Case Studies

Warren Heyman Interview

Our head of sports Law, Warren Heyman is interviewed by Liverpool.com regarding the contract negotiations of Liverpool football player, Mohamed Salah:

1) Mohamed Salah arguably is one of Liverpool's best signings of the last decade, and the club has reached new heights with the Egyptian. In contract negotiations, would Salah's past track record with the club come into consideration when discussing his next contract? If so, how much will negotiations be weighted by his past accomplishments?

Salah was a key reason why Klopp’s Liverpool reached the heights that it did and is having an integral role this season under Slot’s management and Liverpool’s promising start. Certainly, his status at the club and his current earnings will be keen factors in any anticipated salary expectations and contractual length demands that Salah will have whilst negotiating a new deal. In contrast, keen to retain the player, but not at any cost, Liverpool will refer to his age (32 but nearer to 33) and also take into consideration whether Salah has an increased injury record and ultimately whether they are likely over two years (as is being reported what Salah wants) they will obtain value for money. It is a matter of finding a commercial balance for Liverpool. 

2) In your opinion, because of Salah's advanced age (32), would Liverpool be keen on bringing back the star even as he continues to perform at a high level? Generally speaking, how often do clubs bring back aging players on "legacy contracts," meaning a contract that keeps a player with the squad until they decide to retire, in this particular instance?

Liverpool will not be engaging in contract negotiations with Salah in isolation. There are very many playing squad and financial issues that the club faces. Slot has started well with only a small number of additions. Whilst bedding in seamlessly (in contrast to Souness when he replaced another managerial icon in Kenny Dalglish), it is likely that he will soon want to put his mark on the squad as it evolves away from being Klopp’s side. The incoming players that Slot, and the hierarchy at Anfield, identify (and their respective transfer fees and salary demands) will have to be borne in mind by Liverpool when considering what to do with Salah alongside those players that are deemed surplus to requirements. Of course, Liverpool are also negotiating hard to retain the services of Trent. However, if if Alexander-Arnold decides to move on then his salary is freed up and could be accounted for to seek to satisfy Salah’s demands. Further,  if there is an influx of Slot’s players next season,  this is also good reason to retain Salah to ensure that his experience and standards of professionalism are observed and replicated by the new players in similar fashion to when Ryan Giggs played on for very many years at Manchester United despite their squad evolving.

3) If Fenway Sports Group elects to bring back Salah, how much would it be, and for how long, knowing he will be 33 in less than a year? In my opinion, FSG would sign Salah to a contract for around £36m, somewhat in line with his current contract, which also allows him to end his Liverpool career with Alisson Becker. 

It seems that Salah is seeking a two year deal. Liverpool will have to undertake detailed cost/benefit analysis when deciding if they agree Salah’s terms. It may be that the contract contains stipulations on pay depending upon the number of games started by Salah over the course of a season. It may be that Liverpool simply are not prepared to offer Salah the length of contract that he desires at the age he is possibly preferring a one year contract with the option of an additional season being triggered at their request. Of course, this may not be to Salah’s choosing and, as a free agent, he has significant bargaining power.

4) Additionally, a hard cap was done on a "shadow" basis this season, per Sportico, and if something like that were to be implemented full-time, how would that look and would it ultimately affect Liverpool and how they negotiate with players, like Salah? Or would salary cap implications be a moot point considering how soon the sides have to negotiate a new contract?

Whilst nothing has been confirmed and current proposals are subject to legal and economic review, the introduction for 2025/6 season of salary cap in whatever final form it is implemented, will certainly be a consideration for Liverpool Football Club when negotiating with Salah. To service such a chunk of a salary cap on the player, as good as he has been but with his best days possibly behind him, may be too much for the club to absorb. They may well look at other pressing needs facing the squad and decide to cut ties if the player’s demands are not palatable for the famous club.

5) Ultimately, what do you see as the most likely scenario with Salah and Liverpool's contract negotiations? Would the FSG elect to bring him back on a legacy contract for all he's done for the club or will they let him walk to Saudi Arabia, which has been rumoured in recent months?

