UpTheGunnerz
Vrei sa pleci dar una una iei
Player:Elneny
Me, yousif and rauls severance packet
-
! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !
Discussions about police investigations
In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.
Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.
Mesut Özil: Think This Might Be It For Me(sut)
- Thread starter razörist
- Start date
- Replies 5,493
- Views 299,097
- Status
Player:Elneny
Me, yousif and rauls severance packet
al-Ustaadh
👳♂️ Figuring out how to delete my account 👳♂️
Why can't they talk it over? Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
Country: England
https://theathletic.com/2156374/2020/10/23/Özil-arsenal-contract-constructive-breach/
Contract breach? Constructive dismissal? Özil and Arsenal – the legal angle
https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2020/10/23062416/Özil-arsenal-contract-constructive-breach.jpg
By James McNicholas
As Arsenal toiled to victory over Rapid Vienna in their Europa League opener last night, Mesut Özil provided his own commentary on Twitter. Arsenal fans following the game on social media enjoyed the surreal sight of the club’s best-paid player providing minute-by-minute analysis from his sofa.
This was the week in which Özil’s fate at Arsenal appeared to be sealed. Having been left out of their Europa League squad, he was then omitted from the club’s Premier League one, too.
Since then, both the player and Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta have spoken publicly about the situation — Özil stated he was “deeply disappointed” to be excluded, before Arteta reiterated his own “conscience is very calm” regarding the midfielder.
While the subsequent discussion has largely been focused on the factors behind Özil’s omission, there are also questions regarding the legal implications of what has gone on. Are either Arsenal or Özil breaching the terms of his contract? How much money might the club save by leaving him out? And how do the two parties find a way forward?
With the help of some experts in sports law, The Athletic attempts to provide some answers.
Are Arsenal and Özil currently fulfilling their contractual obligations to each other?
Yes. In any Premier League player’s contract, the club consents to provide the athlete with certain amenities: a place to train, medical facilities etc. They are doing that. The club are not, however, obliged to select Özil, nor to register him for competition.
For Özil’s part, he continues to report to London Colney, as stipulated in his deal. He is still training regularly with the first team, and The Athletic understands that in order to maintain his fitness in the absence of competition he is spending more time in the gym.
Have any of Özil’s public statements constituted a breach of contract?
No. Özil has taken a public stance against the persecution of the Uighur muslims in China — and regrettably Arsenal did not back him in that. However, it is unlikely that constitutes a breach of his Arsenal contract.
Özil also made headlines when he offered financial support to Jerry Quy, who was released from his role as the club’s dinosaur mascot Gunnersaurus. While that caused considerable embarrassment for the club, several sports lawyers have told The Athletic it would not constitute a breach.
Can either party unilaterally terminate the contract?
No. If Özil resigned, he would only be entitled to a contractual claim if he could prove he had been subject to constructive dismissal (more on that later).
While it’s often suggested that Arsenal should just pay Özil what he is owed, the reality is that mutual agreement is required to cancel the contract. If you cancel without agreement, it constitutes a breach of contract, and could lead to a civil case with Özil winning the value of said contract and potentially more in damages. In the case of Henrikh Mkhitaryan terminating his Arsenal contract this summer, all parties were happy to end the agreement.
Currently, an offer for the remaining value of his contract would not persuade Özil to leave. His preference is to stay until the end of his deal, and with both parties entrenched in their positions, the likelihood is that Arsenal would have to produce a financial package substantially greater than what they currently owe the former Germany international to change his mind.
Crucially, no formal pay-off from the club has been forthcoming. Although Özil’s representatives met Arsenal executives Edu and Huss Fahmy before this season started, the talks were ultimately fruitless.
There is an article in FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) which permits players to terminate contracts with just sporting cause. Article 15 reads: “An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than 10 per cent of the official matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause.”
There are two issues here: first of all, there is a risk that compensation may be due to the club. Secondly, the wording states that “a professional may only terminate his contract on this basis in the 15 days following the last official match of the season of the club with which he is registered”.
Do Arsenal save any money by not registering him for competition?
Yes. As is the case with most player contracts, a proportion of what Özil makes is performance-related. If he is excluded from the first team, he does not collect any win bonuses. The Athletic understands his ongoing omission could save Arsenal in the region of £35,000 per game.
Does Özil have a case for constructive dismissal?
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely he would try to go down that path. It is well established, under English law, that a duty of trust and confidence will be implied into all employment contracts. The accepted formulation of the term is as follows:
“Employers will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence or trust between employer and employee” — Woods v WM Car Services Peterborough Limited (1981) ICR 666.
If the employer breaches this term— either via a one-off event or as the culmination of multiple smaller events — the employee can then resign and treat themselves as having been constructively dismissed.
In the world of football, this would then enable the player to claim damages for the remaining term of their contract (assuming there is no break clause) under a wrongful dismissal claim. Furthermore, where they have two or more years’ service, they would, at least in theory, also be entitled to claim a relatively small amount of additional compensation for unfair dismissal.
It’s worth noting that this duty is mutually applicable to both employer and employee. Much of what we are seeing play out publicly — Arteta’s insistence that Özil’s omission is based purely on sporting merit, Özil’s unwavering social media support for his team-mates — appears designed to ensure neither party is seen to breach the “trust and confidence”.
Constructive dismissal cases are very rare in sport — but they do happen. In 2009, a Premier League managers’ arbitration tribunal upheld Kevin Keegan’s claim for constructive dismissal against Newcastle.
However, it’s unlikely to be seen as an attractive option for Özil. First of all, it’s a high-risk strategy. “If you assert that you’ve been constructively dismissed and are ultimately wrong, you’re then the one who’s acting in breach of contract,” explains David Hunt, a partner at legal firm Farrer & Co. “Secondly, there can be a substantial delay in the player gaining much-needed clarity. For example, it can take time to seek a determination via the relevant arbitration process, meaning the player is left in limbo with them not knowing if they are yet free to join another club.”
Furthermore, if a player was to sign for a new club while such a process was ongoing, it would influence the value of their claim. “They have to give credit for any new sums earned by way of mitigation,” says Hunt. “If a player’s claim that they had been constructively dismissed is upheld, they would have a claim for damages against their former club for lost earnings in relation to the remaining term of their contract. However, they would have to offset against that claim any new salary earned from new employment.”
The other factor to note in relation to the claim of constructive dismissal itself is that the employers will have a defence if they can show there was “reasonable and proper” cause for the actions being complained about.
What next?
The most likely scenario remains that Özil stays until the end of his contract next summer — perhaps without ever playing for the club again, meaning his final appearance would have been in the 1-0 win over West Ham United on March 7, Arsenal’s last match before the COVID-19 lockdown began.
Interestingly, we are now just over two months away from the 32-year-old being permitted to sign, and announce, a Bosman transfer to another club outside of the UK.
Perhaps that is the first piece of closure we may receive on this long-running saga.
https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2020/10/23062416/Özil-arsenal-contract-constructive-breach.jpg
By James McNicholas
As Arsenal toiled to victory over Rapid Vienna in their Europa League opener last night, Mesut Özil provided his own commentary on Twitter. Arsenal fans following the game on social media enjoyed the surreal sight of the club’s best-paid player providing minute-by-minute analysis from his sofa.
This was the week in which Özil’s fate at Arsenal appeared to be sealed. Having been left out of their Europa League squad, he was then omitted from the club’s Premier League one, too.
Since then, both the player and Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta have spoken publicly about the situation — Özil stated he was “deeply disappointed” to be excluded, before Arteta reiterated his own “conscience is very calm” regarding the midfielder.
While the subsequent discussion has largely been focused on the factors behind Özil’s omission, there are also questions regarding the legal implications of what has gone on. Are either Arsenal or Özil breaching the terms of his contract? How much money might the club save by leaving him out? And how do the two parties find a way forward?
With the help of some experts in sports law, The Athletic attempts to provide some answers.
Are Arsenal and Özil currently fulfilling their contractual obligations to each other?
Yes. In any Premier League player’s contract, the club consents to provide the athlete with certain amenities: a place to train, medical facilities etc. They are doing that. The club are not, however, obliged to select Özil, nor to register him for competition.
For Özil’s part, he continues to report to London Colney, as stipulated in his deal. He is still training regularly with the first team, and The Athletic understands that in order to maintain his fitness in the absence of competition he is spending more time in the gym.
Have any of Özil’s public statements constituted a breach of contract?
No. Özil has taken a public stance against the persecution of the Uighur muslims in China — and regrettably Arsenal did not back him in that. However, it is unlikely that constitutes a breach of his Arsenal contract.
Özil also made headlines when he offered financial support to Jerry Quy, who was released from his role as the club’s dinosaur mascot Gunnersaurus. While that caused considerable embarrassment for the club, several sports lawyers have told The Athletic it would not constitute a breach.
Can either party unilaterally terminate the contract?
No. If Özil resigned, he would only be entitled to a contractual claim if he could prove he had been subject to constructive dismissal (more on that later).
