Transfer discussion thread

[SM]

Oh dear Pykie is misunderstanding. It's a 21m fee to buy Augustine, not 20m in legal fees.

 

[Pykie]

Not trolling at all, you Leeds supporters need to get your story straight. You came in here saying one thing and we all responded to that, then Jaymin is now denying that's the case. You suggesting you'd have to spend 20million on legal fees is a pisser as well.

Legal fee's AND compensation.

You have no idea what you are talking about (as usual).

I've already said what the situation is.

The contract date was pre-covid and wasn't contingent on an event, only in it's activation.

It's activiation was after the formal contract date, hence the legal battle.


Also, whilst the situation is different, it isn't the first time this has happened. I can't recall the sides that fought it (Sunderland or Southampton?), The final result was against the side who tried topull out of the deal. The transfer was worth around 14m and it ended up costing them closer to 20m in legal fee's and compensation. The club also had to pay out the player for the remainder of his deal. The same would apply here.

So despite your bedwetting, the club probably isn't rolling a 20m+ dice if it isn't at least confident there's some grounds under law to void it. They might lose, but clearly there's a legal battle.

 

[Pykie]

Oh dear Pykie is misunderstanding. It's a 21m fee to buy Augustine, not 20m in legal fees.

Wrong.

Again.

As usual.

 

[Zidane98]

We're owed 20% of any sale so you could probably get him for 65m with United paying the extra 20% on the Sancho fee

Literally that's the only reason I can see that Dortmund were linked, to tie it into the above scenario.

Makes sense for you guys to buy Zaha instead of Sancho in that case.

 

[SM]

Wrong.

Again.

As usual.

Augustin: $23 Million Contract Dispute Between Leeds And Leipzig Could Become Benchmark

The Red Bulls signed talented striker Jean-Kevin Augustin for €16 million ($17.6 million) from Paris Saint-Germain.

www.forbes.com

 

[SM]

Legal fee's AND compensation.

You have no idea what you are talking about (as usual).

I've already said what the situation is.

The contract date was pre-covid and wasn't contingent on an event, only in it's activation.

It's activiation was after the formal contract date, hence the legal battle.


Also, whilst the situation is different, it isn't the first time this has happened. I can't recall the sides that fought it (Sunderland or Southampton?), The final result was against the side who tried topull out of the deal. The transfer was worth around 14m and it ended up costing them closer to 40m in legal fee's and compensation. The club also had to pay out the player for the remainder of his deal. The same would apply here.

So despite your bedwetting, the club probably isn't rolling a 20m+ dice if it isn't at least confident there's some grounds under law to void it. They might lose, but clearly there's a legal battle.

The 20m is the transfer fee, of course there's legal costs involved as well but you trotting out some confident line of "The club wouldn't be spending 20m on legal fees if they weren't confident" is utter rubbish.

You now recanting and saying "Well they might lose but they're rolling the dice" is where I started and you laughed me down. So maybe get your Leeds pals on the same page if you have Jaymin in one corner claiming that no one knows the details of the contract while you're trying to make out that you have some solid legal basis for the claim.

 

[Memphis]

And move Bruno to cm?

Nah dybala on the right wing.

 

[pantskyle]

Makes sense for you guys to buy Zaha instead of Sancho in that case.

Issue I have with that is Zaha is crap.

 

[Pykie]

Augustin: $23 Million Contract Dispute Between Leeds And Leipzig Could Become Benchmark

The Red Bulls signed talented striker Jean-Kevin Augustin for €16 million ($17.6 million) from Paris Saint-Germain.

www.forbes.com

Haha congratulations, you've quoted his transfer value.

That's not going to be the final figure though is it?

Who pays for costs? The loser.

JKA is clubless at the moment, who pays the remained of the £10m he is owed of the £95k per week contract for the next 2 years?

 

[SM]

Haha congratulations, you've quoted his transfer value.

That's not going to be the final figure though is it?

Who pays for costs? The loser.

JKA is clubless at the moment, who pays the remained of the £10m of the £95k per week contract for the next 2 years?

He's not clubless he's back at RB Leipzig.

Of course the loser pays the costs, this is a ridiculous argument going in circles. You think you have a case that Leeds didn't really get promoted during the 2019/20 season, and as much as I wish that was the case, it isn't. We'll see what happens, but saying you're "rolling a 20m legal dice" is laughable if you're including the transfer fee you were already obligated to pay.

 

[Zidane98]

Augustin: $23 Million Contract Dispute Between Leeds And Leipzig Could Become Benchmark

The Red Bulls signed talented striker Jean-Kevin Augustin for €16 million ($17.6 million) from Paris Saint-Germain.

www.forbes.com

Thanks for the info, explains it well. Leeds & RB are surely better off agreeing compo outside of court.

 

[Zidane98]

Haha congratulations, you've quoted his transfer value.

That's not going to be the final figure though is it?

Who pays for costs? The loser.

JKA is clubless at the moment, who pays the remained of the £10m he is owed of the £95k per week contract for the next 2 years?

Did he return to Leipzig after July 1? Understand they are currently paying him.

 

[SM]

Did he return to Leipzig after July 1? Understand they are currently paying him.

Very good of them to do that, presumably will be looking to recover that amount from Leeds too.

 

[Pykie]

He's not clubless he's back at RB Leipzig.

Of course the loser pays the costs, this is a ridiculous argument going in circles. You think you have a case that Leeds didn't really get promoted during the 2019/20 season, and as much as I wish that was the case, it isn't. We'll see what happens, but saying you're "rolling a 20m legal dice" is laughable if you're including the transfer fee you were already obligated to pay.

Are you sure Mr Assumption?


Leipzig have said they don't want him back, he's a Leeds player as far as they are concerned. He's definately not coming back to Leeds our GM said as much yesterday, last reports were he was on a boat in the south of France a few days ago.

As for me including the transfer fee's, I'm not including it. Do you really struggle with numbers this much as an accountant?

The risk is 20m, because the total cost is likely to be 40m. In the event that we just paid the transfer, the 20m would of been paid regardless. We are risking an additional 20m, to avoid 20m. IT's a fairly simple concept that you seem to be getting completely confused with purely because of the original transfer fee.

 

[Zidane98]

Very good of them to do that, presumably will be looking to recover that amount from Leeds too.

They couldn't recover the amount up until Leeds were promoted because that is what activated the permanent transfer. Probably doesnt help their cause that they took him back. Following this one with interest but it cant feel too good as the player when your current and former employer are both fighting not to sign you.

 

[SM]

Are you sure Mr Assumption?


Leipzig have said they don't want him back, he's a Leeds player as far as they are concerned. He's definately not coming back to Leeds our GM said as much yesterday, last reports were he was on a boat in the south of France a few days ago.

As for me including the transfer fee's, I'm not including it. Do you really struggle with numbers this much as an accountant?

The risk is 20m, because the total cost is likely to be 40m. In the event that we just paid the transfer, the 20m would of been paid regardless. We are risking an additional 20m, to avoid 20m. IT's a fairly simple concept that you seem to be getting completely confused with purely because of the original transfer fee.

I'm not making an assumption I'm looking at all news reports saying he has gone back to RB Leipzig. Or are they lying and he's sitting somewhere unemployed?

 

[Pykie]

I'm not making an assumption I'm looking at all news reports saying he has gone back to RB Leipzig. Or are they lying and he's sitting somewhere unemployed?

They may very well be paying him, but he wont be playing for them and from reports in the UK isn't training with them.

As I said, his 10m in wages will form part of the costs that make up a major portion of the 20m in additional costs above his transfer fee in the event we lose the case.

Leipzig are still in the champions league, surely if he was returning to them (His loan ended 6 weeks ago) he wouldn't be drinking piss on holiday at this point of the year when his parent club are still technically in season and all other clubs are entering pre-season?

 

[SM]

They may very well be paying him, but he wont be playing for them and from reports in the UK isn't training with them.

As I said, his 10m in wages will form part of the costs that make up a major portion of the 20m in additional costs above his transfer fee in the event we lose the case.

Leipzig are still in the champions league, surely if he was returning to them (His loan ended 6 weeks ago) he wouldn't be drinking piss on holiday at this point of the year when his parent club are still technically in season and all other clubs are entering pre-season?

Oh so they are paying him? What a silly assumption from me.

 

[pantskyle]

I am actually a lawyer who deals in sporting contracts and I hate to say it but SM probably closer to being correct, Leeds are going to argue against a technicality but it is fairly flimsy and it won't hold up in court.

 

[Pykie]

In 2014-15, Sunderland took winger Ricardo Alvarez from Inter Milan on a season-long loan, with an agreement to make the deal permanent for €10.5m if they avoided relegation.
They did, but had misgivings about the condition of the Argentinian’s knees.



With neither Inter nor Sunderland wanting him back, Alvarez was eventually made a free agent, allowed to join Sampdoria while the clubs haggled, and the Black Cats ended up paying the full amount and almost as much again for the player to pursue his career elsewhere.
Alvarez joined with a history of chronic patellar tendonitis in his left knee, and Sunderland were able to pull out if the problem “accelerated” to the point where he could no longer perform in the Premier League. There was no such clause relating to his right knee, which he injured in the third of 17 appearances which yielded just one goal.
Alvarez underwent surgery and when the season ended Inter and Sunderland debated whether he should do so again. The Italian club blocked it.
Sunderland argued the problem was an indirect consequence of the issue in Alvarez’s left knee, took the case to FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee, and lost in July 2015.



They went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and lost two years later, ordered to pay the full amount.
CAS also decided Sunderland owed £335,000 to Alvarez’s first club, Velez Sarsfield, in solidarity payments.
With Alvarez suing for loss of earnings for his half-season in limbo before being allowed to join Sampdoria, plus legal fees, the final bill was nearer £20m.

 

[SM]

.

Wow so you're telling me the closest precedent you could find supports what I've been saying all along and doesn't in any way support what you are trying to argue? Colour me shocked.

 

[Pykie]

Wow so you're telling me the closest precedent you could find supports what I've been saying all along and doesn't in any way support what you are trying to argue? Colour me shocked.

What am I arguing? Remind me? Please

 

[SM]

LOL what a flimsy argument. I was told he was going to be a gun for you, what happened??

Which means you need to buy him.

Do we? You need to jump on the blower and tell the Leeds top brass of your extensive experience in UK contract law then.

They could add you to the legal team before they drop £20m in the upcoming legal fees and potential additional compensation.

I mean I'm just a simpleton and my assumptions seem to get me in trouble but it sure seems like you're suggesting here that you don't need to pay the fee for him.

 

[Pykie]

I mean I'm just a simpleton and my assumptions seem to get me in trouble but it sure seems like you're suggesting here that you don't need to pay the fee for him.

Did I? Where?

I simply stated that the above is the grounds of the legal dispute at play.

I merely mentioned I don't think a football club would persue the legal option the large costs they have exposure to without the prospect of there being a decent case to argue.

I've never once said I think it's the right thing to do, nor have I said we don't need to pay it, nor have I said I think we will win.

Again, you always read what you want to read in arguments SM.

 

[SM]

Did I? Where?

I simply stated that the above is the grounds of the legal dispute at play.

I merely mentioned I don't think a football club would persue the legal option the large costs they have exposure to without the prospect of there being a decent case to argue.

I've never once said I think it's the right thing to do, nor have I said we don't need to pay it, nor have I said I think we will win.

Again, you always read what you want to read in arguments SM.

So you're not arguing anything and think that there's a case to be made both ways. Good to clear that up!