Cjay wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:23 pm
I suspect Kinnear was more the financial man with guidance from Orta.
After all Angus as Chief Executive is ultimately the boss of LUFC day to day and I find it hard to believe Orta is allowed to negotiate complicated financial things by himself.
Kinnear i think has a degree in Economics
One scenario if JKA comes looking for his wages as he is entitled to do may be to offer to pay the difference between his salary now and what we agreed?
So FC Basel wage bill is according to my research about £30mil a year which is approximately a mid table Championship club.
So let's say JKA earns an average Championship player salary which is apparently in the £30-35k mark.
Between that and our £90-95k agreed salary is approximately a £60k difference.
Over 5 years that is a loss of £15million, anyone would look for that sort of difference.
If you had agreed a £200k salary and your previous employers had been found liable whilst you earned £40k a year instead any normal person would chase the difference.
Same scenario here imo.
So best case scenario is he comes for nothing.
But if he does and he comes for the full whack which is over £20mil.
We look at the difference which is around £15mil.
And we offer him something in that sort of range.
Saves us millions but still a significant fee.
In the second scenario of £15m, and including legal fees spent thus far - with more to come due to the appeal - that would total about £35m, which is £700,000 per minute played
One interesting detail from the FIFA decision document I posted other page.
I did wonder who we had representing us and I was concerned that Leipzig with there obvious phenomenal wealth and global reach would manage to get a next level legal mind.
Not that I thought we couldn't afford good but I thought they may get better.
So Leeds United were represented by Onside Law. A quick Google shows they are a very respected firm who are based in London and can count PSG, Tottenham, The ECB, World Racing and even Red Bull Racing as past clients.
Fair enough.
So who did Leipzig turn to? There choice wasn't a firm but one man named.
A man by the name of Jan Kleiner.
He is a Swiss national who in 2022 was appointed The Director of Football Regulatory at FIFA.
Previously a partner at a top Swiss law firm and an expert in all things sport.
Got a Doctorate from Zurich University and all this stuff
An expert of the highest order.
Our law firm are top people to by all accounts.
What makes Jan Kleiner an interesting choice is that FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport are based in Zurich and Lausanne, Switzerland.
Both organisations are governed by Swiss Law.
The man Leipzig choose is a Swiss educated Swiss national who now actually works for FIFA.
Kinnear was a witness and basically helped Leipzig.
We admitted in emails we didnt want to keep JKA because of his fitness.
We also tried to extend the loan deadline ourselves whilst trying to make the payments over 4 years rather than the agreed 3.
Basically we were idiots who realised they had not done the due diligence on a player then tried to squirm out of it by using a pandemic where many died and CAS saw through it.
JKA also supported the position of Leipzig (understandable) really better hope he doesn't come after his wages.
Been a whole week since we could play the Blame Game
' "Football is about the people and the players,” he said. “Then there are those who will mingle in the middle: the coaches, executives and journalists. That last group represents the worst part about football" Marcelo Bielsa
15. Also on 26 January 2020, the Player and LUFC concluded a deed (the “Deed”),
setting out the terms of their employment relationship in case the Purchase
Obligation in the Loan Agreement would be triggered, which contained the following
condition precedent: “LUFC’s obligation to enter into an employment contract with the Player
following any Permanent Transfer shall be subject to the satisfaction in full
of the following conditions precedent on or before the 30 June 2020
(“Conditions Precedent”):
(i) LUFC being promoted to the Premier League at the end of the
2019/20 season;
(ii) the Club and RB Leipzig agreeing to enter into a long-term transfer
agreement in connection with the Permanent Transfer;
(iii) the Player being registered with the Club by the EFL and the FA; and
(iv) FIFA approving the Permanent Transfer and issuing an International
Transfer Certificate in connection with the Permanent Transfer.”
So straightaway any contract is invalid because the conditions precedent were not met on or before the 30th June 2020.
Now it appears that on April 24th Leeds sought to extend the deadline due to covid. It seems from reading the court transcript that the deadline wasn't extended. Now if that is the case then that is Leipzig's fault rather than ours and as such the legal deadline, as highlighted above, expired on the 30th June.
