Transfer Embargo

Why can't the club just flat out say what's actually happening.
Its ****ing bizarre!

 

Surely not? It’s neither Puerta’s nor Leverkusens fault? How could they be made or asked to pay any wages back?

 

Because if he's always been their player, they should have been paying him

 

Yes I do agree there's a case to be made that if our contractual obligation has been null and voided then any subsequent payment of wages is also null and voided.

 

Can’t see it, if he signed a contract with us regardless of registration we pay him

 

Then he would be our player and not Leverkusen's

 

He legally remains a Bayer Leverkusen player. This means Leverkusen must keep paying his wages. We only take over once the transfer is officially registered and under the terms of our EFL imposed Fee Restrictions we were prevented from registering him.

MoH

 

he has to be registered to be "our player"

 

No he doesn't.

 

Looks like the upshot of this particular situation is that he remains Leverkusen's player.

 

Looks like no one knows exactly what the situation is.

 

From the EFL rules on Embargoes and Fee Restrictions:

“When a club is under a registration embargo, they cannot register any new players, including permanent deals or loans, unless the League gives approval. Until that registration is completed, the club that holds the player’s existing contract remains responsible for paying him.”


So, unless Puerta signed with Hull and the EFL approved it, he was never our player. From what I can see, no approval was given. He was not registered as Hull City’s player.


Why I think that:

• A footballer must always be under contract with a club.
• Puerta stayed contracted to Bayer Leverkusen until a contract with Hull was signed and cleared by the EFL.
• If we could not register him because of the embargo and subsequent fee restrictions, his Leverkusen contract carried on. It cannot just end, otherwise he would have no employer.
• Hull might have agreed to cover some or all of his wages in the meantime, but legally he stayed a Leverkusen player. Any reimbursement would need to go through the EFL Contract and Registrations Unit (CFRU).

That’s the simple picture: without EFL approval of the permanent deal, Puerta stays on Leverkusen’s books, even if we had promised to buy him under an obligation triggered during his loan agreement.

MoH

 

So why would we pay him when 1. The club was short of money and. 2. We could have sent him back to his parent club rather than training with us and risk injury.

 

The buy obligation meant we could not just send him back unless Leverkusen agreed.

Legally he remained their player until the EFL cleared any registration, so they paid him.

That left a compromise where he trained with us, Leverkusen stayed as the employer, and any wage sharing would have been reported to the EFL CFRU.

MoH

 

So leverkusen have been paying him?

 

Have the minutes been posted for this appeal hearing, by the way? Or do we have to wait six weeks for them to be published?

 

"A footballer must always be under contract with a club."
Are you sure?
What does "out of contract" or "free agent" mean?

 

Theres nothing ambiguous about 'going back to Leverkusen'.

 

Trialists and free transfers are a bit different but they still fit the same rule.

A trialist is a player training or even playing in non-competitive friendlies without a contract. That is allowed because they are not taking part in official league fixtures. The moment a club wants to field that player in a competitive match, he must be signed to a contract and registered with the league.

A free transfer or “free agent” just means the player’s old deal has ended and no transfer fee is due. They can be unattached for days, weeks or even months, but again they cannot play in competitive football until they sign a new contract and are registered by the new club.

So yes, players can exist between contracts as trialists or free agents, but in competition the same rule applies: they must always be under a valid contract with a club.

So the key point is this: a player can be unattached in the sense of not belonging to any club, but the moment he steps on the pitch for a professional side he must be under contract and registered with that club.


MoH

 

we know that
that is the whole point about our two players that the argument is about
nobody is pretending that Gustavo Puerta and Reda Laalaoui can play for City because they are not registered
the point being discussed is "does anybody have the two players as employees?"
you also said: "It cannot just end, otherwise he would have no employer."
Contracts do end and there's no employer