Kyle Naughton

[Micky]

So he's not signing?

After all those times I asked if he had

No idea. The Spurs fan seemed very confident it was a done deal. But the everton lad who is supposedly 'in the know' on the forum said nothing has changed.

 

[Nebbiolo]

It's contract law. The "previous claim in this thread that a verbal agreement is the same as a signed contract" is just a fact in UK law (except for land, but whatever). Even if there's no football case, you don't need precedent because this is really basic A makes offer/B accepts stuff.

Read through this if you can be bothered:

Offer and acceptance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously, there's no evidence that this argument is actually happening, just that it would fit.

If it is an open and shut case like you imply, then there would be no reason that SU would attempt to delay this. A strongly-worded letter from Everton's lawyers and the FA would no doubt make them see sense.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just have a feeling that SU have been advised that their position is legally stronger than you believe.

 

[davek]

It's contract law. The "previous claim in this thread that a verbal agreement is the same as a signed contract" is just a fact in UK law (except for land, but whatever). Even if there's no football case, you don't need precedent because this is really basic A makes offer/B accepts stuff.

Read through this if you can be bothered:

Offer and acceptance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously, there's no evidence that this argument is actually happening, just that it would fit.

How could that possibly work in this scenario? It doesn't stack up. In other words, how could assent be possibly verified by Everton that a verbal agreement took place? A third party would need to have been there. Or maybe Everton recorded the negotiations...great PR for the club's later dealings with other clubs!

I think we're complicating this way too much. His club are acting like classless graspers. Such is life.

 

[lordyefc]

If it is an open and shut case like you imply, then there would be no reason that SU would attempt to delay this. A strongly-worded letter from Everton's lawyers and the FA would no doubt make them see sense.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just have a feeling that SU have been advised that their position is legally stronger than you believe.

There's always legal delaying tatics you can employ - questioning whether the offer was valid, questioning whether you actually legally accepted it. The FA would follow the lead of a courts decision, not make a (non-football) decision themselves. Even when the answer is pretty obvious, you have to jump through the legal hoops.

People threaten legal action to take things to court all the time that they know they have no hope of winning, just because they know the other side can't afford to take it that far (either because of money or time). It's just the system we have, everything takes time. It sucks, but there we go.

I'm just saying that if one person makes an offer for something in return for consideration, and the other side accepts that offer, it's binding, always.

 

[lordyefc]

How could that possibly work in this scenario? It doesn't stack up. In other words, how could assent be possibly verified by Everton that a verbal agreement took place? A third party would need to have been there. Or maybe Everton recorded the negotiations...great PR for the club's later dealings with other clubs!

Or Sheffield United could put out a press statement (on their own website among other places) that they had accepted the offer.

Edit: anyway, ignoring all this written vs oral stuff, Everton would almost certainly have written acceptance of the offer. Given that it is illegal to talk to players without permission, they would have obtained something in writing to say that they can. The question is whether you can unilaterally back out of a contract after you've agreed to it, which of course you can't.

 

[CBP]

It's contract law. The "previous claim in this thread that a verbal agreement is the same as a signed contract" is just a fact in UK law (except for land, but whatever). Even if there's no football case, you don't need precedent because this is really basic A makes offer/B accepts stuff.

Read through this if you can be bothered:



Obviously, there's no evidence that this argument is actually happening, just that it would fit.

I dont know why people are arguing this, its quite straight forward.

We make an offer, they accept that offer (by announcing an acceptance on their site). The acceptance is subject to the player accepting the terms offered by Everton. It is basic Contract (Tort) Law.

What SheffU have done is used delay tactics, as is the norm with legal matters.

The lad obviously does not want to sign for Everton

 

[Seamus Colemole]

I dont know why people are arguing this, its quite straight forward.

We make an offer, they accept that offer (by announcing an acceptance on their site). The acceptance is subject to the player accepting the terms offered by Everton. It is basic Contract (Tort) Law.

What SheffU have done is used delay tactics, as is the norm with legal matters.

The lad obviously does not want to sign for Everton

In that case why can't he just not accept our terms offered and the whole thing is forgotten about? Cause Sheffield United want him to sign for us?

 

[lordyefc]

In that case why can't he just not accept our terms offered and the whole thing is forgotten about? Cause Sheffield United want him to sign for us?

Because we can't sign him until Sheff United release his registration, which they won't do because they want more money. If we are legally in the right then we could force them to but that would take time.

 

[CBP]

In that case why can't he just not accept our terms offered and the whole thing is forgotten about? Cause Sheffield United want him to sign for us?

They want spurs to sign him as spurs have offered a better package (ie more money)

 

[davek]

Or Sheffield United could put out a press statement (on their own website among other places) that they had accepted the offer.

Edit: anyway, ignoring all this written vs oral stuff, Everton would almost certainly have written acceptance of the offer. Given that it is illegal to talk to players without permission, they would have obtained something in writing to say that they can. The question is whether you can unilaterally back out of a contract after you've agreed to it, which of course you can't.

Verbal or written, the deal for SU has been in parenthesis throughout: "our acceptance is conditional on Kyle reaching agreement with them over personal terms."

If Naughton signs for Spurs they're in the clear.

 

[Goat]

You have cocked up now, Dave got the big words out, its all over.

 

[lordyefc]

Verbal or written, the deal for SU has been in parenthesis throughout: "our acceptance is conditional on Kyle reaching agreement with them over personal terms."

If Naughton signs for Spurs they're in the clear.

Obviously - it's a conditional agreement - the terms of the agreement are binding subject to the conditions being met. If the conditions aren't met, it's not binding. Having said that, if Everton can agree terms and the player wantes to sign, the conditions are met and the agreement is binding.

 

[Nebbiolo]

There's always legal delaying tatics you can employ - questioning whether the offer was valid, questioning whether you actually legally accepted it. The FA would follow the lead of a courts decision, not make a (non-football) decision themselves. Even when the answer is pretty obvious, you have to jump through the legal hoops.

People threaten legal action to take things to court all the time that they know they have no hope of winning, just because they know the other side can't afford to take it that far (either because of money or time). It's just the system we have, everything takes time. It sucks, but there we go.

I'm just saying that if one person makes an offer for something in return for consideration, and the other side accepts that offer, it's binding, always.

But Sheffield would be pretty stupid to fight against something that was so clearly illegal. Everton could allow the transfer to Spurs, and then take Sheffield United to court, and win. Alternatively, the FA could look at the case, and fine the club for illegal action. Why would SU put the club at risk like that? It doesn't make sense to me. This isn't a petty deal between two traders that are unaware of law or are represented by people that are just not up to it.

If it is the case that SU have decided to go back on the original deal, I'm confident that the club believes it has a case that can be presented which is legally sound.

Of course, it could simply be that there are other things happening which we are currently unaware of. But the original post I made was simply saying that I don't think we have SU by the balls on this one.

 

[lordyefc]

But Sheffield would be pretty stupid to fight against something that was so clearly illegal. Everton could allow the transfer to Spurs, and then take Sheffield United to court, and win. Alternatively, the FA could look at the case, and fine the club for illegal action. Why would SU put the club at risk like that? It doesn't make sense to me. This isn't a petty deal between two traders that are unaware of law or are represented by people that are just not up to it.

When you say "illegal", be aware it's not a criminal offence. It's a tort case, so the worst thing that can happen to Sheff Utd if that they are forced to honour the agreement, plus compensate Everton for any costs (which Everton would be hard pressed to argue is anything other than whatever legal costs there are). The club isn't "at risk".

On the other side, they might hope to get an extra £1m out of Everton if they cave to get the player ASAP, so the benefit of trying it on far outweighs the cost.

Of course, it could simply be that there are other things happening which we are currently unaware of. But the original post I made was simply saying that I don't think we have SU by the balls on this one.

Yep, I never said this was fact, just a plausible possibility. And even if it is true, we hardly have them by the balls because we want the player ASAP (for preseason, and certainly by the deadline) and there are cutoff dates approaching. If the player himself decides to not bother waiting and just sign for Spurs, we are screwed there too.

 

[davek]

You have cocked up now, Dave got the big words out, its all over.

I'll brow beat this feller if it kills me.