It negates any sense of morality, and sense of vagueness relating to the contract if the deadline, which was clearly defined wasn't moved - especially given that it appears we were happy, at that point, to move the deadline and still do the deal, but Leipzig presumably didn't want to extend it. Seems like a huge f*ck up by Leipzig there. It appears we only withdraw our offer to extend the dealine on the 8th June so Leipzig had a long time to agree to extend the deal but didn't. Given that the only change we asked for when we asked to extend the deal was a slight change in the payment installments then there would, to me anyway, seem to be no reason for Leipzig not to agree especially given that they would still receive the full £21m. Seems they were just greedy and arrogant.
It seems though that Leipzig then panicked on the 12th June after we had said we no longer wanted to extend the deadline. Leipzig thought they had all the eggs in their basket but suddenly wanted to extend the deadline after ignoring us for over a month.
Leipzig then try to suggest that the date given for us to make JKA a Leeds player is binding.
26. On 15 June 2020, RB Leipzig sent a letter to LUFC, which, inter alia, provides as
follows:
“[W]e would like to draw your attention to the fact that – contrary to the
Purchase option set out in clause 9 of the Loan Agreement – the Purchase
Obligation set out in its clause 10 does not leave discretion to [LUFC]
whether or not to apply it as the Purchase Obligation applies
“automatically”. The Purchase Obligation is linked to the condition
precedent that [LUFC] is promoted to the Premier League at the end of the
2019/2020 season. It is not determined that this condition must be fulfilled
until a certain date. As far as you might invoke that according to the further
wording of clause 10, the permanent transfer based on the Purchase Option
shall take place with effect on July 1, 2020, this does not support the
conclusion that [LUFC] can withdraw from it.
Now that is ludicrous as they are saying that the transfer will take place on July 1,2020. However there is no way the transfer can take place on that date as we were not promoted by that date - as such even if the contract had been extended the permanent transfer couldn't go through on July 1, 2020.
This next bit I find incredible - basically the judge says that JKA could have walked out on us (even if we wanted him to play for us) on the 30th June and yet despite him deciding not to play for us we would still legally have to buy him. The judge also seems to suggests that the Fifa guidleines (namely that the agreements need to be extended or the agreements end at the days specified ) simply don't apply.
Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that [LUFC] in particular referred
to the following wording of those Guidelines: “...If the relevant
agreements are not extended, then the loan of the player registration
will terminate as originally anticipated in the loan agreement...” and
“...clubs and employees may decide not to negotiate extensions for
(expiring) existing agreements...”.
➢ In view of the above, the Single Judge held that the mentioned parts of the
COVID-19 Guidelines do not specify that any given clause in a valid loan
agreement would automatically become null and void after its original
expiry. It is the Single Judge’s opinion that even if the Player would have
left [LUFC] after 30 June 2020, the “Purchase Obligation” would still
have been triggered by the mere fact that [LUFC] achieved promotion, as
per the clear intention of the parties when entering into the [Loan
Agreement].
Leipzig's arguments over our conduct just don't make sense
74. RB Leipzig’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:
➢ From one day to another, LUFC lost its interest in the Player, maybe because of
his sporting performance, maybe because of an injury, maybe for other reasons
– this is, however, irrelevant and no excuse.
➢ LUFC then first tried to “negotiate downwards” the transfer fee, of which it
knew very well that it remained payable towards RB Leipzig. LUFC clearly
expressed such a wish in its email of 24 April 2020 towards the Player’s Agent,
CAS 2021/A/8229 Leeds United Football Club – Page 23
Limited v. RasenBallsport Leipzig GmbH
where it stated that it “would also like to ask for [RB Leipzig’s] consideration
in changing the instalments due to the financial impact caused by the Covid-19
pandemic”.
They suggest we had lost interest in the player and this then saw us try to negotiate downwards on 24th April. This makes no sense though as we tried to negotiate downwards when we were asking them to extend the deal to cover to the end of the season. Why would we be looking to extend the deadline (and as such lose any chance to back out of the deal) if we didn't want the player on the 24th April? Negotiating the deal down a bit didn't mean a lowering of the fee just that we paid over an extra year. Without getting a calculator out I reckon the maximum that might have saved us would be £500k which is not really that much considering that when we asked then to extend the deadline we were still commiting ourselves to the full £21m transfer fee. Saving £500k but still paying £21m for a player if we didn't want him makes no sense. Leipzig, as I have mentioned before, were just greedy and arrogant - if they had agreed to our request to extend the deal then we would have been 100% liable for the transfer fee.
I find it baffling later that the court makes its decision not really based on any legal determination but more on the likelihood that we wanted to do the deal when we entered into it. That just sems irrelevant as it is the same as if a club gave any player a contract to the end of the 2019-2020 season - they expected the player to play in all the matches of the season yet the players were allowed to not play after June 30th. It is exaclty the same legal point - the date of the contract is what matters and anything else is legally irrelevant.
I don't at all disagree that Leeds morally should pay but legally we shouldn't given that all contracts were dated and ended on the 30th June.
weasel wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:06 pm
Key points
15. Also on 26 January 2020, the Player and LUFC concluded a deed (the “Deed”),
setting out the terms of their employment relationship in case the Purchase
Obligation in the Loan Agreement would be triggered, which contained the following
condition precedent: “LUFC’s obligation to enter into an employment contract with the Player
following any Permanent Transfer shall be subject to the satisfaction in full
of the following conditions precedent on or before the 30 June 2020
(“Conditions Precedent”):
(i) LUFC being promoted to the Premier League at the end of the
2019/20 season;
(ii) the Club and RB Leipzig agreeing to enter into a long-term transfer
agreement in connection with the Permanent Transfer;
(iii) the Player being registered with the Club by the EFL and the FA; and
(iv) FIFA approving the Permanent Transfer and issuing an International
Transfer Certificate in connection with the Permanent Transfer.”
So straightaway any contract is invalid because the conditions precedent were not met on or before the 30th June 2020.
Now it appears that on April 24th Leeds sought to extend the deadline due to covid. It seems from reading the court transcript that the deadline wasn't extended. Now if that is the case then that is Leipzig's fault rather than ours and as such the legal deadline, as highlighted above, expired on the 30th June.
It negates any sense of morality, and sense of vagueness relating to the contract if the deadline, which was clearly defined wasn't moved - especially given that it appears we were happy, at that point, to move the deadline and still do the deal, but Leipzig presumably didn't want to extend it. Seems like a huge f*ck up by Leipzig there. It appears we only withdraw our offer to extend the dealine on the 8th June so Leipzig had a long time to agree to extend the deal but didn't. Given that the only change we asked for when we asked to extend the deal was a slight change in the payment installments then there would, to me anyway, seem to be no reason for Leipzig not to agree especially given that they would still receive the full £21m. Seems they were just greedy and arrogant.
It seems though that Leipzig then panicked on the 12th June after we had said we no longer wanted to extend the deadline. Leipzig thought they had all the eggs in their basket but suddenly wanted to extend the deadline after ignoring us for over a month.
Leipzig then try to suggest that the date given for us to make JKA a Leeds player is binding.
26. On 15 June 2020, RB Leipzig sent a letter to LUFC, which, inter alia, provides as
follows:
“[W]e would like to draw your attention to the fact that – contrary to the
Purchase option set out in clause 9 of the Loan Agreement – the Purchase
Obligation set out in its clause 10 does not leave discretion to [LUFC]
whether or not to apply it as the Purchase Obligation applies
“automatically”. The Purchase Obligation is linked to the condition
precedent that [LUFC] is promoted to the Premier League at the end of the
2019/2020 season. It is not determined that this condition must be fulfilled
until a certain date. As far as you might invoke that according to the further
wording of clause 10, the permanent transfer based on the Purchase Option
shall take place with effect on July 1, 2020, this does not support the
conclusion that [LUFC] can withdraw from it.
Now that is ludicrous as they are saying that the transfer will take place on July 1,2020. However there is no way the transfer can take place on that date as we were not promoted by that date - as such even if the contract had been extended the permanent transfer couldn't go through on July 1, 2020.
