[SIGNED perm] Joao Pedro

You can be as condescending as you like, it doesn’t change facts.

No club is ‘liable’ for more than £27.6m at most. Regardless of your pie-in-the-sky £50m estimate. Liable is the key word - who knows what we’d end up with in such a circumstance - but I’m talking the actual figure that is guaranteed - you’re talking of numbers you believe we could get.

You can again say what you like about a contract but the rules of the governing body say that can’t have happened - so we’ve done well to so openly break them without punishment if what you’re saying is true.

You’re right it’s not hard to understand simple rules. It’s not a matter of my opinion against yours. It’s your opinion against a rule of the game. Black and white rules. The player cannot have signed ANY contract at this stage. Simple as that.

 

Ok. Again you have your opinion, which you’re entitled too. I have mine which I’m entitled too. I think you’re wrong and way off the mark. I beg differ. I know the rules but that doesn’t stop a contract being drawn up and signed before he turns 18 on a pre contract.

The club mentioned a contract so there obviously is one.

The only way we will ever know is if another club comes in for him.

 

Either way....he’s just scored again.

 

Scored again away against Bahia in the Brazilian Serie A today. But what happened is what i predicted some days ago: Pedro(the starter) is back from injury. So the coach throw Joao Pedro in the line of 4 in the midfield. Playing in that position he was a good player in the academy but not special. He is a very special 9. Not a winger or midfielder. Today(again), once Pedro was subbed off Joao Pedro scored from his natural CF position.

 

He was fairly anonymous in midfield in the first half but as they were losing 2-1, Diniz pushed him up front with Pedro where he looked more effective. Unfortunately, the other Pedro was subbed due to the Flu keeper being sent off after a farcical VAR penalty was saved and ordered to be retaken. JP did pull one back after a rebound from the Bahia keeper from a Ganso free kick but it wasn't a great performance from him.

His goal ratio in the last four games has plummeted to one every 50 minutes. Perhaps you can find a way to get out of the contract. Or maybe loan him out to Brentford next January?

 

Funny, you're now using a figure of £27.6mil - changed your tune since my posts then.

However, you're still wrong in how you frame your point - another club offering to pay the buyout, and give £10mil to Fluminense, could still be gazumped by us just offering £10.1mil to Fluminense, should we wish; and that transfer would still likely be good for us as we land the player and know we can still sell him for a significant profit later.

Where Marko has a point is that this could maybe lead to the other club trying to push the fee they pay to Fluminense up to a point at which it might become impossible for us to afford to usurp it, even though it could still be advantageous for us to do so. Say the other club offer to pay the buyout, plus pay £32.4mil to Fluminense - this would make them "liable" for £50mil.; we could again just offer £32.5mil (still less than the outlay for the other club), however, chances are this amount could then become too difficult for us to finance.

However, I do think that scenario would be highly unlikely, as it would require the other buying club to really offer over the odds to land the player, and it would only be in the interests of Fluminense, not the buying clubs, were a bidding war to occur.

 

As we already have a deal in place, I wonder whether there is an opportunity to renegotiate and offer another £5m transfer and double the buy out clause. Alternatively increase the amount we pay up front, and increase the buy out.

 

How would you assess the performance of the other Pedro, relative to JP? Obviously he's a bit older, though also just coming back from injury, but he had been even more highly rated at one point. From the highlights it appeared he missed a decent chance at the end of the first half (albeit he was likely offside).

The award of Bahia's penalty looked a joke. Bahia's second goal, from the GK error, was as well. Brazilian football in general does seem generally pretty farcical whenever I catch it - I def think it would be best for JP if we bring him to England asap. Doubt we'd loan him though, at least not straight away.

 

I haven’t changed my tune whatsoever. I have said £27.6m is the ‘most’ a club would be liable for. The break clause is £17.6m. Not £27.6m. The inclusion of £10m for the fee is conjecture and not part of the break fee. I have added it because I think Fluminense would add it as well - and nowhere have I said otherwise.

