Page 137 of 191 FirstFirst ... 3787127133134135136137138139140141147187 ... LastLast
Results 4,081 to 4,110 of 5725
  1. #4081
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    4,526
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    So this is your understanding of business life....

    Here's mine:

    This is a big story with potential career implications for those involved.

    It is not good for Manning or TFC or anybody if Manning presented a player to his bosses/board that he said he could get for 25M euros total, and it turns out you may not get him unless it's 30M (guessing at these numbers, the point is the inability to deliver). This is not how board approval for player acquisition works anywhere. You are asking for approval of a specific deal. Going back a second time for more looks like you didn’t know what you were doing, and wastes people's time.

    If it's just a mistake that money fixes, that is bad, but people involved can get past it. Depends on the quantum. If legal exposure has been created, this is way worse.
    This back and forth money up & down thing literally happens with every contract negotiation that doesn't have a clear buy out written.

  2. #4082
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    F5
    Posts
    11,318
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    So this is your understanding of business life....

    Here's mine:

    This is a big story with potential career implications for those involved.

    It is not good for Manning or TFC or anybody if Manning presented a player to his bosses/board that he said he could get for 25M euros total, and it turns out you may not get him unless it's 30M (guessing at these numbers, the point is the inability to deliver). This is not how board approval for player acquisition works anywhere. You are asking for approval of a specific deal. Going back a second time for more looks like you didn’t know what you were doing, and wastes people's time.

    If it's just a mistake that money fixes, that is bad, but people involved can get past it. Depends on the quantum. If legal exposure has been created, this is way worse.
    But keeping in mind we’re going by what has been publicly stated here in the press. It may all be wildly inaccurate. The granularity of contract law means this is going well over the head of the average observer.

    For all we know Genk understands they are completely full of shit but feeds some nuggets to their local media knowing they’ve got a PR poop storm coming. Just like MLS’s incoherencet response to Camilo flipping them the bird and riding off to Mexico.

  3. #4083
    Registered
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,503
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ag futbol View Post
    The granularity of contract law means this is going well over the head of the average observer.
    Does anybody know the actual language used in the contract - or is that just speculation as well. Speculating on speculation can be fun, but is a tough exercise to take a strong stance on since it is impossible to know.

  4. #4084
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    Would work out that way if we buy him because of the $3.5M transfer. I'm not fan of how MLS amortizes transfer fees but it is what it is.

    And yes, his stats aren't awesome but like I said earlier I don't judge until the play here. I laughed when NYRB signed BWP because he was overpriced League One shite and look how that worked out.
    He wasn't even the best of the WPs at the time.

  5. #4085
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I thought the only legal issues may revolve around whether his release clause only pertains to Belgian window or other windows..? I can't think of any other legal issues that could arise. However, can Genk report us to FIFA for tapping up their player? I know it happens all the time, but Genk might be very compelled to complain, and it certainly seems like we might have been in discussions with him and his agent, before speaking to the club.

  6. #4086
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    221
    Posts
    15,539
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Would not be surprised if this tweet is basically how Manning et al feel right now - Wheeler does tend to parrot the line within the camp.


  7. #4087
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Georgetown
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OgtheDim View Post
    Aaa...memories


    Can we sign him?

    He clearly knew how to score.
    Play-by-Play Commentator for League 1 Ontario.
    Twitter (@MartinOmes)
    Road Trips: LA Galaxy, FC Cincinnati, Montreal (x2), Columbus (x3), NYCFC, NY Red Bulls, DC United, Atlanta, and Seattle!

  8. #4088
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    All executive authority in any corporation derives from the board. For many things a board delegates their authority, but can reserve their authority for others. It's been said publicly before that any TFC DPs need to be specifically approved by the MLSE board. There can be no legal liability unless the MLSE board signs on. As well as that, given that all of the teams are legally divisions of a corporation (MLS LLC), league FO approval is also needed before any deal is binding. So Manning and Co can't get TFC in legal liability without a deal being reviewed.
    A binding deal requires Board and MLS approval. Legal liability can come from other things - like intentionally interfering with contractual relations. Manning and Co. can create certain problems for MLSE and possibly MLSE ie if Genk sues for interfering with the contract it doesn't matter if Manning had authority to finalize the deal or not. Sorry to be pedantic.

