January 2021 Transfer Window

nope. that's not how it works.

much like with Vaughan, this was a player sided move. if they want something they are in no position to be compensated for that move. if the club forced them (which is unlikely as they ALL had clubs lined up. like Vaughan) then yes maybe. but there's no legal requirement for that. ALSO that would come under the wage cap and with signing 9 new players and paying off 6 that would easily put us over. we paid no one off.

 

You're reading his wording wrong. Nowhere does he say you would have to pay off a contract in full, but if you want a player to effectively break his contract by asking him to leave what usually hapens is both parties come to an amicable agreement in the form of a severance payment. Otherwise you could just legally sit and see your contract out and get paid in full.

 

So Mottley Henry, who has now moved to a semi professional club in Northern Ireland, is just gonna forgo the last 6 months of his contract and sign for club on way less money? Don't work like that.

 

And then be left with nothing in the summer he now has a deal. We read from some people on here that it cost us for Vaughan to go to Tranmere it Didn’t

 

'Its hard to sign players in January'.

 

Ending an employment contract is a 2 way thing. Its legally possible to terminate the contract with no financial consequences if both parties agree. However, subject to any clauses within the contract, the contract commits the club to a level of financial compensation to the player for the term. I'd imagine that some, maybe most contract terminations involve a settlement discussion. Particularly at the lower levels and when it involves a player moving to a new contract that's worth less.

An important point though - any settlement costs don't count towards the salary cap.

 

yes it does. Either he stayed at Bradford and not play for 6 months, or move on elsewhere. he chose to move on, therefore he couldn't ask for extra money.

Normally players get paid off when no other club comes knocking.

 

We have no idea as to the specific terms involved for DMH or any other departure. Hypothetically though, he wouldn't be asking for extra money, he'd be asking for a contribution towards the amount we were contractually liable for. I'd be amazed if, in his case, we didn't agree a settlement cost. But its likely to have been negligible, as he'll likely have been a low earner and his contract was up in the summer anyway. Arbitrary numbers, but say he was on £500 a week, with 20 weeks left on his deal, that's £10,000. Maybe we agreed £5000. He can then take a deal on a lower wage (possibly), we save £5,000 in total and £10,000 towards the cap. Something like that.

Depending on the deal he got from Larne, its possible that everyone just shook hands and tore the contract up. I doubt it though.

 

Exactly. I get that in Vaughans case the player was desperate to move so Bradford hold the cards so to speak. With the players we have just let go in January only French would have asked to leave to seek employment elsewhere, the others were asked to leave as they were surplus to requirements. And if you want someone to leave then they hold the cards in terms of contract severance pay.

 

"You're reading his wording wrong." no I didn't, did I specifically say "Pay out in full"?
yes they could sit on it, but the players wanted game time. economically that makes no sense whatsoever, lets pay this player off even though his next place of employment is lined up and actively wants to leave the club. if they didn't want to leave they would have been paid up in full or otherwise.

 

Quite right. Depends entirely on the circumstances - whether the player or the club is driving the decision, and whether the player has an offer elsewhere and to what value his new contract is worth.

This is a cut throat business and players at this level don't own fortunes. They're not going to leave cash on the table.

 

No you're wrong. We asked him to move as he is surplus to requirements therefore we have to come to an agreement. No agent is gonna let their player just leave a contract and effectively lose money.

 

fair point, I didn't know settlement costs do not go towards the cap either.

 

So if I'm on £10k per week with City and have 6 months left on my contract and I'm offered £5k per week with another club, I'm going to relinquish £120k ? Why would I do that? I may as well stay and see my contract out.

 

If i move to another club yet i'm still under contract at said club i'm not gonna lose money am i?

 

sitting around taking a wage is a worse career move in my opinion. if they don't move they probably wouldn't end up anywhere! So therefore are surely in no position to get a settlement

 

If you're on £10K per week at City, you've either found a time machine or you got in whilst Rahic was here....

 

they don't want money they want Game time. otherwise they would have stayed.

when you are young you still could end up at a big club, the best way to get there is to play being sat on a bench at 22 is going to do nothing for you.

 

Did I mention I'm the new CEO?

 

Remember Winston Bogarde at Chelsea? Sat around for 3 years picking £40.000 a week and was happy to do so as no one would pay anywhere near that to take him of their hands. With the likes of BRE, DMH etc it was in our interest to move them on as tey weren't part of the plans. They were entitled to sit in the reserves and pick up full pay but as you say its better to be playing football. But they aren't gonna walk away from 6 months full pay and be worse off, hence a mutual agreement is reached. Most probably with a setttlement that sees the shortfall of their wages when moving to another club being paid. You are right in that it won't be the full amount as it would be pointless letting them go.