Kyle Naughton

[Nebbiolo]

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.

Okay, now I realise there is a difference between civil and criminal law. But acting outside of the law is unlawful; that is, it is an illegal action. Breaking a contract which is recognised by law is, therefore, illegal.

And the club is at risk because (1) the footballing authority can administer its own justice, which SU know full well; and (2) the original terms of the contract can be enforced. Effectively, that could mean that should Everton still desire it, and we've no reason to assume that the club won't, Naughton is able to decide whether he would like to go and play for Everton after all. After a year at Tottenham, playing in the reserves, that might be an attractive option.

 

[lordyefc]

Okay, now I realise there is a difference between civil and criminal law. But acting outside of the law is unlawful; that is, it is an illegal action. Breaking a contract which is recognised by law is, therefore, illegal.

Well, sort of, but a tort case is about establishing equality rather than finding that one side has broken a law (hence you only have to show they are probably in the wrong, not certainly).

But the penalty for performing this "illegal" act is to be forced to honour the agreement, plus probably pay Everton's legal costs. There is no punative punishment.

And the club is at risk because (1) the footballing authority can administer its own justice, which SU know full well;

The FA have never applied fines in contract disputes, ever.

(2) the original terms of the contract can be enforced. Effectively, that could mean that should Everton still desire it, and we've no reason to assume that the club won't, Naughton is able to decide whether he would like to go and play for Everton after all. After a year at Tottenham, playing in the reserves, that might be an attractive option.

Yes the terms of the contract can be enforced, but by what method? Through the courts.

I don't understand your point about it being attractive after a year at Spurs. It's all irrelevent at that point.

 

[Goat]

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

Hes like a figging Terminator to be honest.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Well, sort of, but a tort case is about establishing equality rather than finding that one side has broken a law (hence you only have to show they are probably in the wrong, not certainly).

But the penalty for performing this "illegal" act is to be forced to honour the agreement, plus probably pay Everton's legal costs. There is no punative punishment.

Well the punitive punishment is returning £6m or so to Tottenham and accepting Everton's £4m. The legal costs will be added to that. I guess you'd be expert enough to assess those?

The FA have never applied fines in contract disputes, ever.

Have you got evidence that the FA wouldn't fine Sheffield United? As important, have you got a list of cases in which other club's have flouted "tort" in exactly the same manner, yet the FA have failed to deal with the club in any manner?

I don't understand your point about it being attractive after a year at Spurs. It's all irrelevent at that point.

Why? All the above might apply. Naughton and Everton would be in their rights to establish a contract. Tottenham would lose a player, and SU would lose a couple of million in revenue plus legal costs (which you are no doubt establishing).

 

[Goat]

God knows that these 2 are chatting about, neither of them can even spell court, its C O U R T, not tort...... FFS.

Anyway, some of this would tie into the rumour that they had refused us persmisission to talk to him. If we cant talk to him, we cant agree terms, thus making the intial agreement worthless. And then they are hoping he agrees terms with Spurs.

But have you already said that?

Tortheads.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Well barlow's Boots is gonna decide which is the best position. Or rather, his mate's mate is.

 

[davek]

Hes like a figging Terminator to be honest.

He just loves to be right. I'm glad I'm not like that.

 

[Goat]

He just loves to be right. I'm glad I'm not like that.

I know Daveyboy, I know. Dignity and Class, thats me and you mate.

That Nebolid and Lordy, do you know who they remind me of? Rafael.

FACHT.

 

[Nebbiolo]

I know Daveyboy, I know. Dignity and Class, thats me and you mate.

That Nebolid and Lordy, do you know who they remind me of? Rafael.

FACHT.

I like rational principles, and I'm fecking sure that Lordy does too. Dave also seems to like the rational.

That leaves you on your own, lad.

 

[lordyefc]

Well the punitive punishment is returning £6m or so to Tottenham and accepting Everton's £4m. The legal costs will be added to that. I guess you'd be expert enough to assess those?

That's not punative, because the result is the same as if they hadn't committed the act. My point is that there's no additional penalty on top of that (which is what punative means).

Legal costs for a company with an annual turnover of of £80m and which spends all it's money on transfers are obviously going to be dwarfed by the potential gain of £1m-£2m or whatever. Everton just don't have the money to spend on a legal challange.

Have you got evidence that the FA wouldn't fine Sheffield United? As important, have you got a list of cases in which other club's have flouted "tort" in exactly the same manner, yet the FA have failed to deal with the club in any manner?

No, I don't have a list. But show me any case where the FA fined somebody without absolute, categorical evidence that a club deliberately and dishonestly broke rules. I mean, just look at how much West Ham got away with. The FA has never acted without total damning evidence. In this case, can you be totally sure Sheff United are acting dishonestly?

Why? All the above might apply. Naughton and Everton would be in their rights to establish a contract. Tottenham would lose a player, and SU would lose a couple of million in revenue plus legal costs (which you are no doubt establishing).

It doesn't work like that, you can't penalise a third party by taking the player back.

From a legal persepective, Everton want to pay £4m (or whatever) for a £4m player. Both sides agreed they are getting fair value, and there is no gain or loss on the contract.

The only thing a court can do is force the agreement to be enforced where possible, or compensate for any losses incurred as a result. If the player is at Spurs, you can't enforce the contract (you can't undo other transactions) and there are no losses to be refunded (because both the player and the money are worth £4m).

 

[bluebloodinmyveins]

Well forgive me for taking your legal "expertise" with a pinch of salt. Quite clearly SU believe that they're entitled to do what they're doing. I presume they have consulted their own legal team on whether their current conduct is legally permissible.

12yrs as a solicitor. I know a "little" bit about the law.

 

[davek]

I know Daveyboy, I know. Dignity and Class, thats me and you mate.

That Nebolid and Lordy, do you know who they remind me of? Rafael.

FACHT.

I'm betting on Neb to tie this Lordy feller up in knots of his own contradiction. Lordy is all legalise jargon that looks a bit "two series of Rumpole-ish"; Neb will wear the lad down. You wait and see.

 

[Nebbiolo]

12yrs as a solicitor. I know a "little" bit about the law.

And is having someone by the "balls" a legal term?

Where do you practice, and do you practice "tort"?

 

[lordyefc]

12yrs as a solicitor. I know a "little" bit about the law.

Could you just confirm that I'm not talking out of my arse

 

[davek]

Could you just confirm that I'm not talking out of my arse

Objection: m'learned friend is leading the witness.