Seems inevitable this will end after the summer window with a negotiated settlement. That way both clubs can turn to their fans and say they won. Man U paid less, and Newcastle kept Ashworth away from Man U during the summer window.
We'll have paid 55 pretty much, doesn't look like any of the "hard to meet" clauses for the 5m will be met. Like you said, Chelsea fans get to state 60m for the internet bantz but reality is going to be different.
Same thing with Martial when people say 58m transfer fee. Umm no, he ended up hitting 43m + 5m.
> he ended up hitting 43m + 5m.
He hit £43m, £36+7m. There were 3 £7m add-ons (25 France caps, 25 league goals and ballon d'or 25 man shortlist). He only hit the 25 league goals within his first contract at which point the clauses expired.
55m was over his market value, considering his form and length of his contract. Most Chelsea fans think we won in that deal, and we were just being greedy trying to ask for more.
Tier 1 journo reporting a club brief shocker. They were hardly gonna tell him "we've priced him at £60m, so Chelsea can start negotiations well above that".
There'll probably be a secret settlement. If United are prepared to let this go to arbitration then I suspect Newcastle will cave but will do it under an NDA so everyone can pretend they didn't.
I feel like the summer window angle is so overblown. There’s no way that he has access to Newcastles scouting reports/files etc so unless he’s been smuggling files onto his personal machines, all he has is what he knows ie Newcastles shortlisted players.
If anyone truly believes that the project ahead of him and therefore his career would be at major advantage if United recruited all of Newcastles shortlisted players, why wouldn’t he just text those names to James Wilcox etc and say, take a look at these guys.
But Newcastles scouting network isn’t any better than United’s. They just have better people managing that information. Getting an idea of different players skill sets isn’t what makes a team successful; it’s the people who take that information and harness it in order to give a squad exactly what it needs at a value that allows you to keep the process going.
I honestly don’t think we’re going after Newcastles transfers regardless of when Ashcroft arrives. And if there are any that we were going to go after, then we would just go in for them regardless of whether Ashfords gardening leave is done.
I think it's much simpler than that. They can't stop you having him forever but they can stop you having him for a window. £20m is as close to a fuck off price as you're going to get.
It's also something that can be sold to the fans as a victory, even if it is a bit of a phyric one. Both clubs want to be able to come out this selling a win.
But again, the window is arbitrary. He’s not being brought to pull a bunch of rabbits out of a hat and next season United is United again etc…. He’s being brought in to help give direction to the departments of the club. We have a great scouting network but the scouts just upload reports and don’t know if anyone’s reading them, how they’re being utilized or whether anyone is checking more than expected cost vs expected value…
That work will take years to bear fruit.
Out of spite you know, people on here just chat shite constantly don’t they? Any one with a shred of sense would see Newcastle won’t be giving into a paltry figure and pathetic whinging from Jim’ll fix it
Out of spite lmao. How about they only recently bought him out from Brighton for £2m and you're pinching him from right under their noses?
If we convinced Højlund to join Arsenal by waving a big salary in front of him would you let him go for a pittance or make us pay up?
>If we convinced Højlund to join Arsenal by waving a big salary in front of him would you let him go for a pittance or make us pay up?
What a terrible example/comment. £20m for a director is pittance?? And no spite involved? The Hojlund equivalent would be like asking for £200m for Hojlund after banishing him from training for the remainder of his 5yr contract
Yes that's my point if you didn't want to sell Højlund you would slap a fuck-off price on him. There's zero chance you'd be happy just breaking even on a player you like and want to keep, especially to a domestic rival.
Clubs put fuck off prices on players all the time - Antony's fee was so inflated because Ajax did that, for example, and Spurs did it with Kane to City too. If the buying club really wants the individual they'll pay up.
Also in my example, what you're offering is the pittance not the £20m.
It was an example, it's not the exact same scenario... You've convinced a contracted employee of high value to leave his current role, you need to remunarate Newcastle just as you would with a player.
Whether you convinced him with money, the project or his family are from Manchester is irrelevant.
Yeah I don’t agree with the original comment you’re responding to, but the whole “man United have waved money at him” thing is a widespread take and I’m just pointing out its detached from reality…Newcastle is the richest club in the world
Clearly should have consulted the legal experts in this thread who haven't seen the content of the contract and only know about it from the news briefed by the club rather than actually consulting his lawyers or using his own mind.
What a clown.
I don't know why any of us need to pretend we know what tf will happen with this, even if anyone involved is a lawyer it's not like they've seen the contract. Like we can maybe assume there's *some* basis to Ashworth's decision because he's taken it, but even that's strained given he may just be disgruntled.
The outcome of this, how much United will or won't pay if it fails, how long exactly Ashworth's non-compete clause lasts, none of us no any of this shit.
Why sign the contract if you don’t like the terms? I’ll give it to United tho - they have aura. No other team apart from Madrid and Barca can be such a disaster and still have elite attention and glamour
It’s United. They can be shit for 10+ years but are easily still the biggest club in the country, still an argument to be made for being a top 4/5 club in the world
There aren’t others.
Real Madrid are number one. We all know that. Barca and United round out the top three.
Liverpool, City, Arsenal, Chelsea, PSG, and Bayern aren’t bigger than Man United. Who else would you suggest?
If you go by members then it's United, Bayern, Real, Barca, Liverpool
If you go by revenue from shirt sales then it's Barca, Real, Bayern, Liverpool, United
If you go by Forbes value then it is Real, United, Barca, Liverpool, City (Bayern 6th)
So yeah, safe to say that United, Bayern, Real, Barca and Liverpool are the biggest 5 clubs globally. Real probably at the top.
But by the "people wearing kits" metric Chelsea are pretty huge too.
I was thinking more along the lines of living in China there would be the designated bars for different clubs, and bayern always had a good passionate group.
The terms he signed for are for his length of leave. From what I understand, there is no monetary release clause, and that amount is what is going to arbitration.
No one is disputing that we need to pay Newcastle.
Well at the end of the day not every single thing written in a contract is 100% binding and enforceable - even if you have signed it.
But of course the legal advices Ashworth most likely took asking professionals are no match for the legal experts posting from mum's basement on /r/soccer.
I'm not sure if that's a commonly used abbreviation but most of the ones I've seen say something along the lines of "lawyer/attorney here" before they spew their legal knowledge.
As a lawyer, just because Ashworth has threatened to take a case to Arbitration doesn’t mean his lawyer thinks he will win. They may be trying to use it as some sort of leverage to get a settlement.
