• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Transfers Summer 2020 Transfer Thread

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Fuck Messi.

Like Zidane before him, he's too wooden

Messi_Soccer_Player_Carved_Wooden_Poster_by_Woodgeek_Store_1_2000x.jpg
 
ElTel said:
Doherty has probably told Wolves that he wants to join us and because he has been there since he was very young they will sit down and find the right solution for all parties. Recruiting a replacement is the first step and the Woolwich lad seems to be the chosen one. After that it's down to agreeing a fee with Levy. 12 mill plus add ons was mentioned by Ali Gold, seems low but because of his age and long service to Wolves he might be sold for anything between 15-20 mill, which is reasonable for a right back who Jose will heavily rely on
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I feel if Gold says it you can’t take it as genuine. Maybe the deal doesn’t happen but I think we have made contact
 
FightingIllini said:
Force majeure relieves a party from their duty to perform under the contract, but a termination clause with a date of expiry isn't really a performance question.

Like, suppose Spain's season had been canceled like France's and then restarted at the normal date like France did. The force majeure event is the same, but surely that doesn't extend a clause like that into the middle of the next season.

Much depends on the specific language of the contract, what if any formal modifications were made as a result of Covid, and principles of Spanish law (or whatever law is applicable to the contract I guess).

But it's surely a litigatable issue unless for whatever reason filing suit against Lionel Messi is an act FC Barcelona can't bear to undertake for PR reasons.

Messi's suitors have more money than God, it all may very well end with City or PSG making it worth Barca's while to sign away whatever claims they may have.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If LaLiga and UCL had canceled the season the clause would not be extended for 56 days precisely because that would have given Messi the opportunity to reasonably evaluate whether or not to stay at Barca. The transfer window shifted. They played the UCL into August. The purpose of the deadline was for Messi to decide whether or not to participate in the transfer window. How can he decide that on June 30 when the league had just resumed and Barca still needed to play in the UCL. Contractually it is probably not clear either way, but a reasonable court would never rule in favor of the club in this case.

Barca would be insane to litigate this. They’re going to make him play for Barca? Laughable!
 
About Doherty, there is something else to consider from Wolves' point of view: Adama Traoré's exceptional season.

Playing as a RW - and basically, as a traditional old school RW - he became their main threat on the right. Also, to accommodate him in the team, Nuno changed the formation from a 3-5-2 to a 3-4-3, which left their midfield a bit more exposed.

Perhaps with Naitland-Miles Nuno will ask his WB's to play also through the middle - a bit like Walker does for City.
 
prinmemo said:
How can he decide that on June 30 when the league had just resumed and Barca still needed to play in the UCL.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why would knowledge of the UCL result be inherently necessary for the player to decide whether or not to exercise the clause? A date is a date.

I don't think that's a great argument. I think the stronger argument is that the date set inherently contemplates the end of the season as the trigger point (and the actual contract itself may provide further evidence of that, much depends on the word-by-word specifics of what the document actually says) and Covid in fact delayed the trigger point from occurring.

But to say that Covid was a force majeure preventing Messi from contemplating whether he wanted to leave the club or not is literally untrue. I can't see that argument winning the day. Of course, I don't know the first thing about Spanish law.

prinmemo said:
Contractually it is probably not clear either way, but a reasonable court would never rule in favor of the club in this case.

Barca would be insane to litigate this. They’re going to make him play for Barca? Laughable!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The goal isn't to make him play for Barca, the goal would be to prevent him playing for City unless City pays them enough to release the claim.

And also of course to buy time to negotiate a possible reversal of the divorce in the first place with Messi, which obviously has to be their #1 goal at this moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top