Alvarez training alone
- Thread starter Teessidemackem
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Technically Inter will have to pay him until the transfer goes through and then claim the money back from us, if they win the case and we are forced to sign him.
Last edited:
But he's not with Roma at the moment. We can't be paying him, he doesn't have a contract with us. If Inter are paying his wages then they are responsible for his training and treatment. If they're not even paying him it's disgusting. Like you said, if they win the case they can claim it back.
Sorry I meant Inter
Ah, if they're paying his wages surely they have an obligation to train and treat him. My opinion has be swayed to it being Inter who is ****ting on him. We won't have even offered him terms yet.
I do think Inter will have difficulty explaining why they didn't treat him from the time he was injured (March?) until the final whistle at Arsenal. If you remember, Welbeck was injured while he was on loan here, and Ferguson had him straight back for treatment in Manchester. Inter should have done the same. But training and treatment after the Arsenal game is part and parcel of what's in dispute. Inter's position is it all became our problem after the Arsenal game.
Indeed. In regards to the lad left out in the cold. His loan contract with us is over, yes the permanent transfer is in dispute, but he has no contract with us as it stands, so if Inter pay him his wages they should do the lad the courtesy of giving him some kind of pre season program, like 83 said if they win they'll get it back in damages. Seems like they're taking the dispute with us out on him.
We've not done ourselves any favours, doesn't look it anyway at the moment, but Inter look terrible. I hope this gets sorted soon, for Ricky.
Last edited:
Yes, the pity is the lad can't even have his operation because whose insurance bill it comes off is in dispute. I think it should certainly come off Inter's insurance until the Arsenal game, but if they're right about the purchase obligation, then the medical expenses from that time on should be transferred to our insurance bill. Meanwhile, Ricky gets sh*t on by all and sundry. I hope it's heard and decided quickly, because this lad's in total limbo through no fault of his own.
I think inter should be fronting, even now. If they win they get it back. Spiteful club by the sounds. I've certainly taken a dislike to them. If the roles were reversed I'd be mortified if we weren't looking after him until this was decided. I'd be embarrassed.
Don't even mind if we get him. Good player, very creative, and I follow him on twitter, he hasn't grumbled a bad word against either club or even drawn attention to the situation. Kind of pro I like at the club. Seems a thoroughly decent family man.
I doubt if Ricky's getting wages from either club. He's not under contract to us, but Inter's position is, after the Arsenal game he wasn't contracted to them either! From that final whistle, he became Sunderland's property. Obviously, the hearing will decide which club owes Ricky wages and he will get paid from whichever club loses the case. At the moment, I think both clubs are looking bad, though Inter surely should have taken up his treatment as soon as he was injured.. I certainly think they'll get caned for that. After the Arsenal game - who knows? The answer is lying somewhere in that contract, but until we know exactly what's in it, we're all just guessing..
But he is contracted to them. he has at least another year on it. until he signs a contract agreement with us we're not financially responsible. how can we be? he has no agreement to be paid by us. He has no contract of any length. The court may well say we need to back pay him from when his loan ended once the transfer is forced through and playing contract is agreed, should they rule in favor of Inter, but in the meantime his contract is 100% with inter, the same contract he signed when he joined them. They keep rolling they don't just stop and throw him into limbo, It's binding until a new one replaces it or his present one runs out.
Well, you've put the Sunderland side of the dispute well enough. But Inter's side is his contract with them ended when the final whistle blew at the Emirates. The fact that we haven't replaced it with one of our own yet is down purely to Sunderland's incompetence. Who's right? - we'll get to know that when the hearing considers the terms of the loan contract. None of us have seen it, for sure.
I don't understand what you're getting at fella, I wasn't putting Sunderland's side, I was talking the way contracts work. In order for one contract to end either another has to take over, the present one has to expire, the contract has to be played up by the club to the player or a mutual termination is agreed. It can only be one of those 4 ways. Which of those are you saying ended his contract with inter?
What I think Inter are claiming is that, by the terms of the loan agreement, another contract should have taken over, and if it hasn't that's down to Sunderland's incompetence. But until the terms of that loan contract is considered by the hearing, none of us can know.
But our discussion was based around who's presently responsible for the player. At least that's what I thought it was about
If they win the case then Sunderland would owe money back to inter for the wages they've paid him from 1st of July onward, but until that ruling is made he's on his present contract at inter because it's yet to be voided. So at the moment as of 1st of July, he went into the next year of his Inter contract and they are responsible for his wages, injurys and training. Prior to July the first everything would have fallen under the terms of loan. digressing a moment, I imagine a lot of the courtcase in regards to the injury will be focused on those terms so will be intresting to find out what was in them, but in the mean time until the court has ruled the only player contract in existence is the one he has with Inter. If the court rule for them then we pay the fee, sort personal terms out with the player, back date it paying the Ricky any excess(providing he got a payrise in his new contract) and pay inter damages to cover the wages, training and care they've spent from July onward.
If Inter have left him out in the cold, which it looks like they have. It's very harsh on Ricky imo, but us taking responsibility for a player who's attached to another team would be daft.
But our discussion was based around who's presently responsible for the player. At least that's what I thought it was about
If they win the case then Sunderland would owe money back to inter for the wages they've paid him from 1st of July onward, but until that ruling is made he's on his present contract at inter because it's yet to be voided. So at the moment as of 1st of July, he went into the next year of his Inter contract and they are responsible for his wages, injurys and training. Prior to July the first everything would have fallen under the terms of loan. digressing a moment, I imagine a lot of the courtcase in regards to the injury will be focused on those terms so will be intresting to find out what was in them, but in the mean time until the court has ruled the only player contract in existence is the one he has with Inter. If the court rule for them then we pay the fee, sort personal terms out with the player, back date it paying the Ricky any excess(providing he got a payrise in his new contract) and pay inter damages to cover the wages, training and care they've spent from July onward.
If Inter have left him out in the cold, which it looks like they have. It's very harsh on Ricky imo, but us taking responsibility for a player who's attached to another team would be daft.
Yes, I thought that's what we were talking about too. And according to Inter, SAFC are responsible for the player. They are claiming that from the final whistle at the Emirates, or from July 1st if that's how the agreement was worded, their contract was voided by Sunderland's prior written agreement to buy him. And if a SAFC-Alvarez contract has not yet been issued it's entirely due to Sunderland's breach. Whether they are right or we are remains to be seen. The hearing will decide that.
So Inter and Sunderland are fighting it out in court to argue that the other person should have him as they don't want him and Roma "make enquiries as to his availability". I'm going to go out on a limb here but I think he's available, what response were they expecting?