Webster ?150k ! - [MERGED THREADS]

[We_are_the_Hearts]

Having re-read that it appears HMFC have already incurred costs in this case in excess of ?80,000, plus are to be hit with additional costs for the time CAS have spent on it. The end result could well be that we will receive ?150K, but after all costs are taken into account shell out around ?100K.

 

Vlad should offer the left over cash to any player who breaks his legs when we play them. JUDAS:mad:

[Julio]

I wonder if the evidence of Vlads meddling which Rix gave was a contributing factor?

[kjc2006]

Absolute disgrace of a decision. This will ruin the football transfer system completely.

[mullen13]

Finally, because of the potentially high amounts of compensation involved, giving clubs a

regulatory right to the market value of players and allowing lost profits to be claimed in

such manner would in effect bring the system partially back to the pre-Bosman days when

players? freedom of movement was unduly hindered by transfer fees and their careers and

well-being could be seriously effected by them becoming pawns in the hands of their

clubs and a vector through which clubs could reap considerable benefits without sharing the profit or taking corresponding risks. In view of the text and the history of article 17(1)

of the FIFA Status Regulations, allowing any form of compensation that could have such

an effect would clearly be anachronistic and legally unsound.

147. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that Hearts is not entitled to claim any part of the

Player?s alleged market value as lost profit or on any other ground and that as a result its

corresponding claim for ?4 million must be rejected.

 

So thats why the amount is so pitifully low

[Drew Busby !]

Presumably Arbroath will see zilch from this now as their "sell-on cut" is virtually zero ???

 

So nice one Andy/Duddy, the era of the money-grabbing selfish footballer just reached a new low today. We have a different landscape coming up it would seem....

 

For the big boys of the game, the chequebook will lure big name players away from the latter stages of their contracts, with significantly decreased financial benefit to the "selling" (not that they have much choice in the matter in this case...) club...

 

To the smaller fry, what is the point of developing players to 1st team and international standard, if they can walk away and pocket all the accrued benefits of their career progression for themselves...

 

Bad day in general for football and the majority of clubs.

[londonjambo]

A lawyer writes:

 

Haven't had much time to ingest this but it does seem unfair.

 

The CAS say that the purpose of damages is to compensate rather than to punish but certainly in English law (which is where I practice), there is a concept of expemplary damages where a contract breaker is "punished" by the Courts if it can be shown that he deliberately broke his contract in order to seek to profit by the breach of contract.

 

Here, I suspect that much can therefore be read into that part of the decision which suggests that relations between Webster and Hearts had already broken down before contact was made with Wigan and that Wigan effectively had nothing to do with the breach of contract. I suspect that the CAS would argue, therefore, that Webster didnt deliberately break his contract in the knowledge that he would profit at Wigan.

 

However, that seems to me to be a little naive. Here we have a young international footballer who was always going to be employable and almost certainly employable at a far greater wage than Hearts were willing to pay (otherwise why break your contract at all ?). Therefore, the deliberate breach of contract by Webster was, in reality, Webster seeking to breach his contract to get a much better pay-day elsewhere.

 

That seems to me to provide grounds for a claim for exemplary rather than merely compensatory damages.

 

I dont know whether Hearts have a right of appeal but if they do, I'd be glad to help out (for a small fee, naturally)

 

GC

[redm]

Seems that the loophole came from unjust enrichment/punitive damages. Can't believe they bothered to mention that our costs (?75k to Arbroath) have already been accounted for...That's like saying that we're not entitled to profit from his sale, we're just fortunate if we do.

 

I can see where they're coming from with the punitive damages thing. I don't agree for one second that Wigan's approach was half as innocent as that but heyho. Wigan/Rangers and their dodgyness are a whole other chapter. But unjust enrichment? Will the enrichment from Rangers to Wigan be 'just'?

[Guest GhostHunter]

147. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that Hearts is not entitled to claim any part of the

Player?s alleged market value as lost profit or on any other ground and that as a result its

corresponding claim for ?4 million must be rejected.

 

That's the biggie right there.....

 

Bets on the first player to cite the Webster Ruling ?

 

Lampard ?

[Tommy Wiseau]

And it only took 3 pages before the first [filter edit] blamed Vlad.

[Andy.C]

It's a lot bigger than Hearts. Lets be honest, the Webster thing was never at the forefront of our thoughts day in, day out. It was more a principle thing. ?600-1mill would have been nice, but not life changing for us. But the principle has now been crushed...but on a much bigger scale than us. Lets say websters true value was around the ?2mill mark (maybe a bit conservative)

 

Does that now mean a 20 million player can pay ?1.5 mill and just walk away? What if Ronaldo decides he wants to leave Man Utd...pays ?3mill and can go anywhere?

 

Mind boggling decision

[Acey]

A lawyer writes:

 

Haven't had much time to ingest this but it does seem unfair.

 

The CAS say that the purpose of damages is to compensate rather than to punish but certainly in English law (which is where I practice), there is a concept of expemplary damages where a contract breaker is "punished" by the Courts if it can be shown that he deliberately broke his contract in order to seek to profit by the breach of contract.

 

Here, I suspect that much can therefore be read into that part of the decision which suggests that relations between Webster and Hearts had already broken down before contact was made with Wigan and that Wigan effectively had nothing to do with the breach of contract. I suspect that the CAS would argue, therefore, that Webster didnt deliberately break his contract in the knowledge that he would profit at Wigan.

 

However, that seems to me to be a little naive. Here we have a young international footballer who was always going to be employable and almost certainly employable at a far greater wage than Hearts were willing to pay (otherwise why break your contract at all ?). Therefore, the deliberate breach of contract by Webster was, in reality, Webster seeking to breach his contract to get a much better pay-day elsewhere.

 

That seems to me to provide grounds for a claim for exemplary rather than merely compensatory damages.

 

I dont know whether Hearts have a right of appeal but if they do, I'd be glad to help out (for a small fee, naturally)

 

GC

 

Punitive damages don't exist in Scots law, though; tons of case law to support that.

[Julio]

And it only took 3 pages before the first [filter edit] blamed Vlad.

 

[filter edit]. Cheers Thommo.

[BRY]

Right, I've had a proper read-through of the decision.

 

1) This is a very, very dangerous precedent to set. They've effectively said, "Had Wigan caused Webster to breach his contract, then we would have awarded HMFC much more." The problem with dealings like this is that it's not always obvious what's caused someone to breach their contract. Does it not encourage the "tapping up" of players, telling them to walk away from their contract, citing "mutual breakdown of trust", and then rock up to a new club days later?

 

2) They're right; damages shouldn't be punitive in their nature (rather, they should be compensatory). However, with my first point in mind, Wigan have been unjustly enriched by Webster joining them (regardless of whether he was a failure or not). It's stretching the definition of "unjustified enrichment" a bit, but I think there's enough there to make this decision unfair.

 

3) This means that Wigan will pay the fee (because HMFC will be given the choice of whom to sue, and they will choose the richer party - Wigan AFC). Therefore it's a transfer fee under the guise of "compensation" - a much reduced transfer fee at that.

This decision will ruin football as we know it.

 

"in the circumstances of this case..."

To me, that smacks of a get-out clause for the CAS, so that they can change the rules when this happens to one of the bigger teams....

[John S]

Astounded

[vegas-voss]

Will smaller clubs and i class Hearts in that not just have to do a Jim McClean type thing and sign really great prospect players on say 7 year deals from now on.Maybe Wenger seen this coming and thats why he signed Fabregas on a 7 year deal.

[7628mm]

Vlad should offer the left over cash to any player who breaks his legs when we play them. JUDAS:mad:

 

"You may say that but I couldn't possibly comment."

 

signed

 

Vlad

[Tommy Wiseau]

[filter edit]. Cheers Thommo.

 

 

 

 

A my mum always says, ask a silly question and you get a silly answer.

 

[Rudolf's Mate]

Am I talking glaesgi or did I not read something about HMFC being invited to a European table or something along those lines??? Was sure I read a thread about it.....

 

If that is indeed the case then do you think some deal has been struck over this?!

[Ryan Gosling]

Sign everyone up on 10 year deals.

[mda]

Can someone remind me what actually happened with Webster when he was here? What were the chain of events which kicked this whole thing off?

[magicTs]

Probably why Rangers have been forcing Hutton's hand for the last few weeks also. Any player worth cash in Scotland is going to be sold pronto if a big offer comes in.

