Suarez News (#ONTOPIC)

[Super G Ted'inho]

Are you that stupid mate

I laughed at Diego because there was no proof, then you reply to tell me verbal agreements are binding which was nothing to do with why I was laughing at Diego, and now you reiterate the points I was laughing about in the first place about no proof or counter claims, to correct me?

Total understanding fail as in you failed to understand why I was laughing at Diego, but no one asked you to defend his post did they

I'd already said there was a lack of proof and therefore very difficult to prove.

I think we are actually saying the same thing accept you're using the words "there is no verbal agreement" which is impossible for you or I to know, that is just the clubs version.

So, back to my point...one word against the other.

PS...see Maidenheads (very good) post for info on verbal agreements

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

I'd already said there was a lack of proof and therefore very difficult to prove.

I think we are actually saying the same thing accept you're using the words "there is no verbal agreement" which is impossible for you or I to know, that is just the clubs version.

So, back to my point...one word against the other.

PS...see Maidenheads (very good) post for info on verbal agreements

I had a read of that yeah and just to point it out, there is no aggravation in what I am posting mate even though you post a possibly interpreted as derogatory comment of "throw a paddy"

From what I am aware of thus far there is no way of determining if there was a verbal agreement in the first place, I find it difficult to believe Brendan would make such an agreement and then say there was no such agreement. I do believe that Suarez could misinterpret something that was said. Given he signed an extension of his contract last season, it would appear that he was not told he can leave if we fail to get into the CL, add to that him trying to force a move and the fact he has said he wanted out of England yet tried to force through a move to Arsenal, I find it difficult to believe Suarez and his agent.


And as far as my experience goes, verbal agreements have written confirmations recorded thereafter by one or both parties at the time, be it email or personal records, if such documentation exists on Suarez behalf from the time of agreement it would help his case.

 

[saintanton]

Surely where a written contract disagrees with an alleged verbal agreement the written one takes precedence?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I'd have thought the law about verbals is meant to address areas where no written contract has been drawn up and a dispute arises.
All the club has to say is "here's the contract, signed by both parties" and that should be the end of it. Suarez' camp read it and signed it- more fool them if it wasn't what they thought they'd agreed.
Who in their right mind would hang a multi-million pound agreement on a promise?

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Surely where a written contract disagrees with an alleged verbal agreement the written one takes precedence?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I'd have thought the law about verbals is meant to address areas where no written contract has been drawn up and a dispute arises.
All the club has to say is "here's the contract, signed by both parties" and that should be the end of it. Suarez' camp read it and signed it- more fool them if it wasn't what they thought they'd agreed.
Who in their right mind would hang a multi-million pound agreement on a promise?

pretty much
With a general consensus that the contract holds no clause to release Suarez to a CL club for a certain amount, it would be strange for the club to then agree to what they would not in a contract and for Suarez to sign a contract extension that did not reflect the verbal agreement, both the contract and the supposed agreement were last summer were they?

Does anyone have a source for what Suarez was claiming he was told, the actual wording? Would like to read that.

 

[Skylarker]

Surely where a written contract disagrees with an alleged verbal agreement the written one takes precedence?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I'd have thought the law about verbals is meant to address areas where no written contract has been drawn up and a dispute arises.
All the club has to say is "here's the contract, signed by both parties" and that should be the end of it. Suarez' camp read it and signed it- more fool them if it wasn't what they thought they'd agreed.
Who in their right mind would hang a multi-million pound agreement on a promise?

Exactly - Suarez and Pere Guardiola are a pair of ****ing mentalists.

 

[saintanton]

Exactly - Suarez and Pere Guardiola are a pair of ****ing mentalists.

Tbh, I think Suarez is just dim. I reckon it's been Guardiola behind most of this.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

Surely where a written contract disagrees with an alleged verbal agreement the written one takes precedence?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I'd have thought the law about verbals is meant to address areas where no written contract has been drawn up and a dispute arises.
All the club has to say is "here's the contract, signed by both parties" and that should be the end of it. Suarez' camp read it and signed it- more fool them if it wasn't what they thought they'd agreed.
Who in their right mind would hang a multi-million pound agreement on a promise?

You could go a step further than that and say who in their right mind [Rodgers] would even consider the notion we would get a CL place to have it, verbally or written, as part of conditions for Suarez to stay. If that 'promise' was made then it was like saying enjoy your last season with us!

 

[saintanton]

You could go a step further than that and say who in their right mind [Rodgers] would even consider the notion we would get a CL place to have it, verbally or written, as part of conditions for Suarez to stay. If that 'promise' was made then it was like saying enjoy your last season with us!

True.
I meant both parties. A footballer's contract is worth far too much for anybody to allow it to stand on a vague verbal agreement.
You have to be professional enough to make sure your contract is watertight to protect your interests.
This is why footballers have agents, it's a major part of their job.

 

[David Schofield]

Nobody wants a 100% 'watertight' contract in football.

Everybody wants their own interests protected, of course, but that doesn't mean you want to be tied down by the other party if things go awry. Always try and leave yourself a little wriggle room.

Works both ways.

 

[johnsonsbaby]

Yeah I know you meant both parties

Whatever the ins and outs of contract law and verbal agreements may be, I find it very unlikely that Rodgers would promise something that he didn't have any hope of delivering. And I'm someone who doesn't put a lot of store in what he says - although he is learning as he goes with regards to interviews.

 

[Foredeckdave]

Let's just say for the sake of an argument, that Suarez took this verbal claim to court. The 2 things that the court would seek to establish are what was said and when.

Now it appears to have been said after the management of LFC and Suarez had just signed a WRITTEN contract. It is therefore likely that the court would conclude that Suarez was well aware from the negotiations leading up to the signing that all vital concerns were covered in the written contract. Therefore it would be safe to asume that any further comments were just that - comments. Therefore they were in no way to be considered as a verbal adjunct to the written contract. Other wise why would Suarez, his agent and their advisers put so much effort into the creation of a written contract.?

 

[johnsonsbaby]

Just strip everything back, what's legal or not, what would stand up in court or not, and ask yourself - would Rodgers say to any of the players that he wouldn't stand in their way of moving on if we didn't get CL place? In all seriousness do you think he would say that? He has certainly kissed the Blarney Stone but isn't that a few words too many.

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

I had a read of that yeah and just to point it out, there is no aggravation in what I am posting mate even though you post a possibly interpreted as derogatory comment of "throw a paddy"

From what I am aware of thus far there is no way of determining if there was a verbal agreement in the first place, I find it difficult to believe Brendan would make such an agreement and then say there was no such agreement. I do believe that Suarez could misinterpret something that was said. Given he signed an extension of his contract last season, it would appear that he was not told he can leave if we fail to get into the CL, add to that him trying to force a move and the fact he has said he wanted out of England yet tried to force through a move to Arsenal, I find it difficult to believe Suarez and his agent.


And as far as my experience goes, verbal agreements have written confirmations recorded thereafter by one or both parties at the time, be it email or personal records, if such documentation exists on Suarez behalf from the time of agreement it would help his case.

I was pissing about with the "throw a paddy" comment, I know you don't like it when I appear to side with "the enemy" (I was looking at it from a neutral perspective)

"I find it difficult to believe Brendan would make such an agreement and then say there was no such agreement." - easy really, if he admits to there being an agreement that that gives Suarez the proof

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

Surely where a written contract disagrees with an alleged verbal agreement the written one takes precedence?
I don't claim to be a legal expert, but I'd have thought the law about verbals is meant to address areas where no written contract has been drawn up and a dispute arises.
All the club has to say is "here's the contract, signed by both parties" and that should be the end of it. Suarez' camp read it and signed it- more fool them if it wasn't what they thought they'd agreed.
Who in their right mind would hang a multi-million pound agreement on a promise?

A twat...?

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

Nobody wants a 100% 'watertight' contract in football.

Everybody wants their own interests protected, of course, but that doesn't mean you want to be tied down by the other party if things go awry. Always try and leave yourself a little wriggle room.

Works both ways.

A contract that attempts to suit everybody, suits nobody

 

[ttliv87]

There's not a chance we will lose if it goes to court, even if a promise was made. Because the fact is, we were willing to let him go, but for a value we find acceptable. Taylor has already said the £40mil release clause is bs so we do have a choice of what price we want. We made it clear to him, get it done early in the window and hand in a transfer request, and if an acceptable offer is made (it wasn't even unreasonable, I think our price was £50mil early in the window) then he can go. Suarez did none of those things, he may have said early in the window Real Madrid was a good place to go, but he's only pushed for a transfer in the last few days which is too late in the window, this is entirely his fault.

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

There's not a chance we will lose if it goes to court, even if a promise was made. Because the fact is, we were willing to let him go, but for a value we find acceptable. Taylor has already said the £40mil release clause is bs so we do have a choice of what price we want. We made it clear to him, get it done early in the window and hand in a transfer request, and if an acceptable offer is made (it wasn't even unreasonable, I think our price was £50mil early in the window) then he can go. Suarez did none of those things, he may have said early in the window Real Madrid was a good place to go, but he's only pushed for a transfer in the last few days which is too late in the window, this is entirely his fault.

Unless the promise involved a figure?

 

[ttliv87]

Unless the promise involved a figure?

The figure part is already in the contract. I doubt they would say one thing in the contract and say another in a verbal agreement.

 

[Zingy]

Exactly - Suarez and Pere Guardiola are a pair of ****ing mentalists.

Tbh, I think Suarez is just dim. I reckon it's been Guardiola behind most of this.

Yep, Suarez is pretty thick I would say. Probably got a very poor education, it's why he is the way he is and goes about biting people.