  9. #4089
    RPB Member Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On the Interwebs
    Posts
    17,381
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MightyDM View Post
    A binding deal requires Board and MLS approval. Legal liability can come from other things - like intentionally interfering with contractual relations. Manning and Co. can create certain problems for MLSE and possibly MLSE ie if Genk sues for interfering with the contract it doesn't matter if Manning had authority to finalize the deal or not. Sorry to be pedantic.
    Then you get into the personal liability question where MLSE could sue employees who act without authorization. It gets complicated. Needless to say, Manning will act with care, it's not like he has no experience with contracts or doesn't have access to legal advice.


  10. #4090
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    Then you get into the personal liability question where MLSE could sue employees who act without authorization. It gets complicated. Needless to say, Manning will act with care, it's not like he has no experience with contracts or doesn't have access to legal advice.
    Of course. And I expect his handling of all of this to be exemplary. But if it goes sideways, there could be problems. Rather unlikely I think but legally possible.

  11. #4091
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    4,526
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MightyDM View Post
    A binding deal requires Board and MLS approval. Legal liability can come from other things - like intentionally interfering with contractual relations. Manning and Co. can create certain problems for MLSE and possibly MLSE ie if Genk sues for interfering with the contract it doesn't matter if Manning had authority to finalize the deal or not. Sorry to be pedantic.
    This isn't NA sports and we're (almost) within our window just like China is and the Middle East was up until last week. There is no interference to buy players in this window especially when the buyout was met. Don't make more of this than it is. It's standard gamesmanship and fan manipulation. You should know how this works. Our old FO's did this type of shit at every turn for years.

  12. #4092
    Registered
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://www.nieuws365.be/news/1391/c...opt-op-pozuelo

    Genk's rival is pleased. Poz seems to be a real star in that league..

  13. #4093
    Registered
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    By the way, if you open in chrome it's easy to get it translated..

  14. #4094
    Registered
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  15. #4095
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14,761
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The issue with the board is reputational. It can severely impact your effectiveness if you are sloppy with your board.

    If Manning went to the board and said: we can get this player for $XMM total commitment, that is one thing.

    If he went and said: we can possibly get this player for $XMM, maybe, we’ll try, or maybe it’s a few million more, because there could be a legal dispute, and even then I am not sure we can get him, and doing this and not getting the player could expose us to legal risk ... well that is another thing entirely. He’d be 100% fine there.

    You don’t go to your Board twice. That isn’t a work-in-progress update step.

    We don’t know what happened yet, so this is only speculation. But I think nobody ran down the legal side of this properly in advance, based on how it has played out.
    Last edited by ensco; 02-11-2019 at 05:41 PM.
    “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”

  16. #4096
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    4,526
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    The issue with the board is reputational. It can severely impact your effectiveness if you are sloppy with your board.

    If Manning went to the board and said: we can get this player for $XMM total commitment, that is one thing.

    If he went and said: we can possibly get this player for $XMM, maybe, we’ll try, or maybe it’s a few million more, because there could be a legal dispute, and even then I am not sure we can get him, and doing this and not getting the player could expose us to legal risk ... well that is another thing entirely. He’d be 100% fine there.

    You don’t go to your Board twice. That isn’t a work-in-progress update step.

    We don’t know what happened yet, so this is only speculation. But I think nobody ran down the legal side of this properly in advance, based on how it has played out.
    Everything said buyout clause. The legality will be Genk saying that doesn't go into effect until June while Poz and his agent say otherwise. There's no going to the board for anything. We met the buyout. We're done. From everything I read it's Genk vs. Poz/Agent and the latter were persuing legal action against the club.

    Not everything is always our FO being hillbillies and falling all over themselves to manage anything of consequence.

  17. #4097
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    4,526
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    However, we could probably make this all go away with a couple more million Euros and that's probably what Genk is hoping for.

