Toby

[BlakeySFC]

Mail says Saints did know that AM intended to pay the cash but that it may not have been paid on time.

 

Also says the Spurs deal still almost certain to happen and he was expected to hold talks with them tomorrow but possibly wil be delayed now.

 

Privately he prefers a Spurs move apparently.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3150195/Southampton-believe-entitled-sign-Toby-Alderweireld-Atletico-Madrid-fail-cancel-6-8m-buy-clause-Tottenham-agree-11-5m-fee-defender.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

 

Sounds like bo!!ocks to me.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Sounds like bo!!ocks to me.

 

Which bit?

 

Sounds plausible that thy told us they were invoking the clause but didn't pay up in time . Something's obviously happened their end and not paying in time is as likely as not having done anything and just let the clause time out .

 

A lot of reports suggest Levy was over there and an agreement reached .

 

It's perfectly plausible that he prefers spurs over us , in fact I'd say most neutrals would suggest it was ******** that he preferred saints to spurs .

[The9]

I don't believe so. IMHO, AM are trying it on - see if they can sell TA at a higher amount than agreed with us, which Spurs have done, and then just sell him and ignore the clause to sell to us at the agreed amount WITHOUT paying us the compensation. They probably believed that we would not go legal (and we have not yet done so, just said we are thinking about it. Probably cost us more than the 2M Euro compensation fee in legal fees to take them to court with uncertainty of outcome, so they gambled on us not doing so).

 

Also another reason for not cancelling the buyout option was in case no one else wanted Toby, then we would have to buy him. Let's face it, apart from Spurs no one else seems remotely interested (personally don't really believe the Chelsea interest - they would have him in a heart beat if they were serious).

 

If what Saints have said is the case, Atletico don't have a player to sell, as contractually he's already ours.

 

As far as I can see there are only three possible situations of fact and two of them are legally binding.

 

1) Atletico didn't pay the clause to cancel our loan to buy deal in time. No discussion to be had no matter what Atletico try and do, he is our player, we can pay them whenever we feel like it and he's still our player. In fact, taking the Portsmouth precedent as an example, we can even not pay them and default on a load of agreed payments to them for a player and there's still no contractual basis for "returning him" to his previous club. But that's an aside, we wouldn't do that. The point is, they had a legally enforceable cut off date and if they have failed to meet it, he's our player.

 

This does somewhat rely on the information on here from a year ago being accurate, that in order to complete a loan-to-buy internationally, you have to have agreed the contract for the full term for the player. If we don't actually have signed contracts for the full term already signed, the failed attempt to invoke a termination deal could in itself be evidence for legal enforcement of the long term Saints contract, otherwise what would Atletico be paying Saints for?

 

2) Atletico paid the buy out in time. He's their player. We don't have a leg to stand on, loan contract is fulfilled, break clause completed. They can do what they want with Alderweireld, including selling him to anyone they like (which still includes Saints, who in this situation are already £1.5m better off).

 

3) There is a genuine legal dispute about whether the clause was invoked or not. This could involve Saints not having received notification or the payment but Atletico having proof of both those, or some questionable language in the contracts which show ambiguity. Lawyers win, Alderweireld's contractual status probably gets held up until lawyers sort it out. I'd be VERY surprised if Saints weren't exceptional in these matters given our general competence in these matters.

 

I fail to see how any of those situations involves anyone paying compensation or a higher transfer amount to anyone. They have either invoked the contract break to prevent Toby being our player, or they have not. Nothing to consider, no legal basis for us to pay any more money to them (we have a fixed, agreed, contractually binding fee) and no negotiation to take place. Atletico can claim what they want and try and run roughshod over us if they wish, but if they've agreed a binding contract and failed to meet the conditions of the break clause they haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

The only real question here is which of these three situations is actually the case, and if it was 2), Saints simply have nothing to gain from challenging it - they obviously think they have grounds to block Atletico selling what is effectively already our player to someone else. So I'm inclined to think it's 1) and Atletico are taking the p155 or 3) and there's a genuine ambiguity in the contracts which could be a bundle of hassle for everyone.

Edited 5 July, 2015 by The9

[Matthew Le God]

They can do what they want with Alderweireld, including selling him to anyone they like (which still includes Saints, who in this situation are already £1.5m better off).

