|
| |  Posted 03/01/2007 11:30:17 | |
| 
Cloudy's back
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 22/07/2008 18:04:58
Posts: 7,484, Visits: 7,937 |
| | Thinking about the talk around SWP I was trying to work out what happens over contracts. Say, for the sake of arguement, that he's earning 70 grand a week at Chavski and has 3 years to go on his contract. If he's sold without him asking for a transfer and the club buying him offer him £40 grand a week how does that work? Anyone know?
Avoid, rather than check. Check, rather than hurt. Hurt, rather than maim. Maim, rather than kill. For all life is precious, nor can any be replaced. |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 11:39:27 | |
| 
Used to be SB, you know
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 14/08/2008 22:37:11
Posts: 5,942, Visits: 7,572 |
| | I don't know, Cloudy, but I imagine that if he signs on the dotted line, that is what he will get paid. If he doesn't agree to the sale, his only option is to turn down the move and sit out the remaining years on his contract on the higher salary, most likely not playing and not popular! The contract protects the player as well as the club, I suppose, and he can't be forced to move against his will before it runs out, though in most cases players realise that moving on is for the best if the club wants to sell. Other players (thinking of Bogarde here) are happy to pick up the money for doing nothing. That is why we struggle to get rid of the players signed on high wages on fairly long contracts, and I think why Leeds were forced to continue to pay a proportion of the wages of some of the players they offloaded. They were forced to sell because of their financial situation, but that was the only way they could get the player to agree to move and reduce the wage bill. All depends on how desperate you are to get rid.
Keeper of the heretic's fork of doom. |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 11:46:35 | |
| 
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/05/2008 13:46:18
Posts: 4,517, Visits: 2,022 |
| | I think your right SB and the high salary can often be the stubling block for moves as the player does not want to earn less. Having said that the likes of SWP would rather be playing and getting paid less, I would imagine. Although I am sure that I could live with doing feck all for £3.5m a year.
Feliz Año Neuvo |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 11:52:24 | |
|
Used to be SB, you know
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 14/08/2008 22:37:11
Posts: 5,942, Visits: 7,572 |
| It's certainly an interesting test of which players genuinely want to be playing no matter what(as they all protest they do), and which ones are only in it for the money. For all that has been said about Danny Mills, it does seem that he would rather be playing on less money outside the Premiership than struggling to get a game for us. Fair play to him for that, when he was told he doesn't really feature in SP's plans he didn't sulk and announce he would sit out his contract just for the money.
Keeper of the heretic's fork of doom. |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 12:00:59 | |
| Second Division Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 16/09/2007 21:40:17
Posts: 398, Visits: 1,271 |
| Barca Azul (03/01/2007)
I think your right SB and the high salary can often be the stubling block for moves as the player does not want to earn less.
Having said that the likes of SWP would rather be playing and getting paid less, I would imagine. Although I am sure that I could live with doing feck all for £3.5m a year.
Well, you would hope so, but he moved to Chelsea in the first place when we all thought he was committed to City, so god only knows his motivation now!
Hopefully, he will have learned a very important lesson and what ever team he goes to next, shows more comittment when he gets his confidence back and he looks like the great player he is. So if he signs for West Ham now and then he has a great two years and Arsenal come knocking, should he go or should he stay committed to a club that wanted him?
I don't know I'm just rambling................  |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 12:01:32 | |
| 
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 14/04/2008 15:28:00
Posts: 4,017, Visits: 3,545 |
| | 2 things about that though SB: 1. He kind of did, when there was interest in him in the summer, he did exactly that - "I'm not going anywhere unless the deal suits me" ie I've got a great contract and unless someone matches it you can bugger off 2. For all we know, he may be on the same wage at Hull, only they're contributing to it aswell as us
Take Me to Al-Pals Page |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 12:01:56 | |
| 
Premiership Poster
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 22:26:45
Posts: 10,619, Visits: 6,237 |
| | A player has to agree to the move, he can't be sold against his will, that's why we always see headlines "Move falls through due to personal terms.". SWP is reported to be on £50k a week, so even if we did want him, he'd have to take a £10k a week pay cut, (didums). It would be a case of SWP making the choice over money or regular footy, and a chance to get his England career back on track. I for one don't really want him back, and I also think that there are plenty of clubs out there willing to stump up the £50k a week for his services. On the bright side, if, (as reported), he is unwilling to come back to us, maybe thats fucked Chelsea's plans to land Micah.
Si thi tha nos |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 12:08:44 | |
| 
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 27/01/2008 23:15:06
Posts: 1,868, Visits: 1,287 |
| Cloudy O'Reyna (03/01/2007)
Thinking about the talk around SWP I was trying to work out what happens over contracts. Say, for the sake of arguement, that he's earning 70 grand a week at Chavski and has 3 years to go on his contract. If he's sold without him asking for a transfer and the club buying him offer him £40 grand a week how does that work? Anyone know? I'm not sure, but I thought that Chelski would have to settle his contract, remaining salary over the term of his contract, let's say £3.5m per year x 3 years. I can't see any player earning £3.5m per year, over a contract of 4 years, getting sold to a club for £10m and then being on £30,000 per week - not getting some sort of compensation. Even with his 10% signing on fee - that's only £1m, he has possibly lost £6m in wages straight away, after being sold by a club when he didn't want to move. Doesn't make contractual sense in my eyes - can't see how they could get away with doing that.
  |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 12:16:44 | |
|
Premiership Poster
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 22:26:45
Posts: 10,619, Visits: 6,237 |
| SIR JOEY BAG! (03/01/2007)
Cloudy O'Reyna (03/01/2007)
Thinking about the talk around SWP I was trying to work out what happens over contracts. Say, for the sake of arguement, that he's earning 70 grand a week at Chavski and has 3 years to go on his contract. If he's sold without him asking for a transfer and the club buying him offer him £40 grand a week how does that work? Anyone know? I'm not sure, but I thought that Chelski would have to settle his contract, remaining salary over the term of his contract, let's say £3.5m per year x 3 years. I can't see any player earning £3.5m per year, over a contract of 4 years, getting sold to a club for £10m and then being on £30,000 per week - not getting some sort of compensation. Even with his 10% signing on fee - that's only £1m, he has possibly lost £6m in wages straight away, after being sold by a club when he didn't want to move. Doesn't make contractual sense in my eyes - can't see how they could get away with doing that. There is no compo as such, when another club buys a player, they're buying his contract effectively, that's why as I posted above it can all fall apart when negotiating personal terms. The most you'll ever see, (as we did for a short period with Fowler and Mills), is the selling club making a contribution to the players wages.
Si thi tha nos |
| |
| | | Posted 03/01/2007 12:28:33 | |
|
Premiership Poster
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/05/2008 13:46:18
Posts: 4,517, Visits: 2,022 |
| | In the end it comes down to Money or Football. A good example of this was Matt Le Tissier at Saints. He got good money from the saints, but was often offered more to go elsewhere, but he knew that he was gauranteed a place at saints and stayed there all his career. It probably stopped him having an England career too. Not often you see it these days and how many top profile players stay at a club outside the top four these days.
Feliz Año Neuvo |
| |
|
|