£400,000 for Hamann when we didn't own him...

Anybody here Phil Gartside admitting live on Talksport they duped Man City paying 400k for Dietmar Hamann although they didn't even own him (contracts were in the drawer and were not countersigned).

I found it funny but also thought there is quite a dodgy element here and should/can Man City do anything about it now?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... ng-to.html

Nothing to see here.

In law, for a contract to exist there must be an offer, an acceptance and consideration. Provided these three elements exist then a contract exists, even if it is not in writing.

Bolton offered to employ Hamann for a wage and he accepted.

Whether Bolton countersigned their copy of the contract or not is neither here nor there.

Bolton know this and that's why they can make the story public without fear of Man City suing them.

If, on the otherhand, Bolton said that one or more of those three contractual elements was not in place, then Man City would have grounds to sue Bolton for fraud.

Its abit like when hasslebaink turned up for training for the new season and city turned him away saying he didnt have a contract with us, yet it was supposed to have been agreed verbally with the riddler the season before, city was supposed to have payed him a lump sum of the 750k he wanted to not go to court over it and the matter ended quick after a settlement, yet nothing was on paper
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 488718.stm

Nothing to see here.

In law, for a contract to exist there must be an offer, an acceptance and consideration. Provided these three elements exist then a contract exists, even if it is not in writing.

Bolton offered to employ Hamann for a wage and he accepted.

Whether Bolton countersigned their copy of the contract or not is neither here nor there.

Bolton know this and that's why they can make the story public without fear of Man City suing them.

If, on the otherhand, Bolton said that one or more of those three contractual elements was not in place, then Man City would have grounds to sue Bolton for fraud.

Thanks for a detailed response!

Nothing to see here.

In law, for a contract to exist there must be an offer, an acceptance and consideration. Provided these three elements exist then a contract exists, even if it is not in writing.

Bolton offered to employ Hamann for a wage and he accepted.

Whether Bolton countersigned their copy of the contract or not is neither here nor there.

Bolton know this and that's why they can make the story public without fear of Man City suing them.

If, on the otherhand, Bolton said that one or more of those three contractual elements was not in place, then Man City would have grounds to sue Bolton for fraud.

I agree with your legal explaination regarding a possible fraud, but what about bringing the game into disrepute by boasting about selling a player not owned?

Did Phil Gartside gain anything such as property, money or valuables in making the statements? If not then he hasn't committed fraud.

If you believe that Gartside may have something to answer for then by all means feel free to complain to The FA or Ofcom or something.

I didn't see the show but from what I understand he appeared to displayhis ignorance of the law and/or told a bit of a porkie. As far as I'm concerned it was a daft anecdote that harmed nobody.