This next bit I find incredible - basically the judge says that JKA could have walked out on us (even if we wanted him to play for us) on the 30th June and yet despite him deciding not to play for us we would still legally have to buy him. The judge also seems to suggests that the Fifa guidleines (namely that the agreements need to be extended or the agreements end at the days specified ) simply don't apply.
Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that [LUFC] in particular referred
to the following wording of those Guidelines: “...If the relevant
agreements are not extended, then the loan of the player registration
will terminate as originally anticipated in the loan agreement...” and
“...clubs and employees may decide not to negotiate extensions for
(expiring) existing agreements...”.
➢ In view of the above, the Single Judge held that the mentioned parts of the
COVID-19 Guidelines do not specify that any given clause in a valid loan
agreement would automatically become null and void after its original
expiry. It is the Single Judge’s opinion that even if the Player would have
left [LUFC] after 30 June 2020, the “Purchase Obligation” would still
have been triggered by the mere fact that [LUFC] achieved promotion, as
per the clear intention of the parties when entering into the [Loan
Agreement].
Leipzig's arguments over our conduct just don't make sense
74. RB Leipzig’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:
➢ From one day to another, LUFC lost its interest in the Player, maybe because of
his sporting performance, maybe because of an injury, maybe for other reasons
– this is, however, irrelevant and no excuse.
➢ LUFC then first tried to “negotiate downwards” the transfer fee, of which it
knew very well that it remained payable towards RB Leipzig. LUFC clearly
expressed such a wish in its email of 24 April 2020 towards the Player’s Agent,
CAS 2021/A/8229 Leeds United Football Club – Page 23
Limited v. RasenBallsport Leipzig GmbH
where it stated that it “would also like to ask for [RB Leipzig’s] consideration
in changing the instalments due to the financial impact caused by the Covid-19
pandemic”.
They suggest we had lost interest in the player and this then saw us try to negotiate downwards on 24th April. This makes no sense though as we tried to negotiate downwards when we were asking them to extend the deal to cover to the end of the season. Why would we be looking to extend the deadline (and as such lose any chance to back out of the deal) if we didn't want the player on the 24th April? Negotiating the deal down a bit didn't mean a lowering of the fee just that we paid over an extra year. Without getting a calculator out I reckon the maximum that might have saved us would be £500k which is not really that much considering that when we asked then to extend the deadline we were still commiting ourselves to the full £21m transfer fee. Saving £500k but still paying £21m for a player if we didn't want him makes no sense. Leipzig, as I have mentioned before, were just greedy and arrogant - if they had agreed to our request to extend the deal then we would have been 100% liable for the transfer fee.
I find it baffling later that the court makes its decision not really based on any legal determination but more on the likelihood that we wanted to do the deal when we entered into it. That just sems irrelevant as it is the same as if a club gave any player a contract to the end of the 2019-2020 season - they expected the player to play in all the matches of the season yet the players were allowed to not play after June 30th. It is exaclty the same legal point - the date of the contract is what matters and anything else is legally irrelevant.
I don't at all disagree that Leeds morally should pay but legally we shouldn't given that all contracts were dated and ended on the 30th June.
sorry weasel, but imo you've missed the crux of the decision - which is the "main issues" part of the decision, the rest of it is background and they even say that a lot of the discussions before the deal was signed wasn't taken into any consideration
para 91 contains a key statement outlining the relevant provisions:
"91. In the absence of any guidance in the FIFA RSTP, the Panel resorts to Swiss law for the principles applicable to interpretation of contracts. In this respect, Article 18 of the SCO seeks first and foremost to establish the intent of the Parties and – in case the latter cannot be determined – falls back on an objective interpretation of the contract: “When assessing the form and terms of a contract, the true and common intention of the parties must be ascertained without dwelling on any inexact expressions or designations they may have used either in error or by way of disguising the true nature of the agreement.”
Thus - the true intention of the parties is more relevant than inexact expressions. The agreement is unclear in that it refers to the end of the championship season in parts and a specific date in others - but the true intention of the parties was held to be relatively clear in that the end of the season was meant.
