Marquinhos

[SquaddieWolf]

This means Arsenal fans are gonna be even more salty than last season, can't stand them

**** em!!!

 

[MolineuxMixer]

He wanted to sign for a club to play in the Champions League!!!

 

[lobodelsur]

Sounds like it’s his clubs fault for trying to get some cash out of Arsenal rather than him going on a free to us.

This. Some reports saying that Sao Paolo 'offered' him to Arsenal. Maybe its them we should be suing ?

 

[JohnB]

The way I understand it, and i could be completely off base, is like this:

Saiss is out of contract with us this summer. If he had signed a pre-contract agreement with another club abroad back in January he would be scheldued to be their player when his contract with us ends.

If knowing this, aftewr January another club comes in and says we'll give you £X million for Saiss to join us when his contract ends with you and we agree, surely its everyones fault.

I'm probably waffling and making no sense.

My only thought is that they’re (potentially) selling him before the contract ends so he never gets to the end of contract and therefore our pre-contract is ineffective. If true all we’d be due is any compensation put in that contract for it being reneged on by either party - legal dispute is then whether pre-contract is actually effective or not and hence whether we get anything.

If Arsenal waited until after contract expired then nothing for club to sell as we then own player. They have to deal with us.

I clearly don’t know and am just thinking out loud….

 

[Redrockwanderer]

I’m calling all of this ALOB! Nothing in it… not confirmed by any decent journalists

 

[theweave]

My only thought is that they’re (potentially) selling him before the contract ends so he never gets to the end of contract and therefore our pre-contract is ineffective. If true all we’d be due is any compensation put in that contract for it being reneged on by either party - legal dispute is then whether pre-contract is actually effective or not and hence whether we get anything.

If Arsenal waited until after contract expired then nothing for club to sell as we then own player. They have to deal with us.

I clearly don’t know and am just thinking out loud….

Does his contract end before the transfer window opens then?

 

[WickedWolfie]

Interesting precedent....

The Mirror: Arsenal could face transfer ban if legal battle over Marquinhos swoop turns sour.

Arsenal could face transfer ban if legal battle over Marquinhos move turns sour

Arsenal have been strongly linked with a swoop for the young Brazilian but a move looks complicated with Premier League rivals Wolves seeking legal action, something that could have dire consequences for the Gunners

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Rhoswolf]

Interesting precedent....

The Mirror: Arsenal could face transfer ban if legal battle over Marquinhos swoop turns sour.

Arsenal could face transfer ban if legal battle over Marquinhos move turns sour

Arsenal have been strongly linked with a swoop for the young Brazilian but a move looks complicated with Premier League rivals Wolves seeking legal action, something that could have dire consequences for the Gunners

www.mirror.co.uk

Fingers crossed.

 

[WickedWolfie]

This means Arsenal fans are gonna be even more salty than last season, can't stand them

**** them!

 

[Superted]

The way I understand it, and i could be completely off base, is like this:

Saiss is out of contract with us this summer. If he had signed a pre-contract agreement with another club abroad back in January he would be scheldued to be their player when his contract with us ends.

If knowing this, aftewr January another club comes in and says we'll give you £X million for Saiss to join us when his contract ends with you and we agree, surely its everyones fault.

I'm probably waffling and making no sense.

I'm guessing but I suspect that formal notice has been served by his agent that he will not be renewing his contract, therefore the club have no say in what can happen with his registration beyond 12th July.

Like a Landlord serving notice to a Tenant at the end of a lease that they will not renew, and the Landlord has found a new Tenant, signed an agreement for lease and taken a deposit, he can't then sign a lease with another Tenant who offers more rent.

Having said that, he does have a five year contract, which it seems cannot be enforced due to FIFA rules and essentially lapses by default after three years, therefore notice may not have been served in the usual way.

This is speculation as I don't know whether clubs and/or players need to serve formal notice under contract.

 

[Deleted member sbk12944]

Interesting precedent....

The Mirror: Arsenal could face transfer ban if legal battle over Marquinhos swoop turns sour.

