Your response to everyone telling you it is not legally enforceable is to say “but what if I REALLY want it to be legal?”
2 Likes
Ask yourself why a player would sign a contract with a club for five years that had a clause in it that said even after said club was going to stop paying you, you’d have to pay them if you went on the play at a specific club.
And ask yourself why a club would offer a contract like that instead of just making it seven year contract initially.
No offence, but it’s a ludicrous suggestion and one that is entirely unrealistic and wouldn’t be legal.
Because if it is a 5 year contract, it ends at 5 years. If there are clauses which are meant to come in to force after the end of that 5-year period, then it is presumably still considered a contracted period and so it’s really a 7-year contract (for example)- for which the player will want compensating?
Just because you sign a contract does not mean it is legally enforceable. A signed contract is not some immutable law of the universe.
1 Like
Please stop typing. As many have said the idea you have is just nonsensical on any players part.
So is the club paying said player for this 2 years his options are limited or is he doing it out the goodness of his heart.
1 Like
Because Liverpool FC isn’t an enforceable body. They don’t have the right to enforce a contract provision after the registration period is complete. They aren’t a governing body.
You’re factually wrong here. I’m not in the UK so maybe an attorney in the UK can correct me, but there’s no body to enforce the contract stipulations at that point because the player is no longer an agent of the club
1 Like
Please show me exactly the words where ive said its unenforceable I will wait for the apology.
Thats for the time he spent at the club, so you are suggesting they do it for free limit options I can see every top player jumping on that deal.
I’ll bite, even though no agent halfway worth their weight would ever let a client sign a contract that included “free” restrictions.
So once a company completes the exchange between labor and wage (i.e time worked at said company) the contract is by definition complete. We pay you for 5 years to do this job. 5 years is complete and we’ve paid you then the contract is fulfilled. Any additional stipulations put on after the fact are essentially non material.
The situation your describing is basically a non compete; however non competes, are essentially illegal in sport (rightfully so) because of the speciality of said labor.
If you come back with some dumb rhetorical question I’m going to assume you’re just taking the piss at this point and no longer engage. I answered your question specifically, it’s okay you were wrong
3 Likes
Why ask me to say the reason it was unenforceable with me having never mentioned it.
Yeah if the are paid for the 2 years the are essentially having there options restrained.
And even in regular business the overwhelming majority are non-enforceable. You cannot just with a clause in a contract prevent your employee working for someone else in the field after they leave you. For a non-compete to be enforceable you have to demonstrate the employee has information that if made available to a competitor would damage you. For example, a top sales guy is aware of what deals you are going to be prioritizing over the next 6 months and the structure of the deals you’re going to be able to put forward. That information in the hands of a competitor would damage you and so a non-compete would be enforceable for that person, but for only as long as that information was relevant (what he knows about what your business plan is for the following 6 months, 12 months etc is far less damaging). If you are cannot demonstrate that the potential for damage dissipates in a given amount of time then the argument is seen as little more than “they are good and I dont want them working for a competitor” and those have no teeth at all.
Those considerations apply to front office roles in sports, which is why gardening leave is relatively common. It does not apply to players, for whom the argument for non-competes is no more than “he’s good and I dont want him playing for those shit bags” and that never flies.
3 Likes
You specifically asked me thinking I was making the same point now its back tracking time.
What youre asking for is a reason that trumps your resolute position of “but I really want it to be true”, which no answer will ever provide.
4 Likes
Thats you.
Shame on me!
I saw a number of posts and thought something might be happening. Frimpong? Vanderson? Wesley? Who will the right back be? Have we moved to the front in the race to sign Huijsen? Any news on Darwin, and the incoming striker?
Nah. Just a load of contract bollocks. 
Gotta love the interweb.
8 Likes
Once again I will ask are you paying them for this essentially a contract 2 years over.
Entirely unrealistic was me being kind. Fucking ludicrously stupid is also me being kind.
No one is signing a contract that restricts their ability to play somewhere when they’ll no longer be getting paid by the club they initially signed with.
4 Likes
Sorry but this nonsense is now just ridiculous. You appear to be an Agent Provocateur so addios.
1 Like