Correct.
Again, why wouldn’t this be legally enforceable?
Everybody saying it wouldn’t be enforceable, not one person has yet given a reason why it wouldn’t be enforceable.
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
No, I won’t.
Don’t suppose you would like to give a valid reason why such a contract would be unenforceable, rather than just calling it rubbish or nonsensical.
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
No, the club aren’t paying him additional monies. It was part of the agreement he signed which included a wage for x number of years.
Please show me exactly the words where ive said its unenforceable I will wait for the apology.
So if there’s a contract between a company and an individual, and the person breaks the contract, they can’t be taken to court for breach of contract?
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.
Please show me exactly the words where I claimed that you said it was unenforceable. Thought not.
Again, as I’ve already said. If a player doesn’t want to sign it, that’s for another day.
I’m just saying it’s possible for such a contract to exist.
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.
The fact that you think a rhetorical question needs an answer explains a lot, frankly. I’m genuinely relieved you plan to stop engaging—it saves us both time.
You didn’t “answer specifically”; you offered a shallow opinion wrapped in false certainty. Declaring something as fact without the slightest effort to support it doesn’t make you right—it just makes you loud.
If your position were as solid as you pretend, you’d have no problem backing it up with something—anything—credible. Instead, you’re banking on condescension to disguise the fact that your argument can’t stand on its own.
I was asking why nobody had given me a reason why such a contract would be legally unenforceable.
100% correct.
Again, if they don’t want to sign, they won’t sign. But if they do, and don’t object to doing so, why wouldn’t it be a legally binding agreement?
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
No worries, feel free to back track.