 

In order for a transfer to happen the player has to agree to it.

[The9]

In order for a transfer to happen the player has to agree to it.

 

Yes, but he has already agreed to a Saints contract - which is addressed by the question I mentioned in 1) about whether the full-term paperwork has to be done up front for international loan-to-buys, as was suggested on here last summer.

 

If that is required up front (including term, wages, etc), he's already agreed to the transfer and there's a 4/5 year contract which says so and an unenforced break clause which says it's now a valid long term contract.

 

------------------------------

 

Having re-read that, you're just being odious again and pointing out that they can't "do what they want" without his say so. Yeah, we know... but it's completely irrelevant. In that circumstance (scenario 2), as far as we're concerned they can do what they like, as it's none of our business.

Edited 5 July, 2015 by The9
MLG irrelevance.

[Redslo]

So damn yankie. Go self righteous one go.

 

Your response sounds insulting, but I actually don't understand what it is supposed to mean.

 

You don't get this in football manager do you pal.

 

This insulting response I do understand, but it is pointless. I use FM information for a few purposes. This, obviously, is not one of them. So what is your point?

 

All this on a Sunday Night, god knows what will happen tomorrow!!

 

More twists and turns than a twisty turny thing

 

I almost want to stay up all night to see what happens.

[Saint IQ]

Some loans especially for established top players rather than young ones, have loan fees paid up front on top of the wages paid for the player. Does anyone know if we had one in Toby's deal?

[Saint IQ]

Quote from a spurs fan on twitter. "Fair to say relations between saints and #thfc are probably at an all time low. We are to them what Real are to us. #foodchain". Yeah that's why you're getting Morgan and Jay Rod this year.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If what Saints have said is the case, Atletico don't have a player to sell, as contractually he's already ours.

 

As far as I can see there are only three possible situations of fact and two of them are legally binding.

 

1) Atletico didn't pay the clause to cancel our loan to buy deal in time. No discussion to be had no matter what Atletico try and do, he is our player, we can pay them whenever we feel like it and he's still our player. In fact, taking the Portsmouth precedent as an example, we can even not pay them and default on a load of agreed payments to them for a player and there's still no contractual basis for "returning him" to his previous club. But that's an aside, we wouldn't do that. The point is, they had a legally enforceable cut off date and if they have failed to meet it, he's our player.

 

This does somewhat rely on the information on here from a year ago being accurate, that in order to complete a loan-to-buy internationally, you have to have agreed the contract for the full term for the player. If we don't actually have signed contracts for the full term already signed, the failed attempt to invoke a termination deal could in itself be evidence for legal enforcement of the long term Saints contract, otherwise what would Atletico be paying Saints for?

 

2) Atletico paid the buy out in time. He's their player. We don't have a leg to stand on, loan contract is fulfilled, break clause completed. They can do what they want with Alderweireld, including selling him to anyone they like (which still includes Saints, who in this situation are already £1.5m better off).

 

3) There is a genuine legal dispute about whether the clause was invoked or not. This could involve Saints not having received notification or the payment but Atletico having proof of both those, or some questionable language in the contracts which show ambiguity. Lawyers win, Alderweireld's contractual status probably gets held up until lawyers sort it out. I'd be VERY surprised if Saints weren't exceptional in these matters given our general competence in these matters.

 

I fail to see how any of those situations involves anyone paying compensation or a higher transfer amount to anyone. They have either invoked the contract break to prevent Toby being our player, or they have not. Nothing to consider, no legal basis for us to pay any more money to them (we have a fixed, agreed, contractually binding fee) and no negotiation to take place. Atletico can claim what they want and try and run roughshod over us if they wish, but if they've agreed a binding contract and failed to meet the conditions of the break clause they haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

The only real question here is which of these three situations is actually the case, and if it was 2), Saints simply have nothing to gain from challenging it - they obviously think they have grounds to block Atletico selling what is effectively already our player to someone else. So I'm inclined to think it's 1) and Atletico are taking the p155 or 3) and there's a genuine ambiguity in the contracts which could be a bundle of hassle for everyone.

 

What happens if AM had notified us that they were going to buy out the clause , but hadn't paid it . They are guilty of late payment , but plenty of clubs have been late in paying transfer fees . They may well want to pay the buy out fee with money they get from spurs . Morally wrong , but not black and white . I guess it all depends on the wording of the deal , was it specifically linked to saints receiving the cash by X date or did they just need to notify us by that date . It seems unbeliable that a club could be so unprofessional as to not notify us in time , so being late with the payment seems the most likely to me . Maybe a late payment does trigger Saints clause , but who knows .

 

My gut feeling is he may have to come out and ask for a move to spurs . We may get a few extra quid , but I can't see us forcing a player to sign , who has said he wants to go elsewhere . I know people will jump up and down and say he's said he's happy coming here , but that was when it was all up in the air . What do people think his choice will be if he's forced to make one ? And quite frankly if he wants to sign for spurs **** him , let's get someone else in.

[brett24]

@HLNinEngeland: Alderweireld is expected to travel to London today for his medical. #THFC

[thefuriousb]

Quote from a spurs fan on twitter. "Fair to say relations between saints and #thfc are probably at an all time low. We are to them what Real are to us. #foodchain". Yeah that's why you're getting Morgan and Jay Rod this year.

 

There is an interesting point about the relations. Poch still professes to "love" saints and still does live locally (I think) - could he just decide to move on if Saints do have a legally binding deal to sign? Could Levy walk away feeling AM have made him look stupid for agreeing a deal to buy a player who has a legally binding contract with another - which happens to be a fellow member of their 'members' club'. The premier league do have their own self regulated rules on conduct and practise.

 

Either way, this transfer has become very very messy and a sour taste in the mouth will be left long after it is resolved. Not a good PR exercise for the clubs and league

 

This one has a way to play but honour could yet still play some part too

[Jack]

3 points, and I'm ITK on these:

 

- it's complicated

- Nobody who is actually ITK is going to be revealing anything much at the moment, because of point #1

- Tottenham Hotspur can f*ck off

[St Chalet]

The contractual mess means we should do well out of any scenario. In reality I think Toby will end up where he himself prefers unless this latest twist prices Spurs out.

[Special K]

3 points, and I'm ITK on these:

 

- it's complicated

- Nobody who is actually ITK is going to be revealing anything much at the moment, because of point #1

- Tottenham Hotspur can f*ck off

 

Gets my vote!

[Pilchards]

My gut feeling is he may have to come out and ask for a move to spurs . We may get a few extra quid , but I can't see us forcing a player to sign , who has said he wants to go elsewhere . I know people will jump up and down and say he's said he's happy coming here , but that was when it was all up in the air . What do people think his choice will be if he's forced to make one ? And quite frankly if he wants to sign for spurs **** him , let's get someone else in.

 

I think this is where we are right now.

Should he join a club who has sold Clyne, will sell Jayrod the moment he starts scoring again, going to sell our best player in a few days time or Spurs where I have 3 Belgian team mates plus play in the capital city.

 

Goodbye Toby it was good while it lasted.

[Redslo]

I think this is where we are right now.

Should he join a club who has sold Clyne, will sell Jayrod the moment he starts scoring again, going to sell our best player in a few days time or Spurs where I have 3 Belgian team mates plus play in the capital city.

 

Goodbye Toby it was good while it lasted.

 

In the past several years, Tottenham has sold its two best players and seems likely to sell Lloris this summer. I doubt Toby is concerned about these factors. Money, where he wants to live, and which club is likely to both play him and play well this coming season are probably his only real concerns. After all, if he does well for either club this year there will be pressure to sell him on again.

[thorpie the sinner]

If Toby wants to sign for Spurs. you can't blame him, he was only on loan here! FWIW, clubs our size always sell their best players, it is a business after all! However, the last couple of years has showed me that we might very well get another jewel in the crown for a lot less money! Not being vindictive, but Spurs will have paid a lot of money for a defender who does spend quite a lot of time on the injury table! We move on

[Batman]

many reports this morning that Spurs will still go ahead and sign him and we will just have it out with aletico about the legalities of it.

