Zak Brunt - Academy kid

[RamNut]

2 minutes ago, cannable said:

Allowing academy players to leave would just set the prescedent that would shaft everybody bar the big clubs?

Academies are already being shafted by EPPP which structures and limits fees.

Liverpool signed I’ve at fifteen after he’d already played for Wycombe. Should they have let him go just because he wanted to?

The high compensation is clearly designed to stop clubs poaching each others players.

but if he goes to another club then let the fee be decided by a tribunal.

demanding 120k and with holding his registration would be very wrong.

 

[cannable]

5 minutes ago, RamNut said:

The high compensation is clearly designed to stop clubs poaching each others players.

but if he goes to another club then let the fee be decided by a tribunal.

demanding 120k and with holding his registration would be very wrong.

 

The fee is structure by whoever runs the academy system? The tribunal will say 120k?

[RamNut]

I understand that the compensation amount is defined by the EPPP rules in cases where the club holds onto the registration by using the YD10 form to release the player.

However.....if it was challenged in court, the court would have to decide whether it was all fair and reasonable.

alternatively the club has the option to let him go using the yd7 form.

There is something very wrong in how its all been set up. The family are doing nothing wrong by highlighting the issue.

if we chose to let him go we could.

these are children not seasoned pros.

 

 

 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

these are children not seasoned pros.

They are signing contracts authorized and written by adults - look to his father.

[RamNut]

No no no.

imagine a scenario where a 14 year old boy is getting sexually abused by a coach at an academy, or bullied.

he wants to leave and go to another academy.

the club can say that you must stay because its going to cost £80k for another club to take you, and then next year when he's 15 its going to cost £120k, and the year after that £160k.

Every single player has the same high transfer value irrespective of ability.

its a fundamentally flawed system which protects the club but not the child.

[AndyinLiverpool]

40 minutes ago, RamNut said:

So we can't develop him, no club will pay £120k, and therefore his career is dead.

ridiculous.

Nobody's career is dead at 15. Except Lassie's perhaps.

[RamNut]

Whilst i'm no expert on contracts, when i did study contract law i seem to remember that if a clause was there for the exclusive and unreasonable benefit of one party, it could be subsequently be deemed to be an unfair contract clause and the court would find against the party that the clause was designed to favour.

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

No no no.

imagine a scenario where a 14 year old boy is getting sexually abused by a coach at an academy, or bullied.

he wants to leave and go to another academy.

the club can say that you must stay because its going to cost £80k for another club to take you, and then next year when he's 15 its going to cost £120k, and the year after that £160k.

Every single player has the same high transfer value irrespective of ability.

its a fundamentally flawed system which protects the club but not the child.

Utter dreck. If a boy is being sexually abused by a coach, the law is being broken and the club bears some responsibility.

The two scenarios are not alike in the slightest and you know it.

[RamNut]

2 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Nobody's career is dead at 15. Except Lassie's perhaps.

It is if the club won't release the players registration to another league club.

[RamNut]

1 minute ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Utter dreck. If a boy is being sexually abused by a coach, the law is being broken and the club bears some responsibility.

The two scenarios are not alike in the slightest and you know it.

Or bullying. Or he just doesn't want to carry on. You are being deliberately obtuse.

the point i was trying to highlight was that players can be held in a trap against their will.

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

Whilst i'm no expert on contracts, when i did study contract law i seem to remember that if a clause was there for the exclusive and unreasonable benefit of one party, it could be subsequentlt deemed to be an unfair contract clause and the court would find against the party that the clause was designed to favour.

 

You would have to show it to be 'unreasonable'. The father could have had the contract looked over before it was signed and such clauses could have been highlighted before he got his son into this situation. Perhaps he did, and his solicitor did not highlight any such clauses. Perhaps he didn't. If he didn't, he's a bad representative for his son.

[RamNut]

Just now, AndyinLiverpool said:

You would have to show it to be 'unreasonable'. The father could have had the contract looked over before it was signed and such clauses could have been highlighted before he got his son into this situation. Perhaps he did, and his solicitor did not highlight any such clauses. Perhaps he didn't. If he didn't, he's a bad representative for his son.

Thats not how it works legally.

of course the clause is there when you sign it.

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

3 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Or bullying. Or he just doesn't want to carry on. You are being deliberately obtuse.

the point i was trying to highlight was that players can be held in a trap against their will.

I'm not being obtuse. You attempted to make some equivalence between the lad's contactual situation and someone who is being sexually abused. Which is disingenuous to say the least.

Bullying is the same. The would possibly a negligence case to be made against the club.

[Gypsy Ram]

Any excuse to bash Mel, eh Ramnut? I'm no fan of his but I'll stand by the club on this one. It all appears like a ploy by the parents to make as much money as possible before the kid is found out that he's a circus juggler.

Did the dad specify why they are unhappy, and even if they are, they signed a contract, they can't just break it. In some countries like Dubai you'll go to jail if you abscond.

[RamNut]

The point is.......the contract is unfair.

eventually this will get challenged, and the challenger will probably win.

contracts are not meant to be written for the unfair advantage of one party, and the law won't support them if they are.

this needs a sort of bosman ruling for the apprentices

if we don't can't hold onto zak brunt because he is a dick, as so many seem to immediately assume, then just let him go.

 

[RamNut]

1 minute ago, Gypsy Ram said:

Any excuse to bash Mel, eh Ramnut? I'm no fan of his but I'll stand by the club on this one. It all appears like a ploy by the parents to make as much money as possible before the kid is found out that he's a circus juggler.

Did the dad specify why they are unhappy, and even if they are, they signed a contract, they can't just break it. In some countries like Dubai you'll go to jail if you abscond.

Yeah any excuse. Ignore all the reasoned arguments .

[RadioactiveWaste]

Cant help but think there is more than one side to this.

My speculation (and its pure speculation) is the kid is caught in some sort of power play between club and agent. Previous clubs haven't faught it because it wasn't worth their time to.

I would take a guess that legally Derby are in the right (i say legally, without knowing the full story and id hesitate on who is morally in any credit). As such the other dad/agent party have embarked on the hearts and minds side of things in the media.

 

 

[Gypsy Ram]

Just now, RamNut said:

The point is.......the contract is unfair.

 

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[RamNut]

Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

Cant help but think there is more than one side to this.

My speculation (and its pure speculation) is the kid is caught in some sort of power play between club and agent. Previous clubs haven't faught it because it wasn't worth their time to.

I would take a guess that legally Derby are in the right (i say legally, without knowing the full story and id hesitate on who is morally in any credit). As such the other dad/agent party have embarked on the hearts and minds side of things in the media.

 

 

I think contractually Derby are in the right.

Legally - all category 1 academies attempting to apply this rule - are probably legally in the wrong.

[RamNut]

1 minute ago, Gypsy Ram said:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Unfair being the legal definition.

off with his head. You might prefer that.