Am I missing something in the whole Heinze transfer saga....

Hobart

I thought the player had the right to buy out his own contract? Why does he not just stump up for the 2 years left himself, and then take that outlay as a signing on bonus from Liverpool once he leaves. Surely that could not be more than the £6.8M that Liverpool have tabled for him?

Mitch Connor

Hobart wrote:

I thought the player had the right to buy out his own contract? Why does he not just stump up for the 2 years left himself, and then take that outlay as a signing on bonus from Liverpool once he leaves. Surely that could not be more than the £6.8M that Liverpool have tabled for him?

has to have nidicated his intention to buy out his contract within 15 days of the last game of the season. He didn't do that.

Mr Alan

Did we get a definative answer on whether or not he can indicate his intention to do so after the first game of the season? making him a free agent?

Plus perhaps the reason he didn't indicate his desire to do so was because Utd had already assured he could leave if they recieved the offer for the sum 6.7 million????!

If which case, BAD FORM ALEX! let the boy join us!

Nalz

He would be a decent signing for Liverpool, but Im really interested as to why he wants to leave OT after being a fans favourite, United looking after him whilst he was injured and showing loyalty and with Tevez on the way and his apparently great friendship with Ronaldo? Did the arrival of Evra really cause all this? Something must have happened behind the scenes, either that or Mascherano and the other South American guys are really sellin Liverpool as a club. He did state that "if any big offer came in he would consider leaving, and Liverpool are the only so far".

Strange one gotta say, but if this is a legitimate contract/legal document allowing him to leave at that fee of 6.8m sterling then United simply must let him go to Pool

Hobart

Tauren wrote:

has to have nidicated his intention to buy out his contract within 15 days of the last game of the season. He didn't do that.

Ah.... That makes sense. Looks like it will go to arbitration at this stage.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

Did we get a definative answer on whether or not he can indicate his intention to do so after the first game of the season? making him a free agent?

Plus perhaps the reason he didn't indicate his desire to do so was because Utd had already assured he could leave if they recieved the offer for the sum 6.7 million????!

If which case, BAD FORM ALEX! let the boy join us!

But then agin, it was apparently made PERFECTLY clear to both him and his agent, through phone calls, faxes and face to face meetings that he would NOT be sold to a title rival.

In which case BAD FORM GABBY YOU JUDAS.

Mr. Presentable

Tauren wrote:

But then agin, it was apparently made PERFECTLY clear to both him and his agent, through phone calls, faxes and face to face meetings that he would NOT be sold to a title rival.

In which case BAD FORM GABBY YOU JUDAS.

Surely it flatters Liverpool to refer to them as title rivals. Let him go - he's not all that anyhow.

Mitch Connor

Trilla wrote:

Strange one gotta say, but if this is a legitimate contract/legal document allowing him to leave at that fee of 6.8m sterling then United simply must let him go to Pool

To be a release fee clause - it would have to have been deposited with the PL as a contract amendment, which I really doubt happened. At best, also assuming United are lying when they say they made it clear he would not be sold to a title rival, it could be seen as a gentlemans agreement - but i'm fairly certain that would not be legally binding.

Mr Alan

I'd love to have a read of this letter.

if they don't mention it in that, and was an after thought. they should let him go - seriously.

if it is in it, then they have a fair point

Mitch Connor

nipplenuts wrote:

Surely it flatters Liverpool to refer to them as title rivals.

on previous seasons, yes. But i don't particularly want to get in to that. Anyway, liverpool are declared premiership champions elect every summer, and we all know this will be 'their year' so they are title rivals.

Mr Alan

Tauren, the same lawyers who sorted out the Tevez mess for you seem to disagree and think that it is binding.

Be interesting to see if anything happens.

Edit: lads, don't be so smug, the season before last, you finished a point ahead of us, hardly poles apart.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

I'd love to have a read of this letter.

if they don't mention it in that, and was an after thought. they should let him go - seriously.

if it is in it, then they have a fair point

Why should they though? He is completely and legally contracted to Man United. Man United are fulfilling every obligation on their part. So what if it was mentioned after, or before, or just not in the letter - unless that letter is legally part of his contract it is simply United being nice. They don't appear to be under any legally binding reason to sell him to Liverpool so why should they.

millersangel wrote:

Tauren, the same lawyers who sorted out the Tevez mess for you seem to disagree and think that it is binding.

Be interesting to see if anything happens.

And seemingly the same lawyers, the UNITED lawyers, think Liverpool/Heinze have no legal grounds at all.

Mr Alan

So Heinzes/Liverpools lawyers don't agree with Uniteds lawyers?!?!?!

who would've thought it

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

So Heinzes/Liverpools lawyers don't agree with Uniteds lawyers?!?!?!

who would've thought it

Indeed.

Anyway, i'm gonna try and not comment further cause Heinze's actions make me just to damn mad.

jobonar

if you believe the rags apparently there is a recorded conversation between David Gill and Gabby's agent stating that he wouldnt be sold to United's 3 big title rivals. but ya cant believe everything ya read but its possible.....

PHB

Well, apparently, the letter has some legal binding-ness, but it was further clarified by a conversation that Gill had with Heinze in which he stated that it did not count in a deal with a domestic rival. Now normally this would be a case of Gill's word vs. Heinze, but luckily, Gill apparently taped the conversation.

I wouldn't call him a JUDAS!!!??? United said he could leave the club. United expected one of the foreign clubs who were interested in him to make the bid. Heinze stalled for way too long. The other clubs made up their minds with other defenders. Liverpool are now the only club interested in him.
There's no doubt in my mind that if Juve or anyone who plays CL football in one of the top 3 leagues comes in for him he'll be gone to them within the day. It's not that he particuarly wants to go to Liverpool, he wants to leave United to go to another decent team.

Hobart

jobonar wrote:

if you believe the rags apparently there is a recorded conversation between David Gill and Gabby's agent stating that he wouldnt be sold to United's 3 big title rivals. but ya cant believe everything ya read but its possible.....

I don't think anybody really disputes this. What would be in dispute is the right of Manu to dictate to a player where and for whom he can play. I didn't think that this was allowed under EU laws. AFAIK any employee is free to work wherever he/she chooses. EU law, again AFAIK, supersedes any contract that may or may not state something different.

Mr Alan

ha ha ha recorded phone conversations! one of those two lads would wanna get a life if thats true!
Edit:wat a suprise, its Gill who needs to get a life!

Mr Alan

Hobart, correct far as i know.

If he challenges this, he will win, Utd can't decide who he can and can't work for.

Mitch Connor

Hobart wrote:

I don't think anybody really disputes this. What would be in dispute is the right of Manu to dictate to a player where and for whom he can play. I didn't think that this was allowed under EU laws. AFAIK any employee is free to work wherever he/she chooses. EU law, again AFAIK, supersedes any contract that may or may not state something different.

So what is the point in signing a 5 year contract if the player can decide he wants to leave and can dicate who he goes to?

United have a legal right not sell Heinze, they have a legal right to decide what bids they accept or reject, even under EU law. In order to bring football contracts closer to EU law it was agreed a player could buy their contract out - Heinze chose not to do this so he is bound by the contract he signed with Man United.

If United bid 2million for Gerrard in the morning and (i know it wouldn't happen) Gerrard said "Yep, i want to go to United, accept their 2million bid", do you think Liverpool would accept that, or be forced to accept it?

Mr Alan

No but if Liverpool had told Gerrard and all the clubs around Europe that he was for sale for 2 million and there was a letter with 'some' legal standing outlining this.
Then Liverpool may be forced to sell him!

That God we would never do something that stupid though!

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

Hobart, correct far as i know.

If he challenges this, he will win, Utd can't decide who he can and can't work for.

What are you talking about (I know i didn't want to comment but this is ridiculas)

Of course United can decide who he plays for - he is fully and completely contracted to United. They reserve the right to accept or reject bids as they please. Just as United can not force him to sign for someone, Heinze can not force them to accept a bid they do not want to. Unless he has a minimum fee release clause, which neither I, nor United think he does.

millersangel wrote:

No but if Liverpool had told Gerrard and all the clubs around Europe that he was for sale for 2 million and there was a letter with 'some' legal standing outlining this.
Then Liverpool may be forced to sell him!

That God we would never do something that stupid though!

I wonder if liverpool got that letter, and if they didn't.....

Hobart

Tauren wrote:

What are you talking about (I know i didn't want to comment but this is ridiculas)

Of course United can decide who he plays for - he is fully and completely contracted to United. They reserve the right to accept or reject bids as they please. Just as United can not force him to sign for someone, Heinze can not force them to accept a bid they do not want to. Unless he has a minimum fee release clause, which neither I, nor United think he does.

What are you talking about? He does have a release fee. Manu, Heinze and Liverpool have accepted this.

Mitch Connor

Hobart wrote:

What are you talking about? He does have a release fee. Manu, Heinze and Liverpool have accepted this.

What?????

