BARCA IN TURMOIL!! Messi declares WAR against Barcelona!!

[danfo driver]

I know how negotiations work given that 90% of my line of work. My application is a bit of a stretch but it provides a legal angle or platform to work out an amicable split. Whether you will win in court or not is not as important as the other party understanding the financial value of the risk of loss. Bottom line is you don't always need to have every element of a legal theory in place in order to hammer out a settlement so long you push the proper pressure points. But it always starts with a legal theory (or more) as the foundation.

I would say more of square peg and round hole.

[danfo driver]

Does his contract specify every June or simply the end of the season?

The speculation is that a specific date of June 10, 2020 was entered into that contract.

Who knows? one can only tell if we were privy to the contract.

Was Barca's intent when they signed the contract, that Messi be allowed to cancel his contract before conclusion of all 38 games? June 10 was merely based on the assumption that the league will end in May - without any reasonable expectation of a pandemic induced disruption given the last one was over 100 years ago in 1918.

Barca always chases the league and CL. Both normally end in May but due to pandemic, the last game ended in mid to late August. Given the June 10 deadline represents a 3 weeks (or so) notification period, extending that 3 weeks after braca's loss to Munich, will show that Messi is well within the notification period. Why? Because it is impractical to expect Messi to walk away from Barca on June 10 with both La Liga & CL titles hanging in the balance due to the unexpected covid-19 extended timeframe.

bro, square peg, round hole.

I am also surprised that you keep ignoring analogous situations. Several players walked out at the end of their contract in May, 2020. The club didnt try to enforce their contract by arguing that -- Well, the intent of the parties was for the contract to end at the end of the season. instead, the clubs had t resign another 2 months contract with some players who accepted, while the likes of Fraser said "EFF off!" and bounced! In this narrow hypothetical (our loose understanding of Messi's situation), i fail to see the validity of your argument.

Of course, only those who have reviewed the "four corners" of the agreement are in a position to analyze it.

[jdizzy]

Does his contract specify every June or simply the end of the season?

The speculation is that a specific date of June 10, 2020 was entered into that contract.

Who knows? one can only tell if we were privy to the contract.

Was Barca's intent when they signed the contract, that Messi be allowed to cancel his contract before conclusion of all 38 games? June 10 was merely based on the assumption that the league will end in May - without any reasonable expectation of a pandemic induced disruption given the last one was over 100 years ago in 1918.

Barca always chases the league and CL. Both normally end in May but due to pandemic, the last game ended in mid to late August. Given the June 10 deadline represents a 3 weeks (or so) notification period, extending that 3 weeks after braca's loss to Munich, will show that Messi is well within the notification period. Why? Because it is impractical to expect Messi to walk away from Barca on June 10 with both La Liga & CL titles hanging in the balance due to the unexpected covid-19 extended timeframe.

bro, square peg, round hole.

I am also surprised that you keep ignoring analogous situations. Several players walked out at the end of their contract in May, 2020. The club didnt try to enforce their contract by arguing that -- Well, the intent of the parties was for the contract to end at the end of the season. instead, the clubs had t resign another 2 months contract with some players who accepted, while the likes of Fraser said "EFF off!" and bounced! In this narrow hypothetical (our loose understanding of Messi's situation), i fail to see the validity of your argument.

Of course, only those who have reviewed the "four corners" of the agreement are in a position to analyze it.

Danfo conductor, while you are technically correct, you ignore the point that Bournemouth did not contest because there was limited value to doing so. This case will end up before a Judge or abitrator if a compromise isn't reached and Messi's camp will make a strong case

[danfo driver]

Does his contract specify every June or simply the end of the season?

The speculation is that a specific date of June 10, 2020 was entered into that contract.

Who knows? one can only tell if we were privy to the contract.

Was Barca's intent when they signed the contract, that Messi be allowed to cancel his contract before conclusion of all 38 games? June 10 was merely based on the assumption that the league will end in May - without any reasonable expectation of a pandemic induced disruption given the last one was over 100 years ago in 1918.

Barca always chases the league and CL. Both normally end in May but due to pandemic, the last game ended in mid to late August. Given the June 10 deadline represents a 3 weeks (or so) notification period, extending that 3 weeks after braca's loss to Munich, will show that Messi is well within the notification period. Why? Because it is impractical to expect Messi to walk away from Barca on June 10 with both La Liga & CL titles hanging in the balance due to the unexpected covid-19 extended timeframe.

bro, square peg, round hole.

I am also surprised that you keep ignoring analogous situations. Several players walked out at the end of their contract in May, 2020. The club didnt try to enforce their contract by arguing that -- Well, the intent of the parties was for the contract to end at the end of the season. instead, the clubs had t resign another 2 months contract with some players who accepted, while the likes of Fraser said "EFF off!" and bounced! In this narrow hypothetical (our loose understanding of Messi's situation), i fail to see the validity of your argument.

Of course, only those who have reviewed the "four corners" of the agreement are in a position to analyze it.

Danfo conductor, while you are technically correct, you ignore the point that Bournemouth did not contest because there was limited value to doing so. This case will end up before a Judge or abitrator if a compromise isn't reached and Messi's camp will make a strong case

I am FACTUALLY and LEGALLY correct. An argument of force majeure is a square peg in a round hole.

As to any other argument, discussion or assumption, I am not privy to to contract so I have zero idea what the parties' arguments or the court's ruling will be.

[green4life]

Does his contract specify every June or simply the end of the season?

The speculation is that a specific date of June 10, 2020 was entered into that contract.

Who knows? one can only tell if we were privy to the contract.

Was Barca's intent when they signed the contract, that Messi be allowed to cancel his contract before conclusion of all 38 games? June 10 was merely based on the assumption that the league will end in May - without any reasonable expectation of a pandemic induced disruption given the last one was over 100 years ago in 1918.

Barca always chases the league and CL. Both normally end in May but due to pandemic, the last game ended in mid to late August. Given the June 10 deadline represents a 3 weeks (or so) notification period, extending that 3 weeks after braca's loss to Munich, will show that Messi is well within the notification period. Why? Because it is impractical to expect Messi to walk away from Barca on June 10 with both La Liga & CL titles hanging in the balance due to the unexpected covid-19 extended timeframe.

bro, square peg, round hole.

I am also surprised that you keep ignoring analogous situations. Several players walked out at the end of their contract in May, 2020. The club didnt try to enforce their contract by arguing that -- Well, the intent of the parties was for the contract to end at the end of the season. instead, the clubs had t resign another 2 months contract with some players who accepted, while the likes of Fraser said "EFF off!" and bounced! In this narrow hypothetical (our loose understanding of Messi's situation), i fail to see the validity of your argument.

Of course, only those who have reviewed the "four corners" of the agreement are in a position to analyze it.

My force majeure application is valid however, you are mixing up situations that are not analogous to Messi's contractual predicament.

You are comparing players whose contracts expired at the end of May, 2020 to Messi whose contract expires at the end of May 2021 - but with an option to terminate at the end of the season subject to a 10 day deadline notification requirement.

Wrt to the former, legally and practically (closure due to covid-19), the player had competed their obligation so the clubs were compelled to extend for 2 months for practical purposes otherwise they'd be left with players short to complete the season.

In the latter, Messi's contract did not automatically terminate by May 2020 since he has 1 year left. Technically, he could have informed them on June 10 and walked away but realistically it wouldn't have been tenable due to his reputation given the league and CL were hanging in the balance. The 4 corners of the contract said 10 days deadline after the end of each season and mentioned June 10 (based on the calculation on the presumption that the season ended by May 30). The question is why did the season not end on May 30? Was it foreseen when the parties put pen to paper? The answer is obviously no: Force Majeure.

[danfo driver]

My force majeure application is valid however, you are mixing up situations that are not analogous to Messi's contractual predicament.

It isnt valid. Its square peg, round hole.

You are comparing players whose contracts expired at the end of May, 2020 to Messi whose contract expires at the end of May 2021 - but with an option to terminate at the end of the season subject to a 10 day deadline notification requirement.

Not so. I understand you are looking at one situation as a contract and the other as a clause. However, narrowly tailored, they are both issues of Termination.