The clock is ticking. Salah can speak to other clubs from 1st January to sign for the start of 25/26.  There has been talk of Barcelona (whether they could bear his salary expectations is also a moot point) and of course Saudi. He’d reinvigorate interest in the Saudi league joining as a superstar on huge wages at a time when Ronaldo and Neymar’s respective futures are unknown. The question for Salah is whether he really wants to leave a club at the top end of European football for the vast riches on offer in Saudi but at a lower standard. The question for Liverpool is whether, despite all he has accomplished for the Reds, they can justify matching the player’s salary and length of contract demands whilst also remaining financially competitive accounting for wider squad transition needs. Nothing is forever and unless a compromise can be reached, the Kop could well be bidding Salah farewell against Crystal Palace on 25 May 2025.

Blackstone Solicitors unites with UA92 to support student learning

Blackstone Solicitors are delighted to be working with UA92 and to provide their students with an understanding of the importance of legal contracts and agreements in their current and future roles in sports. UA92 was co-founded by Lancaster University and members of the Class of '92, the Manchester United football players who won the 1992 FA Youth Cup, including Gary Neville, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Phil Neville and Nicky Butt. It has been instrumental in making higher education more accessible through its founding principles of social mobility and inclusivity offering a portfolio of degree and higher education industry-led courses. Driving modernisation through the higher education sector, UA92 works closely with over 80 industry partners to ensure the curriculum is modern and relevant for today's businesses, offering a unique insight into future career paths through mentorships, guest lectures and work experience opportunities. It also prides itself on offering first-class character and personal development, building life skills such as resilience, critical thinking, communication, leadership and teamwork, preparing students for the world of work. By partnering with the university, Blackstone Solicitors will offer practical insight for young people embarking in a career in sports, through lectures and case studies as well as student mentoring assistance.

Blackstone win compensation for developer’s lost profits against Network Rail

House Maker (Padgate) Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure [2022] EWHC 1482 (TCC)

In a much-publicised case, Blackstone Solicitors represented the Claimant in a claim for a lost profits against Network Rail with the concept of "measured duty" being developed and defined in this case. Our client, House Maker (Padgate) Ltd owned a site adjoining land owned by Network Rail Infrastructure. When a drain at the site collapsed, Network Rail already knew that the site needed new drains and that the process of improving the site had been set back and delayed. The neighbouring property flooded because of National Rail’s drainage issues.

Redevelopment of the adjacent property into residential units was scheduled to begin once the drainage issue was fixed. After the developer filed legal action against Network Rail, the delay in construction was extended by a further two years while the latter made necessary repairs and improvements to the drains.

The court ruled that if Network Rail had addressed drainage problems sooner, construction could have begun when originally intended. Although Network Rail was made aware of the flooding, they did not make fixing or replacing the problem a top priority. The delay cost the developer money, but with the legal help of Blackstone Solicitors, it successfully sued for damages.

Outcome: Blackstone Solicitors were successful in recovering a substantial 6 figure sum, loss of profit and legal costs for its client who also still retains the land and is free to now commence its planned development.

Successful win after 3 day Trial in High Court

Blackstone Solicitors represented the Claimant in a claim for a declaration as to the ownership of a freehold interest in a property owned by the Claimant. The arguments raised by the Claimant were that she had been fraudulently deceived by the First Defendant as to the nature of the documents she signed, which resulted in the transfer of her only property and home to the First Defendant. The Claimant sought rectification of the ownership at the land registry and an order for possession.

Outcome: Blackstone Solicitors were successful in the entire claim and obtained indemnity costs against the First Defendant

Successful Defence of Application for Injunctive Relief

The Landlord of a property containing a number of units let on an individual basis required possession of the property in order to undertake significant remedial works. The landlord served notice on the tenants, one of which, without any prior warning or communication, issued an application for injunctive relief to stop the Landlord obtaining possession. The tenant in question was in rent arrears and the Landlord was therefore at liberty to forfeit the lease in any event.

Outcome: We successfully defended the application and recovered the Landlord’s costs of the application.