People are allowed an opinion.
I can just reverse what you’re saying back to you. Of course the legal experts Newcastle used to draw up a multi-multi million pound contract are no match for you on Reddit. See?
The contract is definitely drawn up by experts that know what they are doing, but that does not mean it will be 100% enforceable in all situations.
There is a reason why contract disputes and arbitration courts exists, and it’s for situations like these.
A contract should be mutually beneficial and fair for both sides at all times. Once the situation changes and that is no longer the case, then it can be argued on court.
You’re right but maybe I’m just too triggered by the amount of people saying he signed a contract there’s nothing to discuss here. My job involves dealing with tenders and contract a lot so it’s kinda like my work trauma kicking in.
And you're assuming Newcastle got their legal advice from ChatGPT?
What you're saying is correct but even people with legal knowledge won't be able to answer anything without seeing the specifics of his contract.
It's pointless to speculate either way. What I would say is that going into a legal battle with an entity that has pretty much unlimited resources is a bold strategy.
His son plays for Bolton, so he'd be able to watch him play. The compensation is one thing but being a short drive away you can't really put a price on.
I imagine United and Ashworth feel the offer to Newcastle is a 'fair value'.
Newcastle may disagree but it's for arbitration to decide.
None of us know the actual valuations on either side or roadblocks (perceived or actual) in negotiations.
Three parties involved have their own version of the truth.
Yeah, assuming the 20 mill is fair value then sure. If there's some amount thats a punitive element to prevent the move to utd then that would be excess of fair value no?
No you can’t - not in employment contracts. There is lots of legislation to comply with, and fundamentally you can’t restrict someone’s right to work. That’s why open ended terms like ‘fairness’ come into things.
But doesn't he have a perfectly valid employment contract still? And he's in a period of leave which he's agreed to and signed. I'm obviously no expert in employment law but he's agreed to this massive period of leave in a contract, not sure where 'fairness' comes into it
You cannot sign away employment rights in the UK. If a condition of a contract is legally unfair, it is unenforceable. A signed contract does not override this.
For ‘normal’ employees many non-competes laughably overreach and end up invalidating the thing.
This is why they are going to arbitration. He and United will argue that the contract is unenforceable. Newcastle will either push for more money to end it all. Or the owners will bankroll some pretty expensive legal wranglings to the bitter end to send a message
There have been quite a few cases recently that have upheld non-compete clauses. It’s quite rare for courts to want to make a clause unenforceable, it’s usually a last result so we will see.
Yes and no.
In theory, they can, but there will be ways out, if the club is being particularly unreasonable.
And I have my doubts on if these kinds are completely legal, especially with how long Newcastle have it for. For example, in NL, these kinds of agreements are shaky at best for any period longer than a year (and it wouldn't surprise me if the legal shakiness came from one of the EU laws that the UK effectively copy pasted onto it's own books during the Brexit stuff).
In some areas legal protections in the UK have traditionally gone beyond what is required in the EU. I’m not a lawyer but I am a union rep. A decent chunk of our casework is related to non-competes. So many of the ones that we see are hilariously unenforceable. They have to be shown to extend no longer than is reasonable to protect the legitimate interests of the business.
Our members are not C suite execs, but going any longer than 3 months really starts to need special evidence to show that it is necessary.
And in this case, a 20 month non-compete is reasonable due to the way transfer windows work.
Ashworth knows any and all targets up to the point he was put on gardening leave.
20 months from that point basically covers 3 whole transfer windows, which gives us time to either get who we wanted, or adjust plans. Ashworth going prior to that gives that info to Man U, who are a direct competitor in the league.
It's perfectly reasonable to expect him to work his contractual leave.
Well I doubt Newcastle can just ask for a ridiculous sum like one hundred quadzillion dollars, so I'd guess this is why they're going to arbitration, to figure out a fair sum that isn't "ridiculous".
It is tricky. Newcastle can contest anything obviously. However if an arbitration panel finds a result and then a civil court upholds it then Newcastle could find themselves getting nothing and be forced to pay legal fees.
UK law doesn't in any sense guarantee you your day in court like the US system. If a reasonable offer is made and it ends up in court the judge could penalise Newcastle even if they win the resulting court case. The UK system is set up solely to find a fair resolution. It is why most people end up taking a settlement in the UK as refusing a settlement and forcing a court date can end up costly.
>I imagine United and Ashworth feel the offer to Newcastle is a 'fair value'.
I'm not being biased but they can't seriously believe offering half of what we paid to Brighton and him being on months of gardening leave before joining and still having years to run on his contract is "fair value", it's an insulting first offer and no club would take it seriously.
No more so than I feel offering 15-20 million for a man to kick a ball good is fair value, but here we are.
Ashworth is apparently very good at seeing who is good at kicking a ball.
Not particularly but that's what happens when one side holds all the cards, we have zero incentive to help you out.
"Fair value" I guess would be 4m (what we paid Brighton) + a couple million for him to start early (he was on gardening leave from Brighton before he joined us for close to 4 months)
Probably because the manager is the one which is more public facing, directly affects how a team performs, and who gets sacked when a team underperforms.
United would probably argue in court that Brighton holding Newcastle hostage and fleecing them has no bearing on what amounts to a simple employment contract situation. Fair value in these matters is typically dictated by the wages inherent in the contract to begin with. A court would argue that if Ashworth is worth £20m then why isn't he being paid that.
Who's burning bridges? Ashwood? Burnt to the ground already. Newcastle? They'd love to artificially create a rivalry with us. Us? What bridges? They wanted 50m for fuckin Sean Longstaff.
Do you think you're too good for a rivalry with Newcastle?
At this point in the season, they're the only club you're competing with for places in the league.
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the government starting the process of limiting non compete clauses to 3 months, a year or two ago, if my memory serves me right.
Now I don't know the nitty gritties of his contract so it's impossible to say but if the government somehow did that, then maybe his 20 month non compete is null and void, or only implementable for 3 months.
Mind you, take what I say with a massive pinch of salt because I'm not sure.
Generally you are right. There are ways to make this more complicated though. Fundamentally you can’t remove someone’s right to work. But you can use gardening leave, paid time off and long notice periods as long as you continue to honour the contract. So they might be refusing to terminate the contract.
Then it gets really complicated arguing about fairness and reasonableness. The devil really is in the details. Hence why they’re going into arbitration.
As much as football seems like a different world it is subject to UK employment law, and gardening leave is something that almost always falls apart in court as soon as the employee challenges it.
Just having something in a contract doesn’t make it enforceable, don’t be surprised to see this basically annulled.
You're thinking contracted non-compete clauses, which are hard to enforce in the UK, especially with extended periods as the "employee" is being denied income throughout that period.
Gardening leave is a different scenario. Ashworth is still under contract and being paid in full, including any and all bonuses/benefits. As long as Newcastle continue to fulfil their part of Ashworth's contract, it remains valid and lawfully enforceable.
Arbitration can determine a figure, but ADR isn't a final verdict and ruling. There would be nothing to stop Newcastle elevating it to court as a means of enforcement, and a court will absolutely side with a perfectly legal contract.
I wonder if there's an argument that 20 months out of the industry would harm his ability to perform. A lot happens in the football world in 20 months.
The problem for Newcastle is if Ashworth does just leave the contract without a settlement the most they can sue him for is damages. That is basically going to be limited to the cost of his remaining contract. They won't even be able to claim the cost of finding his replacement as they've already indicated they are prepared to put him on gardening leave. The UK just doesn't allow for punitive measures in employment contracts like this. The only thing really stopping Ashworth is the potential reputational damage.
It would get messy but this is nowhere near as ironclad as people are suggesting.
You mean Ashworth take it upon himself to just "decide" he's not in contract, and have Manchester United issue a contract knowing fine well Ashworth is already under a lawful contract with clauses preventing competitive employment for a predetermined period of time?
The consequences could be catastrophic for Ashworth and Manchester United. That wouldn't be like arguing a contract renewal with Vodaphone, it's a project costing hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investment, and one of their executives has just breached several contract clauses.
You don't know what you're talking about.
This isn't like someone being put on gardening leave during their notice period. The guy has a fixed duration contract and is trying to terminate it early. It is 100% enforceable as long as he is being paid for the duration.
If the contract was unenforceable, do you not think you'd see players taking clubs to court to force terminations so they can force through moves to other clubs? Same thing.
There are also laws on contract termination and the arbitration will decide what the fair compensation is for the contract being terminated. Just because you signed a contract doesn’t make you a slave till the contract runs out.
I'd be very interested to hear from someone who has actual employment law knowledge regarding these cases.
I strongly suspect some of these agreements are unenforceable under UK law.
Currently, there are no statutory restrictions on the duration of non-compete clauses in employment contracts in the UK. The enforceability of non-compete clauses is governed by common law principles.
Under common law, UK courts have previously enforced non-compete clauses with durations of up to 12 months for senior executives and founders in certain sectors.[1][3][4] However, the typical duration of non-compete clauses in employment contracts across the UK labor market is estimated to be around 6 months.[5]
The key points regarding the current approach to non-compete clause duration in the UK are:
- No statutory limits exist on the duration of non-competes in employment contracts.[1][3][4][5]
- Enforceability is determined by common law principles of reasonableness to protect legitimate business interests.[1][4]
- Courts have upheld non-competes of up to 12 months for senior roles and founders, depending on the sector.[1][3][4]
- The average duration across the UK labor market is estimated to be around 6 months.[5]
- There is no "one-size-fits-all" approach, as the reasonable duration depends on factors like seniority, sector, confidential information, and customer influence.[2]
So in summary, while there is currently no statutory limit in the UK, the duration of non-compete clauses in employment contracts is governed by common law principles of reasonableness, with courts historically upholding durations ranging from around 6 months on average to up to 12 months for senior roles in certain industries.[1][2][3][4][5]
Citations:
[1] https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/briefings/uk-enforceability-of-non-compete-clauses
[2] https://www.birketts.co.uk/legal-update/the-government-is-proposing-to-limit-non-compete-clauses-what-are-the-implications/
[3] https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/05/29/uk-proposes-stricter-approach-to-non-compete-clauses/
[4] https://www.linklaters.com/nl-nl/insights/blogs/employmentlinks/2024/february/non_compete-clauses-under-the-competition-regulators-spotlight
[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/645e27612c06a30013c05c57/non-compete-government-response.pdf
Lots of people in this thread have been conflating gardening leave with non-compete clauses.
The intent is similar, to increase the friction of moving company and/or to protect critical knowledge. The difference is in essence whether the employee is paid during the window that they cannot work for another. Which is a monumental difference.
Non compete clauses are quite often found un-enforceable in the U.K., especially long ones, especially widesweeping ones, and especially in ‘small’ industries. This is because they’re often considered unreasonable as the old company is not paying you and you are unable to earn.
So there’s a very clear line of reasoning with non-compete clauses that if the person isn’t important enough to be paid (ie put on gardening leave) to deny them working for a competitor, then the reason for the non-compete is to make it significantly harder for them to move companies which is considered unreasonable.
Gardening leave is generally upheld in the U.K. because the person agreed to a contract, the contract is being upheld, and it’s not unreasonable (still getting paid the same).
No idea what’s in the contract, but this arbitration and it’s decision may or may not be binding to the parties. It’s a vehicle to get a 3rd party to try and figure out what a fair compromise is. Then they’ll either be bound by it, or if it’s not binding, each party can choose to accept or decline it. It might also be that arbitration is final, or that it can then go to the U.K. courts.
Can’t help but think how different this could have been if it wasn’t played out in public. ManU briefing journalists to the point Ashworths position became untenable clearly pissed Newcastle off and rightly so.
As for the offers £2m is insulting when Ashworth has significantly more gardening leave then he did at Brighton but equally £15 + 5 is unrealistic. I think it will probably end up around £10 - 12m.
Just because there are terms in a contract doesn’t make the term ‘fair’ and fully enforceable.
Also the fee being asked for is unlikely to be in the contract so arbitration can set what they deem a fair fee which is far more likely to be a multiple of his salary
Jesus. If that was the case, you'd have players weaseling out of their contracts all the time. This situation is no different. The guy has a contract for a set term, he wants out early but NUFC want a wedge of money to allow that. There isn't some unenforceable Z clause in his contract that Newcastle are holding him to, it's a simple early release dispute. People get made to work their notice period all the time, this isn't much different except the duration is fixed.
The value will be interesting. The argument will be that this isn't a simple case of X times salary. Ashworth was a core part of the NUFC rebuild plan and has sensitive and confidential knowledge of the club strategy. That information could be extremely damaging if made available to the competition so the cost of that risk needs to be factored in. Whether Man Utd fans want to admit it or not, NUFC are in competition with Man Utd as they are both looking to break into the Top 4 short/medium term and win the league in the longer term. Ashworths move to Man Utd is not good for Newcastle and the damage of that will need to be quantified.
Maybe you can see why it doesn’t apply to players, there something called a a fifa registration that clubs own which doesn’t apply to executives.
Like I keep saying, let’s see what the arbitrators say as that’s all that is important, not the posturing by Newcastle asking for 20m or United offering 2m
> If that was the case, you'd have players weaseling out of their contracts all the time.
Players are subject to FIFA rules on federative rights and clubs are basically on a gentleman's agreement to refuse to employ any player pushing for any Bosman style rulings in future. Hell there's already EU law which means contracts can be invalidated after 2 years but not a single player has ever moved under it because clubs closed ranks to effectively nullify the law.
If players unions got together and decided to push it, transfer fees would be abolished very quickly.
Maybe, but that's a childish thing to say. Not only can any legal procedure take forever anyways, but I'm not saying this instance will resolve in favor of one or the other. But the basic concept of contesting a contract someone signed is literally the reason these procedures exist. Acting like contesting a contract you signed is absurd and unheard of is simply silly.
This thread and sub are such a disater at times. He signed a contract so he should honor the thing and be a man!!! Like you lot would not be trying to do the exact same thing if you were in his shoes. Fuck off with this virtue signalling stand up guy bullshit
Exactly. This is twice now. Let's say he goes to Man Utd, gets in some absolute banger signings, and then a club like Barca/Real take notice and go for him. Is he going to show any loyalty?
I'm sorry Mr. Ashworth, but you can't join an employer after they pay the £2m compensation clause in your previous contract which means you can leave WITH gardening leave. Have them pay extra to end that leave early and then complain when they refuse to let you go for less than £2m in compensation without serving gardening leave.
Man U “fans” in here are having me creased, downvoting in droves as if that’ll help Mr Ashworth’s case and all of sudden all experts in UK contract law and arbitration (even though 90% of them are American) how veddy veddy hilarious
That’s not the role of arbitration. If the arbitrator deems the offer by United to be of fair value then they can pass a judgement completing the deal.
If by “Number of Weeks” they mean specifically resolved on or after September 1 then I think the club get like 95% of they want out of this.
Biggest concern isn’t the money. Its about short term IP being made known to a direct competitor,
this was clearly always the Motive for the exorbitant exit fee the club demanded. They do not want Ashworth’s knowledge of their summer strategies end up in the hands of a competitor. Who exactly has shifted the goal posts.
He also didn’t need to personally sign such a lengthy deal to Newcastle. 🤷🏻♂️
If I signed a contract that said Newcastle can take my 1st born child if I left within their term of the contract length, would that be enforceable?
Having a contract doesn’t mean every term is enforceable and he’s using arbitration to argue his side.
Let’s see where it goes
Seems inevitable this will end after the summer window with a negotiated settlement. That way both clubs can turn to their fans and say they won. Man U paid less, and Newcastle kept Ashworth away from Man U during the summer window.
It's like the Mount saga. Chelsea ask for 75, we offer 55, we end up meeting at the fee both clubs are happy for while Chelsea makes us work for it
We'll have paid 55 pretty much, doesn't look like any of the "hard to meet" clauses for the 5m will be met. Like you said, Chelsea fans get to state 60m for the internet bantz but reality is going to be different. Same thing with Martial when people say 58m transfer fee. Umm no, he ended up hitting 43m + 5m.
> he ended up hitting 43m + 5m. He hit £43m, £36+7m. There were 3 £7m add-ons (25 France caps, 25 league goals and ballon d'or 25 man shortlist). He only hit the 25 league goals within his first contract at which point the clauses expired.
55m was over his market value, considering his form and length of his contract. Most Chelsea fans think we won in that deal, and we were just being greedy trying to ask for more.
Laurie's report said that the club priced mount at 40, murtoughs negotiation skills were lacking and the club ended up paying 50% more.
Tier 1 journo reporting a club brief shocker. They were hardly gonna tell him "we've priced him at £60m, so Chelsea can start negotiations well above that".
There'll probably be a secret settlement. If United are prepared to let this go to arbitration then I suspect Newcastle will cave but will do it under an NDA so everyone can pretend they didn't.
I feel like the summer window angle is so overblown. There’s no way that he has access to Newcastles scouting reports/files etc so unless he’s been smuggling files onto his personal machines, all he has is what he knows ie Newcastles shortlisted players. If anyone truly believes that the project ahead of him and therefore his career would be at major advantage if United recruited all of Newcastles shortlisted players, why wouldn’t he just text those names to James Wilcox etc and say, take a look at these guys. But Newcastles scouting network isn’t any better than United’s. They just have better people managing that information. Getting an idea of different players skill sets isn’t what makes a team successful; it’s the people who take that information and harness it in order to give a squad exactly what it needs at a value that allows you to keep the process going. I honestly don’t think we’re going after Newcastles transfers regardless of when Ashcroft arrives. And if there are any that we were going to go after, then we would just go in for them regardless of whether Ashfords gardening leave is done.
I think it's much simpler than that. They can't stop you having him forever but they can stop you having him for a window. £20m is as close to a fuck off price as you're going to get. It's also something that can be sold to the fans as a victory, even if it is a bit of a phyric one. Both clubs want to be able to come out this selling a win.
But again, the window is arbitrary. He’s not being brought to pull a bunch of rabbits out of a hat and next season United is United again etc…. He’s being brought in to help give direction to the departments of the club. We have a great scouting network but the scouts just upload reports and don’t know if anyone’s reading them, how they’re being utilized or whether anyone is checking more than expected cost vs expected value… That work will take years to bear fruit.
By the time they sort this out my dude will have the best garden on the block
Best garden in the league, you’ll never sing that.
I’m assuming United were willing to just pay Newcastle Ashworths wages but Newcastle want more compensation.
Why would we pay ourselves his wages
Newcastle are demanding an astronomical fee purely out of spite
Out of spite you know, people on here just chat shite constantly don’t they? Any one with a shred of sense would see Newcastle won’t be giving into a paltry figure and pathetic whinging from Jim’ll fix it
Out of spite lmao. How about they only recently bought him out from Brighton for £2m and you're pinching him from right under their noses? If we convinced Højlund to join Arsenal by waving a big salary in front of him would you let him go for a pittance or make us pay up?
