I know Valley and I feel that way too but I'd prefer we follow our heads in this matter and not be involved in anything that tarnishes our name, even if it is only by association. Michu's career is dead and he's killed it all by himself, so we shouldn't prolong it by having his name mentioned next to ours, 'Michu is remains a Swansea player' or 'Michu was exceptional for Swansea', 'Michu was Swanseas top scorer' etc etc. It really sticks in my craw Valley, that his name is used in a sentence along with ours, that's why I'd prefer we pay him his pieces of silver and let him go dirty his own name somewhere else.
If what has been written on here is true it is a real shame that our once loved striker has alienated himself from our club and the fact that his departure is dragging on so long is doing no good for either side. His first season with us was probably the best and most exciting by any player in a Swans shirt that I have ever witnessed and I've been watching us for nearly 50 years but things obviously deteriorated rapidly once he was given special treatment which caused so many problems within the squad and led to his loan move. His injury problems have created their own difficulties for him personally and for us as a selling club of course but as Stumpy says we'd probably be better off paying him off and putting it down as necessary expenditure. Will always be grateful for his goals but not for the way he is now holding the club to ransom.
I agree we should pay up his contract, but in no way should he be given a penny of bonuses etc on the back of last season. He's become an embarrassment and our party line of saying 'we are trying to help him find a new club' puts all of the negative spotlight on Michu.
I dont agree we should pay him anything if he has not earned it. Once you do that then not only would the players feel miffed but it opens the floodgates for anyone else to screw the club.....Wait until the window is about to shut and we will see him begging to join any club that will take him and should the worst scenario happen that he dont find a club then he will be forced to return and there is nothing we can do about it and if he dont then we will be entitled to sack him, but if we say we dont want him then we will have no choice than to pay him off and that is well over £2m and i cant see jinx and the board agreeing to that as michu and his agent could turn the tables and sue the club for a lot more than £2m....the club must tread carefully and dont fall into a trap.
The only offer he's reportedly had is from his old club, no one else appears interested in him which is odd and very surprising. There are things going on regarding deadlines which makes me agree with Dai in that, if Michu hasn't found a club before the transfer deadline then he'll be gone soon after, regardless of whether he has a club to go to or not.
Rangel is a very decent guy and for him to have lost it with Michu over his behaviour tells us all we need to know, though I have it on very good authority that Michu was trouble even in his first season, and as I have said before his petulance was all of his own making, I agree with Dai, and I think we should put a Solicitor onto his case for breach of contract, I hope Huw finds a way of not paying the bugger a penny.............
Dragon, I don't think there has been a breach of contract yet as we gave him the time to find another club. Its more of a contract dispute if anything at this stage. Lets wait and see what happens when the time we gave him, all in good faith, has expired.
It goes on what is in his contract, if its not clearly defined then that is our problem. If it goes to an arbitrator or a court it will go onto points of law and contract only. I think our club has nothing to lose by it going to court, beyond what is on his contract that is all he is entitled too.
I agree Jager. Surely he loses all entitlement to bonuses etc if he goes on loan as he didn't contribute towards our success last season. Take the prick to court. At least it will send out a message that we don't take **** of any player trying to hold us to ransom.
It won't be us taking him to court, it would be Michu taking the club. You would think that loans out would be defined in regards to bonuses etc, if it's not then it could get messy. I hope whoever is drawing up contracts for us has covered this.
He refused to honour his contract by refusing to play, and we were left with the only option to loan him out to Napoli, add to that gross misconduct by assaulting another player, then I don't have any issue with winning a court case against the want away player, the club are on solid ground as far as I see it, no way would I want this type of player getting one over our club.............. I have always maintained he had issues, his departure with not a word to the fans said it all for me.
Think you are not quite right there Phil , anything to do with assault would have to be dealt with by the police. And handbags at dawn is not going to be dealt with over a year later by the club. This despite everything will be down to the contract and law only, anything else is just a sideshow and won't be relevant or put forward to a judge. As for refusing to play, he was loaned out to another club, so it will be no different to other loans, and won't figure really in a decision by a judge. All I can say in situations like this is that the player will have the full backing of the players union, and it's not going to be easy to win a case at arbitration or court, and it could cost us more to defend this than what he's claiming.
Don't think it's as simple as that, if it goes to arbitration then the costs involved will be borne by each other, barristers costs a lot of money. If it goes the legal route then it will be up to the judge, he/she doesn't have to award costs
Michu is entitled to sod all and he will know it. He is trying it on, He did not want to play for the club and insisted we sold him but nobody would make an offer except Napoli who would only take him on loan before any buying took place, Well we know how that ended up as Napoli passed him back to us. The key word is he did not want to play for the swans therefor how can he be part of bonuses the players have earned........he is entitled to zilch.
Hopefully Dai. What this saga has shown though is that every decent club on the planet don't want him and it's all his own fault
He's entitled to what is in his contract, if that contract says he's entitled to bonuses when out on loan then he will get it. If it doesn't specifically say it then it will be argued on, and who has the best argument will probably win. I think the club is about to have egg in their faces because the contract has been drawn up wrong, and if it has then the club has only itself to blame
What makes you think we messed up on this contract? I know it's not one of our best subjects, but surely Huw has learned after 4 season's at this level, not to mention our time in the Championship.
