|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 21:23:17 GMT
I'm still struggling with this. Does Ireland still belong to Villa and if not why would we have signed a contract? If I leased or rented a car that belonged to someone else I would sign a contract. If I bought it off him I wouldn't, I certainly can't see how, in law, the previous owner could tell me not to park it outside his house But if you really, really wanted the car, and the only way you could get it was if you promised not to park it in front of the previous owner's house just for the the next time you were in his city, would you honestly walk out on the deal. Particularly as buying the car was the only way you could get a date with the posh bird you've fancied for ages. What would you do? If we really wanted Guidetti i'd have sent Ireland back and told Villa that we might talk on January 31st at 10pm. I'd bet your arse to a bandit that they'd cave in and remove the clause. If not and you HAD to agree to it then, and only then, you've done pretty much everything you could do. Jumping in feet first on January 14th is and was a bit daft, especially considering the player we did it for has come here and looked like a total ringer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 21:28:53 GMT
But if you really, really wanted the car, and the only way you could get it was if you promised not to park it in front of the previous owner's house just for the the next time you were in his city, would you honestly walk out on the deal. Particularly as buying the car was the only way you could get a date with the posh bird you've fancied for ages. What would you do? If we really wanted Guidetti i'd have sent Ireland back and told Villa that we might talk on January 31st at 10pm. I'd bet your arse to a bandit that they'd cave in and remove the clause. If not and you HAD to agree to it then, and only then, you've done pretty much everything you could do. Jumping in feet first on January 14th is and was a bit daft, especially considering the player we did it for has come here and looked like a total ringer. I'm not 100% certain! but I don't think we could have sent Ireland back anyway. There would also have been the possibility that Villa might have called our bluff, then we'd have had no Ireland and a player we don't seem to want. How popular would the pizza boys have been then?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 22, 2014 21:33:22 GMT
I'm still struggling with this. Does Ireland still belong to Villa and if not why would we have signed a contract? If I leased or rented a car that belonged to someone else I would sign a contract. If I bought it off him I wouldn't, I certainly can't see how, in law, the previous owner could tell me not to park it outside his house I've been struggling for a decent analogy to help highlight how farcical this situation is for those who still don't get it and I think you have come close there
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 21:36:57 GMT
If we really wanted Guidetti i'd have sent Ireland back and told Villa that we might talk on January 31st at 10pm. I'd bet your arse to a bandit that they'd cave in and remove the clause. If not and you HAD to agree to it then, and only then, you've done pretty much everything you could do. Jumping in feet first on January 14th is and was a bit daft, especially considering the player we did it for has come here and looked like a total ringer. I'm not 100% certain! but I don't think we could have sent Ireland back anyway. There would also have been the possibility that Villa might have called our bluff, then we'd have had no Ireland and a player we don't seem to want. How popular would the pizza boys have been then? If a team calls the bluff then you have a decision to make. Fair enough. You don't make that decision for them.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 21:40:55 GMT
I'm not 100% certain! but I don't think we could have sent Ireland back anyway. There would also have been the possibility that Villa might have called our bluff, then we'd have had no Ireland and a player we don't seem to want. How popular would the pizza boys have been then? If a team calls the bluff then you have a decision to make. Fair enough. You don't make that decision for them. There is no way Villa would have called our bluff. Ireland was probably their top earner and they wanted him off their wage bill,we were their only option. At the end of the day if they had wanted to keep him he wouldn't have been here in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by pretzel on Mar 22, 2014 21:48:20 GMT
If a team calls the bluff then you have a decision to make. Fair enough. You don't make that decision for them. There is no way Villa would have called our bluff. Ireland was probably their top earner and they wanted him off their wage bill,we were their only option. At the end of the day if they had wanted to keep him he wouldn't have been here in the first place. Are Villa still paying a percentage of his wage? If that's the case I could understand why a 'contract' is in place and how they could maybe dictate he doesn't play against them?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 21:51:46 GMT
If a team calls the bluff then you have a decision to make. Fair enough. You don't make that decision for them. There is no way Villa would have called our bluff. Ireland was probably their top earner and they wanted him off their wage bill,we were their only option. At the end of the day if they had wanted to keep him he wouldn't have been here in the first place. And there is no way they would have backed down over Ireland missing the game. They were happy with the original agreement. We approached them. They demanded that Ireland miss a game he was going to miss anyway. We could have lost Guidetti if we'd not tied up the deal as soon as possible. Our need was much greater than theirs, and as we were only losing Ireland for one match that he was going to miss anyway, It made sense for us to make the business decision that losing face was less important than losing Guidetti.
|
|
|
Post by MadMarko10 on Mar 22, 2014 21:53:33 GMT
Am I the only one that finds all this rather simple?
