Youth Coach speaks. LOL!!!

[Rockman]

Gee,another binding trait has emerged,Paul Marin too would have opted to distance himself..

[Sir X]

Why yuh think he is implying that pool should play Sterling contract out for the 2 yrs ? .....he leaves at 22 to Man U FREE and torments pool the rest of his life under a real coach,while we are stuck in midtable -spending power relative to league position...lol...with di Rucks coach.

[Tilla]

Liverpool acquired Sterling for next to nothing from QPR back in the day. They have been paying him chicken feed since he turned 18 and could sign a professional contract. If Sterling wants to leave, FIFA Article 17 allows him to do so, since I think he has passed the "protected period" in his contract. He is currently at the right time where he can do that. So Liverpool does not really hold the blade as you have been singing Sass. They know it too.


Check these articles on FIFA's Article 17.

Arshavin may buy out contract as transfer stalls

How to buy out your football contract with FIFA's Article 17

[Sir X]

Like I said,a bet Im cut imself between Sass and di brains mi nuh know.

[Assasin]

let us see him do it. His agent would have done that if he could.

You hear want Rodger said? He is under contract for the next two years.

[Tilla]

let us see him do it. His agent would have done that if he could.

You hear want Rodger said? He is under contract for the next two years.

Rodgers is stating the obvious Sass. Of course the player is under contract for the next two years. As much as what Rodgers said is fact, it does not follow that remainder of the contract has to be honored by the player.

Also a fact is, they signed him to a 5 year contract and he is coming onto the end of the third year (the protected period). Why do you think Liverpool wants to extend his contract? Do you think it is only because they want to give him some more money?

Here is what they are afraid of. They acquired Sterling for next to nothing from QPR years ago. They currently have him on a 35K per week salary and have seen him attract attention of other big clubs as a result of his development. If Liverpool do not lock him down to a more lucrative contract, Sterling could buy out his contract himself and walk out and join a big club. Simple as that.

So Sass, Rodgers can say what he wants about player has two years left o his contract. The player does, but it does not mean he has to honor the rest of that contract. If he chooses that he will not, all it amounts to is that he will have to pay the club compensation (or buy out his contract as they call it).

The fact that they did not pay a large transfer fee for Sterling and his salary is relatively low, makes it a strong possibility that the player could leave and they could not do anything about it except take the money deemed to be what it is considered the remainder of what the contract is worth.

I am sure you will now see why it would make better sense financially for Liverpool to take advantage of his current market value and maximize their take. So if after the last game of the season and if Sterling has not exercised the right afforded him by FIFA's Article 17 in 15 days after the close of the season, then he will be Liverpool's for the next two years. Until then, we can only watch the ride...

[Assasin]

Tilla I am using history to judge. Tevez would have bought out his own contract and Suarez would have but they didn't. It is not as easy as you think.

Sterling could have easily double what he was bought for and double his wages so why not buy it out and go then?

[Assasin]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...remeier-league

[Assasin]

And if you think Liverpool a fool

During the summer transfer window, the PFA reported that the contractual provision in Suarez’s contract with Liverpool was a ‘good faith’ release clause rather than an automatic release clause. The two are quite different. With an automatic release clause, player ‘y’ must be allowed to speak to purchasing club ‘x’ if the minimum release amount is offered. A ‘good faith’ clause means the parties are required to negotiate in good faith once a bid has been made. Importantly, a good faith clause does not automatically trigger the selling club to accept the offer.
The PFA were reported to have been arbitrating between the player and the club, and explaining to the player the likelihood of the clause standing up to a robust legal examination. As such, it was considered by the PFA that the clause was not an automatic release clause.

http://www.danielgeey.com/buy-out-re...ll-the-basics/

[Tilla]

Sass, I see you read, but you do not comprehend. As they say, reading is overrated.

Back on topic. please state for me the case of Tavez, as I do not have all the facts.

When Tavez wanted to leave his team, was he still in the protected period of the contract? Let us considering he had passed the protected period, did he exercise his option of terminating the contract within the time-frame in which he has to do so?

Also, you missed two of the biggest points in the whole discussion which have a big bearing on the whole situation. Tavez had a large transfer fee payed for him by his club City. The difference here, is Liverpool payed QPR almost nothing for Sterling. The transfer fee would have a large bearing on the buy out amount the player would be required to pay the club.

Also, Tavez's salary could have been about 5 times Sterlings. So when you take into consideration the transfer fee and salary, the buy out amounts would be like comparing cheese to chalk Sass!

It may be easier for a Sterling to come up with say 4 million pounds to buy out his deal than say Tavez to buy out his contract when you take into consideration his high transfer fee as well as salary. Just not the same here Sass.

As it stands right now, the stars are aligned perfectly for Sterling to make his move if he decides he wants to go. Considering he has no transfer fee to be factored into the payoff, his low salary would make him have to pay Liverpool maybe 5 million pounds at most to walk. He pays that, City pay his a 5 million sign-on bonus and he is better off than he was financially at Liverpool.

Anyway, it does not seem as if I will be able to talk some understanding of the situation to you, so I am going to leave you on this one. Sometimes I feel you only prolong the argument just to have the last word.

[Tilla]

You are off to the races on a tangent here Sass. We were never talking about release clause, but here you go.

BTW, Article 17 deals with compensation to a party when one party ends a contract before the contract expiration period. There might be some similarities when you think about it, but one is preset by the club before the termination and the other might be determined by CAS.

Anyway, let us leave it here.

[Assasin]

ok forget Tevez and since I can't give you the full background. I gave you two cases below and I bet you a buyout will never occur in Sterling's case.

That much I can bet you. These laws are not as easy as you are trying to make it. There are many grey lines and it is going to take time, money as the paper states that there is confusion on the player's worth and not what is his current contract and that makes a big difference.

[Paul Marin]

FSG can "afford" to sit on Sterling through the end of his contract....Really.

What did they pay for him?

[Paul Marin]

So if Pool had lost out on getting Suarez then it would have been inconsequential because better players probably would be available next time around?

Sterling is no Suarez. And when Pool got Suarez, he was no Suarez. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[Paul Marin]

Sterling also has the option of buying out the rest of his contact period if he really wants to leave. Considering that they are paying him chicken feed right now, if would not be hard to do. He would then make back that money that City would pay him as sign on bonus.
I think Liverpool know that the game can be played this way too, so they are not making the case of sitting him on the bench for two years. They would be asinine to go that route.

I read the thread between you and Sass. Whether Sterling wants to buy out the contract or not, or whether LFC want to sell him on or not, is not my point. All I'm saying is that LFC got him for nothing, so there is no financial "loss" they would be recording on their books. That doesn't mean that there isn't an opportunity cost to the club, just that they can play hardball if they want...even if that means leaving him on the bench (which is highly unlikely, but not unprecedented).

I also don't know if the player buying out his contract is necessarily always feasible. Usually, there is a fixed number, and if there is no fixed number, I believe (not sure) the number is based on market value, (i.e. opportunity cost) not just wages. Regardless, I think that it is a path that is fraught with potholes for both sides and that can be trumped by clauses in the player's contract.

Either way, Sterling and his agent have gone about this like fools. There was no reason to speak to the BBC, and even less reason to insult the club. All they have done is make FSG take a harder line. I don't think any LFC fan wants a player who doesn't want to be at the club (xcept for maybe hex, but he's not a red's fan anyway) so we would prefer to see FSG take £50m (or whatever), send him on his way, and move on.