I wonder if there is legal precedent for this kind of incident.
There probably is somewhere, but I bet very few workplaces are equipped to deal with a mob of 50 turning up for a fight.
-
Such is the rumours that the chairman was mixed up with the ultras but thatâs not thatâs not the point. They are liable for their employees safety and by not doing enough to protect them they void the contract
-
These players and any club signing them has consulted the very best lawyers to be confident in their position.
-
The argument will essentially be whether Sporting did enough to protect their employees or not.
Point 18 is a very strong one against them and everything else is their counter argument.
Essentially the TLDR for @shamrockgooner : âFailure of health and safety conditions in the workplaceâ
I wonder if the security of the facilities is what drew these players to the likes of Wolves and Betis.
Yeah this is really the point⌠we have secret service protecting government officials and they are still subject to attack from determined, deranged people⌠I am not arguing the merits of this particular case, but to assume that a club didnât do their job b/c their players got attacked by some nuts is kind of strange⌠what football club has any significant security contingent besides contractors at specific events?
Rumours schumours. Even if he personally handed them a key that wouldnât be of any use unless it could be proven. Also heâs an individual and not the corporate entity. An individual, an employee of that entity can do something against the best interests of it and it wouldnât necessarily render the company liable.
Lawyers were almost certainly consulted but those fucks get paid no matter what happens so I wouldnât really pay attention to that as a point tbh. Sporting clearly have lawyers that think differently anyway so what any lawyer said here is really quite moot.
The argument is only partly about did they do enough but is actually more so about whether or not a breach of contract occurred here. I just donât see any scenario where a court finds that it did.
Most likely scenario here is that a deal gets agreed between the two clubs and we never get to find out which way an actual case would have gone.emphasized text
Didnât give a shit about Sporting before but Iâm now pretty invested in seeing the conclusion to this madness haha
2 Likes
None of that matters because A) the players were attacked B) It is Sportingâs liability to prevent that. Your arguing about a breach of contract, itâs a breach of any employment law and the Sporting lawyers actually state that on point 18.
As for Sportingâs lawyers, they donât necessarily believe they can win this either, because they are getting paid like you say.
The case may get settled and Sporting probably are hoping for that but if it did goto court Iâd expect Sporting to lose.
Thatâs your take on things. Mine is different.
You donât think Sporting are liable for the security of their players?
Not sure how you could take that from any of my posts to be honest.
Where the liability ends and whether or not that extends to a breach of contract is what matters here legally speaking. I just canât see how a court can say that they were culpable for the criminal activity of others to the point that the players can be released from their contracts.
The post right above mine lol
Anyway, the point is they canât be held accountable for the actions of others, but they certainly can be held accountable if itâs demonstrated that they didnât provide adequate security.
What happened to the players is not that important. Itâs whether it could have been prevented. And I donât know enough about Sportingâs facilities to know whether thatâs the case or not.
Thereâs a clear thread to that conversation which youâve been somewhat involved in so again Iâm not sure how YOU could take that as what I was meaning.
The health and safety element isnât enough to satisfy just cause at all even If Sporting did fail to maintain security measures, which they did not anyway. The whole description of the incident is outlined at point 124 onward in the Statement of Case
Point 165 to 176 in particular, Sporting dismisses Ruiâs claims briefly outlined in point 18 about Health and safety aspect with comprehensive analysis and citation of Portuguese law, UEFA safety regulations and other regulations which they clearly have complied with.
Point 161 to 165 below is damning for Rui and Wolves. If Wolves are smart theyâll seek to settle immediately. William Carvalho, one of the players who âterminatedâ their contract, has recently transferred to Betis. Betis paid a fee to release him from his Sporting contact like any other transfer, further proof that the Players resignation doesnât hold water at all
An institution like FIFA will never find in the playerâs favour in this case, it takes a much more significant breach to be able to terminate a multimillion euro contract under just cause.
3 Likes
Great signing, but we got Torreira :kos2:
1 Like
Pogba/Fred. Fernandinho/Silva. Jorginho/Kante. Keita/Fabinho.
4 top class midfields right there.
1 Like
Fuck, what a signing
This document is admitting failure to secure players safety is a breach of contract. Itâs not daming at all and youâre only reading Sportings own justifications. They are arguing itâs not their fault and they complied with all the expected safety protocol. They have to state that to have any claim against Wolves/Rui but it doesnât mean it canât be disproven. It doesnât mean they didnât breach players safety, itâs their simply their argument.
If the players have any proof safety protocol was breached then Sporting lose the case. And it would be balance of proof/probability, so 50% chance they were unsafe rather than the 99% probability in a criminal court.
Betis wanted to guarantee there would be no further action taken, where as Wolves are happy to test the case in court or look for a MUCH smaller settlement. That does not make Wolves/Rui at fault.