Jump to content

Suing Liverpool for "turning VVD's head"


Singapore Saint
 Share

Recommended Posts

Saints can and should sue Liverpool for "turning VVD's head" by their illegal approach. He is not in the "right frame of mind and we are deprived of his services. Liverpool should be made to pay for all the consequences of his outlandish and childish behaviour, including but not limited to his wages for the period that he is indisposed to play for us, and any drop in value of the player as a result. Why must we cave in/roll over and die every time Liverpool covets one of our players? No more bullying of a smaller club by a bigger club!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints can and should sue Liverpool for "turning VVD's head" by their illegal approach. He is not in the "right frame of mind and we are deprived of his services. Liverpool should be made to pay for all the consequences of his outlandish and childish behaviour, including but not limited to his wages for the period that he is indisposed to play for us, and any drop in value of the player as a result. Why must we cave in/roll over and die every time Liverpool covets one of our players? No more bullying of a smaller club by a bigger club!

 

It's not bullying if its found that someone at SFC is in some way complicit in the sorry affair - why always LFC. And the manner in which agents are allowed to operate further muddies the waters. As has been said before so many times...we are victims of our own success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is that it would mean open season for Lawyers, as I'm sure most clubs can cite a case where one of their players were 'tapped' up at some point. If we were successful, then the amount of historic cases would go through the roof! If you think ticket prices are high now, wait until a few club have had to pay a few million in solicitors costs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not bullying if its found that someone at SFC is in some way complicit in the sorry affair - why always LFC. And the manner in which agents are allowed to operate further muddies the waters. As has been said before so many times...we are victims of our own success.

 

The one person at SFC that is complicit is VVD himself. I'm not sure if anyone else is involved. If the FA won't "take the matter further", we can and should. Take Liverpool to court and make them pay! It's about time bigger clubs realized "tapping up" has bad consequences for themselves, not just the smaller clubs they seek to bully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints can and should sue Liverpool for "turning VVD's head" by their illegal approach. He is not in the "right frame of mind and we are deprived of his services. Liverpool should be made to pay for all the consequences of his outlandish and childish behaviour, including but not limited to his wages for the period that he is indisposed to play for us, and any drop in value of the player as a result. Why must we cave in/roll over and die every time Liverpool covets one of our players? No more bullying of a smaller club by a bigger club!

 

We can, can we? What's our cause of action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id prefer we focus energies on making SFC a place players want to be, rather than crying every summer when players want out.

 

I don't see the same at Spurs every summer and they dont pay the Man C, Liverpool wages.

 

But Spurs are a big club, at least as big as Man City before their oil dollars came along, whereas Saints are a small club. Surely you don't agree with Rupert Lowe that we are bigger than the "North London yobbos"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty well unprecedented to get an apology such as that from Liverpool the other week so surely we have a strong case right now, but who knows what skeletons are in our own cupboards from days gone by (Christ, we even had 'Arry as manager for a short time) !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty well unprecedented to get an apology such as that from Liverpool the other week so surely we have a strong case right now, but who knows what skeletons are in our own cupboards from days gone by (Christ, we even had 'Arry as manager for a short time) !

 

Mané was refusing to play at Salzburg when we signed him, don't know if we had anything to do with that though, just benefited from it I expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mané was refusing to play at Salzburg when we signed him, don't know if we had anything to do with that though, just benefited from it I expect.

 

This is exactly the problem, without knowing the details of deals such as this, it is impossible to consider whether we are 'squeaky clean' or could be accused of hypocrisy !

That's why only Les etc.. can decide to proceed or not !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have two options now. Firstly, we sell him asap and move on, use every penny we get from him to reinvest in the squad. Second option is, we let him rot in the reserves for being a whiny little b**ch, personally I like the second option more as it will show the board won't take any crap from him. But if we do sell him we have £60-70 million to play with and we will be able to get 2 maybe 3 good players with that, whats everyone's thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just let him go, I'm sure the black box has found a replacement for about 1million euros from kazakstan, lets face it he will go and only a fraction will get put into team, citing wages, agents and sell on fees followed by Les reeds usual speech

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have two options now. Firstly, we sell him asap and move on, use every penny we get from him to reinvest in the squad. Second option is, we let him rot in the reserves for being a whiny little b**ch, personally I like the second option more as it will show the board won't take any crap from him. But if we do sell him we have £60-70 million to play with and we will be able to get 2 maybe 3 good players with that, whats everyone's thoughts?

 

What about the third option ? Sell him on and use a small percentage of the money to replace and bank the rest, its the Southampton way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WE shouldn't have to sue if the Premier League did their job. People say it happens all the time and that's the way it is but the Premier league have rules and they have in my eyes clearly been broken. To not take action is corruption.

Fans are now saying we should sell.That's just want Liverpool want to hear. Saints fans are now doing the job previously done by the ex Liverpool players. They will come in with their original valuation of £45m and expect it to be accepted.

Saints should not sell for less than £70m rising by £5m a week as the end of the transfer window approaches and it gets harder to replace him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vvd striking helps liverpool enormously. not only is he forcing us to sell him but is also not giving us adequate time and leverage to negotiate a good price. bc if we keep him against his will, then it means we lose millions of ££ just to prove a point and risk unsettling the squad, if we sell, especially to the dipper cnuuts then it makes look like spineless cnuuts.

im just glad i dont run the club, so should everyone on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the thought of suing is daft.

The premier league should do their job and take action against a club so blatantly breaking the rules that they had to publically apologise.

 

However they are so scared/want the top clubs to continue the dominance that they would never dream of do anything to upset them.

The premier league are weak. The premier league are not independent, they are there to support the top 6 to the detriment of anyone else if necessary. Their brand is built on the top 6 not on the likes of us so I suppose you can understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can, can we? What's our cause of action?

 

I can see 2 possible causes of action (more brilliant legal minds might come up with more):

 

1. Inducement to breach of contract. VVD is contracted to us, Liverpool have by their illegal approach caused him to break his contract, viola, Liverpool is liable to pay us damages, it's an open and shut case, simple!

 

2. The tort of "turning a player's head" (admittedly a new tort but worth trying for, where's Lord Denning when you need him?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WE shouldn't have to sue if the Premier League did their job. People say it happens all the time and that's the way it is but the Premier league have rules and they have in my eyes clearly been broken. To not take action is corruption.

 

Respectfully disagree! The FA is only bothered about their rules being broken, it is none of their concern if Saints or any club have lost anything such as money or a player's services. That's what the civil courts are for, if Saints have lost anything of value, it is up to us, not the FA/PL, to sue for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if we keep him against his will, then it means we lose millions of ££ just to prove a point and risk unsettling the squad

 

I think the main reason why clubs don't sue for "tapping up" leading to a player's refusal to play for his club is it will likely lead to further unsettling of an already unsettled player. Because if we were to sue Liverpool, VVD will have to give evidence in court. He will at the very least have to see a solicitor and give a written statement i.e. an affidavit, which will be submitted to court ahead of the trial so that the judge can hear VVD's side of the story, as it were. VVD might then have to be cross-examined in court by Liverpool's advocate (more unsettling of the player).

 

Of course Saints could apply for and obtain summary judgment against Liverpool, in which case VVD won't have to personally appear in court.

 

As to the point that a suit against Liverpool will unsettle the squad, that is debatable. As things stand, VVD's throwing a hissy fit and not training with the first team has already unsettled the squad. If the club sues, instead of unsettling the players further, it might encourage and steel them, knowing that the club is standing strong and doing the right thing. If I remember correctly, the very first case of a Saints player refusing to play to force a move was Kenwyne "Doggy" Jones. We let Kenwyne Jones have his way, but we were a **** poor club and in the Championship then, whereas we are upwardly mobile and richer now, so we shouldn't just take it lying down this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feeling now is that it's pointless trying to turn VVD round...he's burnt his bridges and the squad will hardly respect him as Captain. For me the answer is to sell him to the highest bidder other than L'Pool and buy a decent goal scoring midfielder to keep the pressure away from our CBs by maintaining an attacking threat. Gylfie is the man to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see 2 possible causes of action (more brilliant legal minds might come up with more):

 

1. Inducement to breach of contract. VVD is contracted to us, Liverpool have by their illegal approach caused him to break his contract, viola, Liverpool is liable to pay us damages, it's an open and shut case, simple!

 

2. The tort of "turning a player's head" (admittedly a new tort but worth trying for, where's Lord Denning when you need him?).

 

 

Not defending Liverpool in any way, but this thread is a bit silly. Noone's going to sue anyone over a player transfer - christ, we didn't do it over Alderweireld where we thought we had a clear case.

 

On a serious point, whilst VVD's conduct doesn't look good, I would be interested in hearing what possible clauses you think he could have broken in his contract - specific points, not some vague "doesn't want to play for us anymore" points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not bullying if its found that someone at SFC is in some way complicit in the sorry affair - why always LFC. And the manner in which agents are allowed to operate further muddies the waters. As has been said before so many times...we are victims of our own success.

 

So why aren't Liverpool victims of their own success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest, if we had any stone wall evidence of tapping up, Liverpool would have been prosecuted by the PL last month.

 

Whilst everyone knows they crossed and continue to cross (ex players in the media) the line proving it is a very different situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respectfully disagree! The FA is only bothered about their rules being broken, it is none of their concern if Saints or any club have lost anything such as money or a player's services. That's what the civil courts are for, if Saints have lost anything of value, it is up to us, not the FA/PL, to sue for it.

If the rules had been applied in the past we wouldn't have to sue and if they were applied now there is a good chance we wouldn't lose anything now or in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest, if we had any stone wall evidence of tapping up, Liverpool would have been prosecuted by the PL last month.

 

Whilst everyone knows they crossed and continue to cross (ex players in the media) the line proving it is a very different situation.

 

But surely, their apology is admission that they tapped up VVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not defending Liverpool in any way, but this thread is a bit silly. Noone's going to sue anyone over a player transfer - christ, we didn't do it over Alderweireld where we thought we had a clear case.

 

On a serious point, whilst VVD's conduct doesn't look good, I would be interested in hearing what possible clauses you think he could have broken in his contract - specific points, not some vague "doesn't want to play for us anymore" points?

 

Tapping up VVD in the first place has cost Saints his services at this present time. That is costing us, and has to be a good reason to sue Liverpool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tapping up VVD in the first place has cost Saints his services at this present time. That is costing us, and has to be a good reason to sue Liverpool.

 

 

Debatable really. VvD could have just told them that he didn't want to move anyway. I doubt that we could in fact sue Liverpool without suing VvD and his representatives as well. When you start telling players that they have no right to talk to XXX about anything at all then you infringe on their personal liberty. You own their registration, you do not own the person attached to it.

And then the defence lawyers will start digging around in the past trying to find some player, somewhere who we might have "tapped up". Could even be a youth teamer from long past. Whole thing would get mighty messy and drag on for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tapping up VVD in the first place has cost Saints his services at this present time. That is costing us, and has to be a good reason to sue Liverpool.

 

I disagree - i think it would nigh on impossible to prove a loss:

1. As far as we are aware, we've not had any concrete offers, and cannot therefore argue that we have had to accept a lower offer from the Bin Dippers than from elsewhere.

2. He's not missed any competitive matches yet - training alone is i'm sure disruptive, but hardly grounds for suing someone. How has this cost us?

 

Equally, should we have sued Man Utd when Schneiderlin had a wobble? Or Spurs with Wanyama or Liverpool with Lovren?

 

In the real world, chucking lawsuits around every time one the players was tapped up would be a complete waste of time and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...