[SIGNED perm] Joao Pedro

I still don't think that reflects what the FIFA rule (Art 19) actually says.

 

There's absolutely no chance Watford would enter a bidding war with Liverpool, by bumping up our offer by £5.1m. We made an agreement with Fluminense and a contract was signed. If outside influences try to change that then we'd walk and say give us the £20m.

 

Worse. It's Zimbabwe's dollars

 

International transfer of players under 18 is the only thing banned (with some exceptions not relevant here). There is no FIFA rule against pre-contracts. In fact FIFA has upheld pre contract arrangement disputes in the past.

There is plenty of material online which relates.

The important thing is the pre-contract satisfies the terms FIFA would judge its validity upon. The fact we have already paid money suggests all parties intended to be bound by the terms and will strengthen our case in the event of a dispute.

 

I don't understand why issues like this constantly occur on this forum. It's perfectly reasonable to say "when we signed him he certainly was happy to come". Not sure why it's being picked up on. Even the official site makes that claim. No one is going to caveat a statement and say "when we made an agreement with Fluminenese for the promise that they would sell Joao Pedro to us for an agreed price and if they fail to do so they will have to pay a €20m compensation penalty he was happy to come."...…...it's far easier to say "signed" rather than type all that out every time.

 

Quite right.

The caveat to all that is that I imagine Liverpool or any other club will only bid if they get wind that the player wants to join them over us. If that happens, once that club clears what is owed to us, it will be churlish for us to think we can just outbid them and get him.

 

Wow. This thread. Hope he does go to Liverpool now. I think we'd get 100 pages.

 

If he watched the Cup Final, I know where I wouldn’t be going.

 

I like the sound of this Luigi fella! We need someone prepared to have a pop at goal now and again.

 

Does he turn 18 in September? He can sign the contract then? But have we agreed to him joining us in January? Is that right?

 

The team that got beat 6-0 in the final or the team that got knocked out 2 rounds before that?

 

He can't sign unless the transfer window is open. I don't see why we'd give him a contract and pay him from end of Sept if he then can't be registered. Presumably it would leave him in limbo?

 

We’d do it. Just ask Molla Wague.

 

Wow just read the last few pages. A load of people who don't know anything about football contracts arguing with a load of other people who don't know anything about football contracts.

Shine on you crazy diamonds.

 

I'd guess the intent is to avoid being punished under article 19.

The pre-contract doesn't include any financial inducements or compensation. No money changes hands until they sign the actual contract at 18, when the bonuses/wages start to be paid out. Keep money off the pre-contract and no one can accuse you of making financial inducements, but you have a contract you can seek to enforce once the player reaches 18.

The weird part of the Iheanacho deal is City paid out 300k before the contract was signed after the player's dad and agent threw a tantrum over having to wait for the money. I'd have expected them to get crucified for that.

 

How do you know, in a monkeys with typewriters eventually writing the works of Shakespeare kinda way, that we haven't managed to somehow stumble across the correct answer?

Unless you know lots about football contracts?!

 

My take is we have signed a contract with FLU not the the player (as you say he can’t sign as under 18) , flu have a contract with the player and have agreed with us that he will come to us in January , I assume at that point we sign the contract with the player. I assume that a team can essentially sell a player or keep a player even if they don’t want to be sold / kept as they are under contract to their current team.

If the deal falls through our contract and issue is with Flu not the player. This means if Flu agree to sell to a different team they would need to sell for lot more (30m = 10m we are paying and 20m break clause).

It also looks like we gave them a cash advance of 2.5m as they are cash strapped

Happy to admit I could be wrong in the above

 

Yeah, Man City, he'd never get into their team but would walk into ours!

 

But as compensation he would probably get 10 times the wage we could offer and then get sent out on loan to the Muffins.

 

A candidate for the presidency of Fluminense suggests he would like to renegotiate the deal:

http://sportwitness.co.uk/clubs-presidential-candidate-says-watford-deal-bad-will-try-undo/

Also accepts if it’s water tight there’ll be nothing he can do about it.

 

Any of the 7000 odd teams that didn't get to play in it?

 

A typical reaction when you realise you've made a bad deal. Had Pedro turned out to have been a dud, he'd be happy to pocket the £10m. That's the way it goes. You can't always be the winner and change the deal when it doesn't go your way.

 

We've put in an offer on a house. Offer has been accepted. The house has been taken off the market. Solicitors are processing the paperwork.

Until I get the keys I won't get excited about it.

This situation feels strangely similar!

 

I think more thread prefixes are needed. E.g. pre-contract deal agreed with Club, agreed with player, possible loophole in deal, dodgy backhanded payments etc. Followed by the possibility of whether he is ever likely to play for us. Should help make matters less complicated.

 

Wouldn’t be smart on their end. The Pozzo’s are not to be messed with as Everton have found out.

A club in Fluminense’s financial position cannot afford for the Pozzo’s to go after them.

Unless the Pozzo’s fancy owning a Brazilian club.

 

Good analogy, if legally not quite the same. If the vendor breaks the contract of sale by refusing to complete you can sue for substantial damages. Think 20 million euros.

 

If this guy gets elected I don't think it changes the JP deal (whatever the details) or our relationship with Fluminese. It is in their interest to keep things sweet if they want future business. Pretty sure Gino knows all this and is keeping his cool.

 

I think we can push this to 100 pages! Instead of going around in circles on the contract/ pre-contract argument, as we don't know the terms anyway. Better by far to concentrate on what happened with Richarlison. We basically stole him from under the noses of Ajax. The media concentrated on how a phone call between the Snake and Rich in Portuguese at the 11th hour persuaded him to sign for us. More important were the terms of the deal between us and Fluminese. I can't remember the details but pretty sure we paid Fluminese more money when he moved to Everton. Again not sure if it was a sell-on fee or the final instalments. We must have a similar arrangement over JP. So even a new President at Fluminese does not want to rock the boat so much he puts a key future income stream at risk. Gino can also shore up the deal in a modest way between now and January if he chooses with some more add-ons for performance. An extra million here or there for a club that is big but not cash rich can have a significant effect. That is the power of the Premier League and other than Levy at Spurs, I don't think there is currently a better operator at this level than Gino. Bear in mind that if Fluminese keep finding these kids they can assure their future financially.

 

Fair enough. If he throws in another 3 top prospects, we'll add another $5m.

 

Must admit to thinking along the same lines , depending on how much debt Flu are in ,and possibly using them as a feeder club ,it wouldn't be a bad shout ,as they seem to have a useful knack of unearthing talent.

 

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

I've also never heard of a situation like this ever before in football, which I'm sure would've happened previously (club agreeing a deal with a talented youth player then player receiving a better offer) which makes me think it should be watertight legally.

 

That's a good shout as they already have a South American Academy don't they?

 

Christ on a bike, I already replied to you a few pages back, post 281, pointing out that it happened in the Mikel transfer.

Once Chelsea started tapping up Mikel's agent, Mikel started claiming that he had been pressured in to signing a contract with Man Utd against his will (which Utd refuted).

The transfer was concluded by: "Rather than leaving FIFA to determine the validity of the contract signed with Manchester United, Chelsea intervened by volunteering to settle the transfer saga through negotiation with Lyn and Manchester United."

Chelsea ended up paying £12mil to Man Utd for Mikel (without him ever kicking a ball for them), and £4mil to Lyn. Lyn's sporting director was also convicted of fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Obi_Mikel

 

Worth noting that was a negotiated settlement between the two clubs that would have superceded the existing contractual situation.

Obviously if (say) Watford, Flu and Real Madrid all got around a table and negotiated a settlement that was agreeable to all parties, the existing contractual situation wouldn't matter.

Anyone can do that when all parties to a contract agree new terms, so I wouldn't say Mikel's case is analogous to our current situation. We're talking about unilateral violations and penalty clauses.

 

Apparently he's the first player born in the 21st century to score a hat trick in the Brazilian leagues.