And again, I have not said we couldn’t just offer more to gazump any other offer. Of course we could. But I think if any club comes in with the money to activate the break clause, they would be doing so because they have reason to believe João Pedro would join them over us. So us increasing our bid would be churlish if the player won’t sign for us - which leads to my second and strongest point, that he cannot legally have signed ANY contract with us yet. It’s FIFA rules. I just can’t understand any other viewpoint on the contract situation as regards to the player himself - although I’m sure we have contracts with the club that make us confident in our position.

If any of the above wasn’t clear in my earlier posts then I apologise, but it’s honestly the point I’ve been trying to make all along.

 

Perhaps. but if we're offering Fluminense more money for him then they could still encourage him to join us instead of them; in which case it would really require JP throwing his toys out of the pram to force a move, which I'm not sure he'd do.

 

But FIFA rules on U18 international transfers don't prevent players signing contracts (or pre-contract agreements). At least so far as I can see. The rules are in the context of the transfer of registrations - that's why the English FA are also in the dock with Chelsea.

I would think he'll have signed a pre-contract which mirrors the deal we've done with his club.

 

I think Burnsy is right about the contract position and the maths. It appears we can be trumped. However, Fluminese do appear to have a good relation with Pozzos at the moment. To make it worth their while I reckon any mega clubs would have to pay substantially more in excess of 30 million euros. They rather than Watford would be taking all the risk immediately. Why not wait until things pan out a bit in the EPL and then move a little later like Everton did with Richalison.The other factor is JP himself and what guidance he gets from friends and family. Ironically Richarlison might be our greatest asset in what he told JP. If he wants to go in the shop window and develop, what better club than us? Does he want an accelerating career path like Rich (now being linked with a big move to Spain) or does he want to end up like Kenedy, unloved, unwanted and with his confidence damaged? If I was Gino I would send Papa Gomes along as a special envoy to invite JP and family to a Brazilian barbecue to keep them all sweet and provide the necessary reassurance.

 

No we can't.

Please explain the maths of how we could be outbid.

Unless you mean something else by the term "trumped"?

Considering Gomes will likely be moving permanently back to Brazil this summer, that wouldn't make any sense.

 

If the player and his advisors have got their head’s screwed on he will come to us, as he will know that he is more likely to play and develop with us. If he does well, he will go to a team like Liverpool anyway. I am sure he will look at the likes of Richarlison and how he has developed, and hopefully will want to follow a similar path.

 

What is to stop Pedro simply signing for Liverpool in January. Pre contracts involving minors are very difficult to enforce, so any action against the player is problematic.

We would obviously have a claim against Fluminese but they are more or less broke.

 

We can’t be outbid. Not unless the money gets silly which it won’t unless Madrid or Barca come along. The biggest block to a move happening is another club coming along and turning the players head.

In terms of the contract, from looking over FIFA rules this morning, a player under 18 outside the EU cannot sign a contract or have his registration moved to a country within the EU or EEA unless
1.) He lives within 50km of the border of the country he is moving to and the club is within 50km on the other side.
2.) The parents of the player have moved to the new country for reasons not linked to football.
3.) The player is over the age of 16 and moving within the territory of the EU/EEA.

The only feasible one of those is number 3, looking at FIFA’s guide. And it would require João Pedro to have dual nationality (ie. EU passport as well as Brazilian). If that’s the case, then fair enough. But if not, then João Pedro can’t have signed anything himself. The rules don’t permit it and having looked at various sources online, those rules are for both contracts and registrations. Any thing done in contravention of them, would be classed as a financial inducement to the player and is illegal.

https://resources.fifa.com/mm/docum...ors–“minorplayerapplicationguide”_neutral.pdf

 

Well let's say putting on a barbecue when back in Brazil would not be hardship for Gomes. Not sure it's been confirmed yet that he is definitely leaving anyway.

 

This post is factually incorrect.

 

I think you might have hit on something there Ray about Gomes.

