Atletico claiming Barca owe them an extra £72m for Griezman?

#8
Atletico appear to be claiming that because AG reached a personal terms agreement back in March with Barca that the previous buy out clause should apply.
I see their point but that makes no sense really

So if we sign someone on a pre contract to get them for free, we should pay his team a transfer fee because it was agreed on personal terms while he was still at the club? Nah doesn't quite work that way
 
#9
I see their point but that makes no sense really

So if we sign someone on a pre contract to get them for free, we should pay his team a transfer fee because it was agreed on personal terms while he was still at the club? Nah doesn't quite work that way
Agreed it will never stand up, they lodge the money with the La Liga who then transfer the players registration assuming he’s in agreement.

If we get very technical in Spain the buy out clause is actually paid by the player himself so their argument falls down at this stage. AG paid the money himself as in Spain footballers are treated like any other worker (can buy out their employment contracts).
 

Steven

Well-Known Member
#10
I see their point but that makes no sense really

So if we sign someone on a pre contract to get them for free, we should pay his team a transfer fee because it was agreed on personal terms while he was still at the club? Nah doesn't quite work that way
Not quite the same. He legally shouldn't have been speaking to Barca at that point.

Bosman is different.
 
#11
I see their point but that makes no sense really

So if we sign someone on a pre contract to get them for free, we should pay his team a transfer fee because it was agreed on personal terms while he was still at the club? Nah doesn't quite work that way
You can’t sign someone on a pre-contract when they have 18 months left on it. It is fixed to be the final 6 months. AG had at least a year left on his contract, and if agreed in March, they essentially “tapped” him up which is in breach of the rules. If he agreed terms at that point, Atletico should rightly be asking for the fee at that term, otherwise they should be sanctioned for tapping up.
 

ICA_86

Well-Known Member
#15
Griezmann joins the ever growing number of Barcelona transfer targets that ended up boycotting training at their current clubs before forcing a move.

It seems a bit sinister to me.
 

LD5

Well-Known Member
#17
You can’t sign someone on a pre-contract when they have 18 months left on it. It is fixed to be the final 6 months. AG had at least a year left on his contract, and if agreed in March, they essentially “tapped” him up which is in breach of the rules. If he agreed terms at that point, Atletico should rightly be asking for the fee at that term, otherwise they should be sanctioned for tapping up.
It's not tapping up because Atletico clearly gave them permission to have talks.

I see both sides of the story, whether he has held talks previously or not, he has signed in July which means the July fee should be paid. It would be different if it were actual bids, but they are activating a clause. They are a different process to formal bids.
 
#19
Atletico appear to be claiming that because AG reached a personal terms agreement back in March with Barca that the previous buy out clause should apply.
This. Barcelona and Madrid are a liberty when it comes to transfers, using a compliant media and all manner of tapping up. Guardiola should have been banned from football for a year in tapping up Coutinho for his former club, whilst Manager of plastic FC.
 
#20
I see their point but that makes no sense really

So if we sign someone on a pre contract to get them for free, we should pay his team a transfer fee because it was agreed on personal terms while he was still at the club? Nah doesn't quite work that way
But to be able to speak to him and agree personal terms in March, they wollbhave had to agree to meet his buyout clause. You can't speak to a player under contract without permisission of his club!
 
#23
I don't know how contract law works in Spain.

It may well be that the agreement was reached in March verbally which is binding.

Like I say, I don't know. Do you?
Nope but I'm sure Barcelona lawyers do. Atletico on the other hand have nothing to lose and a chance at getting a free 80m

I'd put my trust in Barcelona than I would in atletico here given that's how it'd work in the vast majority of countries. A contract isn't legally binding until it's signed and unless that contract specifically states paying pre July 1 fee then atletico don't have a leg to stand on. They're clearly just pissed that they've fucked up AG's contract by having this stupid buyout clause nonsense which I don't blame them but that's of their own doing
 
#28
Nope but I'm sure Barcelona lawyers do. Atletico on the other hand have nothing to lose and a chance at getting a free 80m

I'd put my trust in Barcelona than I would in atletico here given that's how it'd work in the vast majority of countries. A contract isn't legally binding until it's signed and unless that contract specifically states paying pre July 1 fee then atletico don't have a leg to stand on. They're clearly just pissed that they've fucked up AG's contract by having this stupid buyout clause nonsense which I don't blame them but that's of their own doing
Buyout clause is a league requirement
 

Arkanoid

Well-Known Member
#33
Atletico must have some evidence the first approach illegally/legally was before the 1st July? You enter talks with the player when the price is £180m then that's the price you pay when it's concluded...I'm on Atleticos side here for no other reason than %^*& Barca
 
Top