So says Ricky's pops: http://www.football-italia.net/76260/inter-win-ricky-alvarez-case? I'm confused how this works if true. Presumably he would become a Sunderland player. The way this reads we have to pay for him and we lose him as an asset. Waiting for a better source than FI.
That doesn't make sense. If we have lost the case and I expected us to, in all honesty, then nobody can dictate to Sunderland what happens to him after that. If he's signed for us then surely we have gave him a contract to protect us from losing him for nothing. Unless Ellis has decided it makes more financial sense to just release him instead of paying wages every week in the hope that we sell him.
Just about sums up Safc under short really! $10 million wasted , and no player. Just about as good as rodwell then
Not so sure he's with that much! not to derail the thread .... but I think we all thought he would be a success! gutted its obviously not worked out
Don't think ourselves or Inter have covered ourselves in glory at all here. Wonder what's next. Do we sign him? Would he fit into a Big Sam team? Feel for the lad.
Apparently some Mexican team is going to sign him. He's been there training and they've had a look at him . at the club's training facilities at the weekend, for the team doctors to assess his knee, which over the team had held concerns. For now he has returned to his native Argentina, but is hoping to sign in time for the 2016 Clausura season. Alvarez played 13 times for Sunderland, and has nine caps and one goal for Argentina.
"... as the Argentine spent most of the campaign out injured following surgery, Sunderland argued the clause was no longer valid". It seems to me this misrepresents our case. As far as I know, our case was that Inter refused him surgery immediately after the injury! There's something amiss with this - I'll reserve judgement for now.
The way I see it he wasn't injured when he signed for us.or we would not of done the deal. His injury occurred when he was our player (am I correct in thinking that).apparently the deal was stay up and he is our player. Well that's now safc problem not Milans they loaned a healthy player with view of sale agreed at the end ??????? This bit causes all the confusion. As far as I know, our case was that Inter refused him surgery immediately after the injury
That's the issue in a nutshell, Vince. If the injury occurred in Feb/March, as has been previously stated on this board, then he was still Inter's player on loan to us and Inter was responsible for consequent surgery. There's something amiss somewhere.
but to not have any get out clause as a result of an injury or as a result of the fact he played few games then we deserve everything we get. surely the deal should have only gone through if he played a minimum of say 25 games? Shambles! If we had stopped up but he died halfway through the season, god forbid, would we have still had to buy him?
Dated yesterday. Elsewhere, Ricky Alvarez is hoping he has found a new club, as legal battles between Inter Milan and Sunderland continue. FIFA are still deciding on the case between Sunderland and the Argentine midfielder’s parent club Inter after Sunderland disputed an agreement over signing the loanee permanent in the summer. 2014 Getty Images please log in to view this image Ricardo Alvarez of Sunderland As such Alvarez has been unable to resume his playing career after been linked to a number of clubs since the end of last season, but reports say he is hopeful his career can start again soon. The Record in Mexico claim that Alvarez had a medical at Mexican side Club America over the weekend and say that, despite the case between Sunderland and Inter not being resolved, the player and club are hopeful that he will be available for the start of the 2016 Clausura season.
I would agree with you but my concern is that it is the player's father quoted. If it is a genuine quote then I imagine it would be true unless he is just speaking the thoughts that the family have on the matter. Is he speculating as fact? He's probably put his son in breach of a confidentiality clause.
