Oh i would hazard a guess that the 2 year deal will have options for extentions IF both parties are happy with progress. I would not worry too much about this one. We only got him due to Steve Bruce anyway. You almost took the words out of my mouth. Steve Agnew let slip on friday to Burnsy that the deal was done. Its heading the same way as the Proschwitz deal.
His contract has only ended if the Rangers administrators didn't activate the extra two years of it. Their job is to act in the best interests of the creditors, if they saw extending his contract as being a way of obtaining an extra £100k for the creditors when they found a buyer then they would have done that. Even if his contract has been allowed to expire he's only 23 so we still have to pay compensation to his old club (see the below before posting more bollocks about FIFA having cleared them all). As for FIFA giving clearance for players to move. As I said earlier they have given temporary clearance for the other players to join other clubs pending the outcome of the legal action by Green/Newco Rangers against them. That is so that if the players win their case they haven't been denied the opportunity to play. It is not saying they are entitled to free transfers. If the courts rule in favour of Green/Newco then they will be due competition from the players (and I woulld expect the players to have agreed with their new clubs that if thre's compo to be paid the new club reimburses them for it). Unless any of them have relegation release clauses in their contracts saying they can go for free (at Rangers in the SPL, I don't think so somehow) it'll most likely come down to tribunals to set the fees. One element to be considered will be any minimum fee releases in the players' contracts. That'll set the maximum compensation. Then there'll be a dispute (hence the tribunal) about whether the compensation should be based on the value of the contract to the player, or the value of the contract to the club. In normal circumstances those amounts are considered the same as contracts like this aren't allowed to be imbalanced. The problem with that valuation though is that Newco bought the contracts for £1.8M, which was a reduced value compared to what Rangers had paid for them, so the compensation awarded can't return both parties to the position they would have been in had the contracts not been signed. Newco can't be awarded more than they're entitled to, the players can't be left in profit from breaching a contract as it sets a precedent and Scotland acts almost entirely on Common Law so they'll seek to avoid it. (If memory serves even murder has never been made a statutary offence, it's still a criminal offence as in England, but the paperwork that makes it that way comes from archaic test cases not from a government creating and passing a Murder Bill) In Aluko's case, if the administrators activated the clause we'll have to go through all that. If they didn't activate it then the compensation they're due is predetermined because it would be for academy training. We should get lucky there because he was at Aberdeen so long that they could only claim for 3 of the 4 years as he'd then had the maximum years you can claim for (the rest being at other clubs before he joined them). On the basis he'd already had the maximum, and he hasn't even been at Rangers for a year yet they wouldn't actually be entitled to any. I don't think it'll even be a case of that. If it's a 2 year deal with an option it will be all on the club's choice. Unless he's been dire we'll activate the extension, then if he's happy he's obviously happy and will stay, if he's not then we'll have done it to increase the fee we can get for him.
I don't know. Might be an issue with the site's servers losing a connection or Mick applying an update though. That post was around the time that I had difficulty making a post, and then when I refreshed my threads list everything was showing as read even though the top 10 or 15 threads all had new posts that I know I haven't seen yet.
A transfer embargo only prevents the registering of new players. You are still able to offer new contracts to existing players, so activating a clause in an existing deal shouldn't be a problem. At the end of the day though, with the situation as it is we won't have a problem signing him and getting him in the team because FIFA will grant the temporary clearance. If it's then decided he had a contract with Newco the fee to be paid to them will be so small we won't be that bothered. In fact, to sign Oxley and pay him wages to this point has probably cost us more than Newco would win in compo.
There should be no fee to pay. Aluko couldn't have his contract extended by a company that didn't exist. Think we'll be fine.
There won't be a significant fee. The company still exists now, even though it is in the process of being liquidated. Since the possible fee won't be significant and there won't be any footballing penalties as FIFA are approving moves on the basis that if there's an issue it's just a bit of compo to pay rather than an unregistered player issue we will be fine. It's just amusing for me when Tickler goes and starts stating 'facts' on something I'm relatively well aware of the fine details of (my course including modules on Scots Law in relation to contracts, Scots being Scottish not some person it's named after).
It looks like he's going to sign today. FIFA have given all the Rangers players the temporary right to move, on the grounds that even if there claims are proven, Rangers would only be due damages, rather than being able to keep the players. It seems we're confident we won't have to pay anything either way.
I spoke to green of newco rangers in the summer an he alerted me that if some one came in for Aluko he wouldn't e able to claim anything and he'd be able to go on a FAT. When I bumped into SB in Iceland car park after doing his weekly shop 2 weeks ago I alerted him to the situation. FACT
