RaoulD

I actually don't think United can prevent Heinze from buying himself out but it may be that the notice provisions in his contract or, more likely, the uncertainty as to whether any disciplinary sanction may follow if he were to exercise the right, is the real reason why Heinze does not simply invoke his right to buy out. The reason why Heinze's lawyers are focusing on the letter is because if you can show that the club has consented to the termination of the contract (and such consent might have been conditional i.e. upon an offer being received for £X) the termination complies with the "by mutual agreement" provision in Regulation 13 and Regulation 17 is not applicable. The main problem with the Regulations is that they have not really been tested in the courts. This may be largely down to the fact that the protected period starts again whenever a contract extension is signed (which is why you see key players signing extensions after only 2 or 3 years) and so many players have not got the got the right to extract themselves from their contract without their club's consent. Without any authorative guidance it is difficult to be certain as to the true legal effect of the regulations. This means that everything you read about the Regulations (including the drivel above) is no more than the writer's opinion

I disagree with your proposition that the buying club is sanctioned where a player buys out his contract under the regulations. The highlighted part is based upon my own professional experience. I am not at liberty to name the club or the player but the issue that arose was whether the club should consent to a transfer of a player who was still under contract at a particular fee or whether they should take their chances in a compensation claim under the Regulations. The Bosman scenario is completely different as no transfer fees or compensation is payable. The problem for the club is that Article 17 now provides a means by which a contracted player can secure a transfer to another club against the wishes of his current club for an amount of compensation that is uncertain.

(a) The 15 day period only expressly applies to the termination for sporting just cause under the Regulations (Reg 15). There is however an ambiguity in that the regulations seem to suggest that the player could be subject to disciplinary measures (Reg 17.3) even if the termination was outside the protected period and cites the failure to give due notice as an example. I suspect that this ambiguity is deliberate in order to retain some discretion to deal with particular circumstances on a case by case basis. A player who buys out his contract on the last day of the transfer window would prevent his old club securing a replacement in time and could expect to be disciplined for it whereas a player buying out his contract when there is plenty of time for his old club to make alternative arrangements might not be subject to any disciplinary measures. There is also a commentary to the FIFA Regulations which expressly states that the 15 day notice applies. The commentary also indicates that the 4 month ban (which would apply to a player terminating his contract within the protected period) would be excessive. The answer to your question is therefore yes but he is at risk of unspecified disciplinary sanctions. The only qualification I would put on this is that it is possible that Heinze's contract with United contains express termination provisions which require notice to be given within a defined period. (b) The answer is no. The sporting sanction only applies if we were to sign Heinze whilst he was within the protected period of his United contract. If Heinze terminates his contract without cause and joins us we would be jointly liable to pay compensation to United under Reg 17.2 but would not be subject to any other sanction.

I sorry but this is not actually a correct representation of the effect of EU law on the FIFA Regulations. Before the regulations came into effect there was considerable debate as to whether or not they would be enforceable within the EU. There was no need for a way for players to get out of contracts since national employment laws often provided a means of doing so. It has long been the position in English Law that a contract of employment can be terminated upon notice, the length of which is determined either by the parties when they make the contract or is otherwise what is reasonable. The problem with the regulations is that they actually sought to place restraints on the ability of players to exercise their normal employment rights. The clubs argued that the registration system (which allowed them to demand transfer fees for the transfer of players) allowed them to protect their investment in the player. It was the registration system that was under threat from the EU as being a restraint on the freedom of movement. In order to try and get around a potential challenge in the EU, FIFA devised the system whereby there would be an initial "protected period" during which a player could not terminate his contract without cause and without exposing both himself and any new club to significant sanctions. After the protected period expires, the scope for sanctions is considerably reduced. It is still a moot point as to whether the regulations comply with EU law but nobody has sought to challenge them. At the present time as far as I am aware Heinze has not sought to terminate his contract with United but is instead arguing that he has their consent to a transfer to us. I have no doubt that the issue will turn on the construction of the letter his agents received from the club. There is no question of him trying to "buy out" his contract. The reasons why very few players have bought out their contracts is because the clubs usually agree a sale before the issue arises. There is a real risk that, if they were to allow a player to exercise his right to terminate his contract, the amount of compensation which they can legally recover from the player or his new club under the national law will be substantially less than the amount which the FIFA Regulations suggest.

