The Mail Bag
Pre-contract agreements?
Comments (25)
There's been a lot of talk recently of pre-contract agreements (Mucha, Beckford) which sounds really positive. Then Beckford's manager comes out with his comments about such agreements not being binding. Can someone please have a go at explaining what the point of such agreements is — are we signing these guys or not??
Chris Jones, Posted 25/01/2010 at 21:23:55
Comments
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
I believe that these pre-contract agreements are not legally binding because it is against the FA rules to sign a player without the consent of his club, and Mr Beckford is still a Leeds player. However, once his contract has expired then he will be able to enter into a binding agreement with Everton.
It is possible that the agreement with Beckford is legally binding, but conditional on Beckford’s contract with Leeds expiring, i.e. it automatically takes effect from the date of expiry of his contract with Leeds. I am not sure if this kind of conditional agreement is permitted or not. This would be much more useful to Everton than a contract that is not binding at all on Beckford.
However, either way, the agreement is certainly not legally binding on Leeds Utd as they are not a party to it. So if Leeds were to sell Beckford in the January window Everton would have no re-course against Leeds (but they might against Beckford himself depending on the terms of the pre-contract agreement).
Sorry to hypothesise so much in the absence of hard facts. But for all practical purposes you can consider this a deal that is 90% done and that once Beckford’s contact has expired we will probably not have to negotiate his salary etc.
Moyes said the same thing in relation to Saha a few weeks ago... they are both talking crap.
Unless an existing contract prevents you from signing a pre-contact with an explicit clause, then you can do what you want.
I believe that is why Mucha has been announced on the OS while nothing has been heard of Beckford as it's not a done deal until his contract at Leeds expires.
A pre-contract agreement is an agreement in principle, prior to a contract being signed. As such, it carries very little legal weight at all.
As it stands, I believe that a player out of contract in the summer can only sign a contract for an overseas club during the winter window, that is what is stopping us having a legally binding contract with Beckford.
By that reckoning, if we have signed a pre contract agreement with Beckford and another team tried to sign him in the summer, we would be due a transfer fee for the release of the contract. I’m probably wrong but that's how I’d view the situation.
In short, It depends on what the existing contract allows you to do..
His agent was lined up to be interviewed on Radio Five Live’s Monday night club last night. I was on a call and missed it so don’t know if this shed any light on what’s going on. Did anyone catch the interview?
However, it was stated last night on Radio 5live that a PCA cannot be signed between two clubs in the same country & thus Beckford could not have done this formally with Everton.
It has since come to light that players in Scotland have signed PCA’s between Scottish clubs. So confusion reigns.
But the absence of any announcement from Everton or Beckford suggests there is no such agreement either way.
I’m pleased that something is being done on the goalkeeping front. Howard has done a good job but I have been concerned for some time about the ability of his deputies to step up, without disrespecting them. In my experience you need the best goalkeeper you can get. All the best Everton teams had superb goalies and when we failed, the goalies were always dodgy.
As for Beckford, he seems an arrogant so-and-so but I’d be happy to have him if he backed up his mouth with some goals! I’d love to keep Saha or have Huntelaar but I can’t see it happening. If Saha leaves, I think he will regret it in career terms unless Arsenal pick him up.
Yakubu is not the player he was this season and has been the subject of some derision from the press in the AFCON ("Yakubu waddled down the left wing"). The jury is still out on Vaughan, Anichebe and Agard.
It seems to me that the management are, within their limitations, doing everything they can to get in shape for the next 18 months and I’m encouraged by that. I’d love to see them move to secure Pienaar on a long contract but I think at some point, unless we move on to the next level, he, Fellaini and Rodwell will be horse traded at some point.
I’ve made the point a number of times that I don’t think it is in our power to overcome the big four without some Man City-style takeover but I am encouraged by the big four’s recent attempts to give it away, especially Liverpool.
However, that’s not a matter of law... simply a matter of FA rules.
The rumour mongers near me who know so-and-so who is a coach at the academy are saying Pienaar is going to Spain in the Summer, we will have to wait and see.
I would cash in on Yakubu; he has done his 3 years and it's time to move on... like he has done all his career. He has received severe criticism over his lack-lustre performances for Nigeria.
Saha appears to be heading to the club who will pay him the most wages, so much for loyalty to the man who resurrected his career... ie, Moyes.
Like when you are buying a house, "subject to contract" means you can still be gazumped but as soon as the contracts are exchanged it is legally binding and you have an action in rem. This Pre-Contract Agreement must be the equivalent to the "Subject to Contract" stage in selling your house... in other words, means fuck all.
If a player wants to move to a club other than the one he’s agreed to join, then he can do with no law against it.
There may be some FA rules on this, but if there are, they’re merely rules of the governance of players moving from clubs within their own country as someone stated above. Legally, pre-contracts mean nothing.
It used to be known as "Heads of Agreement" or "Heads of terms" in commercial law.
It cannot legally compel the parties to execute the deal but is evidence of serious intent. There is no standard document but it is usual to have a clause "These heads of terms are not exhaustive and are not intended to be legally binding except as specifically set out below".
So basically it makes final contract negotiations easier but as earlier posters said cannot form a contract because Beckford is still a Leeds player and there is no agreement between the clubs.
Knowing Everton’s dealings I would be surprised if we had a pre-contract as actually finalising a contract seems to be too much for them.
Therefore ’subject to contract’ in a pre-contract agreement would work... but the form of the agreement alone would not determine this... it is the drafting which is the important factor — and any restrictions on this from the existing contract.
I’m also pretty sure there’s a difference in those rules between international and domestic transfers, by which I mean Mucha is allowed to sign a proper pre-contract agreement as he’s an international transfer. I don’t think Jermaine Beckford is as it's domestic, so any ’agreement’ in place is of a lesser status than the Mucha one.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 26/01/2010 at 03:24:14
Report abuse
Again, I’m not totally sure so don’t quote me on any of this. But I think that is how it works.