20 - Dani Olmo

[Birdy]

The key difference is that while the employee worked legally during the provisional period, he wasn't hired legally. The provisional order was given to maintain the status quo until a final ruling but it didn't retroactively make the hiring legal. That's why compensation was awarded after the final ruling confirmed that the initial decision was wrong.

With Olmo, it's different. The provisional measure didn't maintain a status quo, but explicitly enabled Barcelona to legally register him. Even if the court later overturns this measure, Olmo's registration will not be retroactively illegal, because he was registered under a valid court order at the time.

Provisional measures are usually issued if there is a risk of irreparable harm. That's standard practice and standard wording.

If you're making a harm claim, you need to substantiate it. Without proving illegality, bad faith, or negligence, harm claims are dismissed. If a party is acting under a valid court order, it is presumed to be acting in good faith, and claims won't succeed unless there was a proof of fraud or the court was pressured. Different discussion entirely.

In your job example, the employee was hired illegally, which is a wrongful act and the reason compensation could be claimed. That's not the situation here since Olmo's registration was legal at the time under a valid court order.

Harm claims aren't just about whether someone feels harmed, they require proof of a wrongful act which doesn't exist in this case. There is no breach of duty.

The court didn't have to issue a provisional order. In case they didn't, Olmo wouldn't be registered and a favourable ruling would mean Barca and Olmo can sue for damages.

1) I don't think harm claims can only be made in the cases of bad faith, negligence, or fraud. That's too narrow.
Whenever there material consequences (financial first and foremost, but not only) on a legal entity (individual, club, association, etc.), then harm claims can be made.
That's not subjective, it can always be substantiated objectively. (For instance, Olmo plays an Espanyol-Barca game and scores or not/contributes to Espanyol losing the game, with Espanyol eventually relegated, etc. If the final verdict is against Olmo's registration, Espanyol have legal grounds to claim having been harmed)


2) You say at the end that Barca could sue for damages if the court did not issue the provisional order in the case the final ruling is favorable.
By the very same logic, any team (like Espanyol in my example) could likewise sue for damages in the current situation if the final ruling is unfavorable for Barca.


PS:
BTW, is there any lawyer by profession in here to confirm which one is correct?

 

[Birdy]

If Barca requested the extension of license in December and the process drags untill January, you can't deregister the player. A decision even if taken in January takes effects from December. That is basic law.
You can't ask for aditional paperwork without giving a new term and you can't take action against the club while you give a new term to clarify your assesment.
Barcelona had the obligation to send the paperwork in time, but it had no obligation to get a rulling before the license expired since prescription is suspended by procedure in law.
From what I understand filling a request to them doesn't suspend the prescription of an action and that is bonkers. Lowest of the low in terms of law.

OK,
If I understand correctly, you say that the court allowed Olmo's registration because Barcelona appealed in CSD in the first place, and they could not have rejected the precautionary registration WHILE they legally study the case, is that right?

My question is: if the eventual ruling, in April let's say, is that LL is right and Olmo should not have been a registered player from Jan.1st onwards, could potential legal claims of harm be made by other entities (like LL teams) that got affected during the period Jan.1st - April by Olmo's registration?

 

[jamrock]

The rulling won't be that Olmo shouldn't have been registered from January 1st onward, they won't retroactive go back and invalidate his registration, which is why la Liga wants to fight it, because they know by April we would have benefitted from Olmo playing and their is nothing they can do about it.

The ruling if we lose, will simply be from this point forward olmo cannot play in la Liga because XYZ.

How stupid would the club's lawyers be to allow him to play, knowing if they lose in april their could be some retroactive punishment.

That would open up a can of worms, where if we win the league all those points of taken away.

 

[FCBarca]

It won’t be reversed, if anything a class action lawsuit is a possibility against La Liga

Read the release of the CSD report

 

[Masetro10]

Somehow Barca finds a way. That's why the other clubs get mad

 

[Haraldinho]

When Madrid finds a way to reduce Vini suspension everybody is not suspicious. The same case when they find a way to corrupt the referee to win the matches. La liga de Perez.

 

[Messigician]

I love how Perez is likely chilling not giving a shit
And all these little barcaforum gremlins finding a way to blame him for everything

 

[serghei]

If SSC finds that Olmo and Pau should have been registered, La Liga should kiss their feet for saving them from a huge lawsuit from Barca. The provisional order is also a life vest for La Liga in case they acted in an abusive way.

 

[Joan]

1) I don't think harm claims can only be made in the cases of bad faith, negligence, or fraud. That's too narrow.
Whenever there material consequences (financial first and foremost, but not only) on a legal entity (individual, club, association, etc.), then harm claims can be made.
That's not subjective, it can always be substantiated objectively. (For instance, Olmo plays an Espanyol-Barca game and scores or not/contributes to Espanyol losing the game, with Espanyol eventually relegated, etc. If the final verdict is against Olmo's registration, Espanyol have legal grounds to claim having been harmed)

That's not a matter of opinions. Harm claims are based on breaches of duty or wrongful acts defined in terms listed above. I didn't make those up. I also mentioned illegality which is not as narrow as fraud.

2) You say at the end that Barca could sue for damages if the court did not issue the provisional order in the case the final ruling is favorable.
By the very same logic, any team (like Espanyol in my example) could likewise sue for damages in the current situation if the final ruling is unfavorable for Barca.

But it's not the same logic since in the example I gave the court issued no provisional order, while in Barca's case, it did. And Barca managed to register Olmo under that provisional order.

If the order is overturned, it does not make the registration unlawful retroactively. That's the main point. Therefore no wrongful act can be claimed.

 

[delancey]

Bump

 

[FCBfan22]

Did what he was asked to do. Actually, his defending at LB after the red card was really good.

 

[Zynaro]

Liked how he performed today. Worked hard off the ball. When in possession, kept the ball and provided the necessary relief form the pressure for the team.

 

[Loki]

Let's hope Perez won't call the CSD tonight to withdraw his registration