No it is not. It is actually prima facie unlawful as being contrary to public policy. You may seek to restrain an employee from setting up in competition or working for a competitor where the restraint is no more than is necessary for the protection of a legitimate intrest such as the trade secrets or confidential information of the former employer. This has got nothing to do with football players whose contracts of employment are supplemented by the requirements of the relevant football associations i.e. the FA, UEFA and FIFA. What a club sells when they transfer a player is not the player himself but the right to have the player registered with the appropriate bodies. Where the player is under a playing contract the selling club can determine the terms upon which they would be prepared to consent to the transfer of the registration and the consequent early termination of the playing contract. The terms can be as unreasonable as they like. What Heinze's representatives appear to be saying is that they have the terms of United's "consent" to a transfer in writing and if that is the case then unless either the consent was withdrawn before the terms were met or the terms of that consent are not satisfied (i.e. because they specifically exclude Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea), United may be bound by their consent. It looks to me that Heinze may well have a letter from United which allows him to go to any club meeting their valuation and they are now looking at alternative means of stopping a sale to us.

I am sorry but this is complete nonsense. It doesn't need to be in writing and the doctrine of restraint of trade applies to all contracts. The fact is that Heinze has a playing contract with United and they hold his registration. He can terminate his contract with them but would be liable for damages for breach of contract as the playing contract is effectively a fixed term contract. There are exceptions to this in that FIFA Regulations allow termination for sporting just cause and the parties to the contract are free to agree that the contract may terminate in certain other defined circumstances. It is not uncommon for the club holding the player's registration and the player to agree a figure that is payable by way of liquidated damages for a premature termination. These provisions are often what are described as buy-out clauses. If the figure is exorbitant it may be challenged on the grounds that it is a penalty. If, upon its true construction, the term of the agreement (whether it is in the original contract, a separate letter or even made orally) has the legal effect of obliging United to agree to the transfer of Heinze's registration upon payment of a fixed sum, United would be deemed to have consented to the transfer and cannot subsequently introduce further conditions for their consent. If, on the other hand, United still have full discretion as regards consent to the transfer they may be able to refuse to consent to a transfer to a particular club and thus force Heinze to terminate his contract prematurely. Given that this may cause practical problems for Heinze and/or any club that subsequently seeks to register him, most players will not go down this route.

It is worth remembering that we are talking about a time when football was not seen as a profitable business and the amount of money in the game was minimal when compared to the position now. TV revenues were nothing special and the clubs were not really being run as commercial enterprises. No club was able to simply go out and buy whoever they wished without balancing their budgets and no club had a budget which stood out from their rivals. We had spent the money we got for Rush on Barnes and Beardsley so it is hardly surprising that we could not afford Gazza when the opportunity to re-purchase Rush arose in 1988.

The FIFA regulations are ambiguous as regards the 15 day notice. However, there is also an approved commentary which suggests that the 15 day notice period applies both to terminations without cause (for which the consequences are set out in Regulation 17) and also terminations for sporting just cause (under Regulation 15). The same regulations (and the FIFA statutes) require disciplinary action to be taken by the relevant national association so I would assume that if Heinze were to terminate his contract without just cause, he could be subject to disciplinary action. The logic behind this restriction (insofar as it applies to termination without cause) is suspect and it could be overridden by English/EU Laws governing the enforceability of personal contracts and freedom of movement. All of this does not apply to terminations by mutual consent. If Heinze has a clause in his contract entitling him to terminate his contract upon payment of a certain sum to United then the exercise of the right to terminate is deemed to be with United's consent and none of the FIFA Regulations apply. Many of these so-called buy-out clauses were inserted with the Regulations in mind in an effort to avoid arguments over compensation under Article 17. Accordingly, whilst buy out clauses may secure compensation for a selling club which might not be obtainable in a court of law, they also mean that a player may terminate his contract before the expiry of the term on payment of the specified sum. In a nutshell, it all turns on the wording of Heinze's contract with United...

I think you will find that Carra actually went back first (because Riise was playing both Inzaghi and the right winger on side) before trying to step up. Riise was far too close to Agger and would have been skinned had the ball gone to the right winger. I think it is a little harsh on Agger to expect him to have anticipated Kaka's run, particularly given that the space Kaka ran into had been filled by Mascherano all evening and the chances are that Kaka would have simply gone past Agger leaving Carra exposed. I cited Milan's goal as an example of Riise's poor positional sense and occasional ball watching. I am not suggesting that he was entirely to blame for the goal as the pass from Kaka and Inzaghi's run was of the highest quality. All defenders make mistakes but Riise just stood there!

I disagee If you look at the replay when they show it side on you can see the Riise is standing still playing Inzaghi and another Milan player onside whilst the rest of the defence have pushed up. When the ball from Kaka was played through Riise just stood there.

As a left back, Riise is definitely our weak spot. He is often caught out of position and can be guilty of ball watching as demonstrated by Milan's second in Athens. His tackling is poor when compared to other specialist left backs. However, he is very good offensively in that he will often provide much needed support on the left. His long range shooting ability though is a bit like Roberto Carlos i.e. his spectacular goals cover up the number of shots which go into the stands. He is certainly worth a squad place though since I can see Rafa experimenting with three at the back this season with Riise being pushed slightly further up field. He is also currently our best option at left back although I anticipate that Rafa is going to sign someone else to be a first choice left back given the injury problem with Aurelio.

There is no such ruling. Even if there was any such restriction it would be illegal under EU Law.

I doubt Bascombe was completely in the dark but I suspect that his sources are not as good as people think. The most likely explanation for his doom and gloom articles is that he picked up on views that may have been expressed privately between players or members of staff and added his interpretation to what may have been off-the-cuff remarks or something that was said in frustration. It is not difficult to imagine that Rafa may have got frustrated by the fact that the line of communication between himself and the board had become trans-atlantic and he could not get instant responses to questions that he had about strategy, budget etc from them. He may have said something along the lines of what Bascombe subsequently reported particular given the fact that we have all witnessed what he is like when the frustration or anger boils over. The post CL final press conference was a classic example. What is clear now is that unlike previous seasons, Rick Parry, Rafa and probably Hicks and Gillette themselves have prepared a strategy for the summer business and are now putting it into effect. We are not seeing long drawn out transfer negotiations and it appears that once a player is identified, a huge effort is made to try and conclude the deal quickly. Equally significant is the fact that we have managed to realise significant fees for players such as Cisse and Bellamy. This would not have happened if the buyer detected a need to sell on our part. I suspect that we are now able to say to anyone who wants any of our players that we will only sell if they meet our valuation of the player in the knowledge that their need for the player is greater than our need to sell. Whilst it is obviously sensible that players who are unlikely to figure in Rafa's plans should be sold on, it is clear that Rafa's spending is not dependent upon the sale of a particular player. If at the end of this summer we have actually spent (in net terms) more or less the same as in previous summers, then I think this summer will have been one of the best in the clubs' recent history.

The Tevez mess was created when West Ham terminated the arrangements with MSI in April in order to convince the Premier League to lift the suspension on his registration. If the termination of the arrangements was genuine and effective, then West Ham have the sole right to the player's registration and any purchaser would have to deal with them. West Ham may be facing a claim by MSI for breach of that contract as consequence of what was in effect a unilateral termination of the contract. If MSI accepted the breach as terminating the contract with West Ham then they only have a claim in damages against West Ham. On the other hand, if MSI did not accept the breach and insisted that the contract remained in effect, they have the option of trying to enforce the terms of the contract. This puts West Ham in serious trouble with the FA and arguably deprives them of their ability to sell or prevent the sale by MSI of Tevez. Given the complications and the Sheffield United sideshow, I would not be surprised if we took the view that Tevez is not worth the problems that his signing will now create. Would you want to hand over money to MSI or West Ham with no guarantee that you will secure the registration of the player because of a competing claim to ownership of his registration from the other party?

I don't think there is any problem with Mascherano as the arrangements that were put in place in January have been scrutinised and approved by the Premier League before they registered the player with us. The problem with Tevez is that he is registered with West Ham and has a playing contract with them (as did Mascherano) however both players were also parties to agreements between themselves, West Ham and third party companies under which the third party companies could compel the transfer of the player without either the player's or West Ham's consent and that West Ham could neither transfer the players nor terminate their playing contracts. This third party control over the transfer was what caused the problems because West Ham simply presented the playing contracts to the FA when they applied to register the players. When we signed Mascherano we had to prove that no third party had control over the player and we clearly did a deal with the third parties and West Ham which did not offend the PL rules and the PL were satisfied that was the case. West Ham still had the problem with Tevez which was supposedly cured by their termination of the third party agreement in late April. It is this which is at the heart of the problem. West Ham maintain that they and only they hold the registration of the player and that only they have the right to transfer his registration. Man U may have struck a deal with the Tevez's owners/agents but they need to get West Ham's consent if the "termination" of the Tevez agreement in April was genuine. None of this applies to Mascherano who is currently contracted to us.

I grew up watching Keegan/Toshack and all that followed. It may surprise you that in 1976-1977 our top scorer was Keegan with, I believe, 12 league goals! We were spoilt by Rush, Aldridge and Fowler's ability to score 20+ league goals in a season but I think traditionally we have always looked to spread the goals around the team and that players who have done well for us have tended to be much more than just goal scorers. I actually think Torres will do well for us as he clearly is comfortable on either foot and does appear to have at least the explosive burst of pace that Crouch and, to a lesser extent, Kuyt lack. I can see him being a clear focal point for our attacks with Kuyt or Voronin in support picking up the opportunities that arise in the second phase. I can also see Crouch and Torres being quite a destructive force when operating in tandem. If we can get someone who will stretch play on the wing or get Pennant to be more consistent and effective in this role, Torres has the ability to exploit the space that will be created. I think it is often difficult to spot a true predator as such a striker needs his teammates to create the opportunities for him. If his teammates are not up to scratch or he plays in a struggling team, his potential may never be realised.

An 8 year contract isn't illegal either under EU or even domestic law. It does not contravene FIFA Regulations either. There is little benefit to be gained from a contract having more than 5 years to run though since compensation for an breach of such a contract is capped at a maximum of 5 years. Moreover, the protected periods (during which the contract cannot be terminated without just cause (or mutual consent)) remain 3 years (when the contract is concluded before the player is 28) and 2 years (after the player reaches 28). Most players' agents will look to keep contracts for young players as short as possible in the knowledge that extensions to the contract provide the opportunity to re-negotiate pay so that the price for the extension is a variation of the old contractual pay rates. There can only be one contract of employment - the signing of a new contract either extinguishes the old one or acts as a variation of the original and the two are merged into one.

Apart from the remarks which Rafa made after the CL Final (which I think were misinterpreted in the press) there has been little from Rafa in recent weeks on the subject of transfers. Much of what is being published is based upon the journalistic interpretation of remarks made by one or other senior figures at the club. There used to be a time when the first you heard about a transfer was when the player was unveiled at a press conference! In today's media-hungry environment it is much harder to keep transfer dealings totally secret. There are too many potential sources of leaks involved in the process and the internet is the medium by which information is both created and broadcast. The press use fora such as this as a means of obtaining information for their copy often by adding their own interpretation to the story. Once it has been told and retold several times the "facts" may well have become grossly distorted (assuming there was a real fact in the first place). Whilst certain journalists (and others) may well have good links within the club which allows them access to certain information it is also worth bearing in mind that the club are probably well aware of the internal source of stories generated by such individuals. My own view is that the club are trying to keep quiet as to the transfer targets so as to avoid the possibility that another club may step in and steal the deal. This happened with Vidic and, I suspect, a number of other targets in the past and this obviously was a major cause of Rafa's frustration post-Athens. It is significant that already this Summer we have seen contract negotiations with key existing players concluded, a few signings (albeit none who could be regarded as first team regulars) and we are still only in the middle of June. Gillette and Hicks may well be looking to the club to cover the cost of the repayments on the loans they took out to acquire the club but this does not alter the fact that it is their personal wealth that is at risk if the club does not make them the money they require. The stadium is obviously a priority for them but they know that it is no use having the best stadium in the world if you cannot fill it. Whilst there is obiously a large core of Liverpool fans who would attend games even if the club were unsuccessful, the risk of failure of the business is greater if the team does not perform on the pitch. The players and Rafa are therefore the crucial "assets" required to ensure the overall success of their business plan. I therefore fell that it is highly unlikely that the money is not available to Rafa. It is more likely that the proposed spending needs to be justified and this may give rise to tensions between Rafa and the new owners. It amazes me that the attitude of some people seems to be that if Rafa has been promised £50 million to spend, he should be able to spend that without serious questions being asked about how the money is spent. Tensions may arise if the questions are misinterpreted as a refusal or a delaying tactic, particularly if this fact leaks out to the press. The bottom line is that nobody except possibly Hicks, Gillette, Parry and Rafa himself has the complete picture and I hope that it stays that way.

Much as I admire the sentiment, I think he will have his work cut out. The tickets for the game were sold subject to terms and conditions which included both exclusion of liability clauses and, more significantly both a choice of law and choice of jurisdiction clause. The "contract" was also technically between UEFA, The Hellenic Football Association and the ticket holder. The whole claim is likely to be subject to Greek law and the jurisdiction of the Greek Courts in Athens. I'm not an expert on Greek law but even under English Law there are difficulties in claiming compensation over and above the face value of the match tickets. In any event, the responsibility for the management of match was with the Greek FA and so ultimately if there is any liability it will fall on them rather than UEFA.

The move is only illegal if it involved the deliberate use of the hand. If you try and throw yourself into the path of the ball your intent is normally to block/divert the ball from its natural course with your body. It is a matter for the referee to determine whether any contact with the hand in such circumstances was intentional or not. The goal was a fluke because Inzaghi had no control over where the ball was going. It's a pity that it didn't just hit him straight in the face and rebound away from our goal as Pirlo's shot was otherwise on target. I think you will find that every striker will claim a goal scored by a deflection off them on the basis that they intended to deflect the ball into the net whereas if it strikes a defender and is deflected in they will apply the opposite standard and claim the deflection was accidental!

Arsenal did it by offloading star players before their value becomes minimal i.e Viera, Pettit and Overmars to European clubs who are willing to pay large transfer fees even if the player only had a couple of good seasons left in him. It would not surprise me if they are seeking to do the same with Henry. The money generated from these sales has funded the acquisition of a mixture of good youngsters and some not so good established pros. The development of some of the youngsters has enabled Wenger to avoid having to spend large amounts of money (which he did not have) on players in key positions. Whilst this has meant that Arsenal's transfer dealings over the last few seasons look good I think that they are in a similar position to us in having to spend big to keep up with Chelsea and Manchester United.

I think what we will see this summer is more of a clear out of the squad players with just 2 or 3 first team additions most likely in terms of a world class goalscorer/front man and perhaps a winger or two. If they have the right quality they should not need too much time to get used to the Premier League. The core of the team will still be based upon squad that played in the CL final although I suspect that of those Bellamy, Zenden and Hyypia are most likely to join Dudek in the list of departures. I don't think we can afford to make wholesale changes if we want to challenge for the title next season as no matter how good the replacements are, it will take some time for them to become integrated into the first team and we cannot afford the inconsistency that is likely to result.

I think UEFA need to wake up to the fact that the root cause of the problem is that they created a situation which allowed the black market to thrive and where supply could not meet demand. You are always going to have security problems where the match is a sell out but to allow a situation to develop where tickets were changing hands for ridiculous amounts of money invites the criminal elements who only have their personal benefit in mind. In my view, UEFA's decision to sell tickets for the final well before the finalists are known is a charter for touts. The amount of tickets given to the "UEFA family" is also a concern as they do not seem to have an system in place to monitor what happens to these tickets. I suspect that a lot are sold on at huge profits rather than being used. The FA Cup used to suffer from a similar problem and whilst it has not gone away, its effect has diminished as a result of the crackdown on those who receive tickets and sell them on. I am not defending those who got into the stadium without a ticket or with a ticket which they must have known was a forgery. I hope that they feel ashamed by their behaviour but somehow I doubt it. What is perhaps most worrying is that UEFA do not seem to have learnt anything from what happened at Heysel and seem content to place all of the blame on Liverpool fans.

It is very easy with hindsight but it seemed that Milan were not really threatening our flanks and so I might have kept Mascherano on. One possibility might have been to go 3 at the back by taking off Finnan and Zenden and replacing them with Arbeloa and Crouch. Riise would then have been pushed into the left midfield slot with Carragher sweeping at the back. This would have still left us the option of either Kewell or Bellamy if more attacking impetus was required but would have allowed to continue to control the midfield and keep their full backs busy with defensive duties. It would also have given us a greater threat in the box.

I thought he played well tonight but at the same time the reservations about him still remain. Although he is clearly talented, I don't think he makes the most of his talent. He still has a long way to go to be regarded as the first choice right midfield/wing player. I don't think his crossing ability is as good as it needs to be and he needs to be able to read the game better. That said he deserves the plaudits for tonight and just as I think that he is nowhere near the finished article, it is equally wrong to write him off in his first season at the club.