I can imagine the conversation Alexis we would like to offer you this 5 year deal.This is not really 5 years because you can’t join Real for 2 years or you are paying us. Alexis where you going please come back.
Hate this derailing of this thread and know almost zilch about contract law and don’t pretend to do so.
But what about restraint of trade clauses that apply to many jobs after you leave a company, is this not a similar situation?
1 Like
Reason 1. Because you can’t enforce something no one would agree to in the first place.
Reason 2. It’s a non-compete and they aren’t enforceable in sport.
Reason 3. It essentially breaks the fabric of the game so FIFA, UEFA, The FA, The PFA would all clamp down on it immediately.
Reason 4. There’s good reason no one has done this already and that’s because it couldn’t be enforced.
If you really want to know why it isn’t enforceable go do your own research instead of telling people who clearly know more or who have an ounce of common sense that they’re wrong.
4 Likes
You can’t join Real for two years AFTER we stop paying you and no longer control your registration.
But if you don’t control my registration because im a free agent how can you stop me joining whoever I want?
Wishful thinking, blind hope and dismissing reality my friend.
1 Like
Why would you say hello to someone who is leaving 
do you not mean au rèvoir.
It’s going to be a long summer.
6 Likes
1 Like
Please clarify a point in this bizarre contract. Is it only if player leaves on a free at the end of the contract this 2 years kicks in. What happens if the player is sold does the 2 years still apply.
Does it only apply if the join Real on free or still applies if its a transfer after they have left Liverpool.
You understand there is no source in the world that directly refutes an absolutely fucking moronic proposition, right?
8 Likes
I demand that you show me the relevant case law demonstrating that it is “absolutely fucking moronic”.
6 Likes
I’ve seen some dumb shit on fan forums over the years but congrats, this might well be the dumbest thing ever.
People have taken the time to explain it to you. Clearly you don’t wish to listen but let me try one last time.
Ask yourself how a club could be allowed to have any control over where a player chooses to play once they no longer hold his registration? Because there’s already a quite famous ruling to ensure that can no longer happen and it’s exactly why Trent is able to go off to Madrid for free this summer.
Edit.
Glad we can put this to bed.
3 Likes
Well, check ducking mate
2 Likes
These two sentences contradict each other.
2 Likes
But you no longer hold the players registration which means the club cannot prevent or block a move by having that clause in the first place.
Essentially signing a contract saying he can’t go to Madrid for free for two years is in contravention of the existing regulations and therefore would either not be allowed or unenforceable.
Honestly, I can’t believe so many words have been wasted on this when it’s blatantly obvious why it’s entirely unfeasible.
2 Likes
By definition it imposes a restraint on the player ability’s to work freely. There is no reason to think that a restriction is not a restriction because it is targeted to e.g. one specific football club. A player “willingly and knowingly” agreeing to the restraint is immaterial, and the laws exist specifically to protect workers (players) from being taken advantage of in such a way.
4 Likes
Because when the contract expires, it expires!
I cannot enter into a five year contract, for example, and be bound for seven years. To be bound for seven years, I would need to enter into a seven year contract.
People get entrenched, and mean in the way they express themselves sometimes. I don’t have any beef with anyone, but the line of inquiry you are entertaining is not feasible, sir.
When a contract ends, it ends. It cannot carry terms that apply beyond the contract. The player would be a free agent, free to do what they like with their labor in the marketplace, according to who will pay them, and what they would like to do.
4 Likes
You’re literally demanding a fee from the player to move to the club of their choosing which you are explicitly not allowed to do.
End.
1 Like
I would refer you back to @Limiescouse’s early contribution which was to point out that even in other industries such agreements must be based on a legitimate interest that goes beyond simply “we don’t want this person to work for a competitor”.
2 Likes
On a related note to all this, I believe something else is coming and it will rock the current system just as much as Bosman. Real Madrid, by foul means due to their size, are doing their utmost to avoid paying transfer fees. They are probably representative of a future to come. Football is a strange industry, with its transfer fees, and I would imagine that will be tested at some point and free agency will become more commonplace.
I don’t think it’s lazy. We need to replace TAA and Frimpong’s talent and attractive release clause make him a good candidate for replacement.
Historically we signed current Liverpool midfielder Alexis MacAllister for what’s considered a bargain now for his 35m release clause.
Also I heard Frimpong’s contract allows for the release clause to be paid in 4 installments so it’s a very attractive deal financially.