Wrt to the former, legally and practically (closure due to covid-19), the player had competed their obligation so the clubs were compelled to extend for 2 months for practical purposes otherwise they'd be left with players short to complete the season.

And messi had not?

In the latter, Messi's contract did not automatically terminate by May 2020 since he has 1 year left. Technically, he could have informed them on June 10 and walked away but realistically it wouldn't have been tenable due to his reputation given the league and CL were hanging in the balance.

Thats not how contracts work, bro.

The 4 corners of the contract said 10 days deadline after the end of each season and mentioned June 10 (based on the calculation). The question is why did the season not end on May 30? Was it foreseen when the parties put pen to paper? The answer is obviously no: Force Majeure.

Have you read the contract?

[joplass]

Messi has to go somewhere else to prove himself. CR7 is the man.

Huh, what else does he need to prove at club level?

What has he proved? Dribble the entire La Liga to score a goal does not mean he is a great player compare to even Eto'o let alone CR7.

[Dammy]

There's a possibility that this is designed to force Bartolomeu out.

That rat should've fallen on his sword after the Bayern massacre. Instead he cleverly slated elections for March next year and is hiring coaches and firing players...

He's the worst thing to have happened to Barca in the last decade!

You are on to something. Bartolomeu should have been forced out when Iniesta was leaving.

The new coach is even making a mess. You do not purge a team that is Key competitors for titles; you can make changes but that has to be gradual.

What do you expect from a coach who was sacked at Everton!

[jdizzy]

Messi has to go somewhere else to prove himself. CR7 is the man.

Huh, what else does he need to prove at club level?

What has he proved? Dribble the entire La Liga to score a goal does not mean he is a great player compare to even Eto'o let alone CR7.

No no no...I'm not getting into this silly debate. Put down the ganja Bro

[kalani JR]

Does anyone (hola Sleaky) have enough of an understanding of Spanish law to opine on this?

[green4life]

Not so. I understand you are looking at one situation as a contract and the other as a clause. However, narrowly tailored, they are both issues of Termination.

Is that how you read and review contracts? You single out one clause and deem the rest of the contract irrelevant? Really?

The clause is reviewed and analyzed in consideration of the entire contract to ascertain the mutual intent of the parties when they entered into the agreement. The consideration of intent is inclusive of the 4 corners of the black and white letters of the contract.

At the end of the day, it could boil down to precedence (case law) especially with respect to unforeseen events that occurred after the contact was signed (Force Majeure comes into play here).

The termination clause in question says 10 days after the season ends on May 30, 2020. Based on that definition, June 10 became the deadline when both parties signed the contract because neither could have foreseen the season being disrupted/extended by the pandemic (one of many examples of a force majeure event).

[txj]

Not so. I understand you are looking at one situation as a contract and the other as a clause. However, narrowly tailored, they are both issues of Termination.

Is that how you read and review contracts? You single out one clause and deem the rest of the contract irrelevant? Really?

The clause is reviewed and analyzed in consideration of the entire contract to ascertain the mutual intent of the parties when they entered into the agreement. The consideration of intent is inclusive of the 4 corners of the black and white letters of the contract.

At the end of the day, it could boil down to precedence (case law) especially with respect to unforeseen events that occurred after the contact was signed (Force Majeure comes into play here).

The termination clause in question says 10 days after the season ends on May 30, 2020. Based on that definition, June 10 became the deadline when both parties signed the contract because neither could have foreseen the season being disrupted/extended by the pandemic (one of many examples of a force majeure event).

Quick question:

Given that it is reported that the date June 10 is written into the contract, could Messi not have requested a new date once the season restarted, similar to the extension by other players?

[danfo driver]

Not so. I understand you are looking at one situation as a contract and the other as a clause. However, narrowly tailored, they are both issues of Termination.

Is that how you read and review contracts? You single out one clause and deem the rest of the contract irrelevant? Really?

The clause is reviewed and analyzed in consideration of the entire contract to ascertain the mutual intent of the parties when they entered into the agreement. The consideration of intent is inclusive of the 4 corners of the black and white letters of the contract.

At the end of the day, it could boil down to precedence (case law) especially with respect to unforeseen events that occurred after the contact was signed (Force Majeure comes into play here).

This back and forth is a waste of my time. Like I said, square peg, round hole. This is a classic first year law student's regular mistake--They try to force something that isn't simply there.

Even a second year law student will not analyze this hypothetical like this. Stunning that an experienced attorney will.

The termination clause in question says 10 days after the season ends on May 30, 2020. Based on that definition, June 10 became the deadline when both parties signed the contract because neither could have foreseen the season being disrupted/extended by the pandemic (one of many examples of a force majeure event).

I asked you before and you didnt respond. I will ask you again-- have you read the contract?

[green4life]

Not so. I understand you are looking at one situation as a contract and the other as a clause. However, narrowly tailored, they are both issues of Termination.

Is that how you read and review contracts? You single out one clause and deem the rest of the contract irrelevant? Really?

The clause is reviewed and analyzed in consideration of the entire contract to ascertain the mutual intent of the parties when they entered into the agreement. The consideration of intent is inclusive of the 4 corners of the black and white letters of the contract.

At the end of the day, it could boil down to precedence (case law) especially with respect to unforeseen events that occurred after the contact was signed (Force Majeure comes into play here).

This back and forth is a waste of my time. Like I said, square peg, round hole. This is a classic first year law student's regular mistake--They try to force something that isn't simply there.

Even a second year law student will not analyze this hypothetical like this. Stunning that an experienced attorney will.

The termination clause in question says 10 days after the season ends on May 30, 2020. Based on that definition, June 10 became the deadline when both parties signed the contract because neither could have foreseen the season being disrupted/extended by the pandemic (one of many examples of a force majeure event).

I asked you before and you didnt respond. I will ask you again-- have you read the contract?

You haven't been able to argue on the merits due to your limited understanding of legal analysis and how to use legal analysis to create negotiating leverage.

By the way, I guess Messi's lawyers are no better than 1st and 2nd year law students since they are make the same argument as I've made here:

What is Messi's camp saying?
Messi's lawyers are arguing that - in the spirit of the deal and good faith - the clause is still active after the rescheduled Champions League final on August 23.

Graham Hunter added: "Messi's camp will argue that although the timing for this clause in his contract has passed, they are going to say this was an odd season, an extended season.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... -on-a-free

The question for you is, what is your legal analysis since you have presumably completed 3 years of law school and passed the bar exam?

[green4life]

Not so. I understand you are looking at one situation as a contract and the other as a clause. However, narrowly tailored, they are both issues of Termination.

Is that how you read and review contracts? You single out one clause and deem the rest of the contract irrelevant? Really?

The clause is reviewed and analyzed in consideration of the entire contract to ascertain the mutual intent of the parties when they entered into the agreement. The consideration of intent is inclusive of the 4 corners of the black and white letters of the contract.

At the end of the day, it could boil down to precedence (case law) especially with respect to unforeseen events that occurred after the contact was signed (Force Majeure comes into play here).

The termination clause in question says 10 days after the season ends on May 30, 2020. Based on that definition, June 10 became the deadline when both parties signed the contract because neither could have foreseen the season being disrupted/extended by the pandemic (one of many examples of a force majeure event).

Quick question:

Given that it is reported that the date June 10 is written into the contract, could Messi not have requested a new date once the season restarted, similar to the extension by other players?

Yes, he could and should have and cannot go back in time to June 10 but he still needs a legal solution which is where his lawyers enter the picture to find a way out. Messi needs his lawyers to figure it out and not summarily give up like Danfo Driver, Esq.

The contract as written (going by media reports) appears to favor Barca so the idea here is for Messi's lawyers to create negotiating leverage for an exit (presuming that is his wish) by making an alternate argument that favors Messi with view towards impressing upon Barca management of a possible risk of losing. The argument doesn't have to be a strong argument but it has to be backed by legal analysis and reasoning sufficiently to sway the party with the stronger hand to discuss an amicable settlement.

[danfo driver]

You haven't been able to argue on the merits due to your limited understanding of legal analysis and how to use legal analysis to create negotiating leverage.

okay

By the way, I guess Messi's lawyers are no better than 1st and 2nd year law students since they are make the same argument as I've made here:

You argued for the application of force majeure, claiming "enforcement was impracticable." Is that their argument?

What is Messi's camp saying?
Messi's lawyers are arguing that - in the spirit of the deal and good faith - the clause is still active after the rescheduled Champions League final on August 23.

Graham Hunter added: "Messi's camp will argue that although the timing for this clause in his contract has passed, they are going to say this was an odd season, an extended season.

I asked you if you have read the contract for 2 reasons:

1. you keep quoting a contract you have never set your eyes on; and
2. Force Majeure principle can only be applied where it was specifically stipulated in the contract AND the specific "act of God" being alleged was narrowly included in the contract.

I remain stunned that you are making these rookie errors, which are often expected from first year law students. To do this in law practice is remarkably shocking!! Just wow!

[danfo driver]

Yes, he could and should have and cannot go back in time to June 10 but he still needs a legal solution which is where his lawyers enter the picture to find a way out. Messi needs his lawyers to figure it out and not summarily give up like Danfo Driver, Esq.

The contract as written (going by media reports) appears to favor Barca so the idea here is for Messi's lawyers to create negotiating leverage for an exit (presuming that is his wish) by making an alternate argument that favors Messi with view towards impressing upon Barca management of a possible risk of losing. The argument doesn't have to be a strong argument but it has to be backed by legal analysis and reasoning sufficiently to sway the party with the stronger hand to discuss an amicable settlement.

You are being childish and dishonest; which surprises me because I would never have pegged you for a dishonest person.

My argument with you is very narrow: you claim that he should apply the principle of force majeure. My response to you is that applying force majeure here is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. I also wanted to know if you have read the contract.

Whether or not Messi has legal arguments to win this case HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our discussion. Our discussion is very narrow-- can he apply force majeure here? Thats it.

[green4life]

You haven't been able to argue on the merits due to your limited understanding of legal analysis and how to use legal analysis to create negotiating leverage.

okay

By the way, I guess Messi's lawyers are no better than 1st and 2nd year law students since they are make the same argument as I've made here:

You argued for the application of force majeure, claiming "enforcement was impracticable." Is that their argument?

What is Messi's camp saying?
Messi's lawyers are arguing that - in the spirit of the deal and good faith - the clause is still active after the rescheduled Champions League final on August 23.

Graham Hunter added: "Messi's camp will argue that although the timing for this clause in his contract has passed, they are going to say this was an odd season, an extended season.

I asked you if you whether you have read the contract for 2 reasons:

1. you keep quoting a contract you have never set your eyes on; and
2. Force Majeure principle can only be applied where it was specifically stipulated in the contract AND the specific "act of God" being alleged was narrowly included in the contract.

I remain stunned that you are making these rookie errors, which are often expected from first year law students. To do this in law practice is remarkably shocking!! Just wow!

I am still waiting for your legal analysis because you are not able to make one. I understand perfectly well how Force Majeure works and its one of the general clauses that are inserted towards the end of every comprehensive contract. The more complex the contract, the higher the likelihood that a force majeur clause will be in the contract.

Barca's lawyers did not mention Force Majeure in that article but their reasoning is along the same lines of reasoning given last season "was an odd season, an extended season..."

[green4life]

Yes, he could and should have and cannot go back in time to June 10 but he still needs a legal solution which is where his lawyers enter the picture to find a way out. Messi needs his lawyers to figure it out and not summarily give up like Danfo Driver, Esq.

The contract as written (going by media reports) appears to favor Barca so the idea here is for Messi's lawyers to create negotiating leverage for an exit (presuming that is his wish) by making an alternate argument that favors Messi with view towards impressing upon Barca management of a possible risk of losing. The argument doesn't have to be a strong argument but it has to be backed by legal analysis and reasoning sufficiently to sway the party with the stronger hand to discuss an amicable settlement.

You are being childish and dishonest; which surprises me because I would never have pegged you for a dishonest person.

My argument with you is very narrow: you claim that he should apply the principle of force majeure. My response to you is that applying force majeure here is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. I also wanted to know if you have read the contract.

Whether or not Messi has legal arguments to win this case HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our discussion. Our discussion is very narrow-- can he apply force majeure here? Thats it.

The issue for me was how can Messi leave barca given - on the face of the contract - he missed the June 10th notification deadline?

Criticizing my force majeure argument is not an answer. Where is your answer? You have none. Messi's lawyers are on retainer and know that their client's hands appear tied up in this situation but they are not paid to give up. They are being paid big bucks to find a solution. Since you are a big time lawyer, where is your legal argument? Do you even have one?

By the way, you'd be amazed at the sort of fees I've been able to generate from arguments in demand letters that you would call 1st year law school errors. Why? Because you are clueless with regards to legal analysis and too proud to accept. 3 pages later, Danfo still cannot come up with his legal analysis to address the problem. Have a nice weekend.

[danfo driver]

I am still waiting for your legal analysis because you are not able to make one. I understand perfectly well how Force Majeure works and its one of the general clauses that are inserted towards the end of every comprehensive contract. The more complex the contract, the higher the likelihood that a force majeur clause will be in the contract.

I dont think you do, bro. Your analysis shows you clearly do not.

Barca's lawyers did not mention Force Majeure in that article but their reasoning is along the same lines of reasoning given last season "was an odd season, an extended season..."

Once again you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You seem to have this habit of trying to force something that just isnt there, which I mentioned is a very rookie first year law student mistake. I am surprised you didnt shake this bad habit quite early.

[danfo driver]

The issue for me was how can Messi leave barca given - on the face of the contract - he missed the June 10th notification deadline?

But you have NEVER seen the contract. This is very very poor legal practice.

Criticizing my force majeure argument is not an answer.

Actually it is. It is a response to your very poor assertion.

By the way, you'd be amazed at the sort of fees I've been able to generate from arguments in demand letters that you would call 1st year law school errors. Why? Because you are clueless with regards to legal analysis and too proud to accept. 3 pages later, Danfo still cannot come up with his legal analysis to address the problem. Have a nice weekend.

Typical comment from a two-bit solo practitioner. Now everything makes sense.

[kalani JR]

Expiry and commencement of player contracts:
Expiring player contracts usually end when the season ends, with a termination date that coincides with the end of the season. With the current suspension of play in most countries, it is now obvious that the current season will not end when people thought it would. Therefore, it is proposed that contracts be extended until such time that the season does actually end. This should be in line with the original intention of the parties when the contract was signed and should also preserve sporting integrity and stability.

A similar principle applies to contracts due to begin when the new season starts, meaning the entry into force of such contracts is delayed until the next season actually does start.

https://www.fifa.com/who-we-are/news/fi ... f-covid-19

Mind you these are GUIDELINES not formal rules.

[danfo driver]

Expiry and commencement of player contracts:
Expiring player contracts usually end when the season ends, with a termination date that coincides with the end of the season. With the current suspension of play in most countries, it is now obvious that the current season will not end when people thought it would. Therefore, it is proposed that contracts be extended until such time that the season does actually end. This should be in line with the original intention of the parties when the contract was signed and should also preserve sporting integrity and stability.

A similar principle applies to contracts due to begin when the new season starts, meaning the entry into force of such contracts is delayed until the next season actually does start.

https://www.fifa.com/who-we-are/news/fi ... f-covid-19

Mind you these are GUIDELINES not formal rules.

Once again, square peg, round hole. Messi's contract was not expiring.


As for those whose contracts were expiring, the clubs made them offers of extension. The likes of Fraser rejected the offer and moved on; while the likes of Vertonghen accepted and remained.

Then you have cases of Ozil, where clubs wanted to "amend" a clause-- reducing the salary. The player rejected it! If Messi's contract gave him the authority to unilaterally cancel his contract on June 10, 2020. Messi could have unilaterally cancelled the contract on that date whether there was coronavirus, plague, ashawo convention or public masturbation. it doesnt matter. First thing on July 11, 2020 Barca would have filed a motion in court and they would have lost! They'd have ended up spending the summer crying and crying like Bournemouth, but the law, Messi and every other person who has better things to do would not have given a flying fook!