Before you say the contract was clear - it obviously wasn't given the two conflicting interpretations of it...(which I tend to agree with - on the one hand it mentions a specific date but on the other the end of the season and no provision saying the earlier or later of the two)
weasel wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:06 pm
Key points
15. Also on 26 January 2020, the Player and LUFC concluded a deed (the “Deed”),
setting out the terms of their employment relationship in case the Purchase
Obligation in the Loan Agreement would be triggered, which contained the following
condition precedent: “LUFC’s obligation to enter into an employment contract with the Player
following any Permanent Transfer shall be subject to the satisfaction in full
of the following conditions precedent on or before the 30 June 2020
(“Conditions Precedent”):
(i) LUFC being promoted to the Premier League at the end of the
2019/20 season;
(ii) the Club and RB Leipzig agreeing to enter into a long-term transfer
agreement in connection with the Permanent Transfer;
(iii) the Player being registered with the Club by the EFL and the FA; and
(iv) FIFA approving the Permanent Transfer and issuing an International
Transfer Certificate in connection with the Permanent Transfer.”
So straightaway any contract is invalid because the conditions precedent were not met on or before the 30th June 2020.
Now it appears that on April 24th Leeds sought to extend the deadline due to covid. It seems from reading the court transcript that the deadline wasn't extended. Now if that is the case then that is Leipzig's fault rather than ours and as such the legal deadline, as highlighted above, expired on the 30th June.
It negates any sense of morality, and sense of vagueness relating to the contract if the deadline, which was clearly defined wasn't moved - especially given that it appears we were happy, at that point, to move the deadline and still do the deal, but Leipzig presumably didn't want to extend it. Seems like a huge f*ck up by Leipzig there. It appears we only withdraw our offer to extend the dealine on the 8th June so Leipzig had a long time to agree to extend the deal but didn't. Given that the only change we asked for when we asked to extend the deal was a slight change in the payment installments then there would, to me anyway, seem to be no reason for Leipzig not to agree especially given that they would still receive the full £21m. Seems they were just greedy and arrogant.
It seems though that Leipzig then panicked on the 12th June after we had said we no longer wanted to extend the deadline. Leipzig thought they had all the eggs in their basket but suddenly wanted to extend the deadline after ignoring us for over a month.
Leipzig then try to suggest that the date given for us to make JKA a Leeds player is binding.
26. On 15 June 2020, RB Leipzig sent a letter to LUFC, which, inter alia, provides as
follows:
“[W]e would like to draw your attention to the fact that – contrary to the
Purchase option set out in clause 9 of the Loan Agreement – the Purchase
Obligation set out in its clause 10 does not leave discretion to [LUFC]
whether or not to apply it as the Purchase Obligation applies
“automatically”. The Purchase Obligation is linked to the condition
precedent that [LUFC] is promoted to the Premier League at the end of the
2019/2020 season. It is not determined that this condition must be fulfilled
until a certain date. As far as you might invoke that according to the further
wording of clause 10, the permanent transfer based on the Purchase Option
shall take place with effect on July 1, 2020, this does not support the
conclusion that [LUFC] can withdraw from it.
Now that is ludicrous as they are saying that the transfer will take place on July 1,2020. However there is no way the transfer can take place on that date as we were not promoted by that date - as such even if the contract had been extended the permanent transfer couldn't go through on July 1, 2020.
This next bit I find incredible - basically the judge says that JKA could have walked out on us (even if we wanted him to play for us) on the 30th June and yet despite him deciding not to play for us we would still legally have to buy him. The judge also seems to suggests that the Fifa guidleines (namely that the agreements need to be extended or the agreements end at the days specified ) simply don't apply.
Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that [LUFC] in particular referred
to the following wording of those Guidelines: “...If the relevant
agreements are not extended, then the loan of the player registration
will terminate as originally anticipated in the loan agreement...” and
“...clubs and employees may decide not to negotiate extensions for
(expiring) existing agreements...”.