Probably get €2m compo spread over 5 years or something like that on top of the £1.5 fee

 

some say Toby is due in london today for a medical ahead of a 5 year deal at £45k a week

 

Madrid have some financial issues apparently. However, they are selling big by the looks of it. about £100m worth or something

Edited 6 July, 2015 by Batman

[alpine_saint]

Bottom line appears to be that Toby wont be playing in red and white stripes next season.......

 

WTF did Les and co think they were doing agreeing to this crock of sh*t last season ? It was bleeding obvious that if Toby had a good season we'd be f**king gazumped.

[CB Fry]

Bottom line appears to be that Toby wont be playing in red and white stripes next season.......

 

WTF did Les and co think they were doing agreeing to this crock of sh*t last season ? It was bleeding obvious that if Toby had a good season we'd be f**king gazumped.

Don't ever change, will you? FFS.

[sussexsaint]

Bottom line appears to be that Toby wont be playing in red and white stripes next season.......

 

WTF did Les and co think they were doing agreeing to this crock of sh*t last season ? It was bleeding obvious that if Toby had a good season we'd be f**king gazumped.

 

 

This was the preseason when everyone left and we were apparently going down ?

[alpine_saint]

No answers as usual...

[Saint Charlie]

Times says he will sign for Spurs and thats what he has wanted.

 

Fair enough if true and kind of makes any of our clause stuff pointless.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

No answers as usual...

 

The alternative was to not sign him at all, so I'm pretty happy with the decision they made.

[CB Fry]

No answers as usual...

Chocolate is the answer, chubs.

[alpine_saint]

Times says he will sign for Spurs and thats what he has wanted.

 

Fair enough if true and kind of makes any of our clause stuff pointless.

 

Exactly. Wasnt worth the paper it was written on. AM didnt opt-out in time, still its not binding.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Bottom line appears to be that Toby wont be playing in red and white stripes next season.......

 

WTF did Les and co think they were doing agreeing to this crock of sh*t last season ? It was bleeding obvious that if Toby had a good season we'd be f**king gazumped.

 

Do you really believe that we didn't try & get him without this clause or that we didn't try and make it permanent in Jan ?

[Greenridge]

The leaking to the press of our threat of legal action would suggest we are at the clutching-at-straws stage.

 

For a club that likes to do its transfer business on a very low-key level this goes against at the grain.

Edited 6 July, 2015 by Greenridge

[Batman]

Exactly. Wasnt worth the paper it was written on. AM didnt opt-out in time, still its not binding.

 

some on here who work with these sort of clauses say it is.

time will tell. probably will know in the next few days.

 

some reports say Saints officials are flying to Madrid to sort this out and even finalise the signing

others say that Toby is due in London today/Spurs will go ahead and sign him and leave us to get duff it out with madrid for compo.

[JoeShmoe]

If he is in London for the medical (if) then clearly he wants the move, any legal action is frankly pointless and this is over. Let's move on

[Plastic]

What a mess

[alpine_saint]

Do you really believe that we didn't try & get him without this clause or that we didn't try and make it permanent in Jan ?

 

If you are right, AM dead-batted us at every turn. So it was never going to happen. I think you proved my point. Even Toby said earlier in the season it was unlikely/difficult.

 

So why havent we signed another CB this summer and simply given up ?

[CB Fry]

If you are right, AM dead-batted us at every turn. So it was never going to happen. I think you proved my point. Even Toby said earlier in the season it was unlikely/difficult.

 

So why havent we signed another CB this summer and simply given up ?

In other news, it's the sixth day of July.

[Saint Charlie]

If he is in London for the medical (if) then clearly he wants the move, any legal action is frankly pointless and this is over. Let's move on

 

Could be that we knew that and as we hate Spurs thought we would just toss that grenade into the mix to try and disrupt them.

 

Probably the worst team to lose him to because he will improve their defence a lot.

 

Also takes out our RB cover so as well as finding a quality CB we also need to get another full back in.

Edited 6 July, 2015 by Saint Charlie

[Saint Charlie]

If you are right, AM dead-batted us at every turn. So it was never going to happen. I think you proved my point. Even Toby said earlier in the season it was unlikely/difficult.

 

So why havent we signed another CB this summer and simply given up ?

 

Obviously we will sign another CB but first wanted to try and get Toby. Nothing wrong with that.

[shurlock]

Bottom line appears to be that Toby wont be playing in red and white stripes next season.......

 

WTF did Les and co think they were doing agreeing to this crock of sh*t last season ? It was bleeding obvious that if Toby had a good season we'd be f**king gazumped.

 

There's very little chance we would have got a player of Toby's calibre on a permanent last summer - the player, if anything, wouldnt have gone for it given the uncertainty at the club. He wanted regular football and exposure no strings attached; we gave it to him. As a short-term fix, it suited both parties; but it's largely irrelevant to negotiations in the here and now. The board can hardly be faulted.

 

It's a slight shame that our footballing capital hasn't really gone up after two good seasons and our ability to retain and recruit top-quality players remains limited. On paper, the choice between us and spurs isn't as black and white as some of the other big-fish-eats-little-fish tussles we've been in. But let's see what the rest of the window holds.

[St Chalet]

The leaking to the press of our threat of legal action would suggest we are at the clutching-at-straws stage.

 

For a club that likes to do its transfer business on a very low-key level this goes against at the grain.

 

The Jeremy Wilson article basically says we are open to bettering Spurs deal. Madrid would be mad to sell with the contractual situation unclear and another live bidder.

 

I suspect the leak was to put the brakes on.

[St Chalet]

And as for you Alpine, surely last Summer must have taught you something?

[Saint Charlie]

The Jeremy Wilson article basically says we are open to bettering Spurs deal. Madrid would be mad to sell with the contractual situation unclear and another live bidder.

 

I suspect the leak was to put the brakes on.

 

Hard to see Saints talk of legal action and then 5mins later chuck another £5m into the bargain like it is loose change.

 

Our threat was last chance saloon stuff.

[mulletsaint]

If you are right, AM dead-batted us at every turn. So it was never going to happen. I think you proved my point. Even Toby said earlier in the season it was unlikely/difficult.

 

So why havent we signed another CB this summer and simply given up ?

 

We obviously felt we had a good chance of making the transfer permanent and that it was our preferred CB deal. I dare say if he goes to Spurs we'll move on to other targets. In the meantime feel free to continue to panic.

[mulletsaint]

And as for you Alpine, surely last Summer must have taught you something?

 

And as for you Chalet, years of this crap from Alpine must have taught you something?

[trousers]

The leaking to the press of our threat of legal action would suggest we are at the clutching-at-straws stage.

 

For a club that likes to do its transfer business on a very low-key level this goes against at the grain.

 

The difference is that certain other clubs often do their business via the press as a first resort, whereas as for us its a last resort manoeuvre.

 

IMO of course.

Edited 6 July, 2015 by trousers

[Greenridge]

The Jeremy Wilson article basically says we are open to bettering Spurs deal. Madrid would be mad to sell with the contractual situation unclear and another live bidder.

 

I suspect the leak was to put the brakes on.

 

Yes I guess the club must have felt that, for whatever reason, the momentum was gathering in favour of Spurs.

[Graffito]

Hard to see Saints talk of legal action and then 5mins later chuck another £5m into the bargain like it is loose change.

 

Our threat was last chance saloon stuff.

 

I should think its quite likely. Probably needn't be £5m though

[mulletsaint]

This insulting response I do understand, but it is pointless. I use FM information for a few purposes. This, obviously, is not one of them. So what is your point?

 

I wouldn't even bother mate. Turks is one of those blokes that's so certain of his own self importance there's no arguing with him. He reminds me of that bloke in the pub who always talks over everyone else at top volume, spouting forth about how great they are while ridiculing those with opposing thoughts. In fact I seem to remember he lives or used to live in Basingstoke so maybe he was that bloke in the pub. Thank god I moved.

[Andy Durman]

Since I can remember Tottenham have always seemed to do their business in the media

[DT]

Since I can remember Tottenham have always seemed to do their business in the media

 

Because they lack any class whatsoever

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wade Garrett]

I don't doubt for one minute that AM have acted badly in this deal, but football is a dirty business. It appears to me, that Saints have been very naive.

[Wade Garrett]

Since I can remember Tottenham have always seemed to do their business in the media

 

Whatever works for them.

[St Chalet]

And as for you Chalet, years of this crap from Alpine must have taught you something?

 

He isn't trolling, he genuinely believes what he spouts!