Laliga president may block Griezmann’s Barcelona transfer over alleged irregularities
Atletico Madrid submitted an official complaint regarding the deal when the Blaugrana announced Griezmann’s signing after activating his release clause.
This announcement for a €120million (£108million) switch came on July 12, but Atleti claim the deal was in fact done before July 1 – the day on which the attacker’s release clause dropped from €200 million to €120million.
Therefore, they want an extra €80 million (£72 million) from Barcelona and have contacted LaLiga in an attempt to secure this money.
“It is possible to block a player’s transfer,” LaLiga president Javier Tebas told Onda Cero.
“La Liga will have to decide what course of action to take.
“[Atletico] submitted a complaint and put in doubt whether we should pass Griezmann’s license to Barcelona.
“There’s a process that has been put in motion and those overseeing it will have to come to resolve the case.”
On July 23, Griezmann made his debut for Barca in a 2-1 pre-season defeat to Chelsea.
Atletico’s initial statement on the matter read: “Antoine Griezmann, represented by his lawyer, has appeared at the headquarters of the Professional Football League to unilaterally terminate the contract linking the player with Atlético Madrid, with Fútbol Club Barcelona having deposited the sum of €120 million euros in the name and on behalf of the footballer.
“Atlético Madrid considers that the amount deposited is insufficient to meet its termination clause since it is obvious that the commitment of the player and FC Barcelona was closed before the clause was reduced from €200 million euros to €120 million.
“It was also prior to the date on which the clause was amended the communication that the player made on 14 May announcing his disassociation from the club.
“Atlético Madrid believes that the termination of the contract took place before the end of last season for facts, acts, and demonstrations made by the player and therefore has already initiated the procedures it has considered appropriate for the defense of their rights and legitimate interests.”
No comments yet