Saint Matty 76 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 http://www.soccernews.nl/news/321045/southampton_heeft_verdediger_fc_twente_bijna_binnen Plan B ? He'll be the Chambers replacement as a back-up/EL right-back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashby Saint Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Ive pretty much conceded he will go to Spurs. To many reports about medical and his preference to join Spurs for it to be BS in my opinion. So gutting to see him go to Spurs. Hopefully Saints plan B will be worthwhile. Need to get new faces on board before Morgan departs otherwise it will be pretty disheartening. But a lot of the internet chatter is one report that gets repeated several hundred times. It seems the original comment was something like. Q: "Would it be good if you could play along side your compatriot Jan Vertonghen (sp.)?" A: "Yes, it would be great." Cue all Spurs fans saying that they are the preferred destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 I think we all know it's probably more than that Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Matty 76 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 We'll find out a lot today with Koeman's presser and he's had an interview with Adam Blackmore. He's normally reasonably open with this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 We'll find out a lot today with Koeman's presser and he's had an interview with Adam Blackmore. He's normally reasonably open with this stuff. Maybe a little too open. "Toby wants to sign" "Confident Clyne will sign a new deal" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Matty 76 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Maybe a little too open. "Toby wants to sign" "Confident Clyne will sign a new deal" For all we know Toby may still want to sign, hopefully he gets asked if he's spoken to him since the Tottenham interest came up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinK1961 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 For all we know Toby may still want to sign, hopefully he gets asked if he's spoken to him since the Tottenham interest came up. Can't see him saying a lot to be honest... especially if legal action is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block34 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 ....."Confident Clyne will sign a new deal" Yes, true, but back in May, Clyne was ready to sign a new contract with us but had his head turned by Lallana. So when he said that he was confident Clyne would sign, at the time Koeman was probably just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 We'll do well out of it - either with the player or a big slug of cash. Lovren summer 2013, Alderweireld summer 2014, hopefully someone equally good 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandy_Top_89 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 It's just a figure plucked from the air as an example of something we cannot compete with, it's not been quoted. Too lazy to search for it now, but an article last night claimed £11.5m to Spurs on a 45k a week contract. If that is true and the transfer passes it would be massively disappointing. Whilst I believe that we may (speculatively) have been done over by Athletico, we could have matched that if necessary and then chased the legal dispute later. I do accept the situation is clear as mud, and that is just my thought based on the limited info available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Mockles Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 I detest Spurs with every living pore. Never done us any favours whatsoever, not to mention the arrogant (talk like we're a big, top 4 club) mentality and general tw*tness of a significant part of their fan base. Stitched us thanks to that equally arrogant idiot Lowe with Tommy Forecast, wrote off Bale's sell on clause as part of that (unbelievable stupidity and naivety even when desperate), pinched our head scout, pinched MoPo the disingenuous lego head, made a derisory offer for Morgan so we believe and I know they think they're bigger and more attractive (in their heads) club and it's the way they go about their business which bugs me most. Way they were trying to tap up Jay Rod and countless others but Liverpool and the England set-up allegedly do that. Numerous more factors but I truly detest Spurs, always like vultures, picking off a carcass only we are far from dying, we are going from strength to strength, we are looking to surpass them and we have a strong squad which they openly show they want to destabilise and grind down, less competition. That's sport. No issue with competition but I just hate the way they go about it. Esp. Levy who has sniffed around and seen this legal issue and attempted to fly out to Spain to hijack the deal to weaken us and strengthen them. I absolutely hope he comes unstuck, trigger happy, helm(et) of the cocky cockney muppets! Wonder if Toby will sign purely as Spuds seem to think they're so attractive and stable purely based on playing alongside a team mate? Who knows. A fairly weak brag. Maybe there is the attraction of London (although Seven sisters is hardly Nirvana but St Mary's isn't Mecca either!) but he loved his time with us and we are certainly a more attractive club if you are a sentient, level headed being. Who knows?! Football has imploded. Look at Stirling. Money has sabotaged the game. Let's hope this gets resolved quickly, for everyone's sake. In the mean time, Jordi Clasie please. Then I won't feel so sad for losing Morgan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verlaine1979 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Yes, true, but back in May, Clyne was ready to sign a new contract with us but had his head turned by Lallana. I suspect his head was turned mostly by the £90k a week Liverpool were prepared to pay him. Honestly, I think the whole players tapping up other players things is totally overstated - how much persuasion is required beyond: 'they'll double your salary'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 If the clause in the contract for £1.8m (or £1.5m whichever it was) didn't exist, I would have thought it would be quite likely we would have tried to purchase Toby over Xmas, by which time he had proved he would be an excellent permanent acquisition for us, or even purchased him at the end of this season, before Spurs got so involved (yeah, sure they were keeping tabs). And of course no doubt for more than circa £7m too. Hopefully therefore we won't get rolled over and just simply get the £1.8m as compensation for missing out on the player and we do actually use what legal stuff we can - if Ath Madrid don't stick to the contracted agreement and some agreement is reached outside of it, I'll be gutted, and it'll be really frustrating. We all know how football seems to be a law unto itself (See the continued existance of Portsmouth FC as a prime example of that) so nothing however surprises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 (edited) 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 Completely different scenario. Portsmouth's failure to keep up payments to Udinese for Muntari (even after they sold him at a profit) proved that once you have the contract signed there's no recourse to getting the transfer overturned even if you don't pay. None of those transfers contain a clause that say an existing deal can be broken with a specific payment - which they appear not to have paid. All indications are that we had to get the terms and contracts of the full-term deal done last summer to get the loan in. That specific contractual clause is the be all and end all of this legal situation. Without them making that payment in time, they no longer have any rights to the player. They can notify us all they want, but if the contract specifies payment before a certain date (which seems likely), they've failed to meet those terms. It's not the same as "failing to meet a scheduled payment" because they had to actively do something to prevent him being our player as per the 2014 deal. Also, he can't be forced to choose unless Atletico HAVE paid up the break clause (and I seriously doubt we'd be saying they hadn't if they had), in which case I suspect any negotiation with Atletico on our part after that would just be to drive the price up on Spurs. FWIW I have seen today that Atletico's plan is to sell to Spurs and pay us off with that money. Er... good luck with that if the break clause hinged on Atletico paying in time. Edited 6 July, 2015 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Uwe Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 This story has certainly taken an interesting twist:rolleyes: Sounds like a bit of a mess, and I would be surprised if he signs for Spurs today, as some reports have suggested. Would love to see him line up for us again this season, but I guess a lot will depend on whether he wants to come back to play for us or move on elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Mockles Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Also, meant to add the club (SFC) may be using their heads and threatening legal action to get the deal over the line. They have a point and if AM are threatened with legal action and potentially losing out of even more money, or accepting a fair deal slightly less than Spurs, then maybe that will be enough to avoid being stitched by the snakes at White Hart Lane and that t*sser Levy. Just a thought. All is fair in football as all the big clubs use shady tactics (allegedly) and even Spurs so Saints need to play hardball to compete. Do laugh that people bring up the tapping up which does happen and should be investigated but the tabloids and the FA avoid it. They didn't side step it when they big clubs like United complained but money does have power eh?! Double standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 But a lot of the internet chatter is one report that gets repeated several hundred times. It seems the original comment was something like. Q: "Would it be good if you could play along side your compatriot Jan Vertonghen (sp.)?" A: "Yes, it would be great." Cue all Spurs fans saying that they are the preferred destination. That's precisely the nature of the interview, and all of the subsequent media reports. As I pointed out at the time, it was entirely predicable to see everyone in the media fail to jump to the conclusion that Saints were signing Vertonghen, which was just as likely based on those comments alone. Also, no point getting het up about Spurs, Atletico have clearly told them he's theirs to sell, and if anything all Atleti are doing is lining themselves up for legal action from Spurs for misrepresenting the player's status if it turns out we have the watertight legal case we probably think we do. I note Alderweireld isn't one of our international stars returning to training today on the OS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block34 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 I suspect his head was turned mostly by the £90k a week Liverpool were prepared to pay him. Honestly, I think the whole players tapping up other players things is totally overstated - how much persuasion is required beyond: 'they'll double your salary'? http://www.thehardtackle.com/2015/nathaniel-clyne-reveals-adam-lallanas-role-in-persuading-him-to-join-liverpool-fc/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Stitched us thanks to that equally arrogant idiot Lowe with Tommy Forecast, wrote off Bale's sell on clause as part of that (unbelievable stupidity and naivety even when desperate), We'd have done exactly the same to, say, admin-ridden Crystal Palace over, say, Jose Fonte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewYorkSaint Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 What none of us knows is just how clear the legal language of the contract is. If it's crystal clear that they missed the buy-back deadline, then our negotiating positions remains strong. Toby's presence in London could simply be that as far as he was told yesterday, the Spurs deal was on and he booked his flight in. Sky are reporting that he'd be happy to sign for either club. AM will not want to face a months long legal dispute that could cost them all the Spurs premium and more. More likely, there is some legal ambiguity, and the route to a deal for us is to offer a part-way match to the Spurs premium.... But let's see. I think it's still at least 50/50 that he ends up staying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 See it's on the BBC now according to beeb Toby is a target for Man city which is a new one on me. Watch them swoop in and gazump both us and spurs for 20 million now:lol: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33408647 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Do any of these player transfer tug of wears turn out to be worthwhile in the end? I am mindful of Chelsea paying United an absolute fortune in compensation to get Obi Mikel and he turned out to be utter ****e IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Have 'Southampton bungled it' as I see one Spurs headline is saying? Have we applied for an injunction to stop this going ahead until things are sorted out? Shall we consider just for one second the desperate nature of Atletico (who apparently couldn't raise £1.5m to make the problem completely go away), the desperate nature of Spurs (Levy's previous scatterbomb dealings), and the generally awesome way Saints run the club as a competent sustainable business, and consider which of the three involved parties is most likely to have "bungled it"? We literally could not do anything more with the deal (other than pay through the nose for the player when we didn't have to) until we knew whether the loan-to-buy clause had been invoked or not, and now we've already leaked an "OI!" threatening action if they sell a player we're obviously convinced is ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 What none of us knows is just how clear the legal language of the contract is. If it's crystal clear that they missed the buy-back deadline, then our negotiating positions remains strong. Toby's presence in London could simply be that as far as he was told yesterday, the Spurs deal was on and he booked his flight in. Sky are reporting that he'd be happy to sign for either club. AM will not want to face a months long legal dispute that could cost them all the Spurs premium and more. More likely, there is some legal ambiguity, and the route to a deal for us is to offer a part-way match to the Spurs premium.... But let's see. I think it's still at least 50/50 that he ends up staying. Quite (scenario 3 of my list above). The only thing of discussion is whether the clause was invoked or not, the rest of it is pretty much irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Do any of these player transfer tug of wears turn out to be worthwhile in the end? I am mindful of Chelsea paying United an absolute fortune in compensation to get Obi Mikel and he turned out to be utter ****e IMO. Arsenal had a right old go at signing Suarez. Didnt get him, but I have a feeling that they wish they had Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Do any of these player transfer tug of wears turn out to be worthwhile in the end? I am mindful of Chelsea paying United an absolute fortune in compensation to get Obi Mikel and he turned out to be utter ****e IMO. Gael Kakuta? I'd suggest that there's no correlation between player ability and the likelihood of becoming embroiled in a complex transfer contract situation beyond the obvious fact that at the top end contracts are complex and most likely to be international with the possibility of multinational and/or multilingual legal terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 He was on loan, so that isn't true. A "buy back" clause is when you sell a player and have an option to by him back at a set price. Stupid BBC Saints believe a deadline has passed for Atletico to activate a £1.5m buy-back clause in their loan deal for the 26-year-old. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33408647 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 It seems that's some clubs don't have the same principles as us. Ultimately it doesn't matter if we are morally in the right if it means we miss out on the player. It doesn't matter morally, it matters legally. Legally he appears to be our player, and no amount of pretending otherwise by anyone else is going to make it not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verlaine1979 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 http://www.thehardtackle.com/2015/nathaniel-clyne-reveals-adam-lallanas-role-in-persuading-him-to-join-liverpool-fc/ Do you think the siren lure of a few chats with Adam Lallana would have been as effective if Liverpool had been proposing to half his salary rather than double it? Plus, we do these kind of leading interviews too - like the one where Juanmi was asked if the new training ground was an important consideration in choosing to move to the premier league... of course, he said it was important, but somehow I doubt it was the clincher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeweahscousin Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 The legal action won't get us anywhere. It will be drawn out and we will get our £1.5 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyOldBoy Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Toby was never going to be at this club longer that the single season in my opinion..... he was simply too good..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 It doesn't matter morally, it matters legally. Legally he appears to be our player, and no amount of pretending otherwise by anyone else is going to make it not the case. Often there are additional formalities that need to be completed to effect the actual legal transfer of an asset (for example, an option agreement over shares wouldn't actually operate to transfer the shares, it would just create an obligation to do so when the option is exercised; similarly an option over land would require that forms are submitted to the land registry to perfect the transfer legally). I have no idea what formalities are required in a football transfer but it strikes me that the loan/option agreement is unlikely to be the actual instrument of transfer so I suspect he is still "owned" by Madrid but that they are in breach of an obligation to sell to us. If there were doubts about Madrid's ownership then Spurs would not be rushing to complete the deal (assuming that is what they are doing) - unless they are incompetent. So, actually, I think the more pertinent questions are: 1) what is our remedy for the breach? 2) is there a point at which Madrid and Saints can meet to make all this go away? Re number 1) - unless there is some footballing-sepcific forum for this king of thing that is willing to force the transfer through I would expect it to be financial damages. An English court would not generally force a sale, it would just work out what the damages were (in theory the difference between the pre-agreed price and the Spurs price, I would guess - hard to prove other losses other than procedural costs). That's assuming the agreement is governed by English law. It could be Spanish or some other neutral law - who knows? In any event, I doubt it is as simple as, "they didn't pay up so now he's ours". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouldy Coat Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 The legal action won't get us anywhere. It will be drawn out and we will get our £1.5 million. I thought the £1.5m did get paid to Saints but was beyond the deadline agreed. Hence why Saints are claiming they have right to buy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 See it's on the BBC now according to beeb Toby is a target for Man city which is a new one on me. Watch them swoop in and gazump both us and spurs for 20 million now[emoji38] http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33408647 Fine if Manchester City want him he can come to Southampton for £6.8M as agreed and we sell on for £20M easy as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Ash Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Often there are additional formalities that need to be completed to effect the actual legal transfer of an asset (for example, an option agreement over shares wouldn't actually operate to transfer the shares, it would just create an obligation to do so when the option is exercised; similarly an option over land would require that forms are submitted to the land registry to perfect the transfer legally). I have no idea what formalities are required in a football transfer but it strikes me that the loan/option agreement is unlikely to be the actual instrument of transfer so I suspect he is still "owned" by Madrid but that they are in breach of an obligation to sell to us. If there were doubts about Madrid's ownership then Spurs would not be rushing to complete the deal (assuming that is what they are doing) - unless they are incompetent. So, actually, I think the more pertinent questions are: 1) what is our remedy for the breach? 2) is there a point at which Madrid and Saints can meet to make all this go away? Re number 1) - unless there is some footballing-sepcific forum for this king of thing that is willing to force the transfer through I would expect it to be financial damages. An English court would not generally force a sale, it would just work out what the damages were (in theory the difference between the pre-agreed price and the Spurs price, I would guess - hard to prove other losses other than procedural costs). That's assuming the agreement is governed by English law. It could be Spanish or some other neutral law - who knows? In any event, I doubt it is as simple as, "they didn't pay up so now he's ours". The club could look to the courts for the equitable remedy of specific performance. Enforce AM to perform what the contract was, in other words force the sale through to us. Whether they'll win or not is another matter as saints would have to prove something like we can't get another player like Toby and I agree what the likely outcome will be will a damages figure of maybe £4M to £5M meaning Atletico will be in the same boat as if they sold him to us which will serve them right. Also it might be the Spanish courts that sort it out and all they might do is get Athletico to pay the cancellation clause which makes the whole contract process pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett24 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Spurs will probably announced Toby at 2.30 during Koemans presser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Fine if Manchester City want him he can come to Southampton for £6.8M as agreed and we sell on for £20M easy as that. Anyone but Spurs if it's not us. And City are WAY above Spurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Well, not a great deal of information advised from Koeman. His understands was that Madrid tried to pay us back the agreement, but it was too late. He spoke with the player and believes him when he says he wants to continue here, he believes he will be a Southampton player. That was from Koeman. As we were then. I've never personally believe the ''Spurs are close'' stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Well, not a great deal of information advised from Koeman. His understands was that Madrid tried to pay us back the agreement, but it was too late. He spoke with the player and believes him when he says he wants to continue here, he believes he will be a Southampton player. That was from Koeman. As we were then. I've never personally believe the ''Spurs are close'' stuff. I suspect RK was advised to be guarded on this one, especially if things are delicate with Madrid ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Just saying on talksport (some agent of something) that he had no real idea what will happen. One thing he did suggest was that AM wanted Spurs to pay us the 1.5m and no way would levy (rightly) do that. Basically, he had no idea and can only assume Toby will go where he would rather play at out of the two clubs and it is no wonder why AM are in financial mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 If spurs really want him no way would they baulk at paying us £1.5m Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallagroth Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Well, not a great deal of information advised from Koeman. His understands was that Madrid tried to pay us back the agreement, but it was too late. He spoke with the player and believes him when he says he wants to continue here, he believes he will be a Southampton player. That was from Koeman. As we were then. I've never personally believe the ''Spurs are close'' stuff. He did say with a grin that he had texted Alderweireld recently and then quickly added that this was private chat and then he backtracked to speak again about the public comments made by Alderweireld in the summer. That one conversation reference has made me more confident especially as there was a glint of mischief in Ron's eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW5 SAINT Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 See it's on the BBC now according to beeb Toby is a target for Man city which is a new one on me. Watch them swoop in and gazump both us and spurs for 20 million now:lol: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33408647 At least will then get nearly 14m in transfer fee + the original £1.5 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallagroth Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 (edited) Here is hoping that Toby tells them he wont sign yet until he knows the Southampton situation. Then Spurs can pretend he 'failed his medical' today to keep their dignity. This then gives Les and Ralph time to go bust some balls in Spain and get a middle ground of some sort reached. No court case, AM makes some cash, Toby signs for us by Thursday, joins up with the team in Austria and doesn't have to worry about changing his twitter picture, Harry Kane then gets his transfer to a big club and everyone is happy. We get into Champs league after winning the European cup, Tottenham sack Pocchetino shortly before getting relegated at the hands of Bournemouth, and Liverpool buy Toby and Jay Rod off us for 30M each next summer. Edited 6 July, 2015 by Mallagroth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErwinK1961 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Here is hoping that Toby tells them he wont sign yet until he knows the Southampton situation. Then Spurs can pretend he 'failed his medical' today to keep their dignity. This then gives Les and Ralph time to go bust some balls in Spain and get a middle ground of some sort reached. No court case, AM makes some cash, Toby signs for us by Thursday, joins up with the team in Austria and doesn't have to worry about changing his twitter picture, Harry Kane then gets his transfer to a big club and everyone is happy. Carlsberg don't do transfer saga's..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Toby wanted to be settled at a club asap this summer, i doubt he'll refuse to move and drag it out further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 (edited) I thought the £1.5m did get paid to Saints but was beyond the deadline agreed. Hence why Saints are claiming they have right to buy? There have been stories doing the rounds that Atletico plan on paying the break clause with the money from selling Alderweireld to Spurs! Arguably we don't have right to buy as we already bought in 2014, they had right to cancel, and haven't. Also, this: Well, not a great deal of information advised from Koeman. His understands was that Madrid tried to pay us back the agreement, but it was too late. He spoke with the player and believes him when he says he wants to continue here, he believes he will be a Southampton player. That was from Koeman. As we were then. I've never personally believe the ''Spurs are close'' stuff. Edited 6 July, 2015 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 But too late Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 Spurs fans are generally very confident that he will be their player. They cannot comprehend why he would chose saints over spurs. fair enough but Koeman saying he has spoken to him etc his just him keeping us fans sweet and there is no way we will get him IF we do, I wonder what their reaction will be on the fighting cocks forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 6 July, 2015 Share Posted 6 July, 2015 (edited) Often there are additional formalities that need to be completed to effect the actual legal transfer of an asset (for example, an option agreement over shares wouldn't actually operate to transfer the shares, it would just create an obligation to do so when the option is exercised; similarly an option over land would require that forms are submitted to the land registry to perfect the transfer legally). I have no idea what formalities are required in a football transfer but it strikes me that the loan/option agreement is unlikely to be the actual instrument of transfer so I suspect he is still "owned" by Madrid but that they are in breach of an obligation to sell to us. If there were doubts about Madrid's ownership then Spurs would not be rushing to complete the deal (assuming that is what they are doing) - unless they are incompetent. So, actually, I think the more pertinent questions are: 1) what is our remedy for the breach? 2) is there a point at which Madrid and Saints can meet to make all this go away? Re number 1) - unless there is some footballing-sepcific forum for this king of thing that is willing to force the transfer through I would expect it to be financial damages. An English court would not generally force a sale, it would just work out what the damages were (in theory the difference between the pre-agreed price and the Spurs price, I would guess - hard to prove other losses other than procedural costs). That's assuming the agreement is governed by English law. It could be Spanish or some other neutral law - who knows? In any event, I doubt it is as simple as, "they didn't pay up so now he's ours". Any ideas who it was who put about the information on here last summer that in order to conduct an international loan to buy you have to negotiate the permanent deal and complete all the documentation prior to the loan? As I can imagine that's relevant at this point. Edited 6 July, 2015 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts