Jambo66 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 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. Would be an interesting point, if it wasn't for the fact that we did continue to play him in the 05/06 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinzo Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 David Taylor has done David Murray proud. As SFA boss he tears up Webster's Hearts contract...now as UEFA boss in Switzerland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 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... Not true, Drew. Everyone was well aware before the ruling was made of the enormous potential repercussions. I remember watching several items on the news in the days leading up to the ruling about it - and while it took several years for football to completely readjust from the fallout (if you want a reason for the massive wage inflation in Scottish football in the late 90s, not to mention our overstretch, and being forced to break up the Cup winning team so quickly, then look no further than Bosman), we all knew that a dam had broken. In this case, I suspect it's being reported much less because, well, it's simply nowhere near as significant as many are assuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 David Taylor has done David Murray proud. As SFA boss he tears up Webster's Hearts contract...now as UEFA boss in Switzerland... UEFA and CAS are entirely separate, independent bodies: you're barking up the wrong tree here, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy52 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 And it only took 3 pages before the first [filter edit] blamed Vlad. I asked the question at the time and I'll ask it again now. Who was Webster asked to sign for? Hearts or Vlad/Kaunas/UBIG etc etc. Is this not why he would not renew in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboRossi79 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I am actually speechless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol1874 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 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'. Fair enough Sean, but what constitutes a 'breakdown in trust'? If we assume a player signs for a club for a particular manager because he feels the club are going in a particular direction, but a year in to the deal the manager is sacked/changed or the team isn't winning isn't it possible the player could state he no longer trusts the manager? A breakdown in trust is surely as possible unilaterally as bilaterally? CAS may not set precedents per se, but I think this may well have that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ring-of-fire Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 suprise suprise this all comes out on the day we play those horrible weegie ******s. I hate them. Actually hate them. :mad::mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullen13 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I heard during the dispute that hearts had offered webster a further 2 year extension taking his contract to 4 years and that he would recieve the captaincy upon the departure of pressley and 18k a week. The team would also be based around him. Unfortunately the hun decided it was more desirable to play for his precious rangers. He signed to Wigan to hide the fact that he was trying to sign for rangers without them paying a transfer fee. Hence why he was immediately loaned to them. The fact that webster has hardly played since then is no coincidence. Rangers were merely trying to keep webster on a low profile to reduce any compensation value. I wouldnt be surprised if he featured in the team now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I asked the question at the time and I'll ask it again now. Who was Webster asked to sign for? Hearts or Vlad/Kaunas/UBIG etc etc. Is this not why he would not renew in the first place? A very good question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Would be an interesting point, if it wasn't for the fact that we did continue to play him in the 05/06 season. No we didn't. Webster and Hearts contract negotiations broke down around March 2006, between then and the end of the season, Webster did not feature in any league games once Ivanauskis was put in place by Vlad, the only game he did play was the Scottish Cup semi V Hibs. Ibrahim Tall had taken his place by the time the final came around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_my_words Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I heard during the dispute that hearts had offered webster a further 2 year extension taking his contract to 4 years and that he would recieve the captaincy upon the departure of pressley and 18k a week. The team would also be based around him. Unfortunately the hun decided it was more desirable to play for his precious rangers. He signed to Wigan to hide the fact that he was trying to sign for rangers without them paying a transfer fee. Hence why he was immediately loaned to them. The fact that webster has hardly played since then is no coincidence. Rangers were merely trying to keep webster on a low profile to reduce any compensation value. I wouldnt be surprised if he featured in the team now. is he fit for tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Busby ! Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 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'. We may well have been "out there" over the last couple of years in terms of player management Shaun, I know that. But even perfectly normal well run clubs, could quite legitimately decide not to select players who are declining a new contract or are making noises to get away. It's the clubs judgement call as to whether a player in that position is really in the right frame of mind to offer full commitment on a match day. Breakdown of trust cuts both ways in that regard. Leaving Hearts to one side for a second, I don't see why any club, lets say "Average FC", should be considered to have taken some kind of adverse or injurious reaction to the player in such circumstances. It's a playground for the legal fraternity of course in making such arguments and if they can convince a court, then they've done their job I guess. Sucks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 A very good question. Is it? Why is it not part of the evidence put forward to the CAS? That sort of evidence would have strengthened AW's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamblow Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 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. Total rot - if you read the summary it quite clearly states Webster broke his contract and the FIFA rules are not legally binding. So the question was how much compensation for breaking your contract - the answer the value of the remainder of your contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I haven't been following this case with any great interest, but I'm guessing Webster's lawyers would've been playing the 'Mad Vlad' card big time. I'm disapointed at this verdict, but not surprised in the least. Let's hope we **** the Huns tonight to make us feel a bit better. Buffalo Bill . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Very bad news for small clubs IMHO. Will mean that players can break contracts with impunity if a big club comes in and covers the wages for remainder of their contract. Transfer fees do not exist as such anymore perhaps? There is no longer a premium on buying out a contract... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Fair enough Sean, but what constitutes a 'breakdown in trust'?If we assume a player signs for a club for a particular manager because he feels the club are going in a particular direction, but a year in to the deal the manager is sacked/changed or the team isn't winning isn't it possible the player could state he no longer trusts the manager? A breakdown in trust is surely as possible unilaterally as bilaterally? CAS may not set precedents per se, but I think this may well have that effect. In theory - but I'd be astonished if that proved to be CAS' take in any similar cases in the future. I think the level of compensation is so low because Webster has successfully argued that his working conditions were unreasonable, hence the breakdown in trust - but that will apply very rarely, and certainly not if a manager had merely been changed, or the player dropped. Clubs have a duty to treat their employees with respect and care - as, of course, do employers everywhere. This, I suspect, is what may have been unusual about this case: and why Webster was advised he'd have a decent shot at making the move that he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinzo Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I asked the question at the time and I'll ask it again now. Who was Webster asked to sign for? Hearts or Vlad/Kaunas/UBIG etc etc. Is this not why he would not renew in the first place? Burley left him out of a pre-season tour to Ireland because of his "links" to Rangers. Even "Saint George" had problems with Webster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Total rot - if you read the summary it quite clearly states Webster broke his contract and the FIFA rules are not legally binding. So the question was how much compensation for breaking your contract - the answer the value of the remainder of your contract. It's a bit fecking harsh to call my contribution 'total rot' The CAS decision, in my opinion implies that yes Webster did breach his contract, however as he was in dispute with Hearts at the time, he only has to pay the outstanding value of his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horse Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I wonder if the evidence of Vlads meddling which Rix gave was a contributing factor? Maybe if Vlad had let the manager manage Webster would still be with us. Why is Webster the hate figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamblow Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 The CAS Panel underlined that the criteria listed in Article 17 of the FIFA PSR do not entitle a club or a player to unilaterally terminate an employment contract without cause; on the contrary, any such termination is clearly deemed a breach of contract, even outside the so-called ?Protected Period?, as in the present case. Therefore, the mission of the Panel was to determine the amount of compensation due to Hearts by Webster and/or Wigan. If you read the above it clearly states Webster breached his contract. There is no influence on the level of compensation because he didn't get a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lauried Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 May be a daft question but why are no ligitimate web sites reporting this, it's not exactly small news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Burley left him out of a pre-season tour to Ireland because of his "links" to Rangers. Even "Saint George" had problems with Webster. Incorrect, Webster refused to travel for our pre-season preparations to Ireland (or so it was reported at the time), because he was unhappy that Hearts rejected a bid from the Huns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Didnt Rix appear as a witness in the hearing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 No we didn't. Webster and Hearts contract negotiations broke down around March 2006, between then and the end of the season, Webster did not feature in any league games once Ivanauskis was put in place by Vlad, the only game he did play was the Scottish Cup semi V Hibs. Ibrahim Tall had taken his place by the time the final came around. So the semi doesn't count then? Presumably, the game at Celtic Park at the beginning of April doesn't count either? If you make a sweeping and inaccurate statement, be prepared to be shot down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praha06 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 David Taylor has done David Murray proud. As SFA boss he tears up Webster's Hearts contract...now as UEFA boss in Switzerland... Do you really think that UEFA will be overly pleased by this ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 A lot of Clubs wil go to the wall, If there is Justice then Wigan will be first? I hope they get relegated first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 We may well have been "out there" over the last couple of years in terms of player management Shaun, I know that. But even perfectly normal well run clubs, could quite legitimately decide not to select players who are declining a new contract or are making noises to get away. It's the clubs judgement call as to whether a player in that position is really in the right frame of mind to offer full commitment on a match day. Breakdown of trust cuts both ways in that regard. Leaving Hearts to one side for a second, I don't see why any club, lets say "Average FC", should be considered to have taken some kind of adverse or injurious reaction to the player in such circumstances. It's a playground for the legal fraternity of course in making such arguments and if they can convince a court, then they've done their job I guess. Sucks though. Sure - but it depends on what exactly was going on in the background: information we weren't and will never be privy to. Far too many players have made reference to the almost unique situation they've had to deal with at the club: yet none of us know the specifics. I think we can be pretty sure they'll have been relayed behind closed doors at the CAS as they applied to Webster, and suspect the compensation is so low because the CAS believed he'd been mistreated. In what way though, we know not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combo74 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Maybe if Vlad had let the manager manage Webster would still be with us. Why is Webster the hate figure? Come on Horse that is a ridiculous statement. Our current managerless predicament shouldn't be brought into this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullen13 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Maybe if Vlad had let the manager manage Webster would still be with us. Why is Webster the hate figure? because he always wanted to play for rangers and was never interested in playing for hearts. He could have done the decent thing and let us sell him but he wouldnt want his team to go out of pocket. Even before vlad he wanted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Very bad news for small clubs IMHO. Will mean that players can break contracts with impunity if a big club comes in and covers the wages for remainder of their contract. Transfer fees do not exist as such anymore perhaps? There is no longer a premium on buying out a contract... That is it in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjh1874 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Maybe if Vlad had let the manager manage Webster would still be with us. Why is Webster the hate figure? Is this the same webster who stated he wasn't going on a pre-season tour at the start of his fateful season because Der Hun had shown an interest in him? Little skunk who has worked his ticket all along!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Didnt Rix appear as a witness in the hearing ? And why do people think Webster would have called such a witness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol1874 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 In theory - but I'd be astonished if that proved to be CAS' take in any similar cases in the future. I think the level of compensation is so low because Webster has successfully argued that his working conditions were unreasonable, hence the breakdown in trust - but that will apply very rarely, and certainly not if a manager had merely been changed, or the player dropped. Clubs have a duty to treat their employees with respect and care - as, of course, do employers everywhere. This, I suspect, is what may have been unusual about this case: and why Webster was advised he'd have a decent shot at making the move that he did. Again, point taken, but Andy Webster was merely dropped. He still trained with the first team, still had kit provided, still represented club and was still paid. Will the CAS publish minutes of the hearing do you know? I would like to read submissions of 'fact' from both sides perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 And why do people think Webster would have called such a witness? Because - wasnt Rix the one who precipitated all this on the day of THAT Dundee United game ? Memory is fading in my old age............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Is it? Why is it not part of the evidence put forward to the CAS? That sort of evidence would have strengthened AW's case. It may very well have been. All that's been published has been the ruling - but the legal arguments between the two sides will, I presume, remain private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester copperpot Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Didnt Rix appear as a witness in the hearing ? That was at a different court case mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amjam Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 What about all the apparent dodginess with Wigan, Rangers and JJB, was that ever looked into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Again, point taken, but Andy Webster was merely dropped. He still trained with the first team, still had kit provided, still represented club and was still paid. Will the CAS publish minutes of the hearing do you know? I would like to read submissions of 'fact' from both sides perspective. I don't know, and doubt to be honest - but I'm with you: I'd like to get my hands on them too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 The CAS Panel underlined that the criteria listed in Article 17 of the FIFA PSR do not entitle a club or a player to unilaterally terminate an employment contract without cause; on the contrary, any such termination is clearly deemed a breach of contract, even outside the so-called ?Protected Period?, as in the present case. Therefore, the mission of the Panel was to determine the amount of compensation due to Hearts by Webster and/or Wigan. If you read the above it clearly states Webster breached his contract. There is no influence on the level of compensation because he didn't get a game. Maybe so, but the break down in relations is mentioned in the decision summary: "The Panel found that the termination of the contract was essentially generated by a mutual breakdown in trust between the Player and Hearts." So it did have some influence on the decision. Or maybe I should just be pathetic and childish and call your post 'total rot' just because I disagree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 In theory - but I'd be astonished if that proved to be CAS' take in any similar cases in the future. I think the level of compensation is so low because Webster has successfully argued that his working conditions were unreasonable, hence the breakdown in trust - but that will apply very rarely, and certainly not if a manager had merely been changed, or the player dropped. Clubs have a duty to treat their employees with respect and care - as, of course, do employers everywhere. This, I suspect, is what may have been unusual about this case: and why Webster was advised he'd have a decent shot at making the move that he did. Webster illegally broke his contract though. He used a ruling but implemented it incorrectly. But saw little punishment for it. And how difficult would it be for a player to claim similar "loss of trust" and follow suit? CAS may deal with things on a case by case basis but this is an appeal, players can walk, compo set, and only if the club left is miffed will CAS get involved. Players will win out of this, big clubs won't essentially be affected as they can entice as well as lose, but small clubs are knackered. Their wage levels are small compared to larger clubs so compo for them would be far less than possible transfer fees gained, so it would essentially come down to the integrity of a player and them wanting to see their old club taken care of over their need to make money. And then we have agents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I don't actually care how much or little Vlad makes out of this as it doesn't equate to money that will be spent on players. What is important is that the transfer system has another nail in it's coffin with players contracts meaning very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 So the semi doesn't count then? Presumably, the game at Celtic Park at the beginning of April doesn't count either? If you make a sweeping and inaccurate statement, be prepared to be shot down. Likewise... Answer me this question... Was Andy Webster first choice centre half for Hearts before his contract negotiations broke down, and did he remain so after? So he played 1 league game after his alienation by Romanov, hardly 'sweeping and innacurate'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savage Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 i cannot believe this totally pesh, lets hammer the feckers tonight and forget all about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Aye, your're wrong - CAS was set up by the I.O.C. kind of shows that they are out of their depth though! I thought i might be... ach well, i still hate the EU! I'll leave that arguement for another day though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 It may very well have been. All that's been published has been the ruling - but the legal arguments between the two sides will, I presume, remain private. No reason for them to remain private - justice must be seen to be done and all that. However, the ruling does set out the facts and if that had been led in evidence, it would have been mentioned. It wasn't mentioned which strongly suggests IMHO that no such evidence was led. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamblow Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Maybe so, but the break down in relations is mentioned in the decision summary: "The Panel found that the termination of the contract was essentially generated by a mutual breakdown in trust between the Player and Hearts." So it did have some influence on the decision. Or maybe I should just be pathetic and childish and call your post 'total rot' just because I disagree with it. But in the summary of how compensation was stated it was never mentioned - I'm obviously right and you are wrong. Apologies but you do indeed write rot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 But in the summary of how compensation was stated it was never mentioned - I'm obviously right and you are wrong. Apologies but you do indeed write rot. ...and the wee description under your username sums you up to a tee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobbyshambles Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 hearts are literally getting no good decisions from anyone anymore.this is beyond a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.