Re: John Obi Mikel... You guys are acting like he was coerced into signing something bad. The deal was fair and he was going to be paid his worth and his family's future would have been secured. The agents and Chelsea are the ones who have tried to convince him that he signed something less than what he would have gotten if he signed for you instead. All this bru-ha-ha about being forced to sign with us is two-faced and comical coming from you lot.... Hell, Chelsea might be the first club in history to tap-up a player after he's already signed a deal with another club....
Re: John Obi Mikel... I agree Rio was an idiot...... I fully believe that if you are in a position where someone is asking you to sign a CONTRACT,a semi intelligent human (and when speaking of footballers I use that term loosely), should know better then to take a strangers word for it..... If you still decide to sign then you should be held accountable.... Is that clear enough for you....................
Re: John Obi Mikel... The point Obi and Shittu are trying to make is that the contract was signed under duress, and if Shittu hadn't been there they wouldn't have been able to make this claim. So fine, the duress is one thing - we really can't argue about that too much since noone other than Mikel, Andersen, Ryan, and United's lawyer knows exactly what happened in that room that day. What other "general legal principles" have been broken here? Oh come on - don't give me this idealistic crap. You should know very well that agents don't always look out for the best interests of the player. My point is not that United's lawyer was there to ensure that Mikel's best interests were served, but rather to see that the deal was carried out legally. This isn't a courtroom saga, so your analogy makes no sense.
"Oh no, I just signed a contract with an elite team that will make me richer than I ever dreamed. What have I done?"
Re: John Obi Mikel... What kind of proof is required to show duress? And who makes the decision in this case? Is there some sort of Judge appointed by FIFA? Could United appeal any decision made by FIFA to the European Union (or whatever incarnation their judiciary arm is)? Is that Chelsea's legal theory? That the contract was signed under duress and therefore is not a legally binding contract? Or is it that the club had no power to transfer Mikel in the first place, and therefore the transfer is invalid? Or is it both? Seems to me that FIFA has some issues here. They don't want to stand in the way of smaller clubs transferring players to larger clubs. The economy of the game in some ways depends upon the ability of these contracts to be enforced. If clubs now fear that every deal they make with the smaller clubs can be voided by an agent who runs in at the last minute and says "my client was under duress! No deal!" then there will be some repercussions. As an attorney, I would think the level of proof required to show one was "under duress" should be and would be very high.
Re: John Obi Mikel... I haven't a clue what Chelsea's official position is. I'm not their lawyer. But it follows pretty clearly that if a contract was made under duress, it is not valid. Therefore, Lyn would have no player under contract to sell to United. As for who the club can appeal to - I haven't a clue. Since this technically isn't a court case but a private regulatory dispute, I don't know what redress exists in Europe. I suppose ManUtd could pursue this in a court, the same way Bosman did, but I don't know enough about the EU legal system to speculate how they would do so. I'll also add that FIFA is an organization that will, ultimately, deal in equity, not at law. So "standards" of proof are somewhat meaningless here - FIFA can decide on points of general fairness. There's no such thing as FIFA due process. As we well know.
Re: John Obi Mikel... You're 18 years old. You don't know the country. You get into a room with adults telling you that you've been sold and that there's a contract in front of you. I don't honestly know what language everything was done in, or how well Obi can express himself. You're then told to sign on the dotted line and no one you know, including your agent who has been representing you for years, is there. Given how many people fall for such coercive practices, that an 18 year old in a foreign country did is no particular surprise. You may take a ridiculously draconian Randian view on human nature, but fortunately the law disagrees with you. P.S. The point isn't that Rio is an idiot (he is), its that your comment of "not deserving to play professional football" that was so funny.
Re: John Obi Mikel... Had shittu been there with a gun to his head its still duress. The point isn't just Shittu's non-presence. If there's a contract under duress, there is no contract. Ergo, the sale to ManUtd never happened. So you'd have a case against Lyn for signing the player under duress. That there are bad agents has nothing to do with the fact that their job IS to look out for their client. That's what agents do. You are happy to believe Shittu is a bad agent who's looking out for someone else (namely Chelsea) because you want to believe the other side and get Obi. I haven't a clue if Shittu acted poorly - I don't know. Oh, and you're not correct as to United's lawyer's presence. He's there to ensure ManUtd aren't liable. He can't know the circumstances regarding duress and he certainly won't request the presence of Shittu's agent. His presence strengthens the duress case rather than weaken it. And my analogy has nothing to do with the courtroom.
Re: John Obi Mikel... I'd agree with you but he knew he was in that room to sign a contract...at any time he could have left.... Some lawyer you must be arguing your client is too dumb or weak to say no.... Your argument is like me saying at 18 I didn't understand all the big words on the car lease or credit card app when I signed them so I am not responsible for the debt........ . So you're saying that the law states people should not be held accountable for their action Well i guess you and Rio have something in common then.... I stand by what I said which is if he is that dumb that he signed a contract because strangers told him to he does not deserve to walk the earth let alone play a professional sport........
Re: John Obi Mikel... Sigh. You really are thick. No one here is my client. I'm not arguing that someone should do anything. And whether or not he was coerced (for which a case can be made) is up to FIFA to determine, not to me. As for being able to walk out of a room - you clearly don't understand what duress means. It does not mean locked to a chair. You can exert pressure on someone by suddenly keeping him away from an agent and putting him in a room full of important people who'll tell him he has to do something. In a foreign country, into the bargain. Yeah, no chance of any potential duress there. You may find this hard to believe, but there are consumer protection laws that do just that. The law, fortunately, is a bit more complicated than that. But tell me, what do you think "duress" means? Wow, that was pitiful. So you agree - Rio does not deserve to walk the earth. I should also add that its nice to see all those old people who get bilked by scam artists don't deserve to walk the earth. I assume you're a "compassionate conservative"?
Re: John Obi Mikel... Again show me how he was forced or put under undue pressure to sign the contract and get in front of the TV cameras. Besides being in a room with the team reps..... ........ Shocking that you conveniently didn't answer my post...... Not really considering you constantly prove you are an idiot.... Did you feel you were being clever when you wrote this one..... Wow..... Congratulations you managed to post all this crap without one single valid rebuttal addressing my postl..... You are an absolute idiot... Your parents must be proud....
Re: John Obi Mikel... Yes, the team reps of a club who was the one supposeldy putting him under duress! Good argument. I did. Let me try to make it clearer. In some cases the law does plainly state you are not responsible for certain behavior. Is that clear enough? Your argument is weak, because it claims that "if he did anything, he must be responsible". That's not how the law works. Period. If you start with a flawed premise, don't complain when your conclusion is invalid. I'm not going to piss in your pool because I actually respect some of the other swimmers.
Re: John Obi Mikel... Duress So again he was not threatened with violence or imprisonment and how do you believe he can prove that it overcame his mind..... I'll concede this point since Obi is obviously a mentally ill person for wanting to play for Chavski... Not true at all..... If someone enters into an agreement they should be held to that agreement..... Again the fact that he was in a room signing this contract without his agent doesn't make it forced..... I'm sure the other swimmers appreciate that... But as far as I'm concerned I couldn't give a ******** if you respect me since I don't respect you ........
Re: John Obi Mikel... Here's a better definition. Are you a lawyer? Do you know what it takes to make out a defense of duress? Forced and under duress aren't the same thing. Besides which, you're wrong. Courts invalidate contracts people sign all the time, for various reasons. Try again.
Ding...Ding Round 8! Anyway I thought it might be interesting to know that Obi Mikel's name has been removed from the squad list on official MU website, don't know when it happened but it was there about a week ago. This surely is not good news...
Re: John Obi Mikel... I think the moral of the story is that none of us really know enough about the process or the facts to make a truly informed statement.
The Hearst case isn't relevant: the criminal standards are different from the civil standards. In an American legal sense, we don't talk about duress, so much as unconscionability - of which duress tends to be a subissue. We'll uphold a contract where a woman promises to pay $5,000 for a $50 loan for a ticket to come to the country. If you're trying to argue that a contract is unconscionable, you have to prove both procedural and substantive unconscionability in the US. Mikel would be screwed. Even if he could prove that the contract with Man Utd was procedurally unconscionable (dramatic disparity of bargaining power coupled with something slightly more sinister, usually)...there's almost no hope of him proving substantive unconscionability. Substantive unconscionability doesn't mean he didn't get the best bargain he could have - it means the basic terms of the contract are fundamentally unfair. That ain't gonna happen. Since our law on the issue is directly drawn from England, I'd wager their standards are similar unless they've changed dramatically (which they could have, of course). But English law won't be followed, unless Man Utd sues in a court of law. Even then, it would probably be Norwegian law that governed - though I'm not exactly an expert on international choice of law.