Suarez News (#ONTOPIC)

[Jimmy Squarefoot]

summarised from opta

1. Without Suarez’s goals this season we would still have finished seventh in the Premier League.

2. 39% win rate when Suarez played in the team last year, compared with 62% when not - suggests that we are the opposite of “reliant” on him. To put it into context, 39% is roughly Everton’s level, 62% is Manchester City’s.

3. He is1st in the league for being dispossessed. 2nd for turning the ball over. 3rd in Offsides per game.

4. Only a 76.6% completed pass rate. (For comparison, Mata and Hazard were both over 85%, RVP was 80.2%.)

4. Poor shot conversion - 12.2% conversion rate on total shots. (Costa is 22%).

and 5. He's a **** and is suspended more often than he plays and has dragged our reputation into the mud

Suarez is also number 1 when it comes to biting players as well

 

[Tobes]

summarised from opta

1. Without Suarez’s goals this season we would still have finished seventh in the Premier League.

2. 39% win rate when Suarez played in the team last year, compared with 62% when not - suggests that we are the opposite of “reliant” on him. To put it into context, 39% is roughly Everton’s level, 62% is Manchester City’s.

3. He is1st in the league for being dispossessed. 2nd for turning the ball over. 3rd in Offsides per game.

4. Only a 76.6% completed pass rate. (For comparison, Mata and Hazard were both over 85%, RVP was 80.2%.)

4. Poor shot conversion - 12.2% conversion rate on total shots. (Costa is 22%).

and 5. He's a **** and is suspended more often than he plays and has dragged our reputation into the mud

1. You can't possibly say that as definitive fact, he scored 33% of your total goals ffs

2. Those win ratios can't be extrapolated over a season, he only missed 5 games!

3. 4 & 5. I thought he was World Class like?

Let's be right here, he's a total twat, but he's a very good player & you'll do well to replace him with a player of anywhere near the same level of quality. It won't necessarily be a disaster as you were maybe too reliant on him, but he's going to leave a huge hole in the short term fella.

 

[Sir_Red]

No, the clause in question legally only entitles him to speak to a club that offers over the £40m, there's apparently nothing in the clause that forces Liverpool to accept the bid.

However, I think that it could legally argued that the VERBAL agreement that was supposedly made prior to the drawing up of this written contract, was that he would be allowed to leave if an offer in excess of £40m was received & that the wording in the written document was deliberately obtuse & not as per the verbal understanding.

Which could all get very messy if it went legal & would suit no-one tbh, as it'd drag the whole process on beyond the close of the window & I think post todays interview, there's no way he can surely wear your shirt again, can he???

p.s. I see the nasty press who are the route of all evil, have their uses at times then?......just as I was saying yesterday - a symbiotic relationship...

Legal and verbal agreement don't go together

 

[Jimmy Squarefoot]

We may not have dropped positions but we certainly would have dropped points. We finished 12 points ahead of the next placed team so it's a misleading stat.

As Tobes says, he's a top class player. I'm sure we will miss him at times but I'm confident that we will be ok without him.

The reason why I am confident? - Sturridge and Coutinho. These two are more valuable to our team than Suarez alone.

 

[Tobes]

Legal and verbal agreement don't go together

A verbal agreement can be legally as binding as a written one, the issue is they're often never witnessed by a 3rd party.

 

[jenners04]

verbal agreements don't mean anything, i could say my boss verbally promised me a pay rise if i did a certain thing, but unless in writing what legal ground do i stand on? none is the answer as far as the law is concerned.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

We may not have dropped positions but we certainly would have dropped points. We finished 12 points ahead of the next placed team so it's a misleading stat.

As Tobes says, he's a top class player. I'm sure we will miss him at times but I'm confident that we will be ok without him.

The reason why I am confident? - Sturridge and Coutinho. These two are more valuable to our team than Suarez alone.

As long as Arsenal pay the proper fee

 

[Tobes]

verbal agreements don't mean anything, i could say my boss verbally promised me a pay rise if i did a certain thing, but unless in writing what legal ground do i stand on? none is the answer as far as the law is concerned.

That's the issue - proof, but it doesn't mean they have no validity, as that's simply not true.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

That's the issue - proof, but it doesn't mean they have no validity, as that's simply not true.

There are so many issues with verbal agreements, interpretation wording and the lack of official record of exactly what was said.

Not worth the paper they're not printed on a year after the fact

 

[Magic Ted]

A nice little quote from earlier on this year.