If united 'accepted' this, then they would have accepted the bid. Clearly United don't think he has a release fee - what he has is a valuation. United hve said, all in all, from what i can gather, "we will let you leave for 6.8million, but not to a title rival."

This does not translate to "We agree to sell you to anyone who offers 6.8million"

PHB

Hobart wrote:

What are you talking about? He does have a release fee. Manu, Heinze and Liverpool have accepted this.

Not exactly. If he had a release fee, there would be no issue, Heinze would be a Liverpool player right now.

What has happened is that Man Utd agreed to sell him for a certain price in letter. Then in a voice conversation (which may suggest he has no life, or might suggest he is just very very smart and the fact that it is now an issue suggests he is very very smart) they clarified that to mean that they would sell him for a certain price to anyone bar their domestic rivals.

The issue is twofold:
Does the voice conversation have the same legal standing (not only because it is oral but because it was an addition to the previous letter. If the previous letter counts as a contractual obligation then Heinze would have had to agree to the addition. If it was just a gentlemens agreement then it's irrelevent)

If there is a contractual obligation, do United have the right not to sell to their rivals? Now afaik comparisions with EU law in general are kinda mute because football is effectively governed by slightly different laws. It may indeed be the case that United doing this is against EU law, but the PL will not decide on this. For this to happen Heinze would have to go to real court.

zing

Tauren wrote:

And seemingly the same lawyers, the UNITED lawyers, think Liverpool/Heinze have no legal grounds at all.

What legal grounds do Liverpool need to have here ? They submitted an offer for a player and it got rejected. There's nothing more they can do until the matter between Heinze & Utd is resolved one way or the other. And even then there is presumably little they can do other than submit a fresh offer for the player.

The matter is between Heinze & Utd and Liverpool are - publicly at least - taking a back seat until it is resolved. Whether there is ongoing contact - direct or otherwise - between them and Heinze's representatives behind the scene is unknown.

Mr Alan

He claims to have a letter advising him that he is for sale for 6.7 million with no mention of what club he can and can't go to. His lawyers and liverpools think thats legally binding and want to push it through.

If this is legally binding-Utd CANNOT decide which club he can and can't move to as it goes against EU law.

Obviously he might not want to take United to court over this, but if he did - he'd win.

Don't get so wound up Tauren, not good for your heart.

zing

PHB wrote:

Does the voice conversation have the same legal standing (not only because it is oral but because it was an addition to the previous letter. If the previous letter counts as a contractual obligation then Heinze would have had to agree to the addition. If it was just a gentlemens agreement then it's irrelevent)

Also when that conversation took place may be relevant. i.e. if it was before or after Liverpool made an offer for the player.

Mitch Connor

millersangel wrote:

He claims to have a letter advising him that he is for sale for 6.7 million with no mention of what club he can and can't go to. His lawyers and liverpools think thats legally binding and want to push it through.

If this is legally binding-Utd CANNOT decide which club he can and can't move to as it goes against EU law.

Don't get so wound up Tauren, not good for your heart.

how do you know i have heart issues....what else do you know about me??

STALKER!! STALKER!!

If the letter is legally binding, then unless the agent rejected the stipulations made in the recorded phone call i can't see how the phone call is any less legally binding.

Mr Alan

ha ha Stalker is a bit strong! Lucky guess - more acurate! Plus you are angry ALOT!

The only place I've heard of this recorded phonecall is in tabloid rags so i wouldn't hold my breath on that being true.

If it is true, i would doubt it would have the same legal standing as a written document though, but i can't be sure on that, i ain't a lawyer.

Theboinkmaster

millersangel wrote:

He claims to have a letter advising him that he is for sale for 6.7 million with no mention of what club he can and can't go to. His lawyers and liverpools think thats legally binding and want to push it through.

If this is legally binding-Utd CANNOT decide which club he can and can't move to as it goes against EU law.

Obviously he might not want to take United to court over this, but if he did - he'd win.

Don't get so wound up Tauren, not good for your heart.

There is absolutely no way this letter is legally binding, only a proper legal document like a player's contract would form a contractual obligation

My point is that a contract is signed by both parties - an offer and acceptance whereas a letter is only signed by the offerer and thus not legally binding - what if utd claimed there was another letter, which heinze denies (maybe it got lost in the post, maybe utd just signed the letter yesterday and claimed the player received it).......without a signature accepting the offer it's not binding

I'd say legally it's like an "invitation to treat" in that when a shop advertises something at €100 and you go in to find it was a mistake and the item is really €1,000 - you cannot force the shop to accept the €100 - they simply invited customers to make an offer

Well that's my take anyway but i could be talking pure nonsense