SquaddieWolf
Just doesn't shut up
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2019
- Messages
- 2,961
- Reaction score
- 6,323
**** em!!!This means Arsenal fans are gonna be even more salty than last season, can't stand them
**** em!!!This means Arsenal fans are gonna be even more salty than last season, can't stand them
This. Some reports saying that Sao Paolo 'offered' him to Arsenal. Maybe its them we should be suing ?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.
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.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.
Does his contract end before the transfer window opens then?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….
Fingers crossed.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 Gunnerswww.mirror.co.uk
**** them!This means Arsenal fans are gonna be even more salty than last season, can't stand them
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.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.
TBF does anyone seriously think a sky 6 side will get any punishment what so ever.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 Gunnerswww.mirror.co.uk
U mean like Chelsea did a couple.of seasons ago?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.TBF does anyone seriously think a sky 6 side will get any punishment what so ever.
Oh the one where they signed pulisic despite being banned but used some other excuse to get the transfer through.U mean like Chelsea did a couple.of seasons ago?
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.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.
Yep a sky 6 side breaking rules and getting punished for it.Oh the one where they signed pulisic despite being banned but used some other excuse to get the transfer through.
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.Yep a sky 6 side breaking rules and getting punished for it.
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 answerGetting 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.
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.….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.
Just your opinion thenYour 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
Nope I think it’s made up bsHave 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.
Yes you asked for thoughts not facts. I can't tell the future so don't know how the case will play out.Just your opinion then
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.Nope I think it’s made up bs
Is the cat on jet plane watchWell 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
Licking her **** at the minute…. Or ‘proof reading Tim’s next article‘ as we refer to itIs the cat on jet plane watch
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.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.
Unless we have done the dirty side of it and gone behind his current clubs back. Doubt it but plenty of possibilities.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.
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.How convenient
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.I’m calling all of this ALOB! Nothing in it… not confirmed by any decent journalists
He will once @Leominster_Wolf cat has proofread itThe 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
You don’t need a club’s permission to speak to a player about a pre-contract agreement. Bosman sorted that **** out!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.
Me and you both. Its all hypothetical and hearsay at the moment. Time will tellMy 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….