Jump to content

Souleymane Coulibaly


TartanC4
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dunnikierjag said:

They paid about 1m for Coulibally why would they not be entitled to their money  back. If I bought faulty goods I would want my money back. They paid the transfer fee in good faith and are entitled to not be out of pocket because he doesn't like Egypt.

If they had paid the £1M to Coulibaly I would agree but they paid Killie.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Roque said:

But they are out of pocket. They're out of pocket by a million quid because the guy they spent that on decided to breach his contract and leave the country.

If a club purchase a player, and the player signs a contract with that club, then of course his contract is based on the transfer fee. The contract wouldn't exist if the transfer hadn't happened. Coulibaly signed a contract on the basis of him being purchased by Al-Ahly from Kilmarnock. Okay, it probably wasn't written into his contract that he owes the value of the transfer fee if he decides he's going to quit having only served 10% of the duration of his contract - but that's been a judgment made by a governing body, and imo it makes perfect sense to link that fine to the transaction for a player who ended up being nowhere near that value to the club because he walked out on them.

It’s not the player the transfer fee is for it’s the players registration, which the purchaser owns and hold till which time the contract ends and is returned to the player or is sold and is transferred to the buying club

 

Without the registration the player can’t play else where.  Al-Ahly seem to be stating they still have the registration which until a fine is paid or contract runs out they will keep

Edited by Norgethistle
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dunnikierjag said:

Coulibally signed a 3 and a half year contract. Perhaps he should have done his homework on Egypt instead of looking at dollar signs.

I was debating the link between the transfer fee and the fine FIFA imposed - not whether he was right or wrong in what he did.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Sorry but this is horse manure.

Souleymane Coulibaly is not Kilmarnock FC. He was not personally paid the transfer fee they paid.

The purpose of a transfer fee is to get the other club to waive their existing right to hold the registration of the player. The player's legal obligations are not involved in that exchange of money. The player then negotiates a contract for personal terms with a club to agree to play for them.

Unless a contract specifically otherwise states, the transfer fee has no bearing on any amount due by the player in the event they fail to perform the contract or purport to rescind it.

Far more likely in this case is that the penalty clauses in this 3.5 year contract are related in some way to Coulibaly's wages and bonus structure for the period in which he has refused to play for the Club.

A player could be bought for a billion pounds one day and shoot themselves the next day. Doesn't mean their new club get to bankrupt their estate.

Not at one point have I said Coulibaly is Kilmarnock FC, or that he was the recipient of the transfer fee.

If the player doesn't perform to the expected level of the transfer fee that's a different matter: then it is a poor investment in football terms. These happen all the time in world football. However, you can't call it a poor investment if your investment decides to walk out of your club, citing reasons that were subsequently determined in court to be invalid. Al-Ahly quite rightly took this player to court and you've got to assume did so with the intention of recovering the cash that they had spent on him; the majority of which would have been in the transfer fee.

I'd dispute that this level of fine would be related to the wages and bonus structure of his contract because I'm assuming Al-Ahly didn't pay his wages as soon as he went AWOL. They didn't lose money in wages or bonuses - they lost cash because a player that they spent £1m walked out on them.

If a player did indeed shoot himself, then he would no longer be able to sign for another club. The same would apply if a player picked up a career-ending injury from which he had to retire. Those situations would be unfortunate for the purchasing club. This is not an unfortunate, unavoidable hard luck story for Al-Ahly - Coulibaly left the club (without a valid reason, seemingly), and is now trying to sign somewhere else. They're entitled to try and block that while chasing the money they are owed, imo.

The fact you're writing off the transfer fee paid as if it's completely irrelevant in this discussion is bizarre. It might even be "horse manure".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

It’s not the player the transfer fee is for it’s the players registration, which the purchaser owns and hold till which time the contract ends and is returned to the player or is sold and is transferred to the buying club

 

Without the registration the player can’t play else where.  Al-Ahly seem to be stating they still have the registration which until a fine is paid or contract runs out they will keep

So Al-Ahly terminated Coulibaly's contract but still hold his registration documents? I'm not asking that in a rhetoric manner, btw.

It seems that this would be a strange thing for a football club to be able to do. But then again, so is a player walking out on a club, so maybe they are within their rights to do so.

However, if his registration expires at the time his contract was supposed to end in 2020, what happens to the FIFA-imposed fine if it hasn't been paid at that stage?

The whole thing is a total mess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roque said:

Not at one point have I said Coulibaly is Kilmarnock FC, or that he was the recipient of the transfer fee.

If the player doesn't perform to the expected level of the transfer fee that's a different matter: then it is a poor investment in football terms. These happen all the time in world football. However, you can't call it a poor investment if your investment decides to walk out of your club, citing reasons that were subsequently determined in court to be invalid. Al-Ahly quite rightly took this player to court and you've got to assume did so with the intention of recovering the cash that they had spent on him; the majority of which would have been in the transfer fee.

I'd dispute that this level of fine would be related to the wages and bonus structure of his contract because I'm assuming Al-Ahly didn't pay his wages as soon as he went AWOL. They didn't lose money in wages or bonuses - they lost cash because a player that they spent £1m walked out on them.

If a player did indeed shoot himself, then he would no longer be able to sign for another club. The same would apply if a player picked up a career-ending injury from which he had to retire. Those situations would be unfortunate for the purchasing club. This is not an unfortunate, unavoidable hard luck story for Al-Ahly - Coulibaly left the club (without a valid reason, seemingly), and is now trying to sign somewhere else. They're entitled to try and block that while chasing the money they are owed, imo.

The fact you're writing off the transfer fee paid as if it's completely irrelevant in this discussion is bizarre. It might even be "horse manure".

There's a world of difference between trying to optimise their financial situation having regard to the fact a player has broken the terms of his contract and the club specifically trying to recover a sum directly connected to the transfer fee paid to a party who isn't even a party to that playing contract, from the player.

Now the club might have included penalty clauses in their player contracts relative to a perceived transfer value, but that's not the same as "what they paid Killie for him".

The nature of a penalty clause in a contract is that it can be levied punitively. It's not just about mitigation of loss. If a club fines a player for disciplinary reasons they're not saying the club is £2k worse off because Balatoni was photoed urinating on the Manequin Pis. Part of what the FIFA ruling will have assessed would be the extent to which penalty clauses in this case were excessive or unfairly levied in proportion to the offence.

The bottom line though is that Coulibaly's value to A-A was in his playing contract and not the contract A-A entered into with Killie to have his registration released before the end of his contract with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that PTFC have taken serious legal advice on this situation.  At first blush it seems wrong to me that a footballer, or anyone else for that matter, can be held prisoner by an employer. However, if he has been paid in advance for services to be rendered,  that muddy's  the water a bit. There are contracts floating around that stop an ex-employee from working for another, rival, firm, usually time constrained.  I assume that that applies to footballers as much as to nuclear scientists?

I hope we get this all cleared up. He would be an exciting signing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sandy said:

Btw, nobody knows the real story about the SC contract - so stop speculating until we do?!

And where is the fun in that ? This is manna fro heaven for all our amateur barristers in the fan base. I’ve watched Judge Rinder, so I’m entitled to have an opinion on international employment law along with FIFA rules and regulations.

fortunately, I suspect that the club will be taking more advice from the shirt sponsor than they do from this forum 

On that, PTFC have gone into this with their eyes open. Publicly announcing the signing was a highly provocative act with a not unexpected response from Egypt. We must assume that Just Employment know what they are doing, and I expect that there were similar shenanigans at the time Bosnian brought his case.

Who knows ? In a few years time we might be saying we got a player from Real Madrid on a Coulibally transfer !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Legs Like A Spider said:

So why don't they say......

This is now a legal case which might need to go to a court of some sort. The club and player will not be saying anything which might prejudice our case or give the other side any advance notice of our arguments.  Our lawyers are giving us advice!

 

........it would put an end to people speculating and quoting articles which may or may not be correct and the fans will know if Coulibaly is going to be available for games in the immediate future. I still find it very strange that they have announced the signing and presumably are paying him a wage if there is even a remote chance that he can never play for us. Right now I expect to see him on Saturday.

I expect that is highly unlikely.

Without the "International Clearance" we would be fielding an ineligible player, which would be against SFA rules and would likely result in forfeiting the match. The club are not going to do that (and I doubt we are paying him anything significant until we get that clearance)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far nobody has mentioned the role of Coulibaly's agent in this. He presumably liaised with PTFC, and must know the real position with regard to the "papers". If it turns out that the player is indeed still tied to the Egyptian club until he pays what he owes them, then the agent must come in for some scrutiny. If, on the other hand, player and agent are in the right, then the Egyptian club should be reprimanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I expect that is highly unlikely.

Without the "International Clearance" we would be fielding an ineligible player, which would be against SFA rules and would likely result in forfeiting the match. The club are not going to do that (and I doubt we are paying him anything significant until we get that clearance)

1. his signing is subject to international clearance therefore he is technically not a thistle player till that is received as his contract will not be activated

2. without international clearance he cannot play here

3. his situation was well known so it would be astounding if the club had not satisfied them all was ok

4. we will know the outcome shortly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...