Gabriel Heinze (Manchester United)

Although I admire Heinze sticking it to Ferguson when he returned to Old Trafford, United simply don´t need to sell if they want to make a principled point out of it.

Shame. Cos I think Heinze is a decent player.

I agree Eddie. There is no way Heinze's advisors would allow this to go this far if there wasn't an agreement to allow him to leave for a certain price.  It is more likely that Man Utd were going to let him go in the summer but didn't count on another English club(particularly us) making a move for him. Now Ferguson is back tracking which in my view shows that although Heinze is out of the picture at Man Utd they know he is a very good player and don't want him strengthening our squad. If it was a player Ferguson didn't rate then I don't think he would care if he signed for Liverpool but this is clearly not the case.

Mancs didn't count on another English side?  Why wouldn't they?

And Liverpool wouldn't be signing a player that Ferguson didn't rate.

The point still stands.  He's contracted to Mancs...okay he has a release clause, but a release cause can only be activated if the current employers (mancs) agree!

There has to be a protection plan in place for the Mancs.

Mancs didn't count on another English side?  Why wouldn't they?

And Liverpool wouldn't be signing a player that Ferguson didn't rate.

The point still stands.  He's contracted to Mancs...okay he has a release clause, but a release cause can only be activated if the current employers (mancs) agree!

There has to be a protection plan in place for the Mancs.

This is standard legal.

The Mancs want to sell him...but will not agree to activate the release clause to Liverpool.

If it was as simple as 'i want to go to Liverpool...i want to go to Chavski...I want to go to Gooners' - the agent would be contacting all these clubs, saying...this guy has a clause...you can snap him up for 6.8mil and the mancs can do nothing about it.  It's not the case.  It has to be a mutual agreement, that's in the interest of the club and player.

The point still stands.  He's contracted to Mancs...okay he has a release clause, but a release cause can only be activated if the current employers (mancs) agree!

Not strictly true, a release clause is a circumstance under which the contract can be cancelled, in this case a bid of £6.8m. Such clauses can have sub clauses, i.e 'unless the £6.8m is bid by Liverpool', very similar to the condition Ashley Cole had in his release clause concerning Chelsea. It is plain & simple, if this clause exists & there is no sub clause then legally Utd cannot stop Heinze coming to us as long as we bid £6.8m. If there is a sub clause then he can't come to us, but it would be so glaringly obvious you wouldn't even need to be a legal expert to spot it & Heinze would not be persuing this case if such a sub clause existed.

You have shown by your posts that you clearly don't have a very good grasp of contractual law, so can I suggest you just back down on this one as it is a subject I am relatively knowledgable on.

Not strictly true, a release clause is a circumstance under which the contract can be cancelled, in this case a bid of £6.8m. Such clauses can have sub clauses, I.e 'unless the £6.8m is bid by Liverpool', very similar to the condition Ashley Cole had in his release clause concerning Chelsea. It is plain & simple, if this clause exists & there is no sub clause then legally Utd cannot stop Heinze coming to us as long as we bid £6.8m. If there is a sub clause then he can't come to us, but it would be so glaringly obvious you wouldn't even need to be a legal expert to spot it & Heinze would not be persuing this case if such a sub clause existed.

You have shown by your posts that you clearly don't have a very good grasp of contractual law, so can I suggest you just back down on this one as it is a subject I am relatively knowledgable on.

I can't believe i'm arguing with an estate agent over a contract - that know-one has seen, or has a clue about!

I believe you probably googled that replied - as you always seem to have a answer for everything - you're wasted on here!

Let's wait and see shall we.  I'll get back to soing some work and you can continue to take over the world!

Not strictly true, a release clause is a circumstance under which the contract can be cancelled, in this case a bid of £6.8m. Such clauses can have sub clauses, I.e 'unless the £6.8m is bid by Liverpool', very similar to the condition Ashley Cole had in his release clause concerning Chelsea. It is plain & simple, if this clause exists & there is no sub clause then legally Utd cannot stop Heinze coming to us as long as we bid £6.8m. If there is a sub clause then he can't come to us, but it would be so glaringly obvious you wouldn't even need to be a legal expert to spot it & Heinze would not be persuing this case if such a sub clause existed.

