written in or otherwise is deemed as a new contract.

this is because terms of the original agreement would have changed (even if everything other than the length has stayed the same)

i am sure that this is part of the reason Spurs do this, it is a n attempt to get around the webster ruling.

for example modric has signed a 4 year deal with a club activated 2 year extension on it.

 

[si_yidarmy]

i think big transfer fees are good, shows how well football is doing these days. Does affect lower league clubs though!

Stoke lol

 

[adiepf]

The crux of the discussion is whether the extension will be deemed as a new contract as it is regulated by the old contract and the player doesn't sign the extension.

the player WOULD have to sign it because it is still a change in terms.

 

[Petyr]

the player WOULD have to sign it because it is still a change in terms.

Then the extension is not entirely up to the club. What if he refuses to sign it?

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

The crux of the discussion is whether the extension will be deemed as a new contract as it is regulated by the old contract and the player doesn't sign the extension.

well that would obviously completely depend on the construction of the contract... either way though from my reading of it there still needs to be a maximum of 2yrs remaining if the contract was signed when he was under 28?

 

[Dan Ashcroft]

There's also the issue that was mentioned in a thread a few days ago that there's a bit of a cartel agreement amongst clubs not to buy Webster ruling players in an attempt to effectively kill it off. Ronaldinho effectively found no one would touch him if he went down this route.

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

Then the extension is not entirely up to the club. What if he refuses to sign it?

Well he could then be in breach of the original contract if there was no provision for him to be able to refuse to sign it... then obviously damages would probably be at the same level as the transfer fee would have been if he had signed it

 

[Dan Ashcroft]

Then the extension is not entirely up to the club. What if he refuses to sign it?

It is entirely up to the club - it's solely our prerogative in the contract he signed in 2006. Effectively he's already signed it.

 

[adiepf]

Then the extension is not entirely up to the club. What if he refuses to sign it?

he cant refuse to sign it, he has already signed a 4 year contract with a stipulated club 2 year extension

the only reason he would have to sign the new agreement is just for house keeping

Berbatov has no choice if we activate his clause....none what so ever......

 

[Petyr]

well that would obviously completely depend on the construction of the contract... either way though from my reading of it there still needs to be a maximum of 2yrs remaining if the contract was signed when he was under 28?

Here is the rule:


In order to further understand the relevant provisions of this article, we need to scroll up to Page 4 and read the “DEFINITIONS” to get the meaning of certain terms used. For instance, one of the key terms is “Protected Period” (7):
“Protected Period: a period of three entire seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, if such a contract was concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the Professional, or to a period of two entire seasons or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, if such contract was concluded after 28th birthday of the Professional.”

As I read it, only if the contract is signed after 28th birthday of the player the protected period is 2 years. Berbatov signed his contract prior to 28, hence he cannot buy out his contract after next season IF and ONLY IF the extensiojn that Spurs are going to trigger amounts to a new contract. But it cannot be deemed as new contract as the player should sign it to this end.

 

[Petyr]

It is entirely up to the club - it's solely our prerogative in the contract he signed in 2006. Effectively he's already signed it.

This is my view, too. But then triggering the extension wouldn't count as a new contract and he can buy out his contract after next season. Am I correct?

 

[PLTuck]

Berbatov is unable to buy his contract out because there is no definate end date.

this is due to the club having a 2 year extension clause written into it, ie: Berba has 2 years left on his deal atm, however the club can & will activate their 2 year extension to either tie him down or demand a higher fee because of his contract length.

if you remember rightly they did this with Steve Kelly, his contract was almost up & he was gonna be available on a free so they activated his extension clause & birmingham had to pay a fee.

Dimitar Berbatov can NOT buy out his spurs contract

This is how I understand it too. With the 2 year extension, it turns into a new 4 year contract if activated this summer, so Berbs will not be able to buy his contract out for another 2 years.

 

[Petyr]

This is how I understand it too. With the 2 year extension, it turns into a new 4 year contract if activated this summer, so Berbs will not be able to buy his contract out for another 2 years.

The problem is that it cannot be new as the possibility of the extension is included in the old contract. If the contract is new, the player has to sign it. If there is no need the player to sign it, then it isn't new.

 

[nicdic]

Why not?

The rule exists and can be applied. Applying to FIFA is a formal procedure. If the requirements of the rule are satisfied, then there is no problem. The problem rather is that it takes several months. But when a great player can be signed in this way, this is hardly a big problem.

My first point was in response to Rez saying that could he just play badly if we took the extension.

 

[adiepf]

The problem is that it cannot be new as the possibility of the extension is included in the old contract. If the contract is new, the player has to sign it. If there is no need the player to sign it, then it isn't new.

it is deemed as new, because all he signed in the first contract was something saying that he would sign a 2 year extension if the club demed it right to activate it

he only signed a document tying him for 4 years, however the document also stipulated that should Spurs extend it he agreed to sign

he would have to sign a new agreement even though he has no option but to legally...

 

[adiepf]

to clarify......

Dimitar Berbatov agreed a 4 year contract in 2006

as part of that contract he also signed an agreement drawn up by the club that should the club wish to extend his contract at any time for a further 2 year period they could

if/when the club activate this extension this would be deemed as a NEW contract which the player would have to sign, however he has no choice because he has already signed an agreement to do so

there is NO concievable chance that Berba will ever be in a postion to buy out his contract with Spurs........NONE!!

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

My first point was in response to Rez saying that could he just play badly if we took the extension.

Nope because there are usually clauses in the contracts that say he has t perform to the best of his abillity etc etc... and again, although i acknowledge satisfying the evidential burden would be quite difficult, he would be in breach if he just decided to play badly

 

[Petyr]

it is deemed as new, because all he signed in the first contract was something saying that he would sign a 2 year extension if the club demed it right to activate it

he only signed a document tying him for 4 years, however the document also stipulated that should Spurs extend it he agreed to sign

he would have to sign a new agreement even though he has no option but to legally...

I'm afraid you are completely wrong here. No one can be forced to sign a contract. The extension is triggered by the club and it isn't necessary the player to sign it.