  18. #4098
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14,761
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    Everything said buyout clause. The legality will be Genk saying that doesn't go into effect until June while Poz and his agent say otherwise. There's no going to the board for anything. We met the buyout. We're done. From everything I read it's Genk vs. Poz/Agent and the latter were persuing legal action against the club.

    Not everything is always our FO being hillbillies and falling all over themselves to manage anything of consequence.
    I think you are speaking with certainty about something you cannot possibly be certain about.

    I dont think you understand this very well, actually. If you do, this post sure doesn’t show it.

    I also havent argued that that the FO are “hillbillies”, I am pretty complimentary in other situations.
    “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”

  19. #4099
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Section 111 Row 8
    Posts
    9,062
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    The issue with the board is reputational. It can severely impact your effectiveness if you are sloppy with your board.

    If Manning went to the board and said: we can get this player for $XMM total commitment, that is one thing.

    If he went and said: we can possibly get this player for $XMM, maybe, we’ll try, or maybe it’s a few million more, because there could be a legal dispute, and even then I am not sure we can get him, and doing this and not getting the player could expose us to legal risk ... well that is another thing entirely. He’d be 100% fine there.

    You don’t go to your Board twice. That isn’t a work-in-progress update step.

    We don’t know what happened yet, so this is only speculation. But I think nobody ran down the legal side of this properly in advance, based on how it has played out.
    Doesn't a player signs with MLS with a predefined alignment to a specific team? MLS owns all players contracts and rights. It's often the league + team negotiating with all player acquisition I recall. So that adds a different dimension for player transfer. No team can go solo by themselves. How and when league + team collaborates is beyond me.
    RPB Road Warrior: supporting Toronto FC anywhere on planet earth

    TM: YYZ Red Patch Army #18, FC

  20. #4100
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14,761
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^This is a very good point - if there has been a screw up, MLS office would own some of that
    “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”

  21. #4101
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    I knew someone was going to say this. OK fine.

    Those Chinese examples are unusual, and have usually (always?) started negotiations during the window.
    If I recall correctly Hamsik from Napoli just moved to China and it was after the window. And it was done after the window close
    Last edited by TheGoodson; 02-11-2019 at 06:54 PM.

  22. #4102
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    6,480
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    I think you are speaking with certainty about something you cannot possibly be certain about.

    I dont think you understand this very well, actually. If you do, this post sure doesn’t show it.

    I also havent argued that that the FO are “hillbillies”, I am pretty complimentary in other situations.
    Isn’t he right about this? If we met the value of the buyout clause and we have a deal with the player, the only real legal issue is whether this clause preventing a move until the next transfer window applies. And that really is between the player and the team. Unless the team is saying we’ll waive that clause for x amount of money I guess.

  23. #4103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    4,526
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canary10 View Post
    Isn’t he right about this? If we met the value of the buyout clause and we have a deal with the player, the only real legal issue is whether this clause preventing a move until the next transfer window applies. And that really is between the player and the team. Unless the team is saying we’ll waive that clause for x amount of money I guess.
    This is what's going down. Happens all the time.

  24. #4104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14,761
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Canary10 View Post
    Isn’t he right about this? If we met the value of the buyout clause and we have a deal with the player, the only real legal issue is whether this clause preventing a move until the next transfer window applies. And that really is between the player and the team. Unless the team is saying we’ll waive that clause for x amount of money I guess.
    No. The question is, what should a reasonable employer expect to know about an employee's availability or circumstances?

    It is not OK to interfere with someone else's existing employment contract if you should reasonably know that doing so would injure another party to that contract.

    If Pozuelo (or his agent) gave a copy of his contract to TFC as part of the lead up, and TFC relied on his interpretation that he is free to move, and a court decides TFC should have known they couldn’t sign the player, TFC has risk.

    A lot of “ifs” there, but if Genk can convince a court that TFC is unreasonably or wontonly interfering with their shot at a 25M euro payday, then we have a problem.

    We'll know the answer to this soon. If TFC pay more than a nominal amount over 8M euros, or if they walk away, then we will know they almost certainly bungled it. (It’s not our money but it would sour the overlords, guaranteed - they could have just had him with no complications for 8M on January 31)

    It may turn out the TFC have handled this well. I am just reacting to the news flow.

    I didnt like like the sound of the language in the Genk press release saying this is about principles and sport and not money. That got my attention ( I know they could just be blowing smoke) because minnows in Europe get pushed around a lot.
    Last edited by ensco; 02-11-2019 at 07:20 PM.
    “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”

  25. #4105
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Scarborough
    Posts
    3,680
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think at this stage you almost have to scrap the move don't you?

    I'm note sure how bad of a reaction the FO will get for not replacing Seba but you have to bite the bullet now. Forfeit the CCL and grind through the beginning portion of the regular season without an established MLS striker.

    We could be looking at rough month or two, a lot draws and just grinding a way to victory.

    The summer window is a better opportunity to regroup.

  26. #4106
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultra & Proud View Post
    This is what's going down. Happens all the time.
    Not outside the window.

  27. #4107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,672
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ensco View Post
    No. The question is, what should a reasonable employer expect to know about an employee's availability or circumstances?

    It is not OK to interfere with someone else's existing employment contract if you should reasonably know that doing so would injure another party to that contract.

    If Pozuelo (or his agent) gave a copy of his contract to TFC as part of the lead up, and TFC relied on his interpretation that he is free to move, and a court decides TFC should have known they couldn’t sign the player, TFC has risk.

    A lot of “ifs” there, but if Genk can convince a court that TFC is unreasonably or wontonly interfering with their shot at a 25M euro payday, then we have a problem.

    We'll know the answer to this soon. If TFC pay more than a nominal amount over 8M euros, or if they walk away, then we will know they almost certainly bungled it. (It’s not our money but it would sour the overlords, guaranteed - they could have just had him with no complications for 8M on January 31)

    It may turn out the TFC have handled this well. I am just reacting to the news flow.

    I didnt like like the sound of the language in the Genk press release saying this is about principles and sport and not money. That got my attention ( I know they could just be blowing smoke) because minnows in Europe get pushed around a lot.
    I hope this goes through although I do not like the way it is happening.

    Ensco has a point though. Two weeks ago, we meet the clause and reach agreement with the player, he is ours. But two weeks ago it was still "no major changes this year".

    Interesting times.

  28. #4108
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    221
    Posts
    15,539
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MightyDM View Post
    Not outside the window.
    Except our window is open - point is this sort of shenanigans do exist. And realistically, all TFC are doing is taking advantage of an agent offering his player. Now, is this all on the up and up as far as the player & the agent is concerned? Nope - and we all know this sort of behaviour may/will happen again if the agent/player wants a move.

    That's what happens when you look to players of this capacity. You deal with scoundrels & people receiving advice that might turn against you some day. Its obvious now that Seba got advice from D'Amico that turned against TFC. Nature of working with players of that class.

    ********

    If this deal goes south, looking forward to who the second choice would be.

  29. #4109
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    West End
    Posts
    3,807
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pekduck View Post
    Doesn't a player signs with MLS with a predefined alignment to a specific team? MLS owns all players contracts and rights. It's often the league + team negotiating with all player acquisition I recall. So that adds a different dimension for player transfer. No team can go solo by themselves. How and when league + team collaborates is beyond me.
    Yup. The 8M offer to Genk will have come from New York not 40 Bay Street.

    When Roma sold Bradley it was in the press release that he was sold to MLS not TFC.

  30. #4110
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14,761
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We also need to recognize the difference between negotiating a transfer (which is what happens 99% of the time, and is what these Chinese deals in February are, which makes them irrelevant as precedent here) and triggering a release clause or a buyout clause.

    The latter is extremely rare (Neymar to PSG and Kepa to Chelsea being maybe the only obvious recent examples, and both were in Spain which has unique rules on this) and it's not clear to me what to acquiring teams legal obligations are to the existing team, precisely because this situation is so rare.
    Last edited by ensco; 02-11-2019 at 09:38 PM.
    “What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •