I don't understand why any Liverpool player would go to Arsenal of all the places? They aren't a step up from Liverpool at all. I can understand them moving to Chelsea or City(discounting United due to the fact that Liverpool won't sell any player to us) but not Arsenal.
Raheem Sterling | Signs for Man City for £49,000,000
- Thread starter Brophs
- Start date
- Status
It's because players know that Arsene is a soft touch. Soon, Sterling will be taking selfies while smoking 20 JPS fags after the Gunners heroically beat Clacton FC 1-0 on penalties.
Doesn't work that way. Sometimes you have to let a player go. Saf was as hard nosed as anyone. Ronaldo left despite us wanting him to stay. If a player is adamant to leave he eventually will.
If Sterling has a release clause can Liverpool stop him from signing for us if we meet the clause?
They stopped Suarez from going to Arsenal.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/02/liverpool-john-henry-luis-suarez-clause
Suarez had a release clause and FSG ignored it when Arsenal triggered it.
Well feck.
Release clauses are completely pointless in that case.
Release clauses are completely pointless in that case.
Could Suarez have forced it but wasn't actually that bothered himself? It wasn't like the move even made much sense for him, as his move to Barca showed.
The attitude towards De Gea in this place is crazy, you'd think United have never had a great player before.
A top keeper will never have the same impact to a team that Sterling could, that's obvious.
Tbf, you guys never experience having a top Gk (except Seaman, that might be off your time).
How can a contract have a release clause but at the same time not force the club to honour it? It doesn't make any sense. It would be interesting to see a case like that tested in court.
*John Henry looks at the back pages of the British 'papers*
"What the Sam Hill's goin' on over there?!? F*ck, I've swallowed my massive cigar..."
"It's Raheem Sterling,Mr Burns sir - he wants to quit Portfolio Asset #1793."
"Nobody 'quits' John Henry; nobody. Except Suarez. And that Sterling fella. Get me England on the Batphone..."
"What the Sam Hill's goin' on over there?!? F*ck, I've swallowed my massive cigar..."
"It's Raheem Sterling,
"Nobody 'quits' John Henry; nobody. Except Suarez. And that Sterling fella. Get me England on the Batphone..."
I love all the Liverpool "legends" coming out and claiming he's been badly advised or owes Rodgers, complete nonsense. Loyalty in football is largely horseshit anyway since a manager has no issues with shifting players on when they're deemed not good enough. The very same Brendan Rodgers who tried to get rid of Henderson but was forced to keep him when a loan move fell through, I wonder what Jordan thinks about loyalty now he's looking at a new contract.
Sterling's market value is what another club is willing to pay him so Liverpool can put up or shut up, if the new quotas on homegrown players in PL squads happens his value goes even higher as all the top clubs will be desperate for homegrown players capable of featuring in their starting eleven. I just hope we're showing interest if nothing more than to drive the price for him through the roof.
Sterling's market value is what another club is willing to pay him so Liverpool can put up or shut up, if the new quotas on homegrown players in PL squads happens his value goes even higher as all the top clubs will be desperate for homegrown players capable of featuring in their starting eleven. I just hope we're showing interest if nothing more than to drive the price for him through the roof.
As Sied says, Suarez and his legal team could have forced the transfer to Arsenal through if they had wanted to.
Sterling owes liverpool nothing, didn't he come through qpr academy?
Definitely chelsea bound IMO they can offer him big wages, location and trophies.
Definitely chelsea bound IMO they can offer him big wages, location and trophies.
That's probably a bit of BS from Henry. PR to try and make himself look good.Suarez contract probably had some wiggle room which Liverpool were able to exploit. There were rumors that summer that both sides disagreed on the interpretation of the contract and hence the confusion and arguing over the 40 m + 1 bid.
It was also rumored that when he signed a new deal in November of the same season a more rigid release clause was inserted to remove any ambiguity.
Every contract is different however so any
potential release clause for Sterling would depend on what his particular contract says.
I seem to recall that too. Liverpool believed that the clause meant they had only to consider any bid North of £40m, not accept it. Something like that.
That's got to be BS as well though. They are duty bound to consider ANY bid regardless! They must act in good faith to other clubs and to their players as it is stated in the players contract AND their agreement with the Premier League - this requires proper consideration of any bid.
The boilerplate "buy out" clause that is used means simply that any bid OVER £40m had to be accepted. They offered £40m and Liverpool rejected (as they were entitled to do - because it wasn't OVER £40m). They then made an offer of £40,000,001 which they were then contractually bound with Luis Suarez to accept. Not doing so would have meant they were in breach of contract with Luis Suarez and he would have been entitled to sue them for it (either for the loss of potential earnings and signing on fees etc - or by forcing repudiation of the contract if the breach was considered so important that it struck at the very heart of the contract. (i.e. making them cancel it - so he would have gone on a free). I think their legal officer messed this analysis up because she was sacked soon after it.
Yeah that was it I think. And if that really was the clause, it can't be termed a release clause right?
In any case, I can't recollect any British transfers triggered using one
That doesn't explain what happened though, unless you're suggesting that liverpool played hardball only to found out after the fact that they were in fact in the wrong.
A term in a contract is only enforceable if you're prepared to go to court to enforce it. By which time the transfer window would have been closed. (I think it would have actually gone to the FA and then FIFA and then the CAS).