'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'

 

[Sir_Red]

That's the issue - proof, but it doesn't mean they have no validity, as that's simply not true.

Fo a verbal agreement to be legally binding it's near on impossible.

It needs to be witnessed, for a start. And even then, unless every single term and point is agreed then either party could say "oh but I meant it in this context".

It's why we have written and signed contracts as they're enforceable. Suarez' camp don't have a bloody leg to stand on and they know it

 

[jenners04]

well if there was proof surely we could be done for breach of contract?

also if there was a 3rd party involved and it happened to be his agent, how would they prove this took place? as couldn't it be argued that there would be a conflict of interests ie the agent is obviously going to benefit financially so could be lying for his own good, how do you prove either way that's not the case?

written contract cant normally be argued, verbal can be surely, as it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt, and how could they come to that conclusion unless its done by the FA kangaroo court, but i don't think they can get involved can they?

 

[David Schofield]

Verbal agreements do not have to be witnessed.

And they are every bit as binding as a written agreement.

In order for a verbal agreement to have no value, ultimately one party has to be prepared to lie on oath.

Not that it really matters, he will get his way, and LFC will get what they are offered, keeping him makes no sense, holding out for more money will hurt LFC more.

 

[Tyrannosuarez Rex]

If he wants out, he could throw in a transfer request. He won't do this because he wants a loyalty bonus, does he really expect one by forcing a move through legal action?

 

[Sir_Red]

well if there was proof surely we could be done for breach of contract?

also if there was a 3rd party involved and it happened to be his agent, how would they prove this took place? as couldn't it be argued that there would be a conflict of interests ie the agent is obviously going to benefit financially so could be lying for his own good, how do you prove either way that's not the case?

written contract cant normally be argued, verbal can be surely, as it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt, and how could they come to that conclusion unless its done by the FA kangaroo court, but i don't think they can get involved can they?

No It's CAS that would arbitrate. All the PL and PFA COULD do is support Suarez during any arbitration, that would be ironic.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

have we sold the f'r yet or has jason roberts got involved

if arsneal bid 40mil again we should report them and stop the amicable stuff

finally... anyone wathcing the friendly today?

 

[Tobes]

Fo a verbal agreement to be legally binding it's near on impossible.

It needs to be witnessed, for a start. And even then, unless every single term and point is agreed then either party could say "oh but I meant it in this context".

It's why we have written and signed contracts as they're enforceable. Suarez' camp don't have a bloody leg to stand on and they know it

Not according to Gordon Taylor from the PFA, who's given an interview on TS this morning saying that the PFA support Suarez in his contract matters.

As I said earlier, this could get really messy, as they are obviously taking the tact that LFC have reneged on a verbal assurance given to Suarez & that the contract was supposed to reflect that, but due to a play on words, has an ambiguous meaning.

His case will be helped by the fact, that when in the history of football, has a club inserted a figure into a players contract that allowed said player to talk to AN other club, but that didn't mean that they would allow him to join said club? It was obvious sharp practise from LFC over the wording of the clause & therefore not as per their verbal agreement...................

 

[HugoEkitikeN01]

In addition, the irony of Suarez using the British press after he criticised them earlier is quite amusing.

Now he wants them to do him a favour and they are falling for it.

 

[Sir_Red]

Not according to Gordon Taylor from the PFA, who's given an interview on TS this morning saying that the PFA support Suarez in his contract matters.

As I said earlier, this could get really messy, as they are obviously taking the tact that LFC have reneged on a verbal assurance given to Suarez & that the contract was supposed to reflect that, put due to a play on words, has an ambiguous meaning.

His case will be helped by the fact, that when in the history of football, has a club inserted a figure into a players contract that allowed said player to talk to AN other club, but that didn't mean that they would allow him to join said club? It was obvious sharp practise from LFC over the wording of the clause & therefore not as per their verbal agreement...................

Surely a release clause is a pretty simple thing by nature and is in a lot of contracts. Ours either IS or ISNT a release clause. Just because it has a number in it, doesn't mean it's a release clause. Whatever the contract says is what stands. Doesn't matter wtf Suarez thinks it means or ought to have been or was verbally agreed to have been.

 

[David Schofield]

Verbal agreements do not have to be witnessed.

And they are every bit as binding as a written agreement.

In order for a verbal agreement to have no value, ultimately one party has to be prepared to lie on oath.

Not that it really matters, he will get his way, and LFC will get what they are offered, keeping him makes no sense, holding out for more money will hurt LFC more.