I’m confused, now you’re saying there was reporting done by the press that supports your belief that the wages weren’t deferred but were forgiven in exchange for an increased wage in a new and improved contract….but are at the same time saying that the press that is currently reporting the issuing being non payment of deferred wages (which doesn’t support your opinion) is less credible? To me it seems as if you are just choosing to believe the reports that support your position while discrediting those that contradict you.
Perhaps you are more litigious than I am, but for me the first step in negotiating a release from a contract is not to run to a court but to engage in a negotiation with your counterparty. I posit that what we are witnessing is the negotiation of the release, through the press. It has everything to die with the deferred wages, as well as loyalty bonuses and perhaps whether De Jung’s deferred wages should also include an element of an interest rate as well.
No I'm suggesting that the press is using the term deferred casually not in a legal sense because if it was in a legal sense, De Jong would be owed that money whether he is employed tomorrow by Barcelona or not. I'm not choosing one report over an other, I'm simply seeing an inconsistency, earned money isn't negotiable unless there is a solvency issue and it's also not linked to future actions because it would imply that the money isn't earned yet which means that we are not talking about a deferral.
And I agree that what we are witnessing is seemingly the negotiation of his release and I'm also saying that it's not about deferred wages, at least not in the way many are interpreting. From what I understood, De Jong extended his contract and changed the payment structure, Barcelona renegotiated the 2019 contract and reduced his scheduled 20-22 earnings while increasing his 2022-24 earnings, they also added two more years.
Now here is the difference between a deferral and a new structure, the deferral means that the money has already been earned but has legally not been paid, a new structure can mean that the money has not been earned and legally not been paid. The implication is that in the first case De Jong is owed that money no matter what and if not paid there is no negotiation, it's not a matter of being litigious it's illegal to not pay earned wages. In the second case De Jong is only owed these future earnings if he is employed by Barcelona or if future triggers are met otherwise they don't owe him the backloaded wages.