Torquay United Fans Forum

portugull wrote: 30 Jan 2021, 18:16 Kalala made a career wrecking decision when he turned down the Contract Torquay offered him.
It was sheer stupidity but was he badly advised by his Agent?
We will probably never know but Kalvin needs to reflect on the fact Gary Johnson saved him from anonymity and KK failed to repay Gary and instead walked away. Silly boy.

And there lies the answer.
The defence rests.....

Kalala made a career wrecking decision when he turned down the Contract Torquay offered him.
It was sheer stupidity but was he badly advised by his Agent?
We will probably never know but Kalvin needs to reflect on the fact Gary Johnson saved him from anonymity and KK failed to repay Gary and instead walked away. Silly boy.

Sounds more a case of 'clutching at straws'. Maybe he should be looking towards his agent rather than the club for the answers.

Gary Johnson said at the time of Kalvin's rejection of a contract renewal “He decided quite early that he wouldn’t be taking up the offer. Unfortunately, Kalvin found himself an agent who said he could find him a much higher league to play in".

Back in May, Johnson commented "'We are very aware of the rules, which say you have to offer a (U24) player at least what they were on before. We did that with Kalvin." This was on the basis that Torquay "put a lot of work into Kalvin and, wherever he goes, we will absolutely be demanding compensation for him,' said Johnson. With 30 years of football management behind him Johnson has considerable experience of transfer tribunals.

A football contract cannot be unilaterally terminated by any of the parties' unless there is 'Just Cause'. As Torquay, offered Kalala a new contract (U24) at least what he was on before, 'Just Cause' flew out the window, Therefore, Kalvins contract was 'cancelled by mutual consent' which means the Club (Torquay) retain Kalala's registration until he signs for another Club and shall be entitled, without further payment to the Player to a Compensation Fee in respect of any subsequent transfer of his registration.

All pretty standard football contract stuff really.

Now he is frustrated as clubs will have approached his agent but then back off once the word 'compensation' is mentioned.

So his whole case is based on the 'refusal to extend' contract form which he says he did not sign and therefore is a forged document.

Nice try Kalvin - but your still 'clutching at straws'.

I remember hearing that as well. Johnson said only two players haven’t signed new contracts with the club those two where Jamie Reid and kalala who was being looked at by Fulham or some like that.

If I recall Johnsons comments at the time and my memory may be totally wrong, he said we have made him and offer but he has chosen to look at other options. Any judgement by a french court will have no bearing in the UK and if his case was strong why did he not take action here and report the matter to the PFA who will fight any issue no matter how ludicrous.

Sounds like a complete load of horseshit

he's saying that we told him we were going to offer an extension in May 2020.

Says never saw it, so that's why he went looking for another club. Then one of those clubs said they can't sign him anyway because he was still under contract to us. Then, later (october 2020) we "present him with a document refusing their contract extension offer". The DM article is poorly written (big surpirse there) but that seems to be the bit suggestive of fraud/forgery; appears to say that the club showed Kalala a document that he had signed refusing our extension (which i believe would make us eligible for compo under the rules for players under the age of 24)

I wonder if maybe this 'forged' document is something that was given to us by Kalala's agent, and he is the "unnamed person whose name could be revealed by a police or judicial investigation" as mentioned in the piece.

Yes, this is a strange one. I would have expected any contract which the Club signed being subject to English law. Indeed it would be normal for contracts to expressly state this. In the circumstances I can't see how the French courts could proceed. However, it seems he is alleging that the Club forged his signature on a document that prevented other Clubs from signing him without payment of a fee to United. All very odd - either he was out of contract in which case he was free to join another Club (although his registration would have had to be released by United) or he was in contract in which case he would have continued to be paid and should have reported for duty at the start of the season rather than touting his services to other Clubs. Of course, last season was an absolute mess because of lockdown and the early end of the season - there must have been many contracts that expired without options to extend being pursued - after all, in May, many Clubs would have wondered whether they could continue to exist at all.

Unless there's some smoking gun, his case sounds rather implausible. It's possible he doesn't recall signing the document, which isn't the same thing. I'm intrigued by the jurisdictional issue, as it's not clear what the hell it has to do with the French courts.

I should add, having had some experience of this, that a lot of French legal terminology doesn't translate well to our understanding of the legal process, so take the use of words like 'fraud' with a grain of salt. What's alleged could very well be something that we would never describe as fraud.

Oh dear - I see trouble brewing......

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... alala.html