I don't have sympathy for the coach, Bologna just signed a player yesterday, they can't have it both ways and sign players from other clubs later in the window and not expect anyone to want to also sign their players.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Jhon Lucumi - Transfer Rumour
- Thread starter RGZ
- Start date
I don't have sympathy for the coach, Bologna just signed a player yesterday, they can't have it both ways and sign players from other clubs later in the window and not expect anyone to want to also sign their players.
Thunder Road
Midfield
f***ing hell, you're expecting a fee of £50 for Hemir?
wrighty
Striker
Fair point. I hope he’s really good(if he comes) and I hope he’s coming because he buys into the project. Players forcing their way out just brings back uncomfortable reminders of those C**ts kone, ndong and djilabodji-raises question marks about what they’re like as men.
All forgotten of course if he turns out to VVD mk 2!
Baxter the maestro
Full Back
I'm not sure on what basis a 'legal battle' might be fought. This appears basic contract law stuff, only slightly complicated by the need for players to be also compliantly registered with the national FA, EUFA and FIFA
Lucumi agreed to work for Bologna Football Club for a period of time specified in the contract negotiated and agreed between them. Bologna FC agrees to pay Person X an amount of money, also specified in the contract, during the aforementioned period. Sunderland AFC requests Bologna to release Person X from the contract so that Lucami can work for them and they offer compensation (the transfer fee) for agreeing to do so. Bologna refuses to agree to the early termination of the contract, which is their right.
Whilst Lucumi can refuse to honour the contract and not work for Bologna (he is not a slave), this would mean he was in breach (or frustration) of contract an liable to be sued for such. However, even if he did so, Bologna could retain his registration and thereby prevent him from working for another football club. 'Unfair restraint of trade', which was the basis for the Bosman ruling, would not apply because (a) it would not be unfair for Bologna to expect the contract to be honoured and (b) Lucumi could still pursue his trade with Bologna and (c) Bologna were not intending to withhold Lucumi's freedom to have another club register him at the end of the contract.
Additionally, from SAFC's perspective, none of this would be resolved before the teams have to be announced for the game against Brentford.
I tend to agree with the Bologna coach. It would seem to make sense to harmonise the end of the transfer window with the start of the football season. However, Bologna, regardless of their theoretical preferences, are operating in the real world, where currently there is an overlap between the two. They play to the rules as they are, not as they wish them to be.Bologna want it all their own way, yesterday the head coach said the transfer window should be closed now games have started and clubs should have made their transfers already. This afternoon they've signed Jonathan Rowe from Marseille
Last edited:
craigypants
Striker
Our best hope is the offer we are making is perhaps slightly improved and Bologna finally admit the player has to leave. It might be after Saturday though.
nandos sonic sauce
Striker
Hopefully it gets sorted for all parties ASAP. I have nothing against Bologna as a club, but they are 100% entitled to keep the player as per his contract. It is not an ideal situation and I hope he is bloody good at the prices banded about! The transfer window is a bloody joke when transfers are taking place AFTER the season starts. I know it's to tie in with the rest of European leagues etc but we have this lad accused of giving a goal away on purpose, Issac the great refusing to play for the Mags while his team play the team linked with him tonight, we have that Rangers player refusing to come off the bench and play yesterday after a bid was knocked back for him, so he claimed he was injured. It just makes a for a really shabby uncertain start to the season for clubs and players alike
Mowgli
Striker
Ignore all this legal bollocks. Been reported several times this summer on loads of transfer pursuits, including Isak. It simply won't happen.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Striker
You seen his contract like?
He had a release clause, we’ve matched it. I guess there will be some grey area involved as to whether it’s expired or not.
Either way, we are approaching a time when you can’t contract players - maybe one or two seasons away. They are fighting various battles and will almost certainly win based on the fact that, for example, no software company can force an engineer to work four years and not move company in their contract. Why is football different?
Last edited:
SKP stayed after scoring 30 in the Prem for us. We would never hang on to a 30 goal striker in the Prem these days.
Last edited:
Is he at Seaham Hall yet?
Dragging on a bit!
Dragging on a bit!
Baxter the maestro
Full Back
He had a release clause that expired on a certain date. SAFC didn't match the amount specified in the release clause by the specified date. That isn't a 'grey area', that is very clear.
Football is different because, in addition to the contract of employment between employer and employee, there is the requirement for players to registered with the national FAs, EUFA and FIFA. Even if Lucumi refuses to play for Bologna again, SAFC couldn't register him as a player, because Bologna would retain his registration until the expiry of the contract.
Lucumi may now regret signing the contract and also agreeing to the inclusion of an extension clause that could be triggered unilaterally by Bologna. Notwithstanding his regret, he did sign it and is now stuck with it.
Shieldsman
Striker
If another employer in anyone’s line of work was offering to pay 4 times as much to work for a more prestigious company (in Lucumi’s case the PL) 99.9% of people on hear would snap the hand off the offer and people would rightly be pissed off if their employer if they refused to let you leave.
Last edited:
I don't, it's been that way for years and considering clubs like us have limited time to prepare anyhow, the end of August is acceptable. Perhaps if they planned for such eventuality, which interest has been there for a while anyhow they would have been better prepared and not scratting around for a replacement. It's likely just an excuse anyhow.
craigypants
Striker
Wouldn't be surprised if another name is linked today coz this seems very hard to complete.
Dirge
Central Defender
Agree to disagree
You're not wrong. I used to be a big shot in the charity sector. I was working for a small but decent welfare charity, then started to get headhunted by larger, high profile charities to come and work for them.
First was Parkinson's UK but their offer was no great shakes.
Then the Alzheimer's Society interviewed me and made a good offer verbally. But they must have forgotten to formally send it in writing.
The one from the testicular cancer charity went nowhere. Promised the Earth but it turned out to all be bollocks.
Finally the Brittle Bones Sociery approached me. Offered me £165k a year, 4 day week, 38 days annual leave, massive pension and a car. I nearly snapped the guy's hand off when he told me!
