West Ham pay people silly wages as well don't they? Maybe it's not just all about this contract he has - maybe he would just rather try and stay at LFC than move to West Ham or Newcastle. EDIT - plus no one has negotiated terms and he has decided to stay, he just flat out doesn't want to leave.
not sure if they do or not, wouldn't explain why we had to pay off Carroll to leave if they did offer silly wages though, i was led to believe we had to make up the short fall in his wage drop, but could be wrong.
nah... he's just on for money. if he'd any footballing reasons he'd move to TRY for england WC 2014.... as he's not shifting he's writing that off.
But he doesn't think like we do, he WAS playing every game in the second half of last season. We have brought in players that we assume are his replacement - but in his head he just thinks its competition and he'll do his best to stay in the starting 11. I think competition is all that is needed to get the best out of him - there wasn't any last year and he had to play regardless. I don't mind him staying one more year to be honest and battling it out - he isn't a bad option to have on the bench (I know everyone bangs on about the wages but it's not me paying him).
hi everyone I have been following the Suarez story and just wanted to say I think he is a joke to speak about promises, didn't he promise to shake Evra's hand and didn't he make promises to change his behaviour after all the support the club gave him, anyway no big deal that he will leave I just hope the club stand up for sense and contracts against player power. in the worst case he can go to a non-competitor for break even £22m or something
didn't he promise to shake Evra's hand and didn't he make promises to change his behaviour after all the support the club gave him, good point hope the lawyer brings it up in court if it gets that far.
The money we paid Carroll was to cover the loyalty bonus when we signed him plus a small signing on fee - both of which we being paid over the course of his contract - so when we sold him before his contract was up, we still owed him that money.
Sorry Liverpool cannot win on this ...because of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability in English law Part of a series on common law English tort law Negligence Acts of the claimant Remoteness Professional negligence Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 Rylands v Fletcher Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties.[1] This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd[2] to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. Justification for such wide recovery has been made in several areas. The first is that, as is common in tort law, policy reasons should allow those injured to have means of compensation. Employers generally have larger assets, and greater means with which to offset any losses(deep pocket compensation)[4] Secondly, it is under the instruction of an employer by which a tort is committed; the employer can be seen to gain from the duties of their employees, and thus must bear the consequences of any wrongdoings committed by them.[1] Lastly, it has been justified as a way to reduce the taking of risks by employers, and to ensure adequate precautions are taken in conducting business.
also if he wants to object to some supposedly verbal agreement, what has he to say about this one he made. "But I want to say now that, if you want to know what will happen to me if we don't qualify for the Champions League, then I will say this: I have a contract with Liverpool and I am very happy here. I will stay.'
Doubt you'll get in to the employment law aspect - it'll be more about negligence and the Duty of Care, incredibly dull.
Looks to be staying at Madrid and Madrid are keen on him and Villa to build a partnership for ze goals.
Made from the finest coffee granules so I hear. Nah, Atletico have denied any bid, and both club and the player himself have come out and said that he's not going anywhere.
Well I'm getting worried at our lack of quality signings. BR has said we still need new signings and there doesn't seem to be any activity. He said the same last year and all that happened was a deadline day scramble for bloody dempsey .
