Mr X Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Can't believe people are considering this even, I did also think Pelle and osvaldo would be a good strike force but having thought it through it would also be a recipe for disaster like others have said osvaldo always has had a reputation for being a lose canon and disrupting the rest of a team, he already had several incidents under his belt when we signed him, get rid in my opinion even at a significant loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Apparently not from what I was told today. The club have no idea where he is as he's not responding to them, they're having to go via the agent. Personally I'd sack him for breach of contract and have done with it. Utterly horrendous human being. Problem with that is that Saints say goodbye to any transfer fee. From a purely contract law point of view I think you could sack him for breach of contract and then sue for consequential loss (ie the loss of transfer fee). No idea if there is some PL / FIFA rule that trumps this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 If he is unfit get second opinion. If he is not contactable contact his agent, fine him the standard two weeks wages. If/when he turns up discipline him and fine him continuously as appropriate until he conforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingdomCome Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 From a purely contract law point of view I think you could sack him for breach of contract and then sue for consequential loss (ie the loss of transfer fee). No idea if there is some PL / FIFA rule that trumps this. You could try, but all he need say is "I wouldn't have gone to X utd" and the transfer fee / loss becomes purely speculative. You might get a tribunal to agree there is loss, but I doubt it would be anywhere near the actual transfer value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 From a purely contract law point of view I think you could sack him for breach of contract and then sue for consequential loss (ie the loss of transfer fee). No idea if there is some PL / FIFA rule that trumps this. I guess Mutu, although for different reasons, sets a precedence for players being sued by clubs for breach of contract. As for those saying get a second opinion, I think that it entrely right and proper for the club to send their own doctor to check him over. God knows what he is being paid - £50k? £65k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 From a purely contract law point of view I think you could sack him for breach of contract and then sue for consequential loss (ie the loss of transfer fee). No idea if there is some PL / FIFA rule that trumps this. Pretty sure the PFA controls what's regarded as reasonable within the parameters of football in England in their role as the players' union. As well as directing that players can't be fined more than 2 weeks' wages when they are fined, they also have guidance on what's required for players who are out of favour - though these are almost certainly restricted by specific contractual clauses. As Winston Bogarde proved at Chelsea, if he turns up to training as directed (and Koeman was clear he was to train on his own at Staplewood), there's nothing much the club can do. I seem to recall there are some details about what the minimum and maximum required is, might have got that from The Secret Footballer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Excerpt from a sports law blog on the subject: http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/termination-of-contract-of-employment.html "FIFA's regulations on the Status & Transfer of Players make it clear that the parties to a football contract must respect and observe such contract. Rule 13, in particular, identifies that parties must observe the maintenance of contractual stability. As FIFA’s Commentary of Article 13 states, “unilateral termination of a contract without just cause, especially during the so called protected period, is to be vehemently discouraged.” However, the principle of respect for the contract of employment is not an absolute one. Article 14 allows for the unilateral termination of the contract with ‘just cause’, as long as there is a valid reason. There is no standard definition of ‘just cause’ and the application of such principle depends on the merits and the particular circumstances of each case. As the FIFA Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players explains: “However, should the violation persist for a long time or should many violations be cumulated over a certain period of time, then it is most probable that the breach of contract has reached such a level that the party suffering the breach is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally.” Although in a non-football contract situation, the liable party may have to face, depending on the facts and the remedy sought, damages for breach of contract and/or specific remedies against them, in a football contract of employment, the party found to have breached such contract, may also have to face additional sporting sanctions, pursuant to Article 17 on the Status & Transfer of Players. Caution, therefore, must be exercised when one advises clients in relation to a possible termination of the contract of employment. Finally, the various obligatory terms set out in the relevant Regulations, and referred to above, are fundamental to FIFA’s regulatory system and ability to control and have jurisdiction over the contractual stability of such system. The failure of the contracting parties to follow and apply such obligatory provisions and to comply with these fundamental requirements means that the agreement, which the parties signed, has been breached. Consequently, such situation would force advocates, acting for either party, to argue that such breaches may allow parties to escape their contractual responsibilities and such situation, therefore, would wholly undermine FIFA’s regulatory regime." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Excerpt from a sports law blog on the subject: http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/termination-of-contract-of-employment.html "FIFA's regulations on the Status & Transfer of Players make it clear that the parties to a football contract must respect and observe such contract. Rule 13, in particular, identifies that parties must observe the maintenance of contractual stability. As FIFA’s Commentary of Article 13 states, “unilateral termination of a contract without just cause, especially during the so called protected period, is to be vehemently discouraged.” However, the principle of respect for the contract of employment is not an absolute one. Article 14 allows for the unilateral termination of the contract with ‘just cause’, as long as there is a valid reason. There is no standard definition of ‘just cause’ and the application of such principle depends on the merits and the particular circumstances of each case. As the FIFA Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players explains: “However, should the violation persist for a long time or should many violations be cumulated over a certain period of time, then it is most probable that the breach of contract has reached such a level that the party suffering the breach is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally.” Although in a non-football contract situation, the liable party may have to face, depending on the facts and the remedy sought, damages for breach of contract and/or specific remedies against them, in a football contract of employment, the party found to have breached such contract, may also have to face additional sporting sanctions, pursuant to Article 17 on the Status & Transfer of Players. Caution, therefore, must be exercised when one advises clients in relation to a possible termination of the contract of employment. Finally, the various obligatory terms set out in the relevant Regulations, and referred to above, are fundamental to FIFA’s regulatory system and ability to control and have jurisdiction over the contractual stability of such system. The failure of the contracting parties to follow and apply such obligatory provisions and to comply with these fundamental requirements means that the agreement, which the parties signed, has been breached. Consequently, such situation would force advocates, acting for either party, to argue that such breaches may allow parties to escape their contractual responsibilities and such situation, therefore, would wholly undermine FIFA’s regulatory regime." Cool, terminate his contract and sue his arse for 5 mill, everybody wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
September Saint Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Can't believe people are considering this even, I did also think Pelle and osvaldo would be a good strike force but having thought it through it would also be a recipe for disaster like others have said osvaldo always has had a reputation for being a lose canon and disrupting the rest of a team, he already had several incidents under his belt when we signed him, get rid in my opinion even at a significant loss Did you manage to find your camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killers Knee Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Cool, terminate his contract and sue his arse for 5 mill, everybody wins. After the transfer window has closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 There's also a bunch of FIFPro FAQ questions here, though nothing much specifically on "what a player needs to do to meet contractual requirements". http://www.fifpro.org/en/players/legal/frequently-asked-questions There's also the Andy Webster case, where he cancelled his contract with Hearts basically after Hearts deliberately didn't play him in order to force him to sign a new contract. Two points of interest here, the first that there is a "protected contract period" of 3 years from signing - which Webster was outside, but it is believed that he wouldn't have been able to terminate within the first 3 years, which of course Osvaldo is within - so he's not able to cancel his contract unilaterally as Webster has, not that there's any suggestion he would. The other point of interest is that (according to the legal document), "in the final weeks of June 2006, Hearts had rejected an offer of GBP 1.5 million from Southampton Football Club for the transfer of Andrew Webster, in the belief that Player’s market value was higher." http://www.fifpro.org/attachments/article/5281/Webster%20CAS%20ENG.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Cool, terminate his contract and sue his arse for 5 mill, everybody wins. The PFA specifically mentions they don't get involved in Player v Player situations, which is at least part of the issue here... Not sure what passes for "just cause" but in most cases FIFA's need to preserve contracts is the main driver, so it really does have to be "just cause". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 I'm pretty sure that if I nutted a work colleague, that WOULD be deemed as 'just cause' and I would be sacked on the spot. If the company had paid an agency to hire me, as often happens, they could recover their fee from said agency who would likely claim it back from me, and would certainly blacklist me from their representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 I'm pretty sure that if I nutted a work colleague, that WOULD be deemed as 'just cause' and I would be sacked on the spot. If the company had paid an agency to hire me, as often happens, they could recover their fee from said agency who would likely claim it back from me, and would certainly blacklist me from their representation. But ou didn't cost your employer 13 millions now did you. The cases aren't comparable, they could sack the player for misconduct but then they'd just wipe out his book value to the club UNLESS he has a contractual clause saying that he's responsable for X/Z iemes of his fee if he's a bad lad. No player would sign that and agents aren't ever responsable for anything at all. Mutu was a drug addict, it's completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Is there not the possibility of cancelling his contract, but keeping his registration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Is there not the possibility of cancelling his contract, but keeping his registration? seems a bit harsh, dude has got ex-wives & 3 kids to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Is there not the possibility of cancelling his contract, but keeping his registration? Nope, would breach European Employment Law and probably a few English ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Is there not some way we can arrange a punishment beating for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolsaint29 Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 Just don't pay him. Pretend we've lost his bank details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 15 July, 2014 Share Posted 15 July, 2014 I mean we could do it like the banner for Lallana at the Liverpool game. All chip into a fund and one of our US expat fans could find a couple of hoodrats to go duff him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radio slave Posted 18 July, 2014 Share Posted 18 July, 2014 is this new? http://haber.stargazete.com/spor/osvaldo-icin-dev-adim/haber-913398 Pablo Osvaldo conditions for began to push. Yellow-red government, Southampton manager through contact with their 28-year-old striker Emmanuel Eboue in the first place and 4.5 million euros plus Dany Nounkeu were reported to have forwarded a proposal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 18 July, 2014 Share Posted 18 July, 2014 is this new? http://haber.stargazete.com/spor/osvaldo-icin-dev-adim/haber-913398 Pablo Osvaldo conditions for began to push. Yellow-red government, Southampton manager through contact with their 28-year-old striker Emmanuel Eboue in the first place and 4.5 million euros plus Dany Nounkeu were reported to have forwarded a proposal Good grief. Hitting 'translate this page' does not help us, does it? I'm guessing at they want to give us Eboue (not a striker) and a Nonkeu in return for Osvaldo, and either we pay them 4.5M € or they pay it to us. But I'm guessing. Turkish to the main board please. Come in Turkish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_ed Posted 18 July, 2014 Share Posted 18 July, 2014 Good grief. Hitting 'translate this page' does not help us, does it? I'm guessing at they want to give us Eboue (not a striker) and a Nonkeu in return for Osvaldo, and either we pay them 4.5M € or they pay it to us. But I'm guessing. Turkish to the main board please. Come in Turkish! They'll offer us Eboue and Nonkeu + 4.5million euros. Last time I heard Nonkeu was on loan as Besiktas. We also have no need for Eboue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 July, 2014 Share Posted 18 July, 2014 They'll offer us Eboue and Nonkeu + 4.5million euros. Last time I heard Nonkeu was on loan as Besiktas. We also have no need for Eboue. Presumably they just want them off rhe wage bill. We'd ber better off just taking the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 18 July, 2014 Share Posted 18 July, 2014 The club under employment law could have dismissed him following correct disciplinary proceedings for gross miss conduct but without knowing the full facts . I suspect it was a final written warning in order the club maintained his registration in order to recoup some of the outlay . A normal employee would gave been sacked for that . But then again footballers contracts are pretty complex matters . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 18 July, 2014 Share Posted 18 July, 2014 But then again footballers contracts are pretty complex matters . And some people wonder why deals are hard to get over the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonwindmill Posted 18 July, 2014 Share Posted 18 July, 2014 But ou didn't cost your employer 13 millions now did you. The cases aren't comparable, they could sack the player for misconduct but then they'd just wipe out his book value to the club UNLESS he has a contractual clause saying that he's responsable for X/Z iemes of his fee if he's a bad lad. No player would sign that and agents aren't ever responsable for anything at all. Mutu was a drug addict, it's completely different. Of course they are. You can compare them and conclude that they're completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 18 July, 2014 Share Posted 18 July, 2014 The club under employment law could have dismissed him following correct disciplinary proceedings for gross miss conduct but without knowing the full facts . I suspect it was a final written warning in order the club maintained his registration in order to recoup some of the outlay . A normal employee would gave been sacked for that . But then again footballers contracts are pretty complex matters . more to do with hoping to get some value from a transfer - sack him and his registration is available, don't, and he is stuck with us as much as we are stick with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 July, 2014 Share Posted 19 July, 2014 Article in the Echo about him, or rather his non presence, today http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/11352384.Osvaldo_still_a_no_show/?ref=mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 19 July, 2014 Share Posted 19 July, 