It states: “The Player agrees when directed by an authorised official of the Club to participate in any matches for which he is selected to play for the Club.”The most immediate recourse the club has is to fine him the maximum two weeks wages, but it could seek to take more extreme action, including seeking to sack him for gross misconduct.
Does Tévez’s refusal constitute gross misconduct?
That is a moot point. Clause 10 of the Premier League players’ contract gives a club the right to sack players for gross misconduct, defined as “serious or persistent” conduct.
What about Tévez’s statement denying that he refused to play?
The statement was drafted by his lawyers to try and shore up his legal position, and specifically to deal with the repudiation point. By denying that he refused to take the field, and stating that he “is ready to play when required and to fulfil my obligations” he denies both breach of contract, and makes it appear he intends to fulfil his contract in future.
So can City sack him?
They could, but would surrender his registration making Tévez a free agent and would be unable to recoup the £43 million spent on purchasing his economic rights from companies controlled by his agent, Kia Joorabchian, in a transfer fee.
Could they go to court to recoup the transfer fee?
They could try but Tévez and Joorabchian would doubtless resist. Tévez could also counter-sue for unfair dismissal.
Can City let him rot in the reserves?
They could try but they would be in breach of Fifa regulations that say players can only be left out on technical grounds, not because of a disagreement between player and coach.
What is the likeliest outcome?
If Tévez’s relationship with Mancini is irreparable clearly it’s preferable for all parties for City to command a fee in January – or seek a compromise.
No comments:
Post a Comment