➢ In view of the above, the Single Judge held that the mentioned parts of the
COVID-19 Guidelines do not specify that any given clause in a valid loan
agreement would automatically become null and void after its original
expiry. It is the Single Judge’s opinion that even if the Player would have
left [LUFC] after 30 June 2020, the “Purchase Obligation” would still
have been triggered by the mere fact that [LUFC] achieved promotion, as
per the clear intention of the parties when entering into the [Loan
Agreement].
Leipzig's arguments over our conduct just don't make sense
74. RB Leipzig’s submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:
➢ From one day to another, LUFC lost its interest in the Player, maybe because of
his sporting performance, maybe because of an injury, maybe for other reasons
– this is, however, irrelevant and no excuse.
➢ LUFC then first tried to “negotiate downwards” the transfer fee, of which it
knew very well that it remained payable towards RB Leipzig. LUFC clearly
expressed such a wish in its email of 24 April 2020 towards the Player’s Agent,
CAS 2021/A/8229 Leeds United Football Club – Page 23
Limited v. RasenBallsport Leipzig GmbH
where it stated that it “would also like to ask for [RB Leipzig’s] consideration
in changing the instalments due to the financial impact caused by the Covid-19
pandemic”.
They suggest we had lost interest in the player and this then saw us try to negotiate downwards on 24th April. This makes no sense though as we tried to negotiate downwards when we were asking them to extend the deal to cover to the end of the season. Why would we be looking to extend the deadline (and as such lose any chance to back out of the deal) if we didn't want the player on the 24th April? Negotiating the deal down a bit didn't mean a lowering of the fee just that we paid over an extra year. Without getting a calculator out I reckon the maximum that might have saved us would be £500k which is not really that much considering that when we asked then to extend the deadline we were still commiting ourselves to the full £21m transfer fee. Saving £500k but still paying £21m for a player if we didn't want him makes no sense. Leipzig, as I have mentioned before, were just greedy and arrogant - if they had agreed to our request to extend the deal then we would have been 100% liable for the transfer fee.
I find it baffling later that the court makes its decision not really based on any legal determination but more on the likelihood that we wanted to do the deal when we entered into it. That just sems irrelevant as it is the same as if a club gave any player a contract to the end of the 2019-2020 season - they expected the player to play in all the matches of the season yet the players were allowed to not play after June 30th. It is exaclty the same legal point - the date of the contract is what matters and anything else is legally irrelevant.
I don't at all disagree that Leeds morally should pay but legally we shouldn't given that all contracts were dated and ended on the 30th June.
Leipzig agreed to extend the loan but refused to allow us to make 4 payments rather than the agreed 3 (why should they).
We then told the player The real reason we didnt want to keep him by email.
Everyone knows we were making excuses for a transfer fook up and we admitted as much in the email after being the first one that tried to move the goalposts multiple times.
Also as pointed out before the Leipzig legal team are absolute experts in Swiss law and one of them literally works for Fifa now.
They beat our London based legal team and deserved to.
I knew we wouldn’t win after all it’s an evil English Premier League club, swimming in money, versus a poor little Swiss club and we know that the Swiss are always moral and incorruptible (I mean look at that nice man Sepp Blatter). But, whilst I thought we were relying on a technicality, because actual dates are specifically mentioned in the Contract I feel we had a decent case and once again have been badly done to. The deciding factors being as described above!
danhirons wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 3:00 pmsorry weasel, but imo you've missed the crux of the decision - which is the "main issues" part of the decision, the rest of it is background and they even say that a lot of the discussions before the deal was signed wasn't taken into any consideration
para 91 contains a key statement outlining the relevant provisions:
"91. In the absence of any guidance in the FIFA RSTP, the Panel resorts to Swiss law for the principles applicable to interpretation of contracts. In this respect, Article 18 of the SCO seeks first and foremost to establish the intent of the Parties and – in case the latter cannot be determined – falls back on an objective interpretation of the contract: “When assessing the form and terms of a contract, the true and common intention of the parties must be ascertained without dwelling on any inexact expressions or designations they may have used either in error or by way of disguising the true nature of the agreement.”
Thus - the true intention of the parties is more relevant than inexact expressions. The agreement is unclear in that it refers to the end of the championship season in parts and a specific date in others - but the true intention of the parties was held to be relatively clear in that the end of the season was meant.
