Any lawyers about? Isn't there a case to be made for Arsenal suing Pool for not honoring the

[Alexism - Atheoist]

release clause in Suarez' contract? I mean, we're certainly a party to the case, and can reasonably point to our poor strike force and claim that the lack of Suarez was a significant reason for us not a) winning the league b) going further in the CL, both of which mean actual losses in revenue to the club.

If there is a case, I wonder if Arsenal's lawyers are just waiting for the season to finish so they can give a full accounting of their grievance.

[Brentwood]

[Luis Anaconda]

We were not supposed to know about the clause so that covers that. It was up to Suarez and his lawyers to push through any complaints.

Suing another club for having better players might set a bit of a dangerous precedent (token that's all right all our are **** though)

[Ears are alight]

in any event with an improved one. It is Suarez himself who would have had to enforce the terms of the contract and chose not to.

All done, move on.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

I understand that it is natural for our less evolved colonial cousins to head straight for the nuclear option, but we find that all terrifically vulgar.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2011-05/356771860-31161746.png

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

I assume he has been drinking and taking narcotics.

[barrybueno's mum]

[Alexism - Atheoist]

So sue me.

[Alexism - Atheoist]

[Luis Anaconda]

probably deserves a :noah: though :-)

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

I am just struggling with the idea of suing another party because they did not sell us a player who presumably wasn't desperate to come to us and as a result of which we didn't win the League or even Champions League which we may have done had the player who didn't really want to sign for us had signed for us.

That's all.

[Alexism - Atheoist]

[Ashberto]

hallucinogenic smoke and so on, while they were actually lying about the release clause, and AFC acted in good faith.

In the same way that we don't know how much the player wanted to come to Arsenal (and presumably he wasn't completely averse to the idea, or his agent wouldn't have spoken to us), we don't know what LFC's extended valuation of the player was, seeing as they were ignoring the legal contract which presumably reflected their initial evaluation.

I presume you're not one of those who inists that AFC should have offered another 5 million or so above the release threshold just to stop the scousers being offended. Oh, how they love to be offended.

[Brentwood]

Worse than that Ken Bigley video, in fact

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

Imagine how we would roll on the ground laughing and/or applaud the sheer balls of the man had Gazidis or Hill-Wood done the same. I know you quite well by this stage and would be genuinely surprised if you were in any way offended by his comments.

In terms of the valuation etc it was set in contract. Had Suarez really wanted to join us he could have forced the deal, as it was he appeared from the outside to be very happy to stay where he was.

I would imagine you would agree with me that none of us would have expected him to be so relaxed had Liverpool acted as they did in the event of a bid from one of the Spanish clubs for example.

Remember he had started the summer desperate to leave England on the basis of what he saw as unfair treatment from the FA. I suspect we were to a degree used by his agent though I am not 100% sure what he hoped to achieve.

In terms of what our next move should have been I don't really know. We did what we thought was the right thing to do and within the terms of the contract. Really the next step was Suarez' to make, not us.

[zimgunner]

(I say this all with an understanding of US law -- I don't pretend to know English or European law.)

Two main problems:

Courts are wary of getting involved in personal service contract disputes, particularly when the person performing the services does not wish to press a claim.

More importantly, the claim for damages is too attenuated.

Arsenal would have to prove at a minimum the following chain of claims to show injury:

1. If Liverpool had honored the release clause, Suarez would have left to join Arsenal (and not some other club, e.g. Real Madrid);

2. Suarez would have continued to be a top player after moving to London and joining Arsenal;

4. Suarez's contribution, net of the contribution from other changes that Arsenal implemented after Suarez did not join, would have led to Arsenal performing better;

5. Arsenal's better performance would have led to identifiable, substantial, economic gains to Arsenal.

And this is all assuming that the release clause argument holds up in the first place.

Conclusion -- it would be a very difficult legal case. Whatever it's merits, moreover, it would be a public relations disaster, I'd imagine.

[redgunamo]

They knew they were in trouble if anyone wanted to make anything out of it, hence their aggressive response.

I suspect they would've been far more friendly had the release clause stated £80 million.

[Alexism - Atheoist]

Thanks - I am better off for your answer.

As for the rest of youse :vsign: