RR ROKER ROUNDUP: Didier Ndong & Sunderland situation nears end as report claims he ‘fears arrest’

[kildaremackem]

He took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, can you see us going there to try and extract costs?

They'd probably rule in the players' favour!

Nothing will happen here, we might get some token payment from their new clubs in lieu of a signing on fee but all this hope of new precedents being set won't be happening (IMO).

which law school did you go to? the legal term foer what we are trying is "joint and severally liable"..the key is any club that signs him would have to fork out...so either no club signs him or they pay..along as we can prove the player deliberately in a way that destroyed his value...I think the instagram post of his gholiday is evidence though not conclusive of that..if, as in the case of papty he failed the fitness test yesterday then thats good evidence..so the legalese exists...we arent looking for a precedent..just a matter of if we have the evidence to win the case using existing precedents..

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer

But I’m sure his lawyer would argue that he is not getting paid and at the same time we are preventing him working

Let’s say he wanted to play French division two for a pittance (or because that is his level), they wouldn’t be able to buy out his contract

His situation is entirely of his own making. Let's be clear here - the club haven't sacked him. They've accepted his repudiatory breach on contract; essentially, he's sacked himself by breaching his contract to the extent that the other party to the contract (us) is entitled to walk away from it with no compensation to him. The FIFA regulation on this are long and complicated https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...2018-2925437.pdf?cloudid=c83ynehmkp62h5vgwg9g , but, in essence, they impose severe penalties on both clubs and players who terminate contracts without just cause (it's clause 17 on page 19/87).

 

[Mary Hinge]

I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer

But I’m sure his lawyer would argue that he is not getting paid and at the same time we are preventing him working

Let’s say he wanted to play French division two for a pittance (or because that is his level), they wouldn’t be able to buy out his contract

He could join the Mergs as technically he wouldn't be playing footy......Just shuttle runs from the 18yd box to the half way line

@underwaterwubbleduck

 

[Deleted member 7101]

The club will obviously use the Torino deal as a yardstick, although any club buying him will presumably try a counterargument that his value has diminished since, since he's palpably not fit to play at the moment.

Yes,but that counterargument is only supported by the player's own behaviour, so it could be forcibly argued that the Torino valuation is a fair one.

 

[soapster]

It will interesting to see how FIFA deal with this. I’ve got a feeling they will come down hard on both of them to set and example. If they don’t a contract is worthless as all a player needs to do is effectively go on strike, get the sack and make a wedge off the new club they go to.
That could spell the end of big money transfers as clubs won’t be willing to pay out big money knowing if a player goes in the huff and walks off they have no comeback on them.

I think it may be the other way round and they will criticize us. somebody will manage to engineer a situation in order for them to do so.

The players will have been advised by their agents, a system set up by FIFA, so they will not want to seen as being the architects of this.

brits are not the flavour of the month at FIFA due to the corruption scandal and they hate the idea of brits having 4 votes

after saying that, I do entirely agree with your summing up

 

[richest]

His situation is entirely of his own making. Let's be clear here - the club haven't sacked him. They've accepted his repudiatory breach on contract; essentially, he's sacked himself by breaching his contract to the extent that the other party to the contract (us) is entitled to walk away from it with no compensation to him. The FIFA regulation on this are long and complicated https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...2018-2925437.pdf?cloudid=c83ynehmkp62h5vgwg9g , but, in essence, they impose severe penalties on both clubs and players who terminate contracts without just cause (it's clause 17 on page 19/87).

So with the 2 clowns sacked GOM, are their wages now off our books as of today and so freeing up finances to buy a couple of players, players that we couldn't afford whilst we were paying out for them?

Or do we have to wait until they eventually find new clubs and the legal process is complete?

 

[Deleted member 7101]

He'll either be fit by January or pursuing a career in the jewellery industry in southern Spain.....

 

[hertsmackem]

That’s about all he offers like

Lol

u crack me up man

 

[soapster]

I don’t know the ins and outs of the legal situation, so I’m not going to say yet whether it’s been handled brilliantly, or terribly. But...
1) I hope this is successful action and becomes some sort of precedent, like a Bosman. In future when a team is relegated, it’s reported that ‘a player tried to do an Ndong, and suffered the consequences’ or ‘the defender attempted to pull a Djili’ and it cost him £8m.
2) I hope the agents of these two players are in some way severely punished for their part. If the role is to look after the best interests of their clients, they have been grossly negligent in that duty. You have to wonder how much this has been the player’s choices and how much they have been acting under advice? It doesn’t excuse the players conduct, but they weren’t acting alone I’m sure.

Again... enough wine to comment, so enough wine to have got some of that wrong! Happy to be corrected

players get out clause, not me guv, he told me what to do. so somebody will say it is unfair to punish the players.

 

[Grammar Police]

which law school did you go to? the legal term foer what we are trying is "joint and severally liable"..the key is any club that signs him would have to fork out...so either no club signs him or they pay..along as we can prove the player deliberately in a way that destroyed his value...I think the instagram post of his gholiday is evidence though not conclusive of that..if, as in the case of papty he failed the fitness test yesterday then thats good evidence..so the legalese exists...we arent looking for a precedent..just a matter of if we have the evidence to win the case using existing precedents..

The value of compensation will be kicked around until it's a pittance.

No new precedent will be set.

This won't be the new 'Bosman'.

Is that simple enough for you to grasp?

 

[Deleted member 7101]

I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer

But I’m sure his lawyer would argue that he is not getting paid and at the same time we are preventing him working

Let’s say he wanted to play French division two for a pittance (or because that is his level), they wouldn’t be able to buy out his contract

He won't be able to play for a club who are unable to meet any compensation due to us. We aren't preventing him working. He's free to play anywhere,as long as we receive due compensation. Why should we give away value on an asset we've paid for? The only question really is how much are we due.

 

[offmenut]

He took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, can you see us going there to try and extract costs?

They'd probably rule in the players' favour!

Nothing will happen here, we might get some token payment from their new clubs in lieu of a signing on fee but all this hope of new precedents being set won't be happening (IMO).

if they did it would put a stop to transfer fees.
Man U etc, wouldn’t risk paying £50million on a player if he could refuse to play and go on strike and make their £50 million worthless

 

[Mary Hinge]

The value of compensation will be kicked around until it's a pittance.

No new precedent will be set.

This won't be the new 'Bosman'.

Is that simple enough for you to grasp?

We "saved" about 6m in wages , might get a couple of mill from any mugs willing to take him.......think that's the best and cleanest solution we can hope for and both parties walk away without any legal shoite........

We're not very good with any of the historical legal shoite, going forward will be different story I reckon......

 

[bahtat]

Now fears his career is over, a suggestion in here we hold on to his registration to guarantee a fee if he signs elsewhere

ROKER ROUNDUP: Is Didier Ndong’s football career now over after being SACKED by Sunderland AFC?

Extract for those either incapable of or to lazy to use link

“Sunderland were not willing to compromise and iSport now claim that Ndong’s career may be over.

According to their source, Ndong’s football registration will still be in the hands of Sunderland until the end date of his contract, unless another club buys out that contract. However they believe no-one will touch the troublesome player due to his form - and his career could be effectively over.”

Has has been said the restraint of trade issue is an interesting one but the question that won’t be asked or if it is won’t be answered is the role and responsibility of his agent(s)/advisers. Considering he grew up in Gabon not renowned for its education system or role models the lad has been used instead of advised. It’s bloody criminal

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

So with the 2 clowns sacked GOM, are their wages now off our books as of today and so freeing up finances to buy a couple of players, players that we couldn't afford whilst we were paying out for them?

Or do we have to wait until they eventually find new clubs and the legal process is complete?

Their contracts are terminated - we won;t be paying them a penny more. And yes, it should give us a little more scope going forwards, although Catts and Oviedo, while both being totally professional and playing well, are still soaking up a fair chunk of the budget.

 

[kp10]

It might end up being similar to how Wolves signed Rui Patricio. Patricio terminated his Sporting CP contract, signed for Wolves, and Sporting want compensation from Wolves. We might do the same thing, should Ndong sign for a new club

 

[bahtat]

Their contracts are terminated - we won;t be paying them a penny more. And yes, it should give us a little more scope going forwards, although Catts and Oviedo, while both being totally professional and playing well, are still soaking up a fair chunk of the budget.

Would it not be prudent though to set aside an amount to cover damages should we loose any legal challenge. Not to mention the legal costs themselves

 

[wilberforce]

FIFA regs state that the next club he signs for will be deemed to have induced his breach of contract. and will have to pay compensation. It would be nice to think it would be set at the amount agreed with Torino before his agent blew it out of the water.

nice one, thanks for the info mate

 

[Nicky Winterwasp]

He won't be able to play for a club who are unable to meet any compensation due to us. We aren't preventing him working. He's free to play anywhere,as long as we receive due compensation. Why should we give away value on an asset we've paid for? The only question really is how much are we due.

I'm interested to see how this works eventually, seems a bit of a complicated situation but if I understand it correctly the club haven't actually sacked him but accepted his contract breaches as cause to see it as self dismissal with financial compensation obligations remaining with the player.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Would it not be prudent though to set aside an amount to cover damages should we loose any legal challenge

It might be prudent to factor it in informally (ie be aware of the potential costs). You'd only actually do it in accounting terms (what's known as creating a provision) if there was more chance of you losing a case than winning. The evidence we've seen so far is, in my view, overwhelmingly in the club's favour, and I'd be advising both players to try to cut a deal which minimises the damage to them.

I'm interested to see how this works eventually, seems a bit of a complicated situation but if I understand it correctly the club haven't actually sacked him but accepted his contract breaches as cause to see it as self dismissal with financial compensation obligations remaining with the player.

That's a fair summary.