In matters such as this the agent and player are synonymous, they act as one unless the agent engages in misconduct contra to the interests / desires of the player. In other words, it doesn't matter who filed for arbitration with the league, it's been filed.
This is now out of hand. I find it difficult to believe that reasonable people acting in good faith cannot look at a clause in a contract determine what it means unless the language is so ambiguous as to be unreadable; which I find hard to believe. After all, I am sure that this is one element of the contract that would be been specifically asked for by the player / agent, discussed by club and agent, and spelled out to the player by the agent prior to signing - it's not an insignificant thing. And the language in the contract cannot be that legalistic and convoluted because, and let's face it, your average footballer is not the sharpest knife in anybody's draw, and critical things should be stated in plain and simple terms so that those players that represent themselves can read the damn thing and understand it.
I can't help thinking that, unless he is a real bone-head, Taylor is being mis-informed and ill-advised. Per the latest "quotes" in the media, Newcastle are not prepared to pay any more than 1M; which is such a ringing endorsement of Taylor and an under-whelming statement of his value to them. Meanwhile, he and his agent are out there burning down the bridge between him and the Swans. Never a good idea to burn down a bridge when you're standing on the wrong side of the ravine and I am thinking he's standing on the wrong side of this one.