While it’s often suggested that Arsenal should just pay Özil what he is owed, the reality is that mutual agreement is required to cancel the contract. If you cancel without agreement, it constitutes a breach of contract, and could lead to a civil case with Özil winning the value of said contract and potentially more in damages. In the case of Henrikh Mkhitaryan terminating his Arsenal contract this summer, all parties were happy to end the agreement.
Currently, an offer for the remaining value of his contract would not persuade Özil to leave. His preference is to stay until the end of his deal, and with both parties entrenched in their positions, the likelihood is that Arsenal would have to produce a financial package substantially greater than what they currently owe the former Germany international to change his mind.
Crucially, no formal pay-off from the club has been forthcoming. Although Özil’s representatives met Arsenal executives Edu and Huss Fahmy before this season started, the talks were ultimately fruitless.
There is an article in FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) which permits players to terminate contracts with just sporting cause. Article 15 reads: “An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than 10 per cent of the official matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause.”
There are two issues here: first of all, there is a risk that compensation may be due to the club. Secondly, the wording states that “a professional may only terminate his contract on this basis in the 15 days following the last official match of the season of the club with which he is registered”.
Do Arsenal save any money by not registering him for competition?
Yes. As is the case with most player contracts, a proportion of what Özil makes is performance-related. If he is excluded from the first team, he does not collect any win bonuses. The Athletic understands his ongoing omission could save Arsenal in the region of £35,000 per game.
Does Özil have a case for constructive dismissal?
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely he would try to go down that path. It is well established, under English law, that a duty of trust and confidence will be implied into all employment contracts. The accepted formulation of the term is as follows:
“Employers will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence or trust between employer and employee” — Woods v WM Car Services Peterborough Limited (1981) ICR 666.
If the employer breaches this term— either via a one-off event or as the culmination of multiple smaller events — the employee can then resign and treat themselves as having been constructively dismissed.
In the world of football, this would then enable the player to claim damages for the remaining term of their contract (assuming there is no break clause) under a wrongful dismissal claim. Furthermore, where they have two or more years’ service, they would, at least in theory, also be entitled to claim a relatively small amount of additional compensation for unfair dismissal.
It’s worth noting that this duty is mutually applicable to both employer and employee. Much of what we are seeing play out publicly — Arteta’s insistence that Özil’s omission is based purely on sporting merit, Özil’s unwavering social media support for his team-mates — appears designed to ensure neither party is seen to breach the “trust and confidence”.
Constructive dismissal cases are very rare in sport — but they do happen. In 2009, a Premier League managers’ arbitration tribunal upheld Kevin Keegan’s claim for constructive dismissal against Newcastle.
However, it’s unlikely to be seen as an attractive option for Özil. First of all, it’s a high-risk strategy. “If you assert that you’ve been constructively dismissed and are ultimately wrong, you’re then the one who’s acting in breach of contract,” explains David Hunt, a partner at legal firm Farrer & Co. “Secondly, there can be a substantial delay in the player gaining much-needed clarity. For example, it can take time to seek a determination via the relevant arbitration process, meaning the player is left in limbo with them not knowing if they are yet free to join another club.”
Furthermore, if a player was to sign for a new club while such a process was ongoing, it would influence the value of their claim. “They have to give credit for any new sums earned by way of mitigation,” says Hunt. “If a player’s claim that they had been constructively dismissed is upheld, they would have a claim for damages against their former club for lost earnings in relation to the remaining term of their contract. However, they would have to offset against that claim any new salary earned from new employment.”
The other factor to note in relation to the claim of constructive dismissal itself is that the employers will have a defence if they can show there was “reasonable and proper” cause for the actions being complained about.
What next?
The most likely scenario remains that Özil stays until the end of his contract next summer — perhaps without ever playing for the club again, meaning his final appearance would have been in the 1-0 win over West Ham United on March 7, Arsenal’s last match before the COVID-19 lockdown began.
Interestingly, we are now just over two months away from the 32-year-old being permitted to sign, and announce, a Bosman transfer to another club outside of the UK.
Perhaps that is the first piece of closure we may receive on this long-running saga.
scytheavatar
Established Member
Why the freak did you think Arteta tried to play Willian as a false 9?
Country: England
Lacazette captained the side yesterday and has been dropped for like, 2 games genius.
Value doesn't mean good - Xhaka started by default for many years despite telling the fans to f*ck off for example - use your brain.
Being part of the squad means yes, there is some value otherwise Nketiah would be nailed on starter. It's not even about Laca anyways its about Özil not being in the squad.
scytheavatar
Established Member
The pay cut money is tiny and insignificant................ we screwed up because other clubs were asking for 30-40% pay cut and that is what we should have been asking for to make a massive difference to the >£100 million lost we are guaranteed to make in the current season. Don't be surprised to see us ask our players for a second pay cut cause we will need it.
scytheavatar
Established Member
Everything indicates that Arteta doesn't rate Laca highly and were looking for ways to move away from using him........... which is why he tried to start Nkeitah ahead of Laca last season (much to the fan's disgust) and had been experimenting with nonsense like Willlian as a false 9. He's desperate but can't see another option.
I'd add Adams, Keown, Bergkamp to that list.
Country: Canada
Glad to see the controversy is wrapped up after the agent's comments.
Country: England
Completely irrelevant jibberish.
Soares has more value to the squad than Özil right now doesn’t matter what you think of him.
I wonder if the club will support the manager and his office and terminate Özil's contract early or allow this to fester. This presents a bad picture to any player thinking of joining and those who are here.
kash2
More Consistent Than Arteta
the rabid fans have a lot to answer for.. innecessary whining and pressure
Country: England
According to the article early termination would be far more costly.
This is a good read the main point being that termination of contract by the club has to mutually agreed. We're stuck with him. When this is over, our website will thank him but not wish him luck-just like we did with RvP.https://theathletic.com/2156374/2020/10/23/Özil-arsenal-contract-constructive-breach/
Contract breach? Constructive dismissal? Özil and Arsenal – the legal angle
By James McNicholas
As Arsenal toiled to victory over Rapid Vienna in their Europa League opener last night, Mesut Özil provided his own commentary on Twitter. Arsenal fans following the game on social media enjoyed the surreal sight of the club’s best-paid player providing minute-by-minute analysis from his sofa.
This was the week in which Özil’s fate at Arsenal appeared to be sealed. Having been left out of their Europa League squad, he was then omitted from the club’s Premier League one, too.
Since then, both the player and Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta have spoken publicly about the situation — Özil stated he was “deeply disappointed” to be excluded, before Arteta reiterated his own “conscience is very calm” regarding the midfielder.
While the subsequent discussion has largely been focused on the factors behind Özil’s omission, there are also questions regarding the legal implications of what has gone on. Are either Arsenal or Özil breaching the terms of his contract? How much money might the club save by leaving him out? And how do the two parties find a way forward?
With the help of some experts in sports law, The Athletic attempts to provide some answers.
Are Arsenal and Özil currently fulfilling their contractual obligations to each other?
Yes. In any Premier League player’s contract, the club consents to provide the athlete with certain amenities: a place to train, medical facilities etc. They are doing that. The club are not, however, obliged to select Özil, nor to register him for competition.
For Özil’s part, he continues to report to London Colney, as stipulated in his deal. He is still training regularly with the first team, and The Athletic understands that in order to maintain his fitness in the absence of competition he is spending more time in the gym.
Have any of Özil’s public statements constituted a breach of contract?
No. Özil has taken a public stance against the persecution of the Uighur muslims in China — and regrettably Arsenal did not back him in that. However, it is unlikely that constitutes a breach of his Arsenal contract.
Özil also made headlines when he offered financial support to Jerry Quy, who was released from his role as the club’s dinosaur mascot Gunnersaurus. While that caused considerable embarrassment for the club, several sports lawyers have told The Athletic it would not constitute a breach.
Can either party unilaterally terminate the contract?
No. If Özil resigned, he would only be entitled to a contractual claim if he could prove he had been subject to constructive dismissal (more on that later).
While it’s often suggested that Arsenal should just pay Özil what he is owed, the reality is that mutual agreement is required to cancel the contract. If you cancel without agreement, it constitutes a breach of contract, and could lead to a civil case with Özil winning the value of said contract and potentially more in damages. In the case of Henrikh Mkhitaryan terminating his Arsenal contract this summer, all parties were happy to end the agreement.
Currently, an offer for the remaining value of his contract would not persuade Özil to leave. His preference is to stay until the end of his deal, and with both parties entrenched in their positions, the likelihood is that Arsenal would have to produce a financial package substantially greater than what they currently owe the former Germany international to change his mind.
Crucially, no formal pay-off from the club has been forthcoming. Although Özil’s representatives met Arsenal executives Edu and Huss Fahmy before this season started, the talks were ultimately fruitless.
There is an article in FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) which permits players to terminate contracts with just sporting cause. Article 15 reads: “An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than 10 per cent of the official matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause.”
There are two issues here: first of all, there is a risk that compensation may be due to the club. Secondly, the wording states that “a professional may only terminate his contract on this basis in the 15 days following the last official match of the season of the club with which he is registered”.
Do Arsenal save any money by not registering him for competition?
Yes. As is the case with most player contracts, a proportion of what Özil makes is performance-related. If he is excluded from the first team, he does not collect any win bonuses. The Athletic understands his ongoing omission could save Arsenal in the region of £35,000 per game.
Does Özil have a case for constructive dismissal?
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely he would try to go down that path. It is well established, under English law, that a duty of trust and confidence will be implied into all employment contracts. The accepted formulation of the term is as follows:
“Employers will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence or trust between employer and employee” — Woods v WM Car Services Peterborough Limited (1981) ICR 666.
If the employer breaches this term— either via a one-off event or as the culmination of multiple smaller events — the employee can then resign and treat themselves as having been constructively dismissed.
In the world of football, this would then enable the player to claim damages for the remaining term of their contract (assuming there is no break clause) under a wrongful dismissal claim. Furthermore, where they have two or more years’ service, they would, at least in theory, also be entitled to claim a relatively small amount of additional compensation for unfair dismissal.
It’s worth noting that this duty is mutually applicable to both employer and employee. Much of what we are seeing play out publicly — Arteta’s insistence that Özil’s omission is based purely on sporting merit, Özil’s unwavering social media support for his team-mates — appears designed to ensure neither party is seen to breach the “trust and confidence”.
Constructive dismissal cases are very rare in sport — but they do happen. In 2009, a Premier League managers’ arbitration tribunal upheld Kevin Keegan’s claim for constructive dismissal against Newcastle.
However, it’s unlikely to be seen as an attractive option for Özil. First of all, it’s a high-risk strategy. “If you assert that you’ve been constructively dismissed and are ultimately wrong, you’re then the one who’s acting in breach of contract,” explains David Hunt, a partner at legal firm Farrer & Co. “Secondly, there can be a substantial delay in the player gaining much-needed clarity. For example, it can take time to seek a determination via the relevant arbitration process, meaning the player is left in limbo with them not knowing if they are yet free to join another club.”
Furthermore, if a player was to sign for a new club while such a process was ongoing, it would influence the value of their claim. “They have to give credit for any new sums earned by way of mitigation,” says Hunt. “If a player’s claim that they had been constructively dismissed is upheld, they would have a claim for damages against their former club for lost earnings in relation to the remaining term of their contract. However, they would have to offset against that claim any new salary earned from new employment.”
The other factor to note in relation to the claim of constructive dismissal itself is that the employers will have a defence if they can show there was “reasonable and proper” cause for the actions being complained about.
What next?
The most likely scenario remains that Özil stays until the end of his contract next summer — perhaps without ever playing for the club again, meaning his final appearance would have been in the 1-0 win over West Ham United on March 7, Arsenal’s last match before the COVID-19 lockdown began.
Interestingly, we are now just over two months away from the 32-year-old being permitted to sign, and announce, a Bosman transfer to another club outside of the UK.
Perhaps that is the first piece of closure we may receive on this long-running saga.
Jury
A-M's drunk uncle
Toldya mrs B! Any other way didn’t make sense.
Anyway, apparently that poll he did last night netted him £50k, so it’s not all bad.
Good to know his hearts still in it...
sykesy69
Active Member
So we calling having a change in squad dynamics a vendetta now, are you alright?
Is it not ok to have a plan of who you want in your squad and then tell those that they are unlikely to see any playing time going forward?
Granted the player has a contract so it's up to him whether to stay or go, but they have been straight and told them irrespective of whether the player feels it's just or not.
sykesy69
Active Member
Like I said earlier, if not for COIVD, we're probably not even discussing this.
But seeing as we are where we are, the entitlement comes from believing he is owed a spot in the squad because he is under contract.
If you have been told that you are surplus to requirements and are unlikely to see any playing time (if the end of the previous season wasn't indication enough), yet you state very early in the summer break that you are honouring your contract and staying regardless, the entitlement is knowing your salary and deciding to stay anyway.
Then on top that you come out and state how disappointed you are and you and your team make a massive show of not being being able to what you're paid to do (victim), when you've been pre-warned.
I'm sorry but I don't see how that is anything but entitlement, especially the sh1t coming from his Agent today.
Kings of the PR spin him and his team, maybe someone should've found him somewhere to play this season and done their real job...
- Status