Arsenal could face transfer ban if legal battle over Marquinhos move turns sour

Arsenal have been strongly linked with a swoop for the young Brazilian but a move looks complicated with Premier League rivals Wolves seeking legal action, something that could have dire consequences for the Gunners

www.mirror.co.uk

TBF does anyone seriously think a sky 6 side will get any punishment what so ever.

 

[JOSWolf]

Have any of our local Journalists or the reliable ones like Percy, Romano had anything to say about this? Nothing in the e&s on this or from Spiers.

 

[SquaddieWolf]

TBF does anyone seriously think a sky 6 side will get any punishment what so ever.

U mean like Chelsea did a couple.of seasons ago?

 

[WickedWolfie]

TBF does anyone seriously think a sky 6 side will get any punishment what so ever.

Since it would be UEFA/FIFA doing the punishing then absolutely, yes.

 

[shaygriff]

This is like the Mikel Obi saga, between Lyn Oslo, Man U and Chelsea. That was fun.

 

[Deleted member sbk12944]

U mean like Chelsea did a couple.of seasons ago?

Oh the one where they signed pulisic despite being banned but used some other excuse to get the transfer through.

 

[SuperGran]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530230914281787392

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

That's the point. Arsenal may have asked all the relevant questions but not received truthful answers. If they can demonstrate that then they're OK.

You can do all the due diligence you like but you're still relying on advisers and a certain amount of honesty from all parties.

This would mean that the other parties would have to have provided false documentation which would raise the stakes completly. Due diligence is exactly that they would - Arsenal - would have checked paperwork to see contracts, etc.

 

[SquaddieWolf]

Oh the one where they signed pulisic despite being banned but used some other excuse to get the transfer through.

Yep a sky 6 side breaking rules and getting punished for it.

 

[Deleted member sbk12944]

Yep a sky 6 side breaking rules and getting punished for it.

Getting a transfer ban but still being able to make a transfer. It’s like being banned from driving despite not having a license in the first place.

 

[wolfslair]

This could be VERY messy…. Looks like each person is playing dumb to try and avoid punishment.

 

[SquaddieWolf]

Getting a transfer ban but still being able to make a transfer. It’s like being banned from driving despite not having a license in the first place.

Your question was does anyone think a sky 6 team would get punished? I'm stating why I think they could. Don't ask a question if you don't want an answer

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

….on July 11th still owned by club who can agree to sell him to Arsenal who have paid money and player signs contract. No-one done anything wrong there.

What happens on 14th July? He’s no longer a free agent so our pre-contract is null and void? Hopefully there is then a penalty clause and that is the compensation. Actually from the player.

Sorry but you are losing me here. Surely a pre contract means exactly what it says that on te completion of his existing contract he is our player legally. If not what is the point of a pre contract. We in turn would have been obliged to sign him according to the tems of the contract.

 

[Deleted member sbk12944]

Your question was does anyone think a sky 6 team would get punished? I'm stating why I think they could. Don't ask a question if you don't want an answer

Just your opinion then

 

[SuperGran]

Have any of our local Journalists or the reliable ones like Percy, Romano had anything to say about this? Nothing in the e&s on this or from Spiers.

Nope I think it’s made up bs

 

[SquaddieWolf]

Just your opinion then

Yes you asked for thoughts not facts. I can't tell the future so don't know how the case will play out.

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

Nope I think it’s made up bs

Well if Timothy doesn’t know anything about it then it’s definitely….……. Oh wait, it may be true. Timothy knows as much as my dog.

In fairness I have installed the dog up a tree at compton with a go-pro strapped to her head

 

[SuperGran]

Well if Timothy doesn’t know anything about it then it’s definitely….……. Oh wait, it may be true. Timothy knows as much as my dog.

In fairness I have installed the dog up a tree at compton with a go-pro strapped to her head

Is the cat on jet plane watch

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

Is the cat on jet plane watch

Licking her **** at the minute…. Or ‘proof reading Tim’s next article‘ as we refer to it

 

[WolfInSheep'sClothing]

It isn't a bizarre snag if it's true, it's a case of him being our bloody player!

 

[Superted]

This would mean that the other parties would have to have provided false documentation which would raise the stakes completly. Due diligence is exactly that they would - Arsenal - would have checked paperwork to see contracts, etc.

Yeah. Arsenal would go to Sao Paulo and ask for permission to speak to him which they can grant if they so wish as he is still under contract with them. They may or may not have informed Arsenal about the PCA but that's not necessarily their responsibility.

Presumably Arsenal would then have contacted the player's representatives, at which point they should have been told about the PCA.

This is where Arsenal would have had the chance to walk away. If Arsenal forced the issue then they have a case to answer. Likewise the agents and the player. A sensible agent would have advised the player that he couldn't sign for Arsenal and that it was done and dusted. If they did, and the player went ahead and did it anyway then he is liable for any damages.

It's all about who knew what, said what and when.

 

[Boss Hogg]

FIFA regulations state: "A club intending to conclude a contract with a professional must inform the player’s current club in writing before entering into negotiations with him”

So the Brazilian club should have known that Wolves had signed a pre contract with the guy.

 

[Deleted member sbk12944]

FIFA regulations state: "A club intending to conclude a contract with a professional must inform the player’s current club in writing before entering into negotiations with him”

So the Brazilian club should have known that Wolves had signed a pre contract with the guy.

Unless we have done the dirty side of it and gone behind his current clubs back. Doubt it but plenty of possibilities.

 

[kidder_wolf_II]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530230914281787392

How convenient

 

[Superted]

How convenient

I guess they would say that regardless. If this is as it is on the face of it then we must be confident we can prove we did everything in accordance with the rules and proper procedure otherwise we'd be wasting our time.

 

[JohnB]

Purely hypothesising and so I’m probably wrong.

Scenario I’m painting is that the pre-contract is only effective if he is a free agent. July 12th he’ll be a free agent according to article (3 years into contract) and we have agreed to sign him on July 14th.

If on July 1st he is sold to Arsenal (which he presumably can be as still owned by previous club) then he is (potentially) an Arsenal player.

So the questions are:

1) Can Arsenal sign him as they are doing so after his pre-contract agreement has been signed?
2) Is the pre-contract null and void as he will no longer be a free agent on July 12th?
3) Is there a penalty in the pre-contract if either party reneges?

 

[Flaneur]

I’m calling all of this ALOB! Nothing in it… not confirmed by any decent journalists

Sami Mokbel whose pretty bang on the money when it comes to London clubs (e.g. Arsenal) reported on it last night, so it’s more than likely true.

The fact Spiers etc. hasn’t said anything on it makes it more likely to be true also, usually with something like this he’d be very quick to come out and quash it if it was false

 

[SuperGran]

The fact Spiers etc. hasn’t said anything on it makes it more likely to be true also, usually with something like this he’d be very quick to come out and quash it if it was false

He will once @Leominster_Wolf cat has proofread it

 

[Timberwolf]

FIFA regulations state: "A club intending to conclude a contract with a professional must inform the player’s current club in writing before entering into negotiations with him”

So the Brazilian club should have known that Wolves had signed a pre contract with the guy.

You don’t need a club’s permission to speak to a player about a pre-contract agreement. Bosman sorted that **** out!

"A professional shall only be free to conclude a contract with another club if his contract with his present club has expired or is due to expire within six months.”

 

[dennison11]

My only thought is that they’re (potentially) selling him before the contract ends so he never gets to the end of contract and therefore our pre-contract is ineffective. If true all we’d be due is any compensation put in that contract for it being reneged on by either party - legal dispute is then whether pre-contract is actually effective or not and hence whether we get anything.

If Arsenal waited until after contract expired then nothing for club to sell as we then own player. They have to deal with us.

I clearly don’t know and am just thinking out loud….

Me and you both. Its all hypothetical and hearsay at the moment. Time will tell