Samuel Umtiti

[Rassvet]

This threat could work because I bet he loves the status of being a “Barcelona player”

 

[Andresito]

There goes the possibility of getting any sort of transfer fee for him.

Not that I actually believed that Benfica were willing to bid 10m though.

 

[FinBarcelonafan]

We will still have to compensate him but at a lower amount determined by Fifa.

It would be like the Webster Law but with the club buying out (terminating) the contract and not the player.

If it's less, I am all for it. He could have gotten all by going on loan.

 

[delancey]

Someone above mentioned that we'd likely have to pay a part of his contract, but not all. His contract expires in 2023. So if we do end up terminating his contract, why wouldn't we have to compensate the remaining value of that contract?

 

[khaled_a_d]

Someone above mentioned that we'd likely have to pay a part of his contract, but not all. His contract expires in 2023. So if we do end up terminating his contract, why wouldn't we have to compensate the remaining value of that contract?

Because:
A-he will need to show he couldn't be paid elsewhere. He can't get any extra money from other team.
So, hypothetically, if he gets 10M atm, and Lyon pays him 3M, the club only owe him 7M. If he wants to collect his whole check he needs to stay free agent.

B-The club actually waited till we got offers for him which he rejected, means that he is intentionally hurting the club trying to stay against our well while he gets offer where he is going to be paid the same.
In such case Umtiti can't go to play somewhere else for free or for under his market value. Because we have found him ways to get paid his full salary but he turned it down.

Now, there will be sure counter arguments from his lawyers, but I am talking how the club. lead by a lawyer, seeing it if they indeed do it.
In the aforementioned scenario the club actually saves the salary he could have got if he accepted the offers he got.

 

[JamDav1982]

Because:
A-he will need to show he couldn't be paid elsewhere. He can't get any extra money from other team.
So, hypothetically, if he gets 10M atm, and Lyon pays him 3M, the club only owe him 7M. If he wants to collect his whole check he needs to stay free agent.

B-The club actually waited till we got offers for him which he rejected, means that he is intentionally hurting the club trying to stay against our well while he gets offer where he is going to be paid the same.
In such case Umtiti can't go to play somewhere else for free or for under his market value. Because we have found him ways to get paid his full salary but he turned it down.

Now, there will be sure counter arguments from his lawyers, but I am talking how the club. lead by a lawyer, seeing it if they indeed do it.
In the aforementioned scenario the club actually saves the salary he could have got if he accepted the offers he got.

A cant be true otherwise Umtiti could just sign for any club on 1 Euro a week and get 10m from Barca. When both he and new club would be aware of the rules.

 

[khaled_a_d]

A cant be true otherwise Umtiti could just sign for any club on 1 Euro a week and get 10m from Barca. When both he and new club would be aware of the rules.

But he can't, because with other offers we already established he has a value and clubs are offering him X amount of money.
That is why we waited.
For example if a club offered him 5M of his salary (now, while he is under contract with us), he can't get paid 1 euro and then ask us for 5M, in such case we are providing evidence that he is doing it as fraud to hurt the club.

That was my 2nd point, probably didn't explain it well

 

[JamDav1982]

But he can't, because with other offers we already established he has a value and clubs are offering him X amount of money.
That is why we waited.
For example if a club offered him 5M of his salary (now, while he is under contract with us), he can't get paid 1 euro and then ask us for 5M, in such case we are providing evidence that he is doing it as fraud to hurt the club.

That was my 2nd point, probably didn't explain it well

Doesnt work like that and good luck trying to get any club to prove what they offered him... if any have.

If they are terminating his contract they are taking a risk and prepared to fight it in courts probably against his future earnings.

 

[Porque]

Someone above mentioned that we'd likely have to pay a part of his contract, but not all. His contract expires in 2023. So if we do end up terminating his contract, why wouldn't we have to compensate the remaining value of that contract?

It will depend on if it is judged as a termination of just cause or not just cause.

If it determined without just cause then Barcelona at best will have to pay the remainder of his contract in full.

If it is judged as just cause then it would be less than the remainder of the contract and determined by CAS.

If both parties can come to a mutual termination then it would naturally be lower than then pay out in full.

So if Barcelona terminate Umtiti and Umtiti does not agree, then this will end up in CAS.

If may work in Barcelona favour as Umtiti has rejected any option to leave for 3 transfer windows or more. It may work against as Barcelona have already terminated Matheus, and the previous board Setien. Both are said to have not been paid for their terminations and Setien was said to take the matter to CAS previously.

At worse with the trio taking the case together Barcelona could face a fine even, if it is judged they are terminating contracts whilst refusing to pay what they are due.

 

[khaled_a_d]

Doesnt work like that and good luck trying to get any club to prove what they offered him... if any have.

Those clubs already made offers for loan with us, so we already have the proof.

 

[JamDav1982]

Those clubs already made offers for loan with us, so we already have the proof.

What clubs? And dont agree it works like that anyway. If they release him they cant now just claim wont pay what has been offered by other clubs.

Easy to get round that for Barca... get some club know he wont go to to offer him 10m a season.

No chance that will stand in court or the plan from Barca other than to argue against loss of earnings for any club he does sign for and what they pay him possibly.

 

[ajnotkeith]

A cant be true otherwise Umtiti could just sign for any club on 1 Euro a week and get 10m from Barca. When both he and new club would be aware of the rules.

The rule quoted is factual. If a team such as Lyon offered Umtiti 1 euro a week it would be clear in any court that it is obviously not his market value and they would look at the club's current wage bill (for example, if Umtiti was signed to be a starting CB, and they have a backup on triple his wages, that they are gaming the system)/interest from other teams/Umtiti's ability to establish how much compensation Barca would owe, this is the role of CAS.

Nor would Umtiti accept such a contract, why on earth would you turn down guaranteed income and instead pin your hopes on a court case you may win or you may lose? It's in all parties interest for them not to game the system as the club signing him doesn't want to be sanctioned and any sane player would prefer a guaranteed income over a court battle they may not win.

In fact, players who have been terminated are often avoided by other clubs purely for this reason as there is impeding legal judgement on their eligibility/possible earnings etc.

 

[ajnotkeith]

'When FIFA presented the mentioned amendment to RSTP art. 14 (2) and the new art. 14bis, they also introduced amendments to art. 17, which regulate how compensation should be calculated when the player is entitled to compensation. The new article states a clear method of calculation. If the player has not signed for a new club, the player shall be entitled to an amount equalling the wages for the remainder of the contract. If the player has signed a contract with a new club, these wages shall be deducted from the compensation. The positive difference between the value of the old contract and the new contract in the corresponding time frame, is defined as “mitigated compensation”. In addition to mitigated compensation, the player will automatically be entitled to three months wages, defined as “additional compensation”. If the player can establish egregious circumstances, the additional compensation may be increased from three up to maximum six-monthly salaries, although he overall compensation may cannot exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.'

Now as JamDav said what if clubs wanted to game the system and offer lower wages to a player bc they may receive compensation from a previous club (Assuming any player would accept this)

The case goes to CAS who are given a large amount of leeway in calculating compensation, based on the circumstances. If something like that occurred they would recognise 1 euro a week is clearly under his market value and judge based on that, however no clubs have ever tried something that audacious

 

[Porque]

'When FIFA presented the mentioned amendment to RSTP art. 14 (2) and the new art. 14bis, they also introduced amendments to art. 17, which regulate how compensation should be calculated when the player is entitled to compensation. The new article states a clear method of calculation. If the player has not signed for a new club, the player shall be entitled to an amount equalling the wages for the remainder of the contract. If the player has signed a contract with a new club, these wages shall be deducted from the compensation. The positive difference between the value of the old contract and the new contract in the corresponding time frame, is defined as “mitigated compensation”. In addition to mitigated compensation, the player will automatically be entitled to three months wages, defined as “additional compensation”. If the player can establish egregious circumstances, the additional compensation may be increased from three up to maximum six-monthly salaries, although he overall compensation may cannot exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.'

Now as JamDav said what if clubs wanted to game the system and offer lower wages to a player bc they may receive compensation from a previous club (Assuming any player would accept this)

The case goes to CAS who are given a large amount of leeway in calculating compensation, based on the circumstances. If something like that occurred they would recognise 1 euro a week is clearly under his market value and judge based on that, however no clubs have ever tried something that audacious

This is in reference to a player terminating his contract to sign for a new club. It is an amendment applied from Matuzalem as it was judged that his termination was made with influence directly by Real Zaragoza in attempt to sign him for a lower transfer fee. Zaragoza were forced to pay a fee plus interest, compared to Webster who just required to pay the remainder of his contract.

I'm not sure how this applies with Umtiti and Barcelona trying to release him from his contract?

 

[ajnotkeith]

This is in reference to a player terminating his contract to sign for a new club. It is an amendment applied from Matuzalem as it was judged that his termination was made with influence directly by Real Zaragoza in attempt to sign him for a lower transfer fee. Zaragoza were forced to pay a fee plus interest, compared to Webster who just required to pay the remainder of his contract.

I'm not sure how this applies with Umtiti and Barcelona trying to release him from his contract?

The same principle applies to all cases when calculating the compensation a player should receive namely the amendments of Matuzalem and De Sanctis.

If a contract has been terminated by one of the parties without there being just cause, and if a party terminates the contract where there is just cause, the party who has breached its obligations will be liable for damages pursuant to RSTP article 17. DRC and CAS has awarded compensation in a large number of cases based on the principles from the cases of Matuzalem[2] and De Sanctis[3], which, in short, acknowledged the harmed party’s right to be put in the position it would have been if the contract had been properly fulfilled, the principle of positive interest. In the process of calculating the compensation, a wide range of factors will have to be taken into consideration, leaving the DRC and CAS panels with a wide margin of discretion.