[Guest GhostHunter]

Sign everyone up on 10 year deals.

 

Which is EXACTLY what'll happen.

 

Maybe VR had a point getting all the kids to sign 5 year deals...

 

[mullen13]

Forgive me if im wrong but if there is 5% interest from the day of his termination wont the actual amount be much higher than 150 000?

 

If we had sold webster instead of him walking out we would have got at least a mill. what a joke.

[londonjambo]

Punitive damages don't exist in Scots law, though; tons of case law to support that.

 

Not even exemplary damages ??

 

As an aside, I wonder what the governing law used in the CAS is

 

More likely to be English than Scots ??

 

GC

[Erik]

I'm actually lost for words. Absolutely astounded by this decision.....

 

Will be interesting to see what Hearts say / do now.

[magicTs]

 

Maybe VR had a point getting all the kids to sign 5 year deals...

 

 

It will only work if any of them are any good

[redm]

Can someone remind me what actually happened with Webster when he was here? What were the chain of events which kicked this whole thing off?

 

It's a very very very long story. To be honest, if you're not up to speed on the details I'd take a look at the case notes...they give the story from start to finish. The come back here and we'll tell you the bits they didn't include...like Wigan and Rangers being dodgy, thieving baskets...Webster being a twit...stuff like that.

 

[TDB]

Even more reason to hump the Hun tonight GRFUY R@nkers.........

[Poseidon]

The money we make in transfer fees will be offset by the complete waste that gets spent on wages of crap youngsters we tie up on long term deals.

[Moriarty]

 

This is an Outrage!

[Ally Alexander]

I don't think its a decision of FIFA mate, they'll be hating it as much as we are. Im sure its the Court of Arbitrary sport or whatever, ie an EU Court.

 

**** the EU!

 

 

(i might be wrong here)

 

 

Aye, your're wrong - CAS was set up by the I.O.C. kind of shows that they are out of their depth though!

[vegas-voss]

It will only work if any of them are any good

 

I would imagine they would be on fairly low money to begin with and earn more as they progressed.

[Mr Sifter]

SHAFTED

Just another reason to stick it into these gimps tonight HMFC!!!!

[Das Root]

Will smaller clubs and i class Hearts in that not just have to do a Jim McClean type thing and sign really great prospect players on say 7 year deals from now on.Maybe Wenger seen this coming and thats why he signed Fabregas on a 7 year deal.

 

 

 

Surely that deal is worthless now? Webster only got a 2wk ban for ILLEGALLY breaking his contract, so Fabregas could walk tomorrow and get same? Maybe a bit more but nothing major.

 

Maybe the mhanks had the right idea threatening proper legal action on players who break their contracts.

 

Though Hearts had to agree to abide by the decision I hope UBIG take him to court, however I'd say it's unlikely.

[kjc2006]

I noticed in the article that the CAS is saying that any training compensation is a separate issue. Does this mean that we may also go to court to seek more compensation for the amount of time and money invested developing Webster?

[WalterEgo]

Rather odd that isn't being reported anywhere else...

[Cigaro]

 

Was the G14 not just disbanded...?

[Jambo66]

Not even exemplary damages ??

 

As an aside, I wonder what the governing law used in the CAS is

 

More likely to be English than Scots ??

 

GC

 

The normal rule is that the governing law will be dependent on the place where the contract is due to be performed. However, many written contracts specifiy which law is to apply. Almost certainly, Scots law would apply to AW's contract. Whether or not the CAS is bound to apply Scots law, I don't know, but it is inconceivable that English law would apply.

[footieman]

I blame the refs.

[kjc2006]

Rather odd that isn't being reported anywhere else...

 

Setanta Sports News have reported it about 10 mins after it broke on here.

[mark_my_words]

I am suprised that sky sports news and the bbc are not all over this already

 

its gonna be big

 

it's just been on talk107

[Fine Scottish Wine]

Sign everyone up on 10 year deals.

 

Jim McLean style.

 

It can work for you sometimes other times you can be lumbered with garbage for their whole career and have no money to bring in new players because a handful of numpties are taking up the wage bill.

[jamboinglasgow]

Can someone remind me what actually happened with Webster when he was here? What were the chain of events which kicked this whole thing off?

 

if I remember correctly, Vlad was trying to get Webster to sign a new contract as he had one more season left after 05/06 season. Websters agent persuaded him not to sign a new deal telling him Rangers could be interested. Vlad refuesed to sell him to gers and so Webster refused to sign a new contract. Vlad turned round and said effectly "fine then, you dont want to sign a new contract then your not foing to play any games." Standoff happened and during the summer of 06 webster did the contract move and went to Wigan.

 

think thats what happened but not 100% sure.

[Martin_T]

It sounds as though Hearts may have shot themselves in the foot in this case. The CAS seems to have based it's decision on the fact that Webster's career was being destroyed by Hearts refusal to play him after contract negotiations broke down, had Hearts continued to play Webster, they would have no grounds by which to reach this decision. Furthermore if Hearts had maintained a stable working relationship at the club, I am sure that Webster would have been far less inclined to take this course of action.

 

Wider impact of the decision? I think predictions of the 'end of the transfer market' are incorrect, similar predictions were made at the time of the Bosman ruling. What we will see IMHO is greater wage and transfer fee inflation amongst Europe's top leagues. Clubs will be desperate to continually renew contracts in order to prevent players doing a Webster, as such the players will be ever more empowered. Longer and more valuable contracts lead to larger transfer fees.

[Pistol1874]

Will smaller clubs and i class Hearts in that not just have to do a Jim McClean type thing and sign really great prospect players on say 7 year deals from now on.Maybe Wenger seen this coming and thats why he signed Fabregas on a 7 year deal.

Seems to me, after a quick read, that there is not that much further of a leap to be made before a player unhappy at a club and at any point in any length of contract can leave for the payment of the unexpired term with the club being unable to do anything about it.

Today's decision just made top flight football even less about the fans and the smaller clubs, if that was possible.

John Terry is probably on ?5m a year for 5 years so Chelsea would likely be well recompensed in the event. Most of their players are paid around their market value. That is not always the case at smaller clubs. The incentive is less for big name players to invoke this ruling, but we could find oursleves shafted over and over again once the change to the transfer system is played out to it's seeminglly natural conclusion.

Might even bring a whole new meaning to pay per play.

The thing that sticks in the craw most though is the way we have been totally shafted by Webster, Duddy and the Hun. Still, I don't wish any ill on any of them.

Much.

[Cut The Crap]

Who was advising Vlad that we had a case? Hope they were engaged on a no-win, no-fee basis.

[Das Root]

Does anyone imagine that the Scottish press will do more than clap the hun on the back and laugh at Hearts? Will they even investigate what this could mean for the transfer market?

[Drew Busby !]

Rather odd that isn't being reported anywhere else...

 

Early days ... don't know if its sunk in yet.

 

The Bosman dispute was after all a localised Belgian spat, whose implications didn't sink in until it's effects started to be felt Europe-wide.

 

Similarly a combo of Hearts/Rangers/Wigan in dispute over a fair-to-middling Scottish international centre-back might not draw much attention here and now. But for anyone with their head screwed on - and in boardrooms all across Europe - that ringing noise in their ears is the alarm bell...

[the voice from above]

 

This is an Outrage!

 

superb!!!!

[shaun.lawson]

Sorry folks, but I'm unconvinced this decision will have anything like the ramifications that are being assumed on here. The Court of Arbitration for Sport decides things on a case by case basis: I don't believe a precedent has been set, as each case is judged on its merits. You may well see some players, and especially their agents, attempting to follow Webster now - but my guess is that many will come a serious cropper (cue cries of the big clubs getting vastly preferential treatment from the CAS - but that's not what I'm getting at here at all).

 

Having read through the decision, I suspect the key to it lies in what Webster and his lawyers will have argued to have caused the 'breakdown in trust' between him and his employers. To be frank, I've always been amazed at how many people seem to think it's pure coincidence that this happened with one of our players: between October 2005 and New Year's Day, Hearts were run in an utterly bizarre way. Indeed, you could make a case that we were the worst run club in the UK during that period.

 

So although I'm well aware that the problems over him extending his contract started in Summer '05, it has always struck me as very likely that something unusual must have happened for him to take such an extraordinary step. This is only my opinion: but if I'm right, then it follows that if clubs treat their players properly, players will have no cause at the CAS to plead 'breakdown in trust'.