You have shown by your posts that you clearly don't have a very good grasp of contractual law, so can I suggest you just back down on this one as it is a subject I am relatively knowledgable on.

Well said Eddie I'll admit I'm not too up on this stuff either but I assume it's just the same with any written contract where you can't dictate terms that don't exist as I doubt they included the clause "upon a transfer request being made you may leave the club for a fee of at least £6.8m providing that club is not Liverpool"

I can't believe I'm arguing with an estate agent over a contract - that know-one has seen, or has a clue about!

Exactly. You did seem quite knowledgable on the Heinze contract though Richo. So if nobody has seen or has a clue about it, is it naive to be optimistic on the subject of Heinze coming to Anfield?

Well said Eddie I'll admit I'm not too up on this stuff either but I assume it's just the same with any written contract where you can't dictate terms that don't exist as I doubt they included the clause "upon a transfer request being made you may leave the club for a fee of at least £6.8m providing that club is not Liverpool"

In most cases contracts are more in favour of the employers, rather than the employee.  And when you're looking at the big money spent on players - clubs need protection.

I still stand by the 'mutual agreement'.  If I player signs a 5 year contract with a release clause, this can't be activated as easy as one would hope...I just don't buy it.

Every player I think has an 'asking price' activation in there contract.  Just like Torres.  Torres wated to come to us, but we still had to negotiate with A Madrid.

And that is what Liverpool have to do with the Mancs...who aren't having any of it. 

If the Mancs didn't have a leg to stand on - then wouldn't Heinze be a Liverpool player already.  If it was a simple as meet the asking price and he's yours?

Exactly. You did seem quite knowledgable on the Heinze contract though Richo. So if nobody has seen or has a clue about it, is it naive to be optimistic on the subject of Heinze coming to Anfield?

Wasn't being knowledgable - I haven't got a clue about his contract.

All I know is, contracts are in place for a purpose to protect the club and the player.  A release clause is in place for a purpose, to allow a player to leave and terminate his contract of employment when he wishes.  But, I'm sure this has to go through legal agreement from both parties - as you'd have players leaving left right and centre in the middle of contracts.

I still stand by the 'mutual agreement'.  If I player signs a 5 year contract with a release clause, this can't be activated as easy as one would hope...I just don't buy it.

If a release clause is fully met, then there is nothing the club can do about it, like Blackburn with Craig Bellamy last summer.

Every player I think has an 'asking price' activation in there contract.  Just like Torres.  Torres wated to come to us, but we still had to negotiate with A Madrid.

We had to negotiate with Atletico because we didn't pay the fee stated in his release clause. If we had paid that fee Atletico would have had no say in the matter.

If the Mancs didn't have a leg to stand on - then wouldn't Heinze be a Liverpool player already.  If it was a simple as meet the asking price and he's yours?

If this clause is in his contract, without a sub clause, then the mancs don't have a leg to stand on. However this needs to be verified in a court of law, and if he so wishes Fergie can drag it out just to keep us waiting a while longer. He would do this as it would at least deprive Heinze of any bedding in time at the club.

A release clause is in place for a purpose, to allow a player to leave and terminate his contract of employment when he wishes.  But, I'm sure this has to go through legal agreement from both parties - as you'd have players leaving left right and centre in the middle of contracts.

You're right, a release clause does have to go through legal agreement from both parties, this is what happens when both parties sign to say they agree to the terms of the contract. You can't go back and argue the terms of a contract after it's been signed & any cooling off period has expired. If there is a release clause in his contract & it's being met there is nothing Utd can do about it.

In most cases contracts are more in favour of the employers, rather than the employee.  And when you're looking at the big money spent on players - clubs need protection.

I still stand by the 'mutual agreement'.  If I player signs a 5 year contract with a release clause, this can't be activated as easy as one would hope...I just don't buy it.

Every player I think has an 'asking price' activation in there contract.  Just like Torres.  Torres wated to come to us, but we still had to negotiate with A Madrid.

And that is what Liverpool have to do with the Mancs...who aren't having any of it. 

If the Mancs didn't have a leg to stand on - then wouldn't Heinze be a Liverpool player already.  If it was a simple as meet the asking price and he's yours?

This is why player's have agents to negotiate deals on their behalf and I don't think for one minute that the contract was pushed in front of him without being read and fully understood all avenues that may in a later stage determine who and who he cannot play for clause or no clause.

Ferguson said United would now examine statements to try to determine when first contact was made between Heinze's agent and Liverpool and whether there had been any impropriety.

"We're not happy with the agent's conduct in the matter,'' Ferguson added.
 

wonder why Fergie?

Ed - I don't buy the Torres claim you made.

This goes back to my 'mutual agreement' between clubs.  To sort out a deal worked best for both - and this is what the mancs are not prepared to do!

Reason:  Well, Torres buy out clause was £27million.  Liverpool could have paid the £27m...but it was mutually agreed for Garcia to go the other way as part of that deal, to free Torres.

They reckon Garcia went for £3.5million - he's worth nearer £10million.  So that would match the 'buy out clause' or not?

You talk about 'sub clause' - if I had just paid £6million for a player, and in that contract there was a release clause...i'd have a sub sub sub clause.

We don't know - but we all agree, let's hope we get him....but I doubt it (only kidding)

If a release clause is fully met, then there is nothing the club can do about it, like Blackburn with Craig Bellamy last summer.

We had to negotiate with Atletico because we didn't pay the fee stated in his release clause. If we had paid that fee Atletico would have had no say in the matter.

If this clause is in his contract, without a sub clause, then the mancs don't have a leg to stand on. However this needs to be verified in a court of law, and if he so wishes Fergie can drag it out just to keep us waiting a while longer. He would do this as it would at least deprive Heinze of any bedding in time at the club.

You're right, a release clause does have to go through legal agreement from both parties, this is what happens when both parties sign to say they agree to the terms of the contract. You can't go back and argue the terms of a contract after it's been signed & any cooling off period has expired. If there is a release clause in his contract & it's being met there is nothing Utd can do about it.

Good post!

Richobaz, I think it's you who doesn't have a leg to stand on! A little hypocritical spouting sh*t over the contract that no-one knows about yet throwing your points in about this clause and that clause!

Good post!

Richobaz, I think it's you who doesn't have a leg to stand on! A little hypocritical spouting sh*t over the contract that no-one knows about yet throwing your points in about this clause and that clause!

Who knows if I have a leg to stand on or not...that's the point!

F**k me I hope we do sign it after all the effort that has been put into this board discussing the unknown.

Just been reading through all the posts on page 5 and I tell you what.

Through all this time I have never seen a debate like this go to war!  I hope we sign him now!

I would love to join in, but I know bugger all about contracts, my 17 year old brain can't handle the information put infront of me!!

Just been reading through all the posts on page 5 and I tell you what.

Through all this time I have never seen a debate like this go to war!  I hope we sign him now!

I would love to join in, but I know bugger all about contracts, my 17 year old brain can't handle the information put infront of me!!

Well said the sooner we sign him (or not) the sooner we can get this topic locked.

Always a good sign of an argument when about three people get quoted in each post.

Fergie wouldn't be so bolshy if he didn't think United had a reasonable case and as someone said earlier do United have to sell him? A team that has committed £80 million in potential transfers in this summer alone?

If they want to be stubborn then they can. I don't think we will land him and if it was a year I think he may have waited for us. Two years. Very unlikely.

Always a good sign of an argument when about three people get quoted in each post.

Fergie wouldn't be so bolshy if he didn't think United had a reasonable case and as someone said earlier do United have to sell him? A team that has committed £80 million in potential transfers in this summer alone?

If they want to be stubborn then they can. I don't think we will land him and if it was a year I think he may have waited for us. Two years. Very unlikely.

his legal guys must think he has a very good case or it would not be with the epl panel and potentially the courts unless he is not bothered where he goes and makes do with a different club

Fergie wouldn't be so bolshy if he didn't think United had a reasonable case

On the flipside though, would Heinze be pushing it so far if he didn't have a reasonable case? He has a lot more to lose from this argument if it doesn't go his way, being frozen out in the reserves & possibly ruining his career, surely he must have some legal basis for his argument?