But - and I can't find a reference now - but I know I read it at the time, under English law, release clauses are not considered legally enforceable. The argument goes something like this:
The contract is between the player and the club. Therefore it is not binding on the club in negotiations with, say, Arsenal since they are not party to the contract.
They are enforceable however in cases where potential buyers are named within the contract - which apparently makes them parties to the contract. This is what happened with Joe Allen whose contract named a price and each of the top six clubs in the Premier League.
And they would be enforceable - as in Spain - where they are "buy out" clauses between club and player. See the Herrera transfer for more information on that. I think he had to receive the money from United and pay it to his club?
But - and I can't find a reference now - but I know I read it at the time, under English law, release clauses are not considered legally enforceable. The argument goes something like this:
The contract is between the player and the club. Therefore it is not binding on the club in negotiations with, say, Arsenal since they are not party to the contract.
They are enforceable however in cases where potential buyers are named within the contract - which apparently makes them parties to the contract. This is what happened with Joe Allen whose contract named a price and each of the top six clubs in the Premier League.
And they would be enforceable - as in Spain - where they are "buy out" clauses between club and player. See the Herrera transfer for more information on that. I think he had to receive the money from United and pay it to his club?
Source?
I know we think of Arsenal as a joke, but objectively, they've just won a cup. They tend to finish above Liverpool every season bar freaks like last year. They always seem on the verge of something big.
They're obviously in the city of bright lights, and have more imminent prospect of success than Liverpool.
I can see it completely, but obviously agree it's easier just to go to a Chelsea/City/abroad
This looks reasonable but he has already said no to a very good offer,how much is he expecting ?
Funny to see how pundits like Tommo now saying how he is good player but not great one yet.Could swear before all this same people used terms like great/world class/top player etc.
There's nothing like a jilted lover changing their tune
Thing is, he's rejecting such a large amount of money that you have to believe it's an ambition thing.
SSN this morning covered the story with quotes about not being about money, then Tony Gale etc spent 15 minutes talking about money and what he should do with future contracts etc.
Raheem went out of his way to do a sit down interview to explain it's not money orientated but he really shouldn't have bothered, literally nobody listened to him.
People's minds are already made up about this despite there being a clear chance he's telling the truth.
SSN this morning covered the story with quotes about not being about money, then Tony Gale etc spent 15 minutes talking about money and what he should do with future contracts etc.
Raheem went out of his way to do a sit down interview to explain it's not money orientated but he really shouldn't have bothered, literally nobody listened to him.
People's minds are already made up about this despite there being a clear chance he's telling the truth.
That was my interpretation, Liverpool said see you in court and Suarez didn't want to push it for a move to Arsenal.
It's money.
Bollox it is, he's not a Liverpool supporter so will move if you don't get CL. End of story. 180,000 is a heap of money, if it was about cash he'd take it.
You don't believe he wants a move to a club competing for trophies consistently?
What source do you need? It was in his contract, he could have taken Liverpool to court and he would have won.
That's absurd supposition upon supposition. You can't know who would win unless you're:
1) a sports lawyer and well versed in these things
2) you're privy to the details of the contract.
I think his primary aim is to be paid what he perceives his value to be. Trophies are secondary in this.
If I'm wrong he will presumably go to a plastic club for a figure less than Liverpool offer him.
Its not a complicated issue and doesnt require specialist sports law knowledge, just common sense and a working understanding of law.
The premise of the conversation is that Suarez had a release clause.
Yo
That's basically right - Barcelona had no say in it really because they weren't a party to the contract between Suarez and Liverpool FC. But they would have expected Liverpool to honour the terms of their contract with the player.
Henry decided he simply wasn't going to do this. What choice does Suarez have? He cant sue the club. It'd take forever and the transfer window would be shut again - so Barca really had no choice but to up the ante and offer more money. It was a bit shameful from Henry really - if they thought £40m too low then they should have made him sign a new contract the year before on the understanding that they would sell him the year after (like we did with Ronaldo) rather than make the player unhappy and make yourself look like you don't care about honouring contracts.
He had the pick of clubs at 15 years old. Guess where he went, that's right the club who were going to pay the most money. But it wasn't about the money it was, erm, the rich history, the youth academy, the...help me out here guys, the...not the money anyway.
Yep, basically we've as good as unofficially slapped a £50m sum on his head. If he REALLY wants to go for the trophies he should help Chelsea/City out by accepting a 75-100k salary there so their FFP figures aren't too damaging.
That's when you KNOW its not about the money.
They are clearly a big step up from Liverpool because they always finish top 4 whereas barring flukes Liverpool never do. Chelsea and City are two steps up.
He said he wants to win trophies. Him going to Arsenal isn't going to increase his chances of a silverware. He will get to play in Europe though.
Haven't really been following this story, so two questions:
1) How high was the offer he received on Liverpool's pay scale? As in, which of their players would still be paid more than him if he had accepted?
2) What are people actually criticising him for? Being greedy? Being disloyal to Liverpool? Overrating himself? Or all of the above?
1) How high was the offer he received on Liverpool's pay scale? As in, which of their players would still be paid more than him if he had accepted?
2) What are people actually criticising him for? Being greedy? Being disloyal to Liverpool? Overrating himself? Or all of the above?
- Status