Why is it so dam hard for anyone to try to understand the simple fact. Forget finer points of law. Why the f*ck have 2 agreements? one written (a recorded contract) and one verbal (unrecorded so called gentleman’s agreement).

Just one recorded contract would solve all the problems and could easily have included a sell on clause. Many footballers contract include such a clause. All Mordic, his agent of solicitor (yes he would have had one) needed to do was insert a clause in the contract that triggered a release under certain conditions, it could be Spurs not making the CL, it could be another so called bigger club making an offer over a and above a pre agreed sum, all this things are in many players contracts up and down the country.

So do we really think that Mr Modrics team are so unprofessional that they would not have inserted all of their clients wishes into the contract. No of course not. So we must conclude that there never was any verbal agreement.

On a finer point of law in England even a verbal agreement is a binding contract for example if i go into a store and verbally agree a price to purchase an item, i may even request as part of the deal to take it back if it does not fit etc, that agreement is binding but only verbal and unless there were independent witnesses unenforceable if one of the parties reneges on the deal and refuses to admit there ever was a contract. That is why people started to write them down and get both parties to sign them. Of course there has to be a consideration for example i will let you have this if you give me that but again that needs to be recorded. The best way to record a contract is to write it down and get both parties to sign it of there own free will. Even them if one of the parties can prove that they were acting “under duress” when signing the contract then the contract in its entirety will be null and void.

Also at what point did Modric decide Chelsea where his dream club?? not Barcelona, not Man utd, Liverpool, but CHELSEA? f*ck off pull the other one Modric it is now Chelsea because they are in the CL and are the only club in with an offer. Dream club my royal ass.

(1) I think by the way that Luka has communicated publicly, the likelihood is that a GA exists, but is not incorporated in the actual terms of Luka’s employment contract with the Spurs.

First, on the possibility of the GA existing in the contract itself. Not likely. How many teams do we know of that allows its players to insert such a clause into their employment contracts? we don’t have hard evidence, but we can presume with confidence (on a look back through transfer windows in the past, and players handing in transfer requests) that this rarely, if ever happens. But fine, on the possibility that the GA was in the contract, perhaps the terms have been set in a such a way that it is extremely difficult to meet the set of conditions that allow the exercising of the right in the GA. either way, it seems unlikely the GA is in the contract.

Second, the possibility could be that it was an oral GA (that’s what you’d normally imagine a gentleman’s agreement to be). The question then, is ‘was there an actual oral GA?’

Well, we would ask – would Luka claim there existed an oral GA if there wasn’t one? Does he have a history of lying? With the ‘reported’ interest from Chelsea, it is not surprising a player such as Luka would chose this important juncture in his career to try to force a move. I believe the situation points toward the likelihood that Luka did have an oral GA with dan levy and the spurs.

But, assuming then, it really is Luka/his rep making these statements, and that there was a GA outside of a contract, is it enforceable?
(2) well generally in the united states, if there already exists a valid contract, at common law, there can be no modification of the contract unless additional consideration (bargained for promise) from both sides is exchanged. Luka already has a pre-existing duty to perform his part of the contract. He offered nothing to the Spurs in exchange for the GA right to leave for another team. Thus, under common law in the united states, the GA is unenforceable. The only defense that Luka could offer that would help his cause of action is that he detrimentally relied the Spur’s representations in the GA. Unfortunately, it doesnt seem like hes bought a house in chelsea, and even then, the courts hesitate to allow the breacher of a contract to create situations which will benefit the breacher’s cause of action.

So, no, even if an oral GA existed between dlevy and Luka, it would not be enforceble. (please feel free to correct me on K law- i know i didnt go over parol evidence or statute of frauds, both of which would apply here against Luka)

I feel then, what Luka has done (complain publicly) is perhaps one of his only options to create a situation where he could move to Chelsea. However, it is pretty unprofessional… If I was his lawyer/agent, I would have advised him to privately negotiate for his exit by coming up with a mutually agreeable compromise, such as first helping dan levy find a suitable replacement (perhaps a hidden gem on the croatian national team, who knows).

It was simply to note that of the seven Premier League players that they have signed over the last four seasons, only one (Anelka) has been a significant success, as it is fairly surprising given the amount of success Chelsea have in the transfer market in general.

Regarding the “poor research” responses (a welcome antidote to recent complaints of too much research!), I don’t think there are any factual inaccuracies, though feel free to point any out and I will amend them. The only obvious bone of contention I can see is that Ross Turnbull was technically a Championship player at the time of his move from Middlesbrough, though his last appearance for them came in the Premier League.