Before you say the contract was clear - it obviously wasn't given the two conflicting interpretations of it...(which I tend to agree with - on the one hand it mentions a specific date but on the other the end of the season and no provision saying the earlier or later of the two)
That is why I said that the case shouldn't be being decided by discussion about the deal ect - that is irrelevant in terms of the legal issue which solely should beas to whether the contract ended on 30th June or not. That is the issue.
Clubs signed players and expected them to play for them for the duration of the season. As we saw though players were not obligated to play after the 30th June. However when the clubs and the players agreed to the contract it was assumed, by both parties, that the player would play for the full season. As it was we could have had JKA playing for us and then decide he didn't want to play after the 30th June - he could have been banging the goals in, then stop playing and have cost us promotion.
If it is to be decided on what the clubs understood to be the deal then if Leeds supposedly thought the deal ran until the end of the season rather than a specified date then there was no need for Leeds to ask RB to extend the deal. That in itself shows that we didn't think the deal would run until the end of the season which to be honest is a far more significant point than any other raised by the court. The fact that we tried to lower the fee, very slightly as we were still happy to pay the full figure, suggests that our only concern was that RB or JKA could pull out of the deal on the 30th June.
weasel wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:41 pm
That is why I said that the case shouldn't be being decided by discussion about the deal ect - that is irrelevant in terms of the legal issue which solely should beas to whether the contract ended on 30th June or not. That is the issue.
Clubs signed players and expected them to play for them for the duration of the season. As we saw though players were not obligated to play after the 30th June. However when the clubs and the players agreed to the contract it was assumed, by both parties, that the player would play for the full season. As it was we could have had JKA playing for us and then decide he didn't want to play after the 30th June - he could have been banging the goals in, then stop playing and have cost us promotion.
If it is to be decided on what the clubs understood to be the deal then if Leeds supposedly thought the deal ran until the end of the season rather than a specified date then there was no need for Leeds to ask RB to extend the deal. That in itself shows that we didn't think the deal would run until the end of the season which to be honest is a far more significant point than any other raised by the court. The fact that we tried to lower the fee, very slightly as we were still happy to pay the full figure, suggests that our only concern was that RB or JKA could pull out of the deal on the 30th June.
I imagine player contracts say: you are employed to play for us here until XX/XX/XXXX (specific date) - not a reference to the end of the season - hence why there is no room for discussion here. Regardless of whether JKA could play for us "until the end of the season", there was a clause that said if we were promoted "at the end of the season" that we must buy him.
the fact that leeds offered to reduce the fee doesn't show what you suggest, it shows that Leeds knew we had an obligation to pay but just realised we'd had our pants down over the fee - why would it show that our only concern was that they'd pull out of the deal?
Okay when we made the amended offer in April there was no absolute guarantee the season would even start again before the 30th June. As such JKA might never have played for us once the season re-started (presumably at the point we made the revised offer we were still thinking of JKA playing for us) and also that the deal to buy would become invalid - don't forget that at that point Man U were sniffing around the player too.
Like I have mentioned before the amended terms of the financial deal are fairly much irrelevant. We were still going to pay the £21m but spread the payment over an extra year - this would probably equate to something less than £500k difference in the fee as the only difference would be the interest we could save on the money by paying later. It wasn't like we were asking for a huge deduction in the fee. Also it was our first suggested offer and RB could simply have replied within a few days and suggested a different deal - if they had done that and agreed to change the wording in the contract from 30th June and 1st July to 'end of season' then we wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. So given that the financial change in our proposal was minimal it would suggest that the main reason for our proposal was to clarify the wording in the contracts so that the deal was iron clad and we would be obligated to sign JKA.
Your suggestion we simply realised we'd had our pants down over the fee is simply not substantiated because of the fact we were looking to pay the same fee, £21m, that we'd agreed originally.
So FIFA have decided every contract ended on the 30/06/20, except for JKA! Makes sense. Remember Messi was told he couldn't buy out his contract at Barca as it ended on 30/06/20
