RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Football Agents Shudder at landmark judgment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Football Agents Shudder at landmark judgment

    Soca Warrior wins landmark UK case

    The Kelvin Jack ruling

    Lasana Liburd

    Sunday, February 15th 2009


    T&T 2006 World Cup goalkeeper: Kelvin JackTrinidad and Tobago 2006 World Cup goalkeeper Kelvin Jack has been out of contract for the past nine months and has not played in a competitive football match since April 2007. But the former Holy Cross College student might be set for the limelight in a different role after a comprehensive legal victory over British agent Mike Berry on Friday.

    The British Supreme Court quashed an appeal from Berry, who operates the Imageview Manage-ment Ltd, and ordered him to pay Jack a £3,000 (TT$27,233) "side deal" that Berry secretly obtained from Scottish club Dundee in 2004-minus £750 (TT$6,808) for his services-and foot the "Soca Warrior's" legal fees, which are approximately £30,000 (TT$272,338). Berry's own legal costs in both courts are thought to be in the range of £75,000 (TT$680,845).

    But Berry's appeal put him in a considerably worse position than when he initially lost to Jack in a Leeds County Court room, 13 months ago. This time, the Supreme Court ruled that Berry's deal with Dundee violated his contract with the former San Juan Jabloteh captain and also ordered the agent to return all agency fees paid after that point.

    Berry, who was a member of the Trinidad and Tobago Football Federation (TTFF) 2006 World Cup staff and also manages England-based T&T football stars Carlos Edwards, Jason Scotland, Clayton Ince and Dennis Lawrence, was ordered to return £10,000 (TT$90,779) that he collected in fees from Jack during his spell at the then Scotland Premier League team.

    It is believed to take the Liverpool-based agent's total legal costs into the vicinity of £117,250 (TT$1,064,387).

    Jack's solicitor, Michael Townley, insisted that was only the beginning.

    The Supreme Court's ruling, which Townley suggested was unprecedented in the world of football, means football agents worldwide can be forced to hand over any undeclared benefits received from clubs while they were representing their players and have their contracts voided.

    "For high-profile and high-earning players, the sums at stake could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds," said Townley, who represented Jack alongside barrister Steven Turner. "There is no time limit for bringing a claim against an agent or former agent and this judgment should send a shiver down the spine of all those agents who have historically taken money from both sides.

    "Retired players in particular might now be encouraged to sue their former agents for secret payments they suspect were made behind their backs and all the fees paid to the agent, perhaps going back many years."

    The ruling comes at a time when the England Football Association (FA) and the Association of Football Agents (AFA) are at loggerheads over the FA's proposed Football Agent Regulations, which prohibit "dual representation". The ruling in Jack's case made it clear that football agents were not above normal business law.

    "The Law imposes on agents high standards," stated Lord Justice Jacob in his Supreme Court judgment. "Footballer's agents are not exempt from this An undisclosed but realistic possibility of a conflict of interest is a breach of your duty of good faith to your client."

    Berry could be in deeper financial problems if any of his other past or present charges-including another T&T 2006 World Cup player Brent Sancho, as well as Hector Sam and Josh Johnson-follow suit.

    Berry pocketed roughly £90,000 (TT$817,014) from Luton in agent fees-£44,500 (TT$403,968) of which was subsequently deemed an illegal payment by the FA-when he steered Edwards to the Championship Division club in 2005. The agent is thought to charge his clients approximately ten per cent of their weekly salary, although this is not standard practice in Britain. Berry previously refused to confirm or deny whether he taxed his players' salary.

    If Edwards, whose wages at a Premiership team like Sunderland can be anywhere between £6,000 (TT$54,467) and £20,000 (TT$181,559) per week, has a similar contract to Jack and forced Berry to repay agency fees for the past four years, the figure owed could be staggering. It could be worse, still, if Berry received an undis-closed fee from Wrexham when Edwards first joined the ranks of Britain's professional footballers in 2000.

    In 1995, European football was rocked by the "Bosman ruling" after obscure Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman was blocked from switching clubs although his contract had expired with previous employer, RFC Liege, in 1990. The ruling banned restrictions of foreign European Union members within the national leagues and allowed professional players to move freely to other teams at the end of their contracts. Thousands of players have benefitted since, including local stars like Dwight Yorke, Russell Latapy and Shaka Hislop. Jack's case might similarly interest players who felt abused by their agents.

    Berry initially claimed that he revealed the Dundee payment to his client but the Leeds County Court and Supreme Court Judges believed Jack when he said his agent, when confronted, said only "none of your business".

    "That (Berry) lied suggests that he knew in his heart that he ought to have been open with his client," stated Lord Justice Jacob. "In making the side deal in this case, the agent, Imageview, through Mike Berry, acted in breach of the duty of fidelity which it owed to the principal Mr Jack Mr Berry clearly used his position or connection with Mr Jack to obtain a benefit for himself.

    "The more (Imageview) got for itself, the less there would or could be for Mr Jack. Moreover it gave Imageview an interest in Mr Jack signing for Dundee as opposed to some other club where no side deal for Imageview was possible."
    Last edited by Karl; February 16, 2009, 07:17 PM.
    TIVOLI: THE DESTRUCTION OF JAMAICA'S EVIL EMPIRE

    Recognizing the victims of Jamaica's horrendous criminality and exposing the Dummies like Dippy supporting criminals by their deeds.. or their silence.

    D1 - Xposing Dummies since 2007

  • #2
    Landmark ruling?!!? That would be very surprising. The rules are quite clear about agents acting in this manner.


    BLACK LIVES MATTER

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mosiah View Post
      Landmark ruling?!!? That would be very surprising. The rules are quite clear about agents acting in this manner.
      Rules are one thing... are precedent setting judgment is another.
      TIVOLI: THE DESTRUCTION OF JAMAICA'S EVIL EMPIRE

      Recognizing the victims of Jamaica's horrendous criminality and exposing the Dummies like Dippy supporting criminals by their deeds.. or their silence.

      D1 - Xposing Dummies since 2007

      Comment


      • #4
        Conflict!

        Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

        Comment


        • #5
          technically yes.....if it has never been adjucicated before...if however this issue had been adjudicated before but never went beyond the court of first instance it is possible to have had divergent decisions based on indiscriminate and perhaps irrelevant distictions because those courts were not bound by it.

          a court of appeal ruling would therefore be precendential in terms of now have a mandatory effect on all rulings in courts of first instance.

          what i do not understand is why was it not heard before CAS?

          Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gamma View Post
            technically yes.....if it has never been adjucicated before...if however this issue had been adjudicated before but never went beyond the court of first instance it is possible to have had divergent decisions based on indiscriminate and perhaps irrelevant distictions because those courts were not bound by it.

            a court of appeal ruling would therefore be precendential in terms of now have a mandatory effect on all rulings in courts of first instance.

            what i do not understand is why was it not heard before CAS?
            I yield to your professional competence Lord Gamma.
            TIVOLI: THE DESTRUCTION OF JAMAICA'S EVIL EMPIRE

            Recognizing the victims of Jamaica's horrendous criminality and exposing the Dummies like Dippy supporting criminals by their deeds.. or their silence.

            D1 - Xposing Dummies since 2007

            Comment


            • #7
              Great post!
              "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Karl View Post
                Great post!
                At last someone who recognizes greatness!!!
                TIVOLI: THE DESTRUCTION OF JAMAICA'S EVIL EMPIRE

                Recognizing the victims of Jamaica's horrendous criminality and exposing the Dummies like Dippy supporting criminals by their deeds.. or their silence.

                D1 - Xposing Dummies since 2007

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Don1 View Post
                  At last someone who recognizes greatness!!!


                  Pretty significant that court's recognition of conflict of interest...and laying out for some of us who may have suspected but did not know that there are agents that do not have the players interest as paramont.

                  Some of our local clubs seem to be using the same agent repeatedly. One would think that the players should know there are other agents around.

                  Could it be that the clubs keep the players in the dark on options and that the players are not educating themselves? Why would either be doing what the previous question asks?

                  Again - Thanks, boss!
                  Last edited by Karl; February 17, 2009, 04:16 PM.
                  "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Gamma, please translate fro lawyer speak to english for

                    Please translate from lawyer speak to English for us common folk...I do not understand you.

                    Originally posted by Gamma View Post
                    technically yes.....if it has never been adjucicated before...if however this issue had been adjudicated before but never went beyond the court of first instance it is possible to have had divergent decisions based on indiscriminate and perhaps irrelevant distictions because those courts were not bound by it.

                    a court of appeal ruling would therefore be precendential in terms of now have a mandatory effect on all rulings in courts of first instance.

                    what i do not understand is why was it not heard before CAS?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      the higher court (court of appeal) is binding on all lower courts with the privy councel being the highest court in england. if there is no higher court ruling then different jges may come to differing conclusins on some points.

                      usually FIFA requires thes disputes to be heard by the CAS and not territorial courts.

                      Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        karl?!!

                        Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X