2014 Surprised this hasn't caused more questions. Disgraceful really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 July, 2014 Share Posted 19 July, 2014 Surprised this hasn't caused more questions. Disgraceful really. What questions would those be then? He doesn't want to be here, the board don't mind him not being and probably aren't paying him at the full whack so who gives a toss really. Just needs to be sorted out at the earliest possible and basta..end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 19 July, 2014 Share Posted 19 July, 2014 What questions would those be then? He doesn't want to be here, the board don't mind him not being and probably aren't paying him at the full whack so who gives a toss really. Just needs to be sorted out at the earliest possible and basta..end of. Questions probably wrong word. Just not been much made of it really when it's quite a big deal for someone to just refuse to even train. Especially a record signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hasper57saint Posted 19 July, 2014 Share Posted 19 July, 2014 Under UK Employment Law a Footballers Contract is still a 'Contract of Employment.'The employee has recourse to Law under three headings:Unfair Dismissal,Constructive Dismissal and Wrongful Dismissal. The Employer has various remedies to support the dismissal of an Employee (legitimately) two of which are 'Breach of Contract' and 'Frustration of Contract' The employer also has at his/her disposal the right to discipline an employee with various remedies for improvement of performance.Summary Dismissal can only be implemented after all facts are taken into consideration.Suspension usually precedes dismissal so Osvaldo doesn't have any defence if he fails to turn up for work (training) without a substantive reason. I'm pretty sure Saints Legal Eagles are fully aware of the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 19 July, 2014 Share Posted 19 July, 2014 There must be a manager out there stupid enough to buy him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 20 July, 2014 Share Posted 20 July, 2014 Is there not some way we can arrange a punishment beating for him? YES....let him join Spuds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrypward Posted 20 July, 2014 Share Posted 20 July, 2014 I think we should sell him to Liverpool. They have a recent vacancy in their strike force for a c**t and love buying our players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammysaint Posted 20 July, 2014 Share Posted 20 July, 2014 I just hope Billy Sharp and Mayuka can make the most of him not being there, so they can be our 3rd/4th choice striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 20 July, 2014 Share Posted 20 July, 2014 I just hope Billy Sharp and Mayuka can make the most of him not being there, so they can be our 3rd/4th choice striker. Christ, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted 20 July, 2014 Share Posted 20 July, 2014 Osvaldo rang in sick again today? Someone gave him the nickname OsWaldo last season - could it be more fitting? Has ANYONE found him yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hasper57saint Posted 20 July, 2014 Share Posted 20 July, 2014 Has ANYONE found him yet? I see him. He' s in the vertical striped Punch and Judy tent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 20 July, 2014 Share Posted 20 July, 2014 Has ANYONE found him yet? It's still not even remotely funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 July, 2014 Share Posted 21 July, 2014 Alex Goring Crook @alex_crook Koeman admits #saintsfc are looking to find a new club for Dani Osvaldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 21 July, 2014 Share Posted 21 July, 2014 Apologies if posted but saw on BBC South earlier that Osvaldo got granted "extended leave" by the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 21 July, 2014 Share Posted 21 July, 2014 Alex Goring Crook @alex_crook Koeman admits #saintsfc are looking to find a new club for Dani Osvaldo Feck me don't give him a club. Just look at the curfuffle over a head butt. Do we not learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 21 July, 2014 Share Posted 21 July, 2014 Feck me don't give him a club. Just look at the curfuffle over a head butt. Do we not learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 22 July, 2014 Share Posted 22 July, 2014 Feck me don't give him a club. Just look at the curfuffle over a head butt. Do we not learn Apparently, the SAS and Mafia have turned him down because he's too viscious One option is that he could apply to be a Head Butt at a Garden centre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There when Franny scored Posted 22 July, 2014 Share Posted 22 July, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28419258 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratio_decidendi Posted 22 July, 2014 Share Posted 22 July, 2014 Good riddance. His position at Southampton was entirely untenable. Perhaps this will open the door to the signing of another striker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red&white56 Posted 22 July, 2014 Share Posted 22 July, 2014 Bye Bye!! one great goal against Man City, it only cost us £15 mm! (before you post - I've deliberately discounted his other two goals as I'm sure another striker could have also scored them) and one pathetic punch up at Newcastle - priceless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint in winchester Posted 22 July, 2014 Share Posted 22 July, 2014 So now we are 'looking to sell'? We have been looking to sell or loan out until now. That comment weakens our hand and we will be lucky to get £5M back, maybe not even £3M. I would have looked to loan him again and hope he does well. Yes, ever the optimist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now