Does anyone know

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Gil T Azell said:
If she has well done but was she not part of the initial contractual/legal team who f*cked it up? Agreed Relic we seem to have gotten away with one this time.
Like BC says tho with a run of games and decent fitness levels I think he would have been a good squad player.
Click to expand...

No, mate, she signed a straightforward contract. She had no way of knowing that Inter had knowingly falsified it's contents. Quite frankly, Inter are damned lucky not to be facing criminal proceedings for obtaining funds under false pretences - or at least attempting to. I'm delighted that their attempted fraud didn't work.

I agree that he would be a decent acquisition though, and I hope we try for him - as a free agent though. Inter deserve nowt after what they did. I'd rather give the lad a nice signing on fee than pay them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gil T Azell
Think we're jumping the Gun, FIFA haven't seen it yet. He's not even a free agent yet. That's tomorrow and I think FIFA will knock back his request to be freed from his contract. Good knows when FIFA will get round to seeing the main case.
 
The Relic said:
No, mate, she signed a straightforward contract. She had no way of knowing that Inter had knowingly falsified it's contents. Quite frankly, Inter are damned lucky not to be facing criminal proceedings for obtaining funds under false pretences - or at least attempting to. I'm delighted that their attempted fraud didn't work.

I agree that he would be a decent acquisition though, and I hope we try for him - as a free agent though. Inter deserve nowt after what they did. I'd rather give the lad a nice signing on fee than pay them.
Click to expand...

We don't their attempted fraud hasn't worked yet though do we Funky? What if FIFA decide against us? Unless I'm missing something?
 
Blunham Mackem said:
We don't their attempted fraud hasn't worked yet though do we Funky? What if FIFA decide against us? Unless I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

Correct. There's two hearings, Inter's case against us(don't know when that is yet) and Ricky's case to be freed of his inter contract. Ricky's case is being held tomorrow because that procedure moves quicker. I think he'll be knocked back what with his ownership in dispute in the other on going case.

But yep we no nowt yet. but from the scraps we have to go on my guess is Inter broke the agreement first.
 
Funky Dick said:
Correct. There's two hearings, Inter's case against us(don't know when that is yet) and Ricky's case to be freed of his inter contract. Ricky's case is being held tomorrow because that procedure moves quicker. I think he'll be knocked back what with his ownership in dispute in the other on going case.

But yep we no nowt yet. but from the scraps we have to go on my guess is Inter broke the agreement first.
Click to expand...

Thats why everybody, EVERYBODY, hates lawyers!!! They can twist black into white!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Storm
Hang on a minute Blunham? Funky? As far as I know, any contract between player and club involves attention to injury at or near the time it happens. In which case, the initial contest is between Inter and Alvarez. Any dealings with Sunderland were after the event. So I'm not so sure FIFA are going to knock Ricky's appeal back.

I honestly wish that lad luck, and that SAFC offer him a bloody big signing on fee as a free agent. I didn't entirely agree at first, but the more that's come out about this case, the more I dislike Inter's position. It looks now as if they've welched on Alvarez and SAFC (in that order) and that they are now entirely culpable.
 
The Relic said:
Hang on a minute Blunham? Funky? As far as I know, any contract between player and club involves attention to injury at or near the time it happens. In which case, the initial contest is between Inter and Alvarez. Any dealings with Sunderland were after the event. So I'm not so sure FIFA are going to knock Ricky's appeal back.

I honestly wish that lad luck, and that SAFC offer him a bloody big signing on fee as a free agent. I didn't entirely agree at first, but the more that's come out about this case, the more I dislike Inter's position. It looks now as if they've welched on Alvarez and SAFC (in that order) and that they are now entirely culpable.
Click to expand...

I've been saying the whole time that he's contracted to inter

I only think it will be knocked back because it's landed before the other. I think it will be knocked back due to admin purposes as it's sensible to rule on the other case first. Once the other is seen, and we win(touch wood), then I think he could well win in having his contract ripped up.
 
Funky Dick said:
I've been saying the whole time that he's contracted to inter

I only think it will be knocked back because it's landed before the other. I think it will be knocked back due to admin purposes as it's sensible to rule on the other case first. Once the other is seen, and we win(touch wood), then I think he could well win in having his contract ripped up.
Click to expand...

I think we disagree there, mate. I think the Inter v. Alvarez case needs sorting before SAFC even enters the equation. It depends on the date of the established injury, and when Inter became aware of it I guess.
 
The Relic said:
Hang on a minute Blunham? Funky? As far as I know, any contract between player and club involves attention to injury at or near the time it happens. In which case, the initial contest is between Inter and Alvarez. Any dealings with Sunderland were after the event. So I'm not so sure FIFA are going to knock Ricky's appeal back.

I honestly wish that lad luck, and that SAFC offer him a bloody big signing on fee as a free agent. I didn't entirely agree at first, but the more that's come out about this case, the more I dislike Inter's position. It looks now as if they've welched on Alvarez and SAFC (in that order) and that they are now entirely culpable.
Click to expand...

Do you know that for certain? Coz that's what you're basing the rest of your argument upon.

Lawyers earn a fortune defining and interpreting the language of a contract, down to the placement of an apostrophe. "In which case" has no bearing in law.

All I'm saying Relic is that without first hand knowledge and interpretation of a contract, we really have no idea how a decision on a contract dispute might be decided.

Thats why we won't really know how they will decide the onus of the contract until we see their decision. Even then, the logic of that decision will almost certainly be appealed by the loser!
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Relic and Brian Storm
The Relic said:
I think we disagree there, mate. I think the Inter v. Alvarez case needs sorting before SAFC even enters the equation. It depends on the date of the established injury, and when Inter became aware of it I guess.
Click to expand...

I don't get that, if he's free of his contract what's the point of the other case? Inter aren't suing us outright, it's an ownership case, This needs the player to be attached for there to be a case. Which is why I think it will be knocked back until the other is seen. Fifa haven't decided who owns him yet so how can he be set free and who from? He's an asset with value after all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Blunham Mackem
Funky Dick said:
I don't get that, if he's free of his contract what's the point of the other case? Inter aren't suing us outright, it's an ownership case, This needs the player to be attached for there to be a case. Which is why I think it will be knocked back until the other is seen. Fifa haven't decided who owns him yet so how can he be set free and who from? He's an asset with value after all.
Click to expand...


What came first - the chicken or the egg? If Inter welched on their contract with Alvarez concerning treatment, then SAFC isn't even an issue yet.
 
FIFA have blocked the proposal for Ricky Alvarez to return to his homeland with Argentine side San Lorenzo, according to reports in Italy.

Sunderland have been involved in a summer-long dispute with Inter Milan over Alvarez after failing to activate the £8million permanent clause in the midfielder’s season-long loan deal at the Stadium of Light.

San Lorenzo had hoped to provide a solution by agreeing provisional terms over a contract with Alvarez after the Argentine international appealed to FIFA to be made a free agent.


But FIFA, called in to arbitrate the dispute by Inter, have today ruled that Alvarez cannot join San Lorenzo, before the uncertainty over his situation is clarified.


They have opened the door to a possible loan move to another European club though, with Porto among those who have expressed an interest.

Sunderland were duty-bound to sign Alvarez this summer under the terms of his season-long loan after remaining in the Premier League.

But the Black Cats argued that Inter had breached the loan contract by stalling over a decision on knee surgery for Alvarez, with FIFA yet to make a decision on the transfer.
 
I like this decision (after considerable thought). The problem I had with the whole thing (and the reason I thought they might give him freedom from both clubs) is that the conflict is denying the man the right to earn a living. I'm not a lawyer, but it sticks in my mind that there is an. E.U. law against that. But this gets round it. He is still waiting the Inter v SAFC hearing as Funky said, but can go out on loan to another European club. This is much fairer on the player. He is temporarily free of both clubs and can earn a living - but without penalising his club of a fee when the hearing is heard. It's good all round I think - it maintains the club(s) right of ownership, but allows Ricky the right to earn a living and get himself match fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian Storm
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back