Contractual Matters when a Player Leaves Early

It only has to be paid up if he doesnt want to leave and we want to get rid.

He probably wants to go and Harrogate will be paying him so why should we pay him off too.

 

City should let the lad go on a free.Only ask for a fee if its a player you don't want to lose,which I would suggest in this case does not apply.

 

Because it gives the player,no longer wanted by City,a better chance of finding suitable employment elswhere.If no fee is involved,he may get a better offer from another club.I doubt if Harrogate offered a fee.

 

Surely this is something that is weighed up in all deals for contracted players.
If city thought they were pricing suitors out of a deal by asking for a fee, I’m sure they wouldn’t ask for a fee.
But if they can get a few, or if a club offers a fee, then it’d be ludicrous to give a player away for free.
Foulds doesn’t have to go, indeed we didn’t push him out of the door - he chose to go in January. Ironically - had he stayed he may well have remained in the starting eleven

 

As mentioned above, the fee will simply be the sum we owe Foulds on the remainder of his contract.

Players don't simply walk away, unless it's a much more lucrative or higher league move so we'll have to pay him out either way.

Getting, say, £10,000 to cover his remaining 6 weeks wages and using it to pay Foulds saves us having to find it ourselves. It also ties up the signing for Harrogate nice and early so Foulds doesn't attract any other suitors that may push the wages up. It makes sense for all three parties.

 

Where does this idea come from that if a player leaves, without being released, that he gets his contract paid up, a new contract from the club he is going to (and possibly a signing on fee)?

Surely if a player chooses to leave and go elsewhere, he is simply "released" from his existing contract, which then ends. and starts a new contract at a new club.

Player transfers don't work the same way as sacked managers, who get their contracts paid up to leave. If Foulds wants to go, if Harrogate want to sign him and if Harrogate want/ are willing to pay us a fee, why should we pay the remainder of his contract ?

It's different if we want to move him on and he doesn't want to go/ would prefer to stay, I get compensation being paid then, but if it's the players choice why would the old club compensate him ?

 

It's just for the football world works. I listen to football podcasts a lot and almost every player that's moved on receives at least a chunk of the remainder of their contract.

 

Only if the new contract is less?
A club wouldn't pay a player off for him to go and earn more money elsewhere.

If player is on £1000 and new club offer £800, old club may be expected to contribute towards the £200 drop in wage. I get that.

However, that will often be offset by the player getting a longer deal and security with the new club. ie. 12 months left on the deal but new club offer 24 month deal.

 

They all do . A two year contract is a two year contract . Always works in the player’s favour. IF NOT then it’s normally contract terminated by MUTUAL CONSENT . I’m certain @Dennis can tell us but I’m sure I am right? .

 

Unless it is written into their contract, stating they waive the rest of their wage - which would be extremely rare I suspect in such a competitive environment for players signatures.

 

We're not terminating Foulds contract though. Harrogate are buying him. It's a different scenario.

 

Exactly!
If Foulds chooses to leave City, not us forcing him out the door, he doesn’t get his contract paid up.
He has chosen to take up an opportunity elsewhere.
If he was happy to stay and take his money, we might encourage him to leave by paying his contract up.
But a club doesn’t have to pay a player who forfeits their contract to sign on elsewhere. That’s their choice to forsake the remainder of their contract.

Of course there will be variations where clubs and players might reach mutual agreement (example of players holding clubs to ransom)

 

Agreed. It's upto Foulds to negotiate a similar salary and a longer deal with Harrogate. Everybody wins then.

 

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference unfortunately.

 

Of course it does. Why would we pay a player to leave who is getting a longer contract and similar money elsewhere?

The answer is we wouldn't.

 

I never said we were, I was responding to another question.

 

What’s written in their contract? Mutual consent is not as rare as you think.

 

We would because it's in the contract. The player hasn't requested a move so 99 times out of 100 the selling club has to honour their contract.