1) He was on loan from Villa. He was still contracted to Villa 2) We decide to sign him on an 18 month contract from Villa. Therefore, he's no longer on loan, he's OUR player and we get to sign Guidetti on loan (only allowed two domestic loans at a time) 3) When we signed him permanently from Villa, there was an agreement in place between Stoke and Villa that he can't play against them just for this season.
That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Mar 22, 2014 22:01:02 GMT
Could we not pull the old Sunday League classic and play him under a different name?
Chuck a decent wig on him and he might pass as Ness? Let's be honest most Stoke fans don't know what Nessie looks like so what chance would Villa have??
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Mar 22, 2014 22:32:00 GMT
What a complete and utter waste of a thread! Reason 1.) He won't play. Reason 2.) He won't play. Reason 3.) He won't play. Simple enough? I wonder if a discussion message board is ever going to really work for a 'black and white' man like yourself FFS,surely opinions need to be about something approaching reality, otherwise I could start a thread asking what might happen if we started a game with all the players naked. Hughes has already said that Ireland can't play, so there is literally nothing to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by ratters on Mar 22, 2014 23:54:15 GMT
Am I the only one that finds all this rather simple? 1) He was on loan from Villa. He was still contracted to Villa 2) We decide to sign him on an 18 month contract from Villa. Therefore, he's no longer on loan, he's OUR player and we get to sign Guidetti on loan (only allowed two domestic loans at a time) 3) When we signed him permanently from Villa, there was an agreement in place between Stoke and Villa that he can't play against them just for this season. That's all there is to it. Agreed,its so simple, I don't understand how many people don't understand it. He couldn't have played anyway had he been on loan, and we wouldn't be having this discussion had Adam not been suspended, and it has thus been blown way out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 23, 2014 12:16:30 GMT
Surely it's just a gentleman's agreement. I don't see how a selling club can get into the contract 'you can't play against ... ' it's tantamount to 3rd party ownership as they are exercising rights analogous to ownership over Ireland In other words, play him, but if we do we'll never get another player off Villa I imagine that it is a gentleman's agreement as you say. We probably said "cancel your contract with Stephen, we take him on a free and won't play him in the away fixture in March". If that is what happened then we should stick by that. We regularly call out other clubs for being scummy, morally empty, corrupt filth. To some people, me being one, integrity is important. If the agreemet was an informal handshake, then we should stick by that.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 23, 2014 12:25:14 GMT
Surely it's just a gentleman's agreement. I don't see how a selling club can get into the contract 'you can't play against ... ' it's tantamount to 3rd party ownership as they are exercising rights analogous to ownership over Ireland In other words, play him, but if we do we'll never get another player off Villa I imagine that it is a gentleman's agreement as you say. We probably said "cancel your contract with Stephen, we take him on a free and won't play him in the away fixture in March". If that is what happened then we should stick by that. We regularly call out other clubs for being scummy, morally empty, corrupt filth. To some people, me being one, integrity is important. If the agreemet was an informal handshake, then we should stick by that. It is NOT a gentleman's agreement. Stoke have confirmed that it was written into the contract when he was transferred to Stoke that he could not play against Villa this season. Not only was it not a gentleman's agreement, but under a Premier League rule (introduced this season) the Premier League was notified of the clause in the contract. Villa wanted the clause in the contract and said if they didn't get it then Ireland would remain on loan not on a transfer.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 23, 2014 12:31:01 GMT
I imagine that it is a gentleman's agreement as you say. We probably said "cancel your contract with Stephen, we take him on a free and won't play him in the away fixture in March". If that is what happened then we should stick by that. We regularly call out other clubs for being scummy, morally empty, corrupt filth. To some people, me being one, integrity is important. If the agreemet was an informal handshake, then we should stick by that. It is NOT a gentleman's agreement. Stoke have confirmed that it was written into the contract when he was transferred to Stoke that he could not play against Villa this season. Not only was it not a gentleman's agreement, but under a Premier League rule (introduced this season) the Premier League was notified of the clause in the contract. Villa wanted the clause in the contract and said if they didn't get it then Ireland would remain on loan not on a transfer. I don't think it's unreasonable. We got him on a free and he's more than paid his transfer fee
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Mar 23, 2014 12:33:13 GMT
Whilst all this is pretty clear, it is also potentially a little worrying as it veers towards "restraint of trade" in that the selling club are able to restrict what a previous employee is allowed to do. In business many such "contracts" are now being discredited it as the EU particularly do not feel it is fair (or legal) to tell a former employee who he can and cannot work for. Whilst, in the eyes of the PL, this contract is legally binding I would guess, that if these deals start to become common, it won't be long before we have a case with the European Court of Human Rights
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 23, 2014 12:38:25 GMT
Whilst all this is pretty clear, it is also potentially a little worrying as it veers towards "restraint of trade" in that the selling club are able to restrict what a previous employee is allowed to do. In business many such "contracts" are now being discredited it as the EU particularly do not feel it is fair (or legal) to tell a former employee who he can and cannot work for. Whilst, in the eyes of the PL, this contract is legally binding I would guess, that if these deals start to become common, it won't be long before we have a case with the European Court of Human Rights I agree. I can understand the rule when a player is on loan because he could be accused of self interest if he had a bad game against his parent club - but the situation should not apply in the case of a permanent transfer. As regards the law, a slightly similar situation applies when someone sells a business. Very often the contract includes a clause prohibiting the seller from operating a competing business selling the same service or product in that geographic area for a period of years. If those clauses are legal (and they are) then I suppose this clause is also legal - that doesn't mean we have to like it though.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Mar 23, 2014 12:41:29 GMT
agreed John, but many time we now see people ignoring these clauses, and the courts back them up...the view is that the new business owner canot stop the previous guy earning a living...I can see this creating precedents at some stage if, as I said, it starts to become comon place As for today...I'm sure Sparky will use it to motivate our boys!!
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Mar 23, 2014 13:46:15 GMT
I imagine that it is a gentleman's agreement as you say. We probably said "cancel your contract with Stephen, we take him on a free and won't play him in the away fixture in March". If that is what happened then we should stick by that. We regularly call out other clubs for being scummy, morally empty, corrupt filth. To some people, me being one, integrity is important. If the agreemet was an informal handshake, then we should stick by that. It is NOT a gentleman's agreement. Stoke have confirmed that it was written into the contract when he was transferred to Stoke that he could not play against Villa this season. Not only was it not a gentleman's agreement, but under a Premier League rule (introduced this season) the Premier League was notified of the clause in the contract. Villa wanted the clause in the contract and said if they didn't get it then Ireland would remain on loan not on a transfer. I am extremely surprised that Premier League rules allow a former club to dictate contractually who a player may and may not play against.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 23, 2014 14:05:05 GMT
It is NOT a gentleman's agreement. Stoke have confirmed that it was written into the contract when he was transferred to Stoke that he could not play against Villa this season. Not only was it not a gentleman's agreement, but under a Premier League rule (introduced this season) the Premier League was notified of the clause in the contract. Villa wanted the clause in the contract and said if they didn't get it then Ireland would remain on loan not on a transfer. I am extremely surprised that Premier League rules allow a former club to dictate contractually who a player may and may not play against. The rule was introduced this season - it could be that we are the first club with a player with that written into his contract. Apparently the object of the rule is to encourage rich clubs with huge squads (some of whom never get a game) to sell them on to a club who can use them. Obviously Villa don't count as a rich club these days but the rule still applies if the clubs agree.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Mar 23, 2014 14:20:19 GMT
Sheffield Wednesday (I think?)did it against us and just got a fine.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 23, 2014 14:29:19 GMT
Sheffield Wednesday (I think?)did it against us and just got a fine. Yup they played more loan players then they're allowed, he even scored.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 14:40:04 GMT
Sheffield Wednesday (I think?)did it against us and just got a fine. They named too many loan players in their matchday squad although they didn't all play. Still wrong, but they probably got away with it because they didn't get onto the pitch. I think that was it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Mar 23, 2014 15:07:02 GMT
Sheffield Wednesday (I think?)did it against us and just got a fine. They named too many loan players in their matchday squad although they didn't all play. Still wrong, but they probably got away with it because they didn't get onto the pitch. I think that was it anyway. Didn't 6 start when 5 was the maximum? Either way the punishment wouldn't be the same for us. If we'd been awarded the 3 points would we have finished top? I can't remember.
|
|