The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Tuesday 8th June)

I would imagine a medical would have been necessary after we were promoted to determine his fitness, which can't have taken place. I think we're gonna lose this argument though.

 

Someone, somewhere at Leeds Utd made a 20m mistake!

Yes, we missed out on Che Adams and Leeds were desperate. Leeds kept upping the price, and it wasn't until they told Leeds that they were embarrassing themselves that they backed off.

They needed a striker and with desperation, thought Monaco striker, not a bad record, he'll be mustard in the Championship.

 

They knew he hadn't played much at Monaco, so his fitness was always going to be low.

 

BTW I should give credit to Ristac for the below, as this was a quote he posted the day after we signed Augustin. Sorry Ristac should have made it clear when I posted the details

He underwent a medical on 27th Jan, prior to joining on loan, as per article from YEP

From the YEP - Augustin


United went to extreme lengths to keep it under wraps, too.

Augustin decided that he wanted to cut short his loan stint at Monaco and head to England to play for Bielsa, so was flown to Leeds on a private jet late on Sunday night, landing on the Multiflight private runway at the back of the Leeds Bradford airport. He was driven to the Doubletree by Hilton, whisked through a side door and when he got up on Monday morning, walked into an adjoining room the club had booked out, cleared out and transformed into a mobile medical facility.

Leeds head of medicine and performance Rob Price gave the 22-year-old his medical and then it was off to Elland Road to sign on the dotted line and pose for pictures, white shirt on, fist on heart.

Augustin has been admired by Bielsa for some time and tracked by director of football Victor Orta, who is said to have a good relationship with the player’s agent, Meïssa N’Diaye, head of Paris-based Sport Cover.​

 

Passed a medical at Lille too and still not even fit enough to even train with the first team, so not buying your lame argument. Lille are not happy because they are contracted to pay him his wages and have had nothing from him in a year.

there is a problem and its an underlying problem and they can call it long covid or whatever the hell they want, but a pro athlete who cannot perform to even basic standard is a crock and faulty goods. The manager who brought him on has now left to join Nice and left the club with the Big Kev headache.

Real law isnt based upon being moral or immoral, its based upon fact and contractual obligations that fall under certain clauses. There are clauses that cover almost any eventuality and in this particular in law Leeds win on law because of the dates stipulated never mind all the other stuff. Fifa have dealt with “fair play, moral obligation and best intentions” but real law is different and if it transpires that Fifa have found in favour of Leipzig then expect a massive slap in the face for Fifa and watch them ridiculed in a court of law

 

Sorry Doc if my argument was so lame, then why are Lille having to pay his wages, if passing a medical is so meaningless, what's the point in having them

Just like you I don't want the club to have to pay the money out, however I'm also realistic enough to accept that however strong you think our argument is,our main defence was a technicality which FIFA so far have dismissed. Do I hope the club can win an appeal, of course I do, but if a laymen like me can come up with an argument (lame or not) then I'm sure the lawyers at both clubs will be more eloquent in presenting the case, and I wouldn't be surprised if Leipzig defence team focus on the medical issue, if OUR club present a "fit for purpose" defence, not that I think they will.

 

You absolutely sure we're going to appeal? I refer the honourable gentleman to 2 previous unchallenged winnable calamities - think 'Spygate' & 'Blackbastardgate'. We lay down on both of these. And for no apparent reason. Why?

I sniff an out of court settlement to make it go away.

 

Acts count in a court of law
1) 2 clubs in 2 years have signed him and not been able to use him
2) these things really count and are very very unusual if not unique in football
3) this unique case means law will overrule anything Fifa put out because fifa just like the EFL or FA work on best intentions and goodwill. Just like Leeds broke no rules but were found guilty and fined £200k for Conduct unbecoming or some such bollox. which was a crock of shyt but paid to keep the peace. Just like Kiko found guilty “on probability not fact or proven”. But £20m is more than any of these organisations have between them so law will make a real ruling and it will not be pretty for football.
4) When Fifa are threatened with law, not court of sports arbitration there will be lots of behind the scenes action to resolve, because just like the Belgium player won the contractual case in law it has had a profound effect on football for years. ordering a club to give another club £20m for a player who was defective, unfit, broken and not been able to play and then watch that same player go to another club and still not be able to play because hes broken. Massive, massive law case this with a profound effect for football.
5) passing a medical means all your bits are where they are supposed to be. All your limbs and organs are fully functioning etc………… but playing a football match at full 100%;for 90mins isnt part of a medical. This is an unusual case if not unique but nobody in their right minds would pay £20m for anything that doesnt do what it says on the tin. Nobody, so Leeds have played nice so far and given Fifa a chance but no more Mr Nice Guy

 

We need better lawyers from what I can see or as you say why are we just letting the issues go unchallenged are we using first year trainees or are we a bit naive in negotiations in some regards....looks like we need rumpole

 

Get what you're saying but it is exactly the argument and objection that many are saying about what happens on on the pitch.

Only those of us who disapprove haven't got the luxury of a separate thread in real life, we just have to accept the introduction of politics in to sports or we're all racists.

We go there for the football

 

But I didn’t think that was our argument. I thought we were arguing that his contract ended before we were promoted so the agreement to buy was no longer binding? Nothing to do with faulty goods. What stops their lawyers from claiming Bielsa’s unique expectation for different fitness levels caused his current situation?

 

Think 2 separate issues. First issue is football governing body on said contract. So date was used as mitigation. Then think issue 2: if football rules against then go to law. Leeds have tried to play by the rules but because football works on goodwill, morality etc etc etc it seems football have sided with Leipzig. So now it will be law and wont be pretty because law works on facts, which will indeed be the dates but the fact that the player is broken and has been broken and in fact is still broken. Leipzig in law wont have a leg to stand on because the contract dates are clear which is a fact, and the rest is all about how the player hasnt fulfilled his side of a deal and still is not able to play football even after all this time

 

Question: IF we had been forced to take Big Kev at the time, would he have had to go through ANOTHER medical for the permanent contract, or would the other medical be considered as being for the loan AND the full time contract?

Think it's obvious, sadly, but I'm having a wee pick at the scab.

 

Sorry mate, just can’t see that argument standing up in court. If it did every club that bought Daniel Sturridge or Jack Wilshire would be getting ****ing millions in refunds

 

TLDR - Me and Doc have differing views on the legal aspects of Augustin

Doc I am going to say this in very big letters

I WANT YOU TO BE CORRECT

However it is not as simple as saying the dates in the contract support us, especially in this case, and whilst I am not as well read on European Court Law, even under English law, I would rate our chances at no better than 50/50. (obviously if we had the full detailed contractual agreement between ourselves and Leipzig available I may well increase or decrease our chances).

Firsty our argument is that we were not promoted by the time the date on the contract expired. Leipzig's argument is that the date only expired due to extraordinary issues arising from the season being delayed due to COVID.

Now presumably the contract between the two clubs will have had various "Force Majeure Clauses" better termed as "Acts of God" to protect both clubs. I will admit I don't know because I don't have the contract in front of me, so if you can provide me with a full copy to show that your reasoning is correct, then I will be more than happy to go with that. Now whether COVID will be classed as an "Act of God" is also something we don't know as yet, and I expect that the courts will deal with COVID contract issues on a case by case basis.

So when Leeds signed Augustin on loan was there any reason to suspect at the time that COVID was going to delay the completion of the football season. Given that the football season was suspended more than 5 weeks after the loan was agreed, there may well be a case to say it wasn't for see able at the time, in which case COVID could be treated as an "Act of God". If the season had been suspended say on the 10th of February then the courts could infer that COVID was a known issue at the time, and thus in this case wouldn't be an "Act of God" (this presumes that all the medical issues that occurred during February and March had occurred earlier to justify the season being delayed).

Now I have no idea what communication took place between ourselves and Leipzig during the suspension of the season, regarding the Augustin situation. If very little then this strengthens our case to some extent. Now if there is documentary evidence saying that Leipzig want to extend the terms of the contract due to the COVID issues, but we don't, this weakens our case.

Now to rely upon a Force Majeure Clause, the party doing so must prove that it was prepared to fulfil the contract under its normal terms, as if the delay had not occurred. From Leipzig's point of view I feel that it's fairly easy for them to prove, for ourselves a bit more difficult.

An exert from William Morris Solicitors on "Acts of God" and the English Courts

The English courts do not look favourably on reliance on force majeure clauses to escape contractual obligations that have simply become more expensive or difficult to perform. Parties can, however, negotiate and expressly provide for a clause of this kind​

I've no idea if the European Court takes a similar view on the above.

Now when it comes down to whether Augustin was fit enough to be even considered a footballer, you cannot say that we did not have an idea of what we were taking a gamble on when we made the approach to sign him. Leipzig didn't offer him, we went after him. It's not as if someone pulled the wool over our eyes, we knew there were going to be issues, so I think it would be difficult to argue in a court of law that Augustin wasn't "fit for purpose"

Speaking about Augustin ahead of the game, Bielsa said: “Augustin is a player who can make a lot of impact. He has a lot of skills. You realise that from how much he cost and the teams he played for. But in the last 8 months he played 3 full matches”

“When this happens, the conclusions about his fitness levels are clear. Would a player with the ability of Augustin would arrive to our club if he wasn’t in the situation that he’s in now? A player of his level, with his skills, if he’s playing he could cost £30m or £40m.

“If he arrived here without us paying that money, it’s because he has to resolve a problem – that he wasn’t playing. His fitness performance is very important.​

As I said at the top of this post Doc, I want everything you have said on this issue to be totally 100% correct. But without seeing every bit of documentary evidence relevant to this issue, I don't think anyone on this forum is in a position to categorically state one way or the other how the Courts would/will judge on this.

Thus in my opinion it is better to be prepared for failure and thus be ecstatic when all your fears and dreads fail to come to fruition than expect everything to go exactly the way you want it to, and then be downhearted when decisions are made that you don't agree with.

 

It must be catching because I thought it was Wednesday too for some reason lol!

 

How about a hit man to blow the blackbastard away that’s a good out of court settlement in my eyes.

 

Where's Cellino when you need him? Pretty sure he's connected

 

Do dead men count as players cos if they do we must still owe for Izzy brown (if he ever existed).

 

Speaking as an eternal optimist, even I note the very real difficulties in winning this case, given your cautious & compelling assessment (above).

Scratching about for some good news about this case, I can only come up with the fact that at least we can afford €21m with comparative ease in the PL. Can you imagine the hit that would have been if we were back in the Championship? Wowzer!