Guly's Joint Gaff - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

Barcelona didn't "fall upon hard times".

 

Jesus... where did I say Barcelona had fallen on hard times? It's an analogy, obviously.

I'll make it really simple to understand. FIFA are not responsible for Barcelona's inability to fulfil their agreements with other clubs, and they shouldn't bend over to accommodate them.

 

If they didn't fall upon hard times then it's not an appropriate analogy. Because it's an incomparable situation.

FIFA absolutely are responsible for Barcelona's inability (or ability) to fulfil their agreements because they're the ones imposing the ban. As judge, jury and executioner it is their duty to make the situation as fair as possible to non-offending parties.

If a person is sent to jail and has previously agreed-upon contracts which benefit a third party, that contract is still binding because that third party is rightly still due that benefit. THAT is an appropriate analogy.

 

It's a perfectly fine analogy, the point is that one party is not able to fulfil their agreements due to external factors, and those external factors are not responsible for their broken promises.

Have another analogy, which no doubt will not be appropriate either for some trivial reason. I commit a crime and get put in prison, therefore I'm unable to go and meet my grandmother for afternoon tea. Is the government obligated to let me out to fulfil my appointment? No, of course not.

The rules are very clear and Barcelona broke them. They have not even denied breaking them. Tough ****, other clubs. Take it up with Barcelona.

 

The "trivial" reason that this latest analogy is complete **** is that the grandmother is not a beneficiary to that agreement, and I highly doubt there's a contract involved. Barcelona have broken the rules and are being punished, after their pre-existing obligations to beneficiaries of legally binding contracts have been met.

I've provided you with a perfect example of how this principle works in contract law, and you think you can counter it with an analogy that has nothing to do with contracts. Bizarre.

 

Ok say I've got a contract with my grandmother then. I'm the one who's broken it, not the authorities. If Barcelona have contractual obligations then they are the ones breaching them, and they are liable for that, not FIFA. Sorry, but your pedantry over analogies is moot: if you break the rules in any other walk of life, you don't get to appeal to the authorities to let you off because someone else was unfortunate enough to have an agreement with you.

 

If you have a contract with your grandmother, in which you agree to buy her a meal, and you are sentenced to jail before you are able to complete the contract, your grandmother will be able to take legal action to claim the value of the agreement.

Barcelona haven't been let off, they've had their punishment suspended. If Barcelona have contractual obligations, it is up to the judicial body to ensure that those obligations are met. That is a precedent which exists in all law, and therefore also in football.

 

Yes, from me, not the government. Any clubs Barcelona had a contract with would take action against Barcelona. FIFA have no obligation here.

 

I'm so glad ptf found Beefy's

 

Who the **** suggested otherwise?! The government exists to ensure they get what they're owed FROM YOU. FIFA is ensuring that Gladbach and Dinamo Zagreb get their money FROM BARCELONA.

 

You can thank Beefy for that

And don't worry, I won't be darkening this corner of the forum with any regularity.

You did. If I am imprisoned the government is enforcing the law, not acting to ensure they get paid. FIFA is enforcing the law, they are not liable for the losses of any club who has an agreement with Barcelona and are under no obligation to allow Barcelona to fulfil those agreements.

 

Wish I hadn't brought it up in Beefy's before finding out it was already in the Summer Transfer thread...

 

I've never seen a person with such little knowledge speak with such arrogant conviction. I don't think you even know what "liable" means. Barcelona is liable. FIFA is enforcing the law, yes. And the law is that Barcelona have contractual obligations which must be met. FIFA's obligation, as a governing body, is to ensure the law is upheld.

 

Find me one quote from FIFA saying they took the fortunes of these other clubs into consideration in their judgement, or any source saying they must allow Barcelona to fulfil their obligations, then I'll happily bow to your superior knowledge.

You can't of course, because they don't have to. Barcelona can be made to pay reparations to those clubs, if indeed they are in breach of a contract, by the courts. FIFA have no part in that, and they certainly don't have to ensure that those players are transferred.

 

#misappliedcontractlawoutofbeefys

 

I don't need to. It doesn't matter what FIFA did or didn't take into consideration when making their judgement, because Barcelona have an obligation to complete their part of a binding contract regardless.

There would be no breach of contract. Barcelona have full intention of completing the contract, and FIFA disallowing them from doing so would fall under the definition of "impossibility of performance", not a breach. Impossibility of performance caused by FIFA would be going completely against a key ideal of contract law that a contract should always be honoured unless physically impossible, and a rule of football should sure as hell not be taking precedence over contract law.

 

I can see Joe's point but I'm not sure the other parties come into it really. It seems to me it's a simple situation. Barca are allowed to appeal the decision, were always going to appeal the decision (as is their right) and so the ban was always going to be put back.

When you get down to it I don't think FIFA and UEFA have the balls to enforce a ban like this on a really big club. It wouldn't surprise me if the ban eventually gets downgraded to a fine. Even if the punishment does end up being a transfer ban it may well be something effectively meaningless, like a ban that covers one January window.

 

Find me one source that says that FIFA are obliged to suspend Barcelona's punishment so that they can fulfil these hypothetical contracts. If you were right, Barcelona could suspend their punishment indefinitely by simply agreeing to buy or sell more players.

Yes, but their route of appeal is to the CAS, which would not be able to rule on this before the penalty comes into effect, which is the real reason FIFA have done this.

 

Ultimately yes although I think the first appeal is to FIFA and if they're still not happy after that then they can go to CAS. The point is that if anyone is appealing a decision like this it's not unreasonable that the sentence is deferred.

 

Well it's not unreasonable if they have any reasonable grounds on which to appeal, which since they haven't even denied their guilt, I don't believe they do. I don't think the CAS would find in their favour which is why I think FIFA's judgement is unwarranted.