Manchester United defender Gabriel Heinze has been denied the opportunity to join Liverpool after a Premier League arbitration panel ruled against the Argentinian.
The 29-year-old had claimed that the Red Devils had agreed that he could leave Old Trafford for £6.8million, after sending a letter to Heinze's agent stipulating such a fee.
However, the Premier League panel ruled that that did not represent a firm obligation to sanction a deal and also applied principally to an international transfer.
A Premier League statement confirmed: "The Premier League Board appointed panel have heard submissions of evidence from both parties and has ruled to dismiss the player's case.
"The hearing concluded that nature and intention of the disputed 13 June 2007 letter, especially when taken in context of verbal discussions and Manchester United FC's transfer policy, was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer.
"Furthermore the hearing finds the letter constitutes an 'agreement to agree' and did not create an obligation or binding agreement for the club to transfer the player to any particular club.
"In other words the letter is evidence of an intention to negotiate, both between the parties and with potential buying clubs and not evidence of any intention to create legal relations."
The 29-year-old had claimed that the Red Devils had agreed that he could leave Old Trafford for £6.8million, after sending a letter to Heinze's agent stipulating such a fee.
However, the Premier League panel ruled that that did not represent a firm obligation to sanction a deal and also applied principally to an international transfer.
A Premier League statement confirmed: "The Premier League Board appointed panel have heard submissions of evidence from both parties and has ruled to dismiss the player's case.
"The hearing concluded that nature and intention of the disputed 13 June 2007 letter, especially when taken in context of verbal discussions and Manchester United FC's transfer policy, was unambiguous in that it envisages only an international transfer.
"Furthermore the hearing finds the letter constitutes an 'agreement to agree' and did not create an obligation or binding agreement for the club to transfer the player to any particular club.
"In other words the letter is evidence of an intention to negotiate, both between the parties and with potential buying clubs and not evidence of any intention to create legal relations."