Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Summer transfer thread 17/18 season (NEYMAR TALK IN OTHER THREAD)

1187188189190191193»

Comments

  • Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Liam O wrote: »
    There was no legality behind rejecting it. Liverpool just sort of hoped they could bully Arsenal away. Like most things regarding Arsenal, it worked.

    There was nothing Arsenal could do.

    They can't enforce a contract that exists between another club and a player. They had no grounds for a case, there is no privity of contract. Suarez could sue, obviously, but clearly he found that unpalatable. So the move couldn't happen.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭irishman86


    GavRedKing wrote: »
    We've been investigated it twice already for it in recent years, nothing came of it.

    Only time Chelsea had an issue was when we signed Gael Kakauta a few years back, got a transfer ban for 2 windows over it too, the ban was overturned by the CSA after an appeal.

    I was joking :o
    I have a lot of respect for the Chelsea system, i think its genius


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 34,265 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    See I find that really hard to believe. There was obviously more to it than Arsenal being bullied away. At the time Suarez was up for the move and if it was a genuine release clause, then the deal would have been completed and nothing to do with Liverpool bullying tactics.
    More likely there wasn't an actual release clause or Suarez changed his mind about the move (Gerrard allegedly told him it would be a mistake to go to Arsenal).
    We will never know anyway.

    Yeah, I more get the impression that the wording of the clause was not as clear as it should have been, so was open to interpretation on both sides, which gave 'Pool enough ground to hang onto him. Especially once they/Gerrard convinced Suarez to wait an extra year with a bigger wage, and being allowed to leave for a bigger club than arsenal.

    Subscribe to save Boards.ie from closing down: The Bad News

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    Yeah, I more get the impression that the wording of the clause was not as clear as it should have been, so was open to interpretation on both sides, which gave 'Pool enough ground to hang onto him. Especially once they/Gerrard convinced Suarez to wait an extra year with a bigger wage, and being allowed to leave for a bigger club than arsenal.

    I'd be very doubtful that a multi million contract that was pored over by legal experts was vague on such a crucial aspect. Plus there was no suggestion that there was some doubt about it.

    It's really very simple. He had a release clause. But Arsenal can no more sue on the basis of it than you or I. The only person who can sue is Suarez. And evidently he didn't want to take legal action to enforce his contract.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 479 ✭✭rgace


    Arsenal may also have been worried about the tapping up issue considering they knew the contents of Suarez contract. I remember Liverpool got fined for something similar when signing Ziege.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement