If I recall correctly, when Kenna left Galway to join Pats, Pats had to compensate Galway because although his new contract was not signed, Kenna had accepted payments and therefore it held, so there just might be something in the Sligo line on this.
None of the parties look like coming out of this particularly well though. Sligo because of the way the deal would appear to have been conducted, Rovers for signing a player when they must have had doubts about his contractual status and Turner for letting all this happen. I guess though there are issues partly because while clubs want to build a squad as soon as the season ends, the FAI don't register players until much later. Hard to see a way around that to be honest.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
How would Shams know that there might be some reason he might be able to walk away from his contract if they had not talked to him - i.e tapped him up.Originally Posted by Jicked
Also how do you explain the 'Sean Connor Clause' refered to by Turner himself when he left Dundalk for Rovers - if there was no contract.
The obvious hypothesis -
Turner downs down offer from Rovers to sign for Sligo for E100 a week more.
Sligo renege on this and offer him, say, E200 a week less instead.
Turner says "Feck this" and goes back to Rovers asking if their original deal still stands.
The rumours are that Rovers offered him a deal at X amount a week. Sligo offered him more. He signed for Sligo. Sligo then offered him a lessor deal than they had originally. Turner didn't want to do a deal at that price and re-approached Shamrock Rovers trying to get the amount they originally offered.How would Shams know that there might be some reason he might be able to walk away from his contract if they had not talked to him - i.e tapped him up.
Its fairly clear that he didn't suddenly discover a new love for all things Shamrock Rovers and had a change of heart. For some reason the money that Rovers originally offered him (which he turned down) later became a better option for him. Shamrock Rovers wouldn't have increased their offer to him after he had signed for Sligo, if they did that why wouldn't they have just offered him that amount in the original negotiations when he chose Sligo over them.
It makes sense that he thought he'd be making a certain amount at Sligo, only for that to turn out not to be the case. In such a situation the original contract with Sligo would be ripped up.
Whereas hypothetically this makes sense my personal opinion of this situation is that Dodge is closer to anyone else here when he suggests theres more to this from both sides than is currently out in the public domain, therefore it is hard to point the finger of blame at any of the three parties involved with any clear knowledge until theres a proper investigation carried out to ascertain the legalities, both in terms of contract law & the registration of the player.
i dont think anyone can dispute that a signed contract is not a valid contract once there is offer, acceptance and consideration unless you know of some legal precedent that i am unaware of in the last 3 years since i stopped working in the field.
To answer other points - courts will not look at whether a contract is not in the appropriate format required by the FAI. They will look to uphold that contract based on the intentions of the parties to be bound by the contract.
Obviously im not privy to the contents of the contracts and was unaware that Sligo had offered him reduced terms so yes, that may change things. Even if Turner refused those reduced terms he is still bound by the terms of the original signed contract and as long as Sligo are abiding by it then i dont see how he can play for Shams.
without the documents to hand there are a lot of If's and but's, of course, but contributors here can only go on what they know in order to form an opinion, surely?
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Given your knowledge of contract law, would it not be considered a breach of the original contract however if the terms as agreed by both parties were altered without the consent of one of the parties? ie 'if' the club agreed to pay a player say €500pw & the player signs on that basis, & thelub then alter the terms surely without the players consent they are the ones to actually be considered to have broken the terms of the original contract? Obviously this is hypothetical as none of us are in possession of the clear facts surrounding the Turner case however, i merely ask as in my field a change in terms in a legally binding contract such as this would be considered a breach of said contract.
yep. It would be a breach of contract if they were paying 500 and then dropped it to 400.
But, and this is what my post was getting at, it sounds like (and its hard to say without all the info) a contract was signed for lets say 500 p/w. X amount of weeks were paid up front (lump sum) and then at some stage Sligo came and said we are going to offer you 400 p/w instead. Turner refuses but Sligo, as long as they continued to pay him the same amount, havent breached contract merely attempted to renegotiate the terms of the existing contract.
Thats my take.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
A fair enough perspective, it begs the question though once one of the parties seeks to renegotiate the terms of the contract for this to happen the renegotiation would have to be entered into willingly by both parties i would assume? If therefore the original terms were breached before both parties had agreed to a renegotiation surely it would render the original contract null & void with the party breaching the contract open to legal action? (My legal knowledge on contract law is work specific so i'd bow to anyones superior knowledge in this area)
Even in the event of a renegotiation isnt the result of such that both parties agree to cancel the original contract with the newly negotiated one superceding it? So if no renegotiation was entered into wouldnt the first party be required to continue meeting the terms as outlined in the contract to not be the first to breach it until new terms are agreed?
Either way it looks like the argument is between Chris Turner & Sligo Rovers, until thats resolved i cant see the FAI registering him for any club othe than Sligo.
yeah, youre right - i kind of stated that in my previous post.
On your first paragraph, a one sided alteration of the terms would render the contract null and void and amount to an offer of a new contract.
It really does turn on the facts of the case and as you said, the determination on the contract with Sligo will impact the validity of his Shamrock Rovers contract.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
I heard he's going to alternate between the teams. Playing one week for Sligo and the following week for Shams..When they play against each other he'll play one half for each side.. FACT!!!
That can't work. What happens if he gets a red card in the first half?. Will the other side have to play with ten men in the second half?
The other side will put on a leprechaun. I would have thought that was obvious.
Either that or they'll arrange a Leinster Senior Cup game as the half-time entertainment.
or perhaps Michael O'Neill will investigate and find there was no offence at all
This type of issue has been threatening to arise for some time - clubs signing players on work contracts which are different to FAI contracts (Bohs signed six/seven players while under a transfer embargo). While the FAI can refuse to register a player (thus he could not play in any matches under their juristiction) a club could still hold a player to contract - if a Sligo had the money they could honour the contract with the porn star just to stop him signing for shams !
The sooner the better the League instruct clubs that the only contracts allowed are the official contracts and ensure that budgets etc are signed off early - thus enabling clubs to sign players. Almost every club this year signed players before budgets were agreed. Imagine the chaos (and fun) if no club had signed anyone until 2/3 weeks before the season started !
Ruling was Turner free agent, free to sign for whoever he wishes,Sligo ten days to appeal.
Chris Turner is a Hoop. Well, not a Hoop technically yet, but shock horror, the wink and a handshake he had with Sligo has been thrown out by the independent adjudicators. He's a free agent, and will sign for Rovers shortly one would imagine. Nice to see the league continuing to stay tough on such dodgy dealings, but its certainly messed around our pre-season.
Under the rules of the FAI, the Dispute Resolution Chamber sat today to consider the case put forward by Shamrock Rovers F.C., Sligo Rovers F.C., the League of Ireland and Chris Turner on the status of Chris Turner's registration for the 2010 season. The decision of the DRC was that Chris Turner "is not a participant of the National league and is a free agent, entitled to sign for any club and seek registration of an SPC" (standard player's contract). They ruled on some other matters pertaining to the case but of main significance to Shamrock Rovers F.C. is that Chris Turner has been deemed a free agent. Also in their determination was a note that "there is a possibility of an appeal to arbitration pursuant to Article 31 of the SPC and Article 33 of the FAI DRC Regulations within 10 days". Shamrock Rovers F.C. will await developments with regard to any appeal by the noted parties before making any further comment or action.
Will Turner have to return the signing on fee? It'd only be fair..
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
so he didnt sign any valid contract at all? How the hell could they arrive at that conclusion!?!?
what if Sligo appeals the decision of the DRC, Jicked? What will Rovers do then? Continue to pay him until the appeal is heard or what? Genuinely interested and a bit confused.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
If he's deemed a free agent, then there was no contract between the parties. It could be argued it was a payment as consideration for Turner to consider joining Sligo. There's all sorts of legal wranglings, but they'll be between Turner personally and Sligo, and although it would seem equitable for Turner to return the fee there could be a case for him to keep it. Hopefully it serves as a warning to other clubs not to make such dodgy, amateurish deals with players.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks