so the reason why he would not extend is moot as he is allowed to do this for any reason he wanted. The Value that Tottenham have lost is 0 as would damages.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Son Heung-Min
- Thread starter Denmark Spur
- Start date
so the reason why he would not extend is moot as he is allowed to do this for any reason he wanted. The Value that Tottenham have lost is 0 as would damages.
For any reason within the context of his normal role as an employee, yes.
But national service is not an action within the normal scope of his employment as a footballer. Choosing to do that is costing us money and we should be doing everything we can to discourage that behaviour.
I'd like to think that legal action would be the very last resort - hopefully Son will see sense and postpone or ignore it.
He can leave for free at the end of the contract for any reason he wants - he can see that contract out to the end for any reason he wants - the value to the club at the end of the contract is Zero. It doesn't matter if the value of the player is £200M or £0 2 years before the contract ends if the player says for whatever reason he is seeing his contract out, it is an unrealizable market value as you need both sides to agree to the deal. National Service does not come into it, the only way it would is if it fell within the contract period, what bit of this do you think you will successfully argue against in court.
You are being ridiculous, Deep Breath....
You are being ridiculous, Deep Breath....
The bit I would argue against isn't in there because you keep choosing to ignore it.
The point at which his value drops is not at the end of his contract, it's two years prior. By this point, if he hasn't postponed or cancelled his service then he is taking an action (during his employment) that costs us financially.
He has the veto for whatever reason he wants over being sold this is the case if he is doing national service or not. Even if his value on the open market is £200M it is not a cost to us financially as we have no way of realising this 2 years prior to the contract end date, we cant force him to move. You appear to be ignoring this, it doesn't matter what the market value of the asset is if you have no way of getting this.
And regarding your point of pressuring Son by going to court it wont be Tottenham vs Son it will be Tottenham vs Son & South Korea. I rate Levy but not that much.
And regarding your point of pressuring Son by going to court it wont be Tottenham vs Son it will be Tottenham vs Son & South Korea. I rate Levy but not that much.
Last edited:
The test for this in court would be one of reasonableness.
Son could claim that if he weren't partaking in service then he'd be refusing to sign for anyone and running down his contract. The fact that this is a rare occurrence amongst players of his age/ability/vlaue, especially at our club would go heavily against him. On the balance of probabilities (all that we have to prove), most people would assume he would either sign a new contract or be sold in that period - it's very much the norm in his case.
metalgear
Luka Modric
Surely the suits would have known and discussed all these and factored them into the contract and price. I am certain there would be clauses to cater to every conceivable scenario.
Sent from my iPad using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Sent from my iPad using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Its his right to do so though - his contract between the employer and the employee says he is free to. Also there is lots of precedence of players leaving on free at the end of their contracts (you have heard of Bosman right)?
Again, not signing a new contract is very much part of his normal role as a footballer. We don't make losses based on actions one commits during their normal course of employment recoverable because the results would be ridiculous - nobody would ever take any kind of risk. Choosing to play army is not in the normal course of his employment. It very much does fall into the category of events that we can seek recompense for.
The next step is showing and assessing the magnitude of damage. As I've already stated, we only have to show what, on the balance of probability, would happen if you take his actions (the choice to complete military service) away. We would also have to show that his value will have dropped by a measurable amount because of his lack of resale value - that would be assessed fairly simply. So, using the reasonableness test, we would be able to show quite clearly that the vast, vast majority of footballers in their prime at the top level either sign a new contract or get sold for £Ms. We can show that his actions have been that way in the past, we can show that our actions have been that way in the past, we can point to almost any player in the PL and show that they have acted that way.
It's obviously not an open and shut case, no new ruling ever is, but there's definitely enough there that I would be instructing lawyers in Levy's position. There's also enough there that we could start pointing out to Son how costly such a decision might be, and that he'd be far better off doing tougher service as a rich man in 10 years than doing easier service as a poor man now.
90291Spur
Paul Walsh
As you appear to be an authority on Sotuh Korean law as it pertains to National Service can you post the evidence that an individual has the right to choose the time that they go to the army?
Also, perhaps in your mind (re. bolded bit) you'd be fine with harder military service (again, based on your deep knowledge of South Korean military service I'd be interested to know the difference in tasks), perhaps Son isn't. also, he's hardly a 'poor man' now. Just less rich thatn he'd be in 10 years.