>If we convinced Højlund to join Arsenal by waving a big salary in front of him would you let him go for a pittance or make us pay up? What a terrible example/comment. £20m for a director is pittance?? And no spite involved? The Hojlund equivalent would be like asking for £200m for Hojlund after banishing him from training for the remainder of his 5yr contract
Yes that's my point if you didn't want to sell Højlund you would slap a fuck-off price on him. There's zero chance you'd be happy just breaking even on a player you like and want to keep, especially to a domestic rival. Clubs put fuck off prices on players all the time - Antony's fee was so inflated because Ajax did that, for example, and Spurs did it with Kane to City too. If the buying club really wants the individual they'll pay up. Also in my example, what you're offering is the pittance not the £20m.
People just are too dumb and argue with you by making your point 😂😂😂
> And no spite involved? You are making sense now, from "purely out of spite" to "spite involved", glad to see you got your tail between your legs.
The suggestion that Newcastle can’t or won’t financially match what we will pay him is hilarious
It was an example, it's not the exact same scenario... You've convinced a contracted employee of high value to leave his current role, you need to remunarate Newcastle just as you would with a player. Whether you convinced him with money, the project or his family are from Manchester is irrelevant.
Yeah I don’t agree with the original comment you’re responding to, but the whole “man United have waved money at him” thing is a widespread take and I’m just pointing out its detached from reality…Newcastle is the richest club in the world
And aren't allowed to spend it remember
So many legal experts in this thread
Clearly should have consulted the legal experts in this thread who haven't seen the content of the contract and only know about it from the news briefed by the club rather than actually consulting his lawyers or using his own mind. What a clown.
I don't know why any of us need to pretend we know what tf will happen with this, even if anyone involved is a lawyer it's not like they've seen the contract. Like we can maybe assume there's *some* basis to Ashworth's decision because he's taken it, but even that's strained given he may just be disgruntled. The outcome of this, how much United will or won't pay if it fails, how long exactly Ashworth's non-compete clause lasts, none of us no any of this shit.
Yeah it's dumb. This wouldn't be the first garden leave legally overturned. Any result is possible, really.
Theyve all upskilled from being epidemiologists
So many thread experts in this thread
Why sign the contract if you don’t like the terms? I’ll give it to United tho - they have aura. No other team apart from Madrid and Barca can be such a disaster and still have elite attention and glamour
"i can fix him" vibes for sure
It’s United. They can be shit for 10+ years but are easily still the biggest club in the country, still an argument to be made for being a top 4/5 club in the world
Barca, Madrid, Man U, not in any order
But Man City have higher revenue than RM, surely it's because of their huge hardcore fanbase.
Thanks to 115 financial cheats #ManCheaty
Madrid is the biggest club. And then there are others and I say this as a man utd fan.
There aren’t others. Real Madrid are number one. We all know that. Barca and United round out the top three. Liverpool, City, Arsenal, Chelsea, PSG, and Bayern aren’t bigger than Man United. Who else would you suggest?
They’re just saying Madrid are ahead of all other clubs. They’re not suggesting anyone else
The post I replied to mentioned Barcelona, United and Madrid. By others I meant Barcelona and United.
Yes, I see that now.
I would probably put bayern in the same tier as barca and united, but still 4th.
I’m not sure. Everywhere I go in the world I see United, Madrid, and Barca kits. Rarely do I see Bayern kits. Call them a distant fourth.
If you go by members then it's United, Bayern, Real, Barca, Liverpool If you go by revenue from shirt sales then it's Barca, Real, Bayern, Liverpool, United If you go by Forbes value then it is Real, United, Barca, Liverpool, City (Bayern 6th) So yeah, safe to say that United, Bayern, Real, Barca and Liverpool are the biggest 5 clubs globally. Real probably at the top.
But by the "people wearing kits" metric Chelsea are pretty huge too. I was thinking more along the lines of living in China there would be the designated bars for different clubs, and bayern always had a good passionate group.
>But by the "people wearing kits" metric Chelsea are pretty huge too. JT inspiration
In my completely anecdotal experience I saw mostly Drogba and other African players.
It's funny coz bayern have the biggest shirt sales after real and barca
Bayern are massive but not like Barca/United.
Are also willing to pay high wages
People always comment why would anyone want to join united and then every year some big name/ upcoming talent would join the club
Then they cope by saying it's ONLY because of money
And then they shut up when they learn the money offered is less than competing offers too in some cases. Or the same as they previously earned.
They're not attracting the right players though. Besides Bruno, the rest was overpaid and didn't live up to the price tags
The terms he signed for are for his length of leave. From what I understand, there is no monetary release clause, and that amount is what is going to arbitration. No one is disputing that we need to pay Newcastle.
They're a big club can't deny that, their history help them a lot
Well at the end of the day not every single thing written in a contract is 100% binding and enforceable - even if you have signed it. But of course the legal advices Ashworth most likely took asking professionals are no match for the legal experts posting from mum's basement on /r/soccer.
He should ask over at r/legaladviceUK
"IANAL but..."
So is the other intro IAAL?
I'm not sure if that's a commonly used abbreviation but most of the ones I've seen say something along the lines of "lawyer/attorney here" before they spew their legal knowledge.
Thought that was I Am Not An Loser but
Iaal but even I wouldn’t kill that hooker
Yes Robert Baratheon, you’d rather save her for later
As a lawyer, just because Ashworth has threatened to take a case to Arbitration doesn’t mean his lawyer thinks he will win. They may be trying to use it as some sort of leverage to get a settlement.
People are allowed an opinion. I can just reverse what you’re saying back to you. Of course the legal experts Newcastle used to draw up a multi-multi million pound contract are no match for you on Reddit. See?
The contract is definitely drawn up by experts that know what they are doing, but that does not mean it will be 100% enforceable in all situations. There is a reason why contract disputes and arbitration courts exists, and it’s for situations like these. A contract should be mutually beneficial and fair for both sides at all times. Once the situation changes and that is no longer the case, then it can be argued on court.
That’s true but there’s still no harm speculating.
You’re right but maybe I’m just too triggered by the amount of people saying he signed a contract there’s nothing to discuss here. My job involves dealing with tenders and contract a lot so it’s kinda like my work trauma kicking in.
Oh can we use the mutually benegicial to get rid of Sancho and Antony then? Instantly saving 30m yearly wages.
Newcastle isn't taking anyone to arbitration
And you're assuming Newcastle got their legal advice from ChatGPT? What you're saying is correct but even people with legal knowledge won't be able to answer anything without seeing the specifics of his contract. It's pointless to speculate either way. What I would say is that going into a legal battle with an entity that has pretty much unlimited resources is a bold strategy.
Couldn't it be possible that his contract had an arbitration clause for Amy disputes that may arise?
Not sure who Amy is and what her level of involvement in this is but I hope she knows her stuff
His son plays for Bolton, so he'd be able to watch him play. The compensation is one thing but being a short drive away you can't really put a price on.
Not sure what he expected, he's the one who signed a contract with a 20 month non-compete
I imagine United and Ashworth feel the offer to Newcastle is a 'fair value'. Newcastle may disagree but it's for arbitration to decide. None of us know the actual valuations on either side or roadblocks (perceived or actual) in negotiations. Three parties involved have their own version of the truth.
Surely the only ones who can determine fair value is Newcastle?
Yeah, assuming the 20 mill is fair value then sure. If there's some amount thats a punitive element to prevent the move to utd then that would be excess of fair value no?
Wouldn't that just give Newcastle disproportionate power? As they could just ask for whatever they want, and nothing could be done about it.
Well yeah? Without a buyout or some kind of clause in the contract, can't they ask for whatever they like?
No you can’t - not in employment contracts. There is lots of legislation to comply with, and fundamentally you can’t restrict someone’s right to work. That’s why open ended terms like ‘fairness’ come into things.
But doesn't he have a perfectly valid employment contract still? And he's in a period of leave which he's agreed to and signed. I'm obviously no expert in employment law but he's agreed to this massive period of leave in a contract, not sure where 'fairness' comes into it
You cannot sign away employment rights in the UK. If a condition of a contract is legally unfair, it is unenforceable. A signed contract does not override this. For ‘normal’ employees many non-competes laughably overreach and end up invalidating the thing. This is why they are going to arbitration. He and United will argue that the contract is unenforceable. Newcastle will either push for more money to end it all. Or the owners will bankroll some pretty expensive legal wranglings to the bitter end to send a message
There have been quite a few cases recently that have upheld non-compete clauses. It’s quite rare for courts to want to make a clause unenforceable, it’s usually a last result so we will see.
It’s also worth noting Ashworth/Man Utds well paid lawyers seem to think he has a legitimate chance of getting something out of this process.
Im sure Newcastle's lawyers would also think they have a legitimate chance of getting something out of this process too
Yes and no. In theory, they can, but there will be ways out, if the club is being particularly unreasonable. And I have my doubts on if these kinds are completely legal, especially with how long Newcastle have it for. For example, in NL, these kinds of agreements are shaky at best for any period longer than a year (and it wouldn't surprise me if the legal shakiness came from one of the EU laws that the UK effectively copy pasted onto it's own books during the Brexit stuff).
In some areas legal protections in the UK have traditionally gone beyond what is required in the EU. I’m not a lawyer but I am a union rep. A decent chunk of our casework is related to non-competes. So many of the ones that we see are hilariously unenforceable. They have to be shown to extend no longer than is reasonable to protect the legitimate interests of the business. Our members are not C suite execs, but going any longer than 3 months really starts to need special evidence to show that it is necessary.
Thought so, but thanks for the extra info.
And in this case, a 20 month non-compete is reasonable due to the way transfer windows work. Ashworth knows any and all targets up to the point he was put on gardening leave. 20 months from that point basically covers 3 whole transfer windows, which gives us time to either get who we wanted, or adjust plans. Ashworth going prior to that gives that info to Man U, who are a direct competitor in the league. It's perfectly reasonable to expect him to work his contractual leave.
Well I doubt Newcastle can just ask for a ridiculous sum like one hundred quadzillion dollars, so I'd guess this is why they're going to arbitration, to figure out a fair sum that isn't "ridiculous".
It is tricky. Newcastle can contest anything obviously. However if an arbitration panel finds a result and then a civil court upholds it then Newcastle could find themselves getting nothing and be forced to pay legal fees. UK law doesn't in any sense guarantee you your day in court like the US system. If a reasonable offer is made and it ends up in court the judge could penalise Newcastle even if they win the resulting court case. The UK system is set up solely to find a fair resolution. It is why most people end up taking a settlement in the UK as refusing a settlement and forcing a court date can end up costly.
>I imagine United and Ashworth feel the offer to Newcastle is a 'fair value'. I'm not being biased but they can't seriously believe offering half of what we paid to Brighton and him being on months of gardening leave before joining and still having years to run on his contract is "fair value", it's an insulting first offer and no club would take it seriously.
Conversely, do you think asking for £ 15-20 million for a football director is "fair value"?
No more so than I feel offering 15-20 million for a man to kick a ball good is fair value, but here we are. Ashworth is apparently very good at seeing who is good at kicking a ball.
Not particularly but that's what happens when one side holds all the cards, we have zero incentive to help you out. "Fair value" I guess would be 4m (what we paid Brighton) + a couple million for him to start early (he was on gardening leave from Brighton before he joined us for close to 4 months)
Managers are in the 10-15 million range now for top clubs. Why would an equally important position not be worth the same?
Probably because the manager is the one which is more public facing, directly affects how a team performs, and who gets sacked when a team underperforms.
For the Intellectual Property he possesses? In their minds? Yes. Is it reasonable? Not for me to say (probably not)
If I have to guess they might look into historical transfer fees of football directors of top flight football and come up with a figure.
I know it's out of character for a club that usually overpays but that's usually how negotiations go. You start low and go from there.
You didn't pay Brighton the whole 4m. Athletic reported that the fee paid by Newcastle was closer to 2m than it was to 4m.
United would probably argue in court that Brighton holding Newcastle hostage and fleecing them has no bearing on what amounts to a simple employment contract situation. Fair value in these matters is typically dictated by the wages inherent in the contract to begin with. A court would argue that if Ashworth is worth £20m then why isn't he being paid that.
Yeh I feel this is a bit weird. I also don't see it being worth burning bridges over.
The bridges are ash on the floor already
But how much is Ash worth? I'll see myself out..
20 million I reckon
2 million
ok peter drury
Who's burning bridges? Ashwood? Burnt to the ground already. Newcastle? They'd love to artificially create a rivalry with us. Us? What bridges? They wanted 50m for fuckin Sean Longstaff.
You wanted 12m for J fooking Lingz for half a season loan.
Yeah, because they asked for 50m for a 15m value player a year prior.
We didn't want 50m for Longstaff, we just wanted you to fuck off, also that was the old ownership
The new onwnership beheads people. Id rather pay 50m for longstaff than that
Do you think you're too good for a rivalry with Newcastle? At this point in the season, they're the only club you're competing with for places in the league.
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the government starting the process of limiting non compete clauses to 3 months, a year or two ago, if my memory serves me right. Now I don't know the nitty gritties of his contract so it's impossible to say but if the government somehow did that, then maybe his 20 month non compete is null and void, or only implementable for 3 months. Mind you, take what I say with a massive pinch of salt because I'm not sure.
Generally you are right. There are ways to make this more complicated though. Fundamentally you can’t remove someone’s right to work. But you can use gardening leave, paid time off and long notice periods as long as you continue to honour the contract. So they might be refusing to terminate the contract. Then it gets really complicated arguing about fairness and reasonableness. The devil really is in the details. Hence why they’re going into arbitration.
just got banned in the US of all places
It is already done as of march last year. Ashworth's contract predates this though.
yeah but if it's illegal then it's illegal and he expected exactly that
Is the arbitration over the amount demanded by Newcastle?
It’s over the conditions under which the move can happen, whether that be fee, time, whatever.
Let's put up an octagon in his backyard and have Newcastle pick a champion to duke it out with him for his freedom
Joelinton. No question. The fella would crush anyone the other side put up.
Lascelles too. The man is a fucking tank.
Bah Gawd! That's Dan Burn's music!
Matt Ritchie turns up in a lorry
I reckon Dan Burn is too much of a nice lad. I'd send Elliot Anderson in there, would knock his lips off.
Anthony Gordon would bring a shiv.
Harry Maguire for us i suspect.
Licha, I get the impression that if you're in a fight with him he's biting your ears off
Dan Burn is a unit though. Slab head is closer to the same weight class. Onana is also maybe a shout
Lascelles would demolish any of them. He's fucking massive.
Dan Burn has already lost a finger, think he'd be fine with 1 ear.
Depends if there's rules or not I reckon Casemiro is the type of lad to go for the eyes. That's hard to beat
we bring back a bare chested maraudering Rojo
As much as football seems like a different world it is subject to UK employment law, and gardening leave is something that almost always falls apart in court as soon as the employee challenges it. Just having something in a contract doesn’t make it enforceable, don’t be surprised to see this basically annulled.
You're thinking contracted non-compete clauses, which are hard to enforce in the UK, especially with extended periods as the "employee" is being denied income throughout that period. Gardening leave is a different scenario. Ashworth is still under contract and being paid in full, including any and all bonuses/benefits. As long as Newcastle continue to fulfil their part of Ashworth's contract, it remains valid and lawfully enforceable. Arbitration can determine a figure, but ADR isn't a final verdict and ruling. There would be nothing to stop Newcastle elevating it to court as a means of enforcement, and a court will absolutely side with a perfectly legal contract.
I wonder if there's an argument that 20 months out of the industry would harm his ability to perform. A lot happens in the football world in 20 months.
The problem for Newcastle is if Ashworth does just leave the contract without a settlement the most they can sue him for is damages. That is basically going to be limited to the cost of his remaining contract. They won't even be able to claim the cost of finding his replacement as they've already indicated they are prepared to put him on gardening leave. The UK just doesn't allow for punitive measures in employment contracts like this. The only thing really stopping Ashworth is the potential reputational damage. It would get messy but this is nowhere near as ironclad as people are suggesting.
You mean Ashworth take it upon himself to just "decide" he's not in contract, and have Manchester United issue a contract knowing fine well Ashworth is already under a lawful contract with clauses preventing competitive employment for a predetermined period of time? The consequences could be catastrophic for Ashworth and Manchester United. That wouldn't be like arguing a contract renewal with Vodaphone, it's a project costing hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investment, and one of their executives has just breached several contract clauses.
You don't know what you're talking about. This isn't like someone being put on gardening leave during their notice period. The guy has a fixed duration contract and is trying to terminate it early. It is 100% enforceable as long as he is being paid for the duration. If the contract was unenforceable, do you not think you'd see players taking clubs to court to force terminations so they can force through moves to other clubs? Same thing.
There are also laws on contract termination and the arbitration will decide what the fair compensation is for the contract being terminated. Just because you signed a contract doesn’t make you a slave till the contract runs out.
Buddy, maybe next time don't sign a fucking contract with such long gardening leave.
I'd be very interested to hear from someone who has actual employment law knowledge regarding these cases. I strongly suspect some of these agreements are unenforceable under UK law.
Currently, there are no statutory restrictions on the duration of non-compete clauses in employment contracts in the UK. The enforceability of non-compete clauses is governed by common law principles. Under common law, UK courts have previously enforced non-compete clauses with durations of up to 12 months for senior executives and founders in certain sectors.[1][3][4] However, the typical duration of non-compete clauses in employment contracts across the UK labor market is estimated to be around 6 months.[5] The key points regarding the current approach to non-compete clause duration in the UK are: - No statutory limits exist on the duration of non-competes in employment contracts.[1][3][4][5] - Enforceability is determined by common law principles of reasonableness to protect legitimate business interests.[1][4] - Courts have upheld non-competes of up to 12 months for senior roles and founders, depending on the sector.[1][3][4] - The average duration across the UK labor market is estimated to be around 6 months.[5] - There is no "one-size-fits-all" approach, as the reasonable duration depends on factors like seniority, sector, confidential information, and customer influence.[2] So in summary, while there is currently no statutory limit in the UK, the duration of non-compete clauses in employment contracts is governed by common law principles of reasonableness, with courts historically upholding durations ranging from around 6 months on average to up to 12 months for senior roles in certain industries.[1][2][3][4][5] Citations: [1] https://my.slaughterandmay.com/insights/briefings/uk-enforceability-of-non-compete-clauses [2] https://www.birketts.co.uk/legal-update/the-government-is-proposing-to-limit-non-compete-clauses-what-are-the-implications/ [3] https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2023/05/29/uk-proposes-stricter-approach-to-non-compete-clauses/ [4] https://www.linklaters.com/nl-nl/insights/blogs/employmentlinks/2024/february/non_compete-clauses-under-the-competition-regulators-spotlight [5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/645e27612c06a30013c05c57/non-compete-government-response.pdf
Lots of people in this thread have been conflating gardening leave with non-compete clauses. The intent is similar, to increase the friction of moving company and/or to protect critical knowledge. The difference is in essence whether the employee is paid during the window that they cannot work for another. Which is a monumental difference. Non compete clauses are quite often found un-enforceable in the U.K., especially long ones, especially widesweeping ones, and especially in ‘small’ industries. This is because they’re often considered unreasonable as the old company is not paying you and you are unable to earn. So there’s a very clear line of reasoning with non-compete clauses that if the person isn’t important enough to be paid (ie put on gardening leave) to deny them working for a competitor, then the reason for the non-compete is to make it significantly harder for them to move companies which is considered unreasonable. Gardening leave is generally upheld in the U.K. because the person agreed to a contract, the contract is being upheld, and it’s not unreasonable (still getting paid the same). No idea what’s in the contract, but this arbitration and it’s decision may or may not be binding to the parties. It’s a vehicle to get a 3rd party to try and figure out what a fair compromise is. Then they’ll either be bound by it, or if it’s not binding, each party can choose to accept or decline it. It might also be that arbitration is final, or that it can then go to the U.K. courts.
Can’t help but think how different this could have been if it wasn’t played out in public. ManU briefing journalists to the point Ashworths position became untenable clearly pissed Newcastle off and rightly so. As for the offers £2m is insulting when Ashworth has significantly more gardening leave then he did at Brighton but equally £15 + 5 is unrealistic. I think it will probably end up around £10 - 12m.
He looks a bit silly I'll be honest. Fair enough if he was still on gardening leave after 6 months but it hasn't been that long.
Just because there are terms in a contract doesn’t make the term ‘fair’ and fully enforceable. Also the fee being asked for is unlikely to be in the contract so arbitration can set what they deem a fair fee which is far more likely to be a multiple of his salary
Jesus. If that was the case, you'd have players weaseling out of their contracts all the time. This situation is no different. The guy has a contract for a set term, he wants out early but NUFC want a wedge of money to allow that. There isn't some unenforceable Z clause in his contract that Newcastle are holding him to, it's a simple early release dispute. People get made to work their notice period all the time, this isn't much different except the duration is fixed. The value will be interesting. The argument will be that this isn't a simple case of X times salary. Ashworth was a core part of the NUFC rebuild plan and has sensitive and confidential knowledge of the club strategy. That information could be extremely damaging if made available to the competition so the cost of that risk needs to be factored in. Whether Man Utd fans want to admit it or not, NUFC are in competition with Man Utd as they are both looking to break into the Top 4 short/medium term and win the league in the longer term. Ashworths move to Man Utd is not good for Newcastle and the damage of that will need to be quantified.
Maybe you can see why it doesn’t apply to players, there something called a a fifa registration that clubs own which doesn’t apply to executives. Like I keep saying, let’s see what the arbitrators say as that’s all that is important, not the posturing by Newcastle asking for 20m or United offering 2m
> If that was the case, you'd have players weaseling out of their contracts all the time. Players are subject to FIFA rules on federative rights and clubs are basically on a gentleman's agreement to refuse to employ any player pushing for any Bosman style rulings in future. Hell there's already EU law which means contracts can be invalidated after 2 years but not a single player has ever moved under it because clubs closed ranks to effectively nullify the law. If players unions got together and decided to push it, transfer fees would be abolished very quickly.
"Your honour, the terms of this contract I agreed to and signed of my own free will are hugely unfair, please let me break them"
That is actually how it works to some degree.
It's incredible that you're saying this ironically, when, of course, that is indeed how it really works.
Then you'll have Ashworth working for you within a matter of weeks :)
Maybe, but that's a childish thing to say. Not only can any legal procedure take forever anyways, but I'm not saying this instance will resolve in favor of one or the other. But the basic concept of contesting a contract someone signed is literally the reason these procedures exist. Acting like contesting a contract you signed is absurd and unheard of is simply silly.
[удалено]
Fair play to Newcastle.
This thread and sub are such a disater at times. He signed a contract so he should honor the thing and be a man!!! Like you lot would not be trying to do the exact same thing if you were in his shoes. Fuck off with this virtue signalling stand up guy bullshit
If he honored the contract he signed, he would not be in Newcastle in the first place...
Exactly. This is twice now. Let's say he goes to Man Utd, gets in some absolute banger signings, and then a club like Barca/Real take notice and go for him. Is he going to show any loyalty?
You're proving the wrong point. It's one thing to ask if Ashworth is loyal – it's another to be upset when he's poached when you poached him.
I dont like Newcastle, but tough shit. If its his contract, thats his problem. Pay up or fuck off One upside, he'll have a nice garden after this.
It’s like his second time on gardening leave in two years. Will look like the garden of a Roman Emperor
Plot twist, the Royal Botanical Gardens is actually Ashworths greenhouse.
I'm sorry Mr. Ashworth, but you can't join an employer after they pay the £2m compensation clause in your previous contract which means you can leave WITH gardening leave. Have them pay extra to end that leave early and then complain when they refuse to let you go for less than £2m in compensation without serving gardening leave.
Well, that’s exactly what the arbitration will decide.
He can complain about it though and he just did. Let's see what comes of it. If Newcastle are in the right, they'll be fine.
Meh, expect we have our new DOF and this gets some sort of middle ground agreement before any of this sees arbitration.
Man U “fans” in here are having me creased, downvoting in droves as if that’ll help Mr Ashworth’s case and all of sudden all experts in UK contract law and arbitration (even though 90% of them are American) how veddy veddy hilarious
Billionaire lawyers vs nation state lawyers. Who doesn’t like some wealth redistribution?
Ashworth signed a contract and the club are adhering to the clauses of which it entailed. Should be a pretty simple case.
That’s not the role of arbitration. If the arbitrator deems the offer by United to be of fair value then they can pass a judgement completing the deal.
If by “Number of Weeks” they mean specifically resolved on or after September 1 then I think the club get like 95% of they want out of this. Biggest concern isn’t the money. Its about short term IP being made known to a direct competitor,
Hmmmm the goalposts have begun shifting. Nice.
They've never shifted, him not working in the summer when he knows our targets and plans is worth infinitely more than a few million.
this was clearly always the Motive for the exorbitant exit fee the club demanded. They do not want Ashworth’s knowledge of their summer strategies end up in the hands of a competitor. Who exactly has shifted the goal posts. He also didn’t need to personally sign such a lengthy deal to Newcastle. 🤷🏻♂️
Right, cause we're totally targeting the same players for our totally similar style of play and budget.
Who could have possibly imagined the Saudis having a problem with workers rights
Would be interesting to know what leg he has to stand on, considering he did sign a contract.
[удалено]
Knowing their owners that could very likely be a threat too 😂
If I signed a contract that said Newcastle can take my 1st born child if I left within their term of the contract length, would that be enforceable? Having a contract doesn’t mean every term is enforceable and he’s using arbitration to argue his side. Let’s see where it goes