- Status
i'm not sure where we go from here Matty? ;-) Agreement on something
The Lisbon?
firefighterblue
Player Valuation: £20m
Good to see that Iwobi has been keeping his fitness levels up by watching a 5 hr strippers show on Instagram. Hopefully he working on his upper body strength.
That sounds like the RS apology.
Far enough for having a guess, and I appreciate it's all we can do, but guesses are not going to resolve the difficulties.
Chelsea have paid a lot of money for Ziyech. We will pay a lot of money for the lad at Lille. There will be countless examples. Crucially at the time of completing the signing the rules stated they would be eligible to play from July 1st. What basis have we got to change the law, to subsequently prevent players from practicing their trade? What happens if a lad in the lower leagues, who may increase his salary ten fold, ultimately loses a contract on the basis that it's withdrawn (as they can't utilise him?) Who's compensating that lad? Who's accountable for restricting his ability to trade, but also to have done so in a way that contravened the contractual agreement at the point it was made?
As for the 2nd point, what if a club wants to keep a player, but is unable to afford to do so? How is that a fair competition, if other clubs, who happen to have more money are able to benefit from a rule change, part way through a season? I mean, if Chelsea end up finishing above Sheffield United, because one can benefit from a rule that wasn't in existence when both clubs agreed the terms?
I don't think it's permissible to have a situation, where some players and clubs are able to continue playing, but other teams are massively hit. We have rules (that everyone agrees too prior to commencement of the competition, which is critical here) that allow for some degree of fairness.
I'm sure you'd agree with me it's grossly unfair. My point would be to state;
1) It's legally culpable on a whole range of issues.
2) Aside from the legal difficulties on imposing it, I just don't see clubs agreeing to it.
Nor should they. Not when there is a simpler solution
Again - hard to disagree with you and also it remains unlikely that the PL will be played out and these FIFA proposed rules come into play but if they do, sure in terms of Ziyech & apologies if I'm missing anything, but wouldn't it be a relatively simple case of he is not registered to play this season. I get your point that chelsea are paying for a footballer they can't use; but ultimately when they signed him they signed him with a view to play next season. So in this case, can Chelsea come to an agreement with Ajax and the player to let him continue the season at Ajax beyond 1st July?
Regarding the fairness of the whole thing, agreed it is not fair but no outcome is, I think here we are only trying to discuss how it might work. Interesting choice of example with SUFC and Chelsea, I suspect Sheffield United would take their chances in this scenario rather than having the season voided when the are 5 points off CL football with a game in hand and the chance of what could be a step changing finish to the season simply being voided.
Didn't they mention moving the transfer windows? If so, July 1st won't mean anything and Ziyech won't be a Chelsea signing till the window opens. He's not out of contract with Ajax so he'll stay their employee till the new window opens.
Fair point Nymzee, but that in itself brings problems - are chelsea obliged his wages on the 2nd July despite not being able to play?, do Ajax still have the right to play him, what happens if he does play for Ajax on the 3rd July and he breaks his leg?
1. Chelsea wouldn't pay his wages as he's not a Chelsea player till the window opens. The reason they say "Joining 1st July" is because deals aren't official till 1st July.
2. Ajax have him till 2022 so yes, they could still play him till the window opens and he becomes a Chelsea player.
3. I'd imagine there'd be some sort of insurance/deal sorted whereby they don't play him or risk the deal being pulled.
yeah, you could very well be right. I suppose it goes down to the nuance of what has been signed. If he has a signed contract of 200k per week from 1st of July, then he probably has the right to get paid irrespective of the transfer windows.
But he can't be registered on the 1st July if there's no transfer window then so he can't be a Chelsea employee so he can't get paid £200k p/w. It's simple really.
bluenorthwarrior
Player Valuation: £8m
Not sure it is simple tbh.
There may well be a difference between registration which is about licence to play, and the contract which is employment law.
Obviously we can only guess as we don't know detail but if an employment contract exisits from 1 July the player becomes a paid employee of the club on that date. Football authorities changing rules and dates on when you can play in competitions will not trump employment law. Net result is a 200k a week liability that can train but not play potentially.
But has he signed any sort of contract with Chelsea already or is it just an agreement at the minute he will do?
bluenorthwarrior
Player Valuation: £8m
I don't know, and that's the point.
My experience of recruiting high level appointments is it is common to sign a contract some months in advance of starting due to notice periods at that level. Entirely possible legal document has been signed - but no way of knowing.
Not so clear here really: https://www.premierleague.com/news/1608859
Joins Chelsea upon completion of 2019/20 season so maybe he won't be a Chelsea employee till the season is completed whenever that may be.
- Status