Thanks in advance for posting the info that will educate the rest of us in the ways of the South Korean military policies.
letting your contact run down and leaving on a free is a law period, it's called the bosman ruling it changed football forever, every thing following that is moot. Contracts outline both parties rights and responsibilities and nowhere will it say he doesn't have veto against seeing his contract out as this is illegal. Why he would decide to do this is not a consideration
Just show me any president where a footballer has legally been forced to sign a new contract or the club dictated what he did after.
Last edited:
It's a little complicated but not that hard if you have money. He needs to change his official residence to a country with no permanent residency law (like Monaco) for a year. Then he needs to gain a residency visa there - again, very easy for someone with the means of a footballer and very beneficial for tax purposes too. If he stays a resident there long enough then he doesn't have to serve it at all, I believe.
Once he has that he's able to use the same trick Park Chu-Young was going to before he bottled out of it.
A bit more info here:
http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aId=2950186
I neither know nor care what military service is like in South Korea. I care about what's best for Spurs, and sending a player overseas to take part in some jumped up paintball contest clearly isn't that.
He'd be comparatively poor if he lost the case and had to recompense the loss in value he suffered. His top level career would also be pretty much over after his service, so he wouldn't have the same earning potential.
fudge South Korean military policies - the ability of our club to realise full value on its assets is far more important to me, and should be to all Spurs fans. Except those poor bastards in South Korea who have to go through such ridiculous rituals.
I'll try repeating this once more in the hope you listen, this has nothing to do with his employment contract - therefore nothing to do with Bosman.
This is a case for actions taken during employment which cause the company to suffer losses. Much like a person's employment contract has no bearing if they jump into a forklift and drive it into some expensive machinery.
The only relevance of Bosman here is when you try to establish the size of damaged caused. The court would look at whether Son was likely or not to run down his contract if he were not going off on military service. It's quite clear to anyone that the overwhelming likelihood is that he wouldn't - it would be nearly impossible to argue otherwise.
In case you didn't get it from the first line, this isn't an employment contract case. You can't apply the rules of Bosman any more than you can apply tax law to the case - it's just not a Bosman case.
Finney Is Back
Andy Thompson
so what case is it Scara?.... Contract law? Spurs would have no leg to stand on unless Son's current THFC contract has a clause is in it where Son has agreed to forgo his military service or postpone it until some random date in the future. As long as Son fulfils his contract with THFC then we have no grounds to sue him for breach of contract. Him performing Military Service after his contract at Spurs has ended is in no way a breach of his contract at Spurs.
Your starting point is all wrong, during the course of his contract a player is worth market value if he decides to leave or zero if he decides to see it out. This is the same for every club so the financial loss to Tottenham if he sees out his contract is zero.
Balance of probability on whether he would have signed or not without national service is not relevant as its his right under the Bosman ruling to leave at the end of his contract for any reason he chooses.
Balance of probability on whether he would have signed or not without national service is not relevant as its his right under the Bosman ruling to leave at the end of his contract for any reason he chooses.
90291Spur
Paul Walsh
In most industries it is the responsibility of the party drawing up the contract of employment to do due diligence on factors impacting employment. If there was a clause requiring disclosure of any and all factors impacting an employee's ability to fulfill the terms and Son and his representatives deliberately and knowingly hid the fact that he is required to do National Service it is Tottenham's fault.
It appears that Mr. Scara believes that South Korean law gives Son the choice to decide when and how he serves his country. If that is true and it can be proven that Son is in breach of his contract then the club might have legal grounds.
90291Spur
Paul Walsh
Thanks for the responses.
South Korea is a highly structured and rule-based society. It seems that you don't care for that level of conformity nor do you care for South Korean military policies. It is possible that Son feels more loyalty to his country and to his family than to his employer and thus will decide to complete his service when he chooses to. If that means Spurs suffer, then the club will suffer. I have no loyalty to South Korea and have witnessed first-hand, through friends, a raft of problems engendered by being raised in such a strict country.
Unless someone on here can read Son's contract there is no way of knowing what legal standing the Club. That shouldn't stop us from getting wound up and mis-understanding each other on here.
COYSouthKoreanMilitaryService!
