So we still hold his registration then and he's not actually been terminated? What you're describing is essentially gardening leave. Nobody's suggested that this is the case.
Not necessarily. Spurs could have negotiated whatever they wanted with his agent when they terminated his contract.
If pointing out your mistakes, that you have no evidence to back up your claims, etc, is whinging, then yes, you're right!
I don't think it would matter whether he can see it or not. He'd still claim he was right. Or rather, the newspaper's right.
Not a contract in the usual terms where a player is registered to a club and agrees certain terms during his playing time with that club. That contract has been terminated. What appears to have been agreed is a severance package where Spurs and his agent have agreed to release him from playing for Spurs, only if Spurs continue to pay his £100k per week 'wages'. As part of that deal, it also appears that a condition has been inserted where, if another club want to sign him, then they have to (as part of that deal) negotiate with the financial wizard who's paying him £100k per week, as to how much of that figure they will meet. As mentioned, if that wasn't stipulated then another club could sign him up, pay him a peppercorn wage and let Spurs pay the rest, whilst he's potentially playing for one of your rivals.
All you've pointed out is that you can't back up your claim and that you're prone to having a hissy fit
According to the reports, that club would have to negotiate an agreed figure with Levy, presumably as per the severance package, before they can register him.
You originated this claim, it's for you to provide evidence to back it up, which you have singularly failed to do. I don't need to prove anything. Your claims are based on nothing but supposition, rumour, and wishful thinking on your part.
I've provided several credible sources that all back what I'm saying. You jumped in and said that both the player and the club claimed otherwise, when I challenged you to provide a source from which you were making that claim, you've come up with squat.
So, to answer my question, you do agree that some form of contract may have been agreed between Adebayor and Spurs?
We wouldn't have a deal with them, though. If we don't hold his registration, then they could just sign him. Presumably any penalty clause in the contract would be on Adebayor's head. That would suggest that it's an actual figure rather than a negotiation, though it may even depend on the club. As none of us know what the contract says, it's all speculation. What the press are claiming simply doesn't make any sense, though. It's unenforceable and possibly against the rules of UEFA and/or the Premier League.
It's not to be confused with the type of contract that was terminated. It would be called a severance package, but it would still be legally binding as much as a contract is.
You have quotes from both the club and the player saying that the contract is terminated. You have zero evidence to substantiate these wild claims, just the usual newspaper speculation. Come back when - or should I say IF you have some concrete evidence.
It might not matter whether you hold his registration. If the contract has been terminated and with it his registration to Spurs , then the only legally binding document would be the severance package. It would be interesting to see what the Premier League, UEFA and possibly the EU employment law has to say about it. If the agreement, as reported, is that Spurs have agreed to pay him £100k per week until June 2016, then it would be in their interest to try and get some of that bill shifted onto another club. As I said before, it's not the same agreement as the Man City/Spurs deal with Adeybayor as he was still under contract with City. It might turn out to set a precedent in this case.
I'm taking this one step at a time, for your benefit, Pixie. You scoffed at me when I said that any contract between Adebayor and Spurs would not be binding on a third party club. You said that there was no contract between player and club, and you scoffed at me for not knowing employment contract law. You, now, admit that there may well be a contract between player and club. I put it to you, again, that any such contract between the player and Spurs would not bind any "other" club. Yes or no? I want to take this one step at a time, Pixie. For your sake.
No I didn't, I said that the deal that appears to have been negotiated between Spurs and Adebayor does have a binding agreement with any third party club, that exactly the point I'm making. You are failing to grasp the difference between a contract that a player has with a club, and a severance package. The latter does not bind the player to the club, it is a termination of that contract. As part of the severance package though, it appears that Spurs have inserted a clause where another club wanting to sign him, have to (as part of that deal) negotiate / agree with Levy over the amount they will pay him out of the £100k that Spurs have agreed to pay him until June 2016. That is exactly what is being reported. Despite leaving White Hart Lane in September, Adebayor is being paid in full by Spurs until he finds a new club or for the duration of his old contract that would have expired at the end of this season under the terms of his exit. Incredibly, that means the striker remains Tottenham’s highest earner, on more than double what Harry Kane currently pockets, even though he is no longer contracted to the club. Premier League clubs interested in signing Adebayor must negotiate with Spurs chairman Daniel Levy over how much of his £100,000-a-week salary they will fund until next summer. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ated-by-Tottenham-still-paying-his-wages.html
