Firstly, I highly doubt United would have signed him if their lawyers thought the trial in Argentina would be an issue. Secondly, the latter isn't true if you take the time to read the BBC article.
16
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 26
- Clean sheets
- 8
- Goals
- 1
- Assists
- 0
- Yellow cards
- 6
Firstly, I highly doubt United would have signed him if their lawyers thought the trial in Argentina would be an issue. Secondly, the latter isn't true if you take the time to read the BBC article.
My understand was the PL has signed off, it is solely the permit.
I think it's the 3rd party ownership that's holding up the deal, well that's what Jonathan Northcroft said earlier on Sunday supplement.
He's been granted International transfer clearance, and also a Work permit but now needs a Working Visa too which is a hold up?
This seems complex. Should just settle the case from 2010 paying some compensation or something.
This seems complex. Should just settle the case from 2010 paying some compensation or something.
His owenership and rights have already been transferred.
That third party stuff is now between Sporting and Doyen as to who gets how much money. I imagine Doyen agreed to this and allowed the transfer despite Sporting rescinding there contract so that they can later sort it out in courts.
Or a brown envelope in the right pocket
Mmm that will settle it just nicely!Or a brown envelope in the right pocket
The Premier League have stated that they've signed that off. It's just the Visa now.
It's just more negative attention on us isn't it. Surely the deal wouldn't of gone through if they club didn't their homework properly. He's been with us nearly 2 weeks.
I don't think it works that way in this case. I think Sporting had the full ownership but was obliged by contract to pay a percentage (75%) of the value to Doyen. That's the contract they rescinded. United or the FA have nothing to do with it, they only had to deal with Sporting.
Mangala was different, that's what Doyen said about it (my translation): "(...) For the first time in history, an investment fund sold their economic rights over a player directly to an English club, with total approval and supervision from the FA. Everything ran perfectly. We'd also like to thank FA and Manchester's City stance. (...)"
There is obviously something holding the deal up but it will be resolved soon.
There is no way a club the size of United with lawyers and advisors would pay 16m for a player without being able to get the deal done and him playing on the pitch.
I wouldn't worry.
There is no way a club the size of United with lawyers and advisors would pay 16m for a player without being able to get the deal done and him playing on the pitch.
I wouldn't worry.
After the way we've handled other deals, nothing would surprise me now. I'm wondering if we were even aware of the court case when we signed him. These details didn't emerge till at least a few days after the deal was done.
According to Jonathon Northcroft in the ST today it could take weeks to ratify the transfer and Doyen, the company with a stake in Rojo have mounted a challenge that will heard at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. He goes on to say that 'VG, as a man of experience and intelligence will be asking Woodward questions such as why Rojo was presented as a United player without his third party ownership being resolved'. 'The Rojo mess sums up the untidyness of Uniteds transfer window following last years..
It did surprise me how quickly it went through given how long it took City to wrap up the Mangala deal.
But why are the BBC saying it has nothing to do with the premier league and rather work permit issues?
Two completely conflicting stories in the press here! The BBC one is less sensationalist so for the minute I'm inclined not to panic about it.
Is he better than Lovren of Liverpool as he really impressed last year and was surprised we were not interested in him at the price.
Dunno but here's more from the ST Sports section today.
Duncan Castles: "Though United announced Rojo's transfer 11 days ago, the Argentian remains unavailable because PL rules state that he cannot be registered to play until the 75% of his economic rights owned by an investment fund at Sporting Lisbon has been bought out. Rojo's case has been complicated by an ugly legal dispute between Sporting and the players third party owners Doyen Sports, which intends to open a case against the Lisbon Club this week. The group is challenging Sportings actions in terminating Rojo's economics rights contract with Doyen 'with just cause' a few days before selling the player to United. Instead of distributing 75% of the transfer fee to the fund, Sporting aim to retain most of the revenue for their use. Because the case is complicated by alleged breaches of contract by Doyen THERE IS NO TIMESCALE FOR ITS RESOLUTION POTENTIALLY LEAVING ROJO IN LIMBO BETWEEN THE CLUBS AND VAN GAAL WITHOUT AN IMPORTANT DEFENSIVE REINFORCEMENT."
Duncan Castles: "Though United announced Rojo's transfer 11 days ago, the Argentian remains unavailable because PL rules state that he cannot be registered to play until the 75% of his economic rights owned by an investment fund at Sporting Lisbon has been bought out. Rojo's case has been complicated by an ugly legal dispute between Sporting and the players third party owners Doyen Sports, which intends to open a case against the Lisbon Club this week. The group is challenging Sportings actions in terminating Rojo's economics rights contract with Doyen 'with just cause' a few days before selling the player to United. Instead of distributing 75% of the transfer fee to the fund, Sporting aim to retain most of the revenue for their use. Because the case is complicated by alleged breaches of contract by Doyen THERE IS NO TIMESCALE FOR ITS RESOLUTION POTENTIALLY LEAVING ROJO IN LIMBO BETWEEN THE CLUBS AND VAN GAAL WITHOUT AN IMPORTANT DEFENSIVE REINFORCEMENT."
Castles and Northcroft are both talking utter shite.
Haha, I keep hearing this but it's playing out before our own eyes, since last summer it's been clear that we have little or no due dilligence, and there's no clear plan in place at the club. Rojo still hasn't been able to play for us, so, someone somewhere didn't do his homework properly.
So when can he play?
Sportings attempts to end their contract with Doyen seemed laughable at the time to me. I just don't get how it coukd be possible.
It's like me buying a car on finance and just terminating my agreement, selling the car and pocketing the cash. Did they have any grounds to do this? Surely our lawyers questioned this, unless we got desperate and said to do the deal and leave them to sort out the mess.
It's like me buying a car on finance and just terminating my agreement, selling the car and pocketing the cash. Did they have any grounds to do this? Surely our lawyers questioned this, unless we got desperate and said to do the deal and leave them to sort out the mess.
Whenever he gets a UK working visa which could be today or months from now, but LVG thinks it should be resolved during the International break and he should be available for the QPR game....fingers crossed.
I don't understand why that should have any bearing whether we can play him or not, we've signed him for £16 million he's our player, any dispute between Sporting and Doyen should be sorted amongst themselves. I think there's a bit of confusion as to whats holding up Rojo getting a visa, is it this mess between Sporting and Doyen or is it the Court case back in Argentina there's been conflicting reports.
I'm maybe mistaken but according to the bbc everything is fine.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29000089
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29000089
Well Sporting have potentially sold a player that they didn't own. If I understand correctly. Perhaps Doyen ahreed to the fee but Sporting haven't paid them what they are due.
Why?? if we cancel it then we have to play the rest of the season (until Jan at least) with our current crop of defenders which have been a complete shambles so far, give it time, whether it's resolved today, tomorrow or a month from now at least we'll have a defensive reinforcement that we've been desperately needing and even though he may not be a world beater he's certainly a step up from what we have now.
Surely though we'd have been in talks with both Sporting and Doyen considering they partly owned him?? we should've had a payment plan worked out with the both of them and made sure the whole thing went through smoothly and Sporting couldn't pull a stunt like this.
That's what I thought, but the court case suggests not. It was suspicious how the deal went through as soon as Sporting terminated their deal with Doyen.
I dont understand what this investment fund is. Is it separate to Doyen? Is that what the court has to decide? And is that what the PL is waiting for before issuing a permit?
Anything new with this?
This is still rumbling on...
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Maybe we should be signing a central defender in case this one falls through.
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Maybe we should be signing a central defender in case this one falls through.
He's received international clearance but not a work permit as of yet.
Hoping that this ends after the international break so we can see this kid play. Guessing the United Lawyers will be working hard.
Is he in the squad to play Germany tomorrow? Will be nice to get a good look at him.
What in satans ball bag is happening with this? Whys it taken two weeks for him to get a permit?
hopefully he will play, we can see how good he is