Luis Suárez

[Neil Young]

Nobody can know what was said, but it doesn't really matter. If someone offers our valuation then I expect we will sell him, but they aren't. His 'Liverpool will make a profit' argument isn't really convincing and while the only offer we have is an undervalued and unappealing one from arsenal then I don't think he can really say a vague promise to let him leave has been broken.

Well, it does matter - see below.

I don't care about his arguments about why the club should sell him. It's irrelevant, just something someone in his position might say.

An apparently unwitnessed and disputed verbal agreement would hardly supersede a contradictory written contract signed at exactly the same time. Indeed you'd think there would be some very hard questions for him to answer at arbitration as to why the disparity.

Yup, this is possible. Or as I just said above, his team misinterpreted the contract clause and now are trying to invoke what they felt it should have been, rather than what it actually was. Kinda his problem, not ours.

How about that at the time he'd only signed for us 18 months previously (on a 4 1/2 year contract no less), then had been supported to extreme lengths by the club while he was suspended etc for racial abuse. We're supposed to be grateful he didn't jump straight to the first club that wanted him back then (not that we received an official offer for him either, hence he has admitted having contact with another club behind our back too which is against all sorts of rules)

Personally I think, if he'd stuck to the line from June, wanting to leave the UK for a Madrid-stature club, people wouldn't be reacting like this and although it would be a bit sore, it wouldn't be outrageous and verging on completely illogical. What he is doing currently, imo, is.

If the club led his team to believe that the clause meant what they think/thought it does then it's central to the dispute. If a judge decided that's what happened then the written contract would be trumped by the club acting in bad faith.

The idea that conversations are vague while written contracts aren't is erroneous. That's why contract disputes in all sorts of areas end up in court!

I don't think I said we were supposed to be grateful, did I?

There's too much emotion about all this. I can understand why but it's a bit silly IMO.

Fortunately my lapdog battery is at 4% so I'm going to have to log off for a while.

[Tee]

First your pink boots and now this

I have defended him through everything and ultimately it seems they were all right calling him a cunt, because that is what he clearly is. Yes, even if he feels betrayed by the club he has gone about this in the worst way possible, so cunt he is as far as I am concerned.

[SERVO2]

Glad that Henry is in Norway with the club at the moment. You'd expect some sort of statement from us today.

I got the impression he got in there first with his "I don't know why people keep asking about us selling the club/best players... We like to buy things not sell them" comments

[Neil Young]

That is true, but all said and done we the fans deserved better from the player. I am going to look a right mug now when I see my mates at footy, FFS.

First your pink boots and now this

1%.

Bye for now.

[Sarb]

I got the impression he got in there first with his "I don't know why people keep asking about us selling the club/best players... We like to buy things not sell them" comments

Possibly yes. Someone probably tipped them off about his interview anyway. Bascombe maybe

[Sarb]

1%.

Bye for now.

Can we all slate Neil now for about 5 pages. We know he won't want to check back

[Vermilion]

That NY eh, nutter.

EDIT: Mwwwwaaahaahaahaaaaa

[Tee]

Just thinking aloud here but the club could clearly argue that they have kept their word as per this so called gentlemans agreement. Because we have said he can leave, just as long as we get the right price.

[Kenneth]

As long as our price isn't unreasonable then yes, as we understand the conversation from the limited reporting. I guess the contract will determine whether 40m is reasonable.

[Exiled_red]

Well, it does matter - see below.

I don't care about his arguments about why the club should sell him. It's irrelevant, just something someone in his position might say.


If the club led his team to believe that the clause meant what they think/thought it does then it's central to the dispute. The idea that conversations are vague while written contracts aren't is erroneous. That's why contract disputes in all sorts of areas end up in court!

I don't think I said we were supposed to be grateful, did I?

There's too much emotion about all this. I can understand why but it's a bit silly IMO.

Fortunately my lapdog battery is at 4% so I'm going to have to log off for a while.

If there were (verbal) discussions about the contract, if both parties go away with different opinions as to what was agreed then a contract doesn't get signed until both parties have checked it and are happy with what it says. If one party believes that the contract doesn't represent what they believe was agreed surely the negotiations continue. It seems that this area would have been one of the key negotiating points from Suarez' team so you would have to assume that they would have checked over this part of the contract in detail with their lawyers to ensure it clearly represented what had been agreed.

If something such as this was agreed verbally at a later date surely Suarez team have to insist on an addendum being made to the contract.

And while contract disputes do end up in court surely as a football agent and lawyer they must have seen both these types of clauses before and be aware of the implications and the differences between the two. I personally think that the problem arises from one of three situations: either Suarez' agent/legal team didn't check the contract properly, an agreement was made but not added to the contract or no agreement was reached and they are just trying to find a way out.

[Tee]

As long as our price isn't unreasonable then yes, as we understand the conversation from the limited reporting.

Thanks to Madrid and Bale it clearly isn't.

[Rich]

Do Arsenal have any players that we'd like to see in a LFC shirt?

What about Oxlade-Chamberlain? Gone off the boil? Not good enough?

[Tee]

Do Arsenal have any players that we'd like to see in a LFC shirt?

What about Oxlade-Chamberlain? Gone off the boil? Not good enough?

Aside from Wilshere, none that I would want to sign tbh.

[dom9]

Do Arsenal have any players that we'd like to see in a LFC shirt?

What about Oxlade-Chamberlain? Gone off the boil? Not good enough?

Walcott.

[Arn]

Does it really matter what the club is doing in all of this though? They are doing whats right for Liverpool. Which ultimately is all most of us care about.

It is just laughable that Rodgers talks about loyalty when he himself really don't give a **** about it as long as it suits him. Look at the way he talked before he joined Reading and when he promised not to sign any player from Swansea. Didn't give a **** about it and instead signed Allen for £15m.

As you said. The club will do what is best for the club, as they should do, whatever it takes. Suarez will do what is best for him, as he should do.