The Russian side has been the most vocal in the January transfer window, alongside Garry Cook and his failed attempt to sign Kaka and Adriano Gaillani’s desire to keep David Beckham. From the various voices at the club, vastly differing news has come out of St. Petersburg. Together with Andrei Arshavin’s talkative agent Dennis Lachter (the Guardian compiled evidence of his tendency to speak when a mike is put before him); the move of the Russian playmaker has led astray the media who appear to be changing the state of the move to Arsenal with every passing day until the February 2^nd deadline.

Zenit general manager Maxim Mitrofanov claimed a fee had been agreed and blamed Arshavin’s greed as the sole reason behind the apparent cessation of negotiations. Yet, Arsene Wenger claimed nothing had been agreed. Suddenly, Zenit offered an ultimatum of £15m to any side, or at least, this is what Sky Sports ‘understood’ (a euphemism for ‘fabricated’ or ‘deceived’, if a cynical view is taken). What happened to the supposed ‘agreement’? The explanation of the whole saga is given from the Zenit perspective here. When bankrolled by Gazprom, the Russian side can afford to toy with suitors for their players.

While Zenit attempt to rival Lyon’s Aulas and Sevilla’s Del Nido in their fiscal caution and ability to extract every single penny from the buying club for some players, transfers for Tymoshuck and Pogrebnyak to Bayern and (surprisingly enough) Blackburn respectively seem to be progressing in a less ambiguous manner. Publicity and media coverage quite clearly means an inflated transfer value. If Pogrebnyak wasn’t injured during the Euros, one can guarantee that the biggest clubs in Europe would be after him. He is, after all, a much better player than national team replacement Pavlyuchenko.

Mitrofanov, in an interview with Russian newspaper Sovietsky Sport, the Zenit CEO had it put to him that in the autumn Arshavin has the right to buy out his contract and become a free agent, and in such a scenario, Zenit would receive a lot less. He replied:

Yes, according to the rules of FIFA, during this protected period, the player has the right to break the contract and pay the club compensation. In this case: the signing-on fee. But there is one small nuance: a group of the leading clubs in Europe in an effort to protect themselves against such situations, have agreed amongst themselves not to go after players who have released themselves from their contracts in such a way. This agreement isn’t formally written down, but it does exist. If Arshavin breaks his contract, none of the top clubs in Europe will want him. Therefore, it’s not in his favour to do this.

Before the Bosman ruling was induced, UEFA assumed they had a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with the EU about movement of players. This assumption was proved wrong by Jean-Marc Bosman’s case and once it was challenged free movement of players at the end of their contracts in EU nations was allowed. Yet, UEFA also wanted to agree a gentleman’s agreement after the Bosman ruling, to continue their rule on the amount of foreign players in the first eleven but the EU wouldn’t have accept that as it was an infringement on European law.

If this secret agreement blurted out by Zenit is real and not a result of a creative imagination to stop Arshavin leaving very a small sum of money, then the clubs involved are breaking European law. The Webster clause, made infamous by Scottish defender Andy Webster’s move to Wigan, having bought out the remainder of his contract, is a fairly simple idea. After the ‘protected period’ of the contract, a player is allowed to buy out the remaining period of his contract, regard of its length. Article 17 of FIFA’s ‘Regulation for the Status and Transfers of Players’ allowed the restriction of freedom of movement, available in other industries, to become a part of football. This ruling is deemed as significant as Bosman’s in 1995.

Therefore, if a club refuses to hire a player because of the nature of his departure from his previous club, then it is accepted. But, if a group of clubs conspire to not sign players for this specific reason, this can be deemed a restriction of trade as in essence they would be penalising a player for exercising that right. If this is true, then the European courts will heavily punish the clubs involved who in turn will be furious with Zenit for letting slip a measure which may have limited player power. Naturally, there would have to be clear evidence of such an agreement but this revelation could be huge.

On the other hand, the former G14 clubs, which one suspects is a part of this supposed arrangement, could decide to break the principle over an uncontrollable urge to sign a specific player. Can you imagine anyone at Real Madrid controlling themselves if Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly became available? This would cause friction in negotiations between different sides and generally rules are made to broken. A gentlemen’s agreement wouldn’t stand a chance in court.

According to the Daily Mail (yes, that most respected of football rags), Ronaldinho considered using the ruling to leave Barcelona for Chelsea, but this principle prevented a deal from occurring. Mitrofanov’s revelations appear to have confirmed this (apparently). All, one can gather, is a growing sense of frustration is being directed towards a loquacious Zenit and their associates.