Maybe that would be an ideal job for WFC to offer him, our South American Club Ambassador. I reckon he could continue to be a great asset for the club in that sort of role when he finishes his playing career.

 

You are simply incorrect. You can sign contracts enforceable in the future with parental consent. You haven’t understood the concept of the break clause and are now trying to bluster your way out of it.

 

See my above post which has links to FIFA’s guide.

If you can find me similar from FIFA where what you are saying is true, then fair enough.

 

Fully agree Burnsy if you've checked the FIFA rules again. In English Law minors cannot usually sign a valid contract under the age of 18. Any 'pre-contract' would still require parental consent. This is replicated across most jurisdictions, although the age of majority can vary. FIFA rules mirror these contractual conditions. If the 'pre-contract' is subject to scrutiny it needs to meet three contract law conditions I.e. agreement (freely given offer and acceptance), consideration (the two-way mutual bargain) and an intention to create legal relations (enforceability). Signing a contract under 18 is usually unenforceable and therefore could be held null and void. A 'pre-contract' in legal terms is still a contract, with contingent future conditions attached. The parents would have to at least counter-sign. It sounds like the Pozzos lawyers are canny with the 20 million euros clause as such 'pre-contracts' can easily fail or be frustrated due to a number of foreseen and unforeseen events.

 

A Football Pastor! A more ethical form of agent maybe.

 

Pre-contracts are commonplace with parental consent. Your link describes signing a contract before you are 18.

 

That's my reading of this also. Watford are confident they have made the signing as it was posted on the official site. https://www.watfordfc.com/teams/first-team/factfile-joao-pedro

The official club stance is that he's our player. The clause is pitched at a level which seems fair but off-putting to others.

Watford is a better destination for Pedro. Even Richarlison has recently gone on record saying that Watford is a fantastic club for young players.

As long as the clause cannot be challenged, then Pedro will be our player. I think all Liverpool are doing is sounding the clause. I just don't see them spending over £30m on a player at this stage of his career, especially when Watford got in first at £10m. It wouldn't look good at board level when the Liverpool chief scout has to announce they missed him, Watford got in first and placed a £20m clause on him over and above what Fluminense are asking.

 

If a pre-contract contains all terms of final contract then it is legally binding. Are you suggesting Juventus could have walked away form paying Ramsey 400k per week if he had broken his leg in March? It’s the same thing.

 

You are incorrect. Fifa’s “Dispute Resolution Chamber” has determined that pre-contracts are generally legally binding if they contain key elements of the final contract. Additionally if the parties have already begun to fulfil any conditions of the contract (ie any payments by Watford) this strengthens the position.

 

In the spirit of showing it wasn’t bluster and I genuinely scoured FIFA, I myself will link an article that says I may be wrong...

https://www.lawinsport.com/blog/mills-reeve/item/pre-contracts-in-football

What I would note is the article is 5 years old but if I’m wrong, I accept that.

 

I agree HB1 with your reading. Putting legality to one side, we got there first and should remain optimistic. There could be a u-turn by the player and Fluminese of course. But does he want to play in nurturing environment at Watford for a season or two or sitting on the bench at Anfield getting frustrated? Barring an injury-crisis there is no way he jumps ahead of the likes of Salah, Firmino or Mane.

 

Taking this in a new direction, I wonder if we could do some type of deal with Liverpool over the compensation. Liverpool want to sell Divock Origi and he's in his last year of contract. We get Origi for free and waive the compensation.

Just a thought.

 

Drop Klopp an email. He may not have thought of this.

 

Drop Gino an email. He may not have thought of this.

 

Not a hope in hell we would get Origi now. He's forced his way back in to Liverpool's team recently and has been in very good form, so much so that there's rumours of Barca interest should he decide not to renew his contract and want to leave. I suspect he'll stay at Pool though.

They're getting rid of Sturridge instead.

 

Barcelona are a tinpot embarrassing shadow of their former glories. Once Messi retires, they'll fall like Palace without Zaha.

Origi will know this and choose us over them.

 

They'll definitely fade a bit, for sure.