As I posted before, even if Fergie doesn't have a case he could well just be dragging this out to make sure Heinze doesn't join us until the last minute & doesn't get any bedding in time.

Fergie hasn't mentioned anything of a specific clause saying he can't be sold to direct domestic rivals, and obviously Heinze will have a copy or access to his contract so the fact that he is still pursuing this cause suggests that it is highly possible that he is able to go to anyone he sees suitable! I do think that Fergie is just dragging it out!

Who knows if I have a leg to stand on or not...that's the point!

Think Fergie's adviser is on the board ladies and gents

On the flipside though, would Heinze be pushing it so far if he didn't have a reasonable case?

I have always been of the opinion that too many players feel like they can hold their own clubs to ransom. If Heinze has a contract and Man United don't want to sell then as far as I can see Heinze should stick to that contract.

I remember when Steven Gerrard came out with his 'I'm leaving Liverpool for Chelsea thing a couple of season's back'.  All I thought at the time was no you're F***ing not - you've got a contract and you will see it through.

It seems that all the furore is centred on this 'letter' and it is this which is the subject of the debate.  I have a bit of admiration for the player for having the balls to stick one on Fergie but do we want a player who regards a contract with such disdain?

Firmly on the fence on this one.  I don't have much time for Fergie but if the boot was on the other foot I could understand their anger.

I've been away for a while as i find pre season and all the speculation that goes with it a bit of a head fcuk but having read this lot i'm gutted, this topic seems to have got everyone going. 
I'd like to see Heinze at Anfield cos hes a very good player and he can cover the two positions we probably need cover in.
My understanding is that if it's a straight forward buyout clause of 6.8 million and we've met that, as reported, then the player is entitled to talk terms with us.  As for additional clauses, who knows?, it's a wait and see job for fans who can only speculate about the contract as both parties seem convinced they are in the right.
The thing i found funny in this whole saga is Fergie saying that Heinze should show some loyalty to the club for helping him through long term injury, but surely this must go both ways, where is the loyalty to the player who has, basically, been tauted around to various clubs with a specific asking price.  Also, Man Ure have a duty of care anyway because he was injured at work under their employment so it's only right to give him the treatment he requires.  Usual Ferguson hypocricy.

I have always been of the opinion that too many players feel like they can hold their own clubs to ransom. If Heinze has a contract and Man United don't want to sell then as far as I can see Heinze should stick to that contract.

I remember when Steven Gerrard came out with his 'I'm leaving Liverpool for Chelsea thing a couple of season's back'.  All I thought at the time was no you're f***ing not - you've got a contract and you will see it through.

It seems that all the furore is centred on this 'letter' and it is this which is the subject of the debate.  I have a bit of admiration for the player for having the balls to stick one on Fergie but do we want a player who regards a contract with such disdain?

Firmly on the fence on this one.  I don't have much time for Fergie but if the boot was on the other foot I could understand their anger.

I understand what your saying JD but my reaction to Gerrard saying I want to leave for Chavski was, Well fcuking go then. I never wanted him to go but when you stand on a pitch with a European cup winners meddle and say "How can I leave after a night like that" and next minute your on your way to the Chavs! I feel players take fans for pricks and if they leave so what, after Rafa, Gerrard, the Yanks, Sky and all the hangers on have gone I will still be watching the 'Pool. If Gerrard had left after saying that I wouldn't of cared if he signed for Man Ure. If players don't want to play for the club get rid. The only conclusion I can come to is we are getting to close to United and Tagget is worried.

The only conclusion I can come to is we are getting to close to United and Tagget is worried.

Very good point!

 

I have always been of the opinion that too many players feel like they can hold their own clubs to ransom. If Heinze has a contract and Man United don't want to sell then as far as I can see Heinze should stick to that contract.

Good point too, although if the player is told he isn't wanted at the particular club and he has an escape route to come to a club that has a use for his services then he may aswell use the clause! I don't condone holding a club to ransom through contractual details like, but if it's United and he wants to come to us then sod 'em!