Most liked posts in thread: Contractual Matters when a Player Leaves Early

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 ?

 

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

 

When it's a transfer, players rights to remaining money basically means nothing. If say I sign a 3 year deal on £1K a week and after 2 years, Club B want to sign me. My club and Club B are in transfer talks, they come to an agreement, I can then talk to club B about a new contract. As soon as I sign that Club B deal, I waive away that £52K that I'm still owed by Club A, because the contract hasn't been completed due to the new agreement with Club B, voiding the old contract is part of the transfer dealings between the parties.

Usually its kind of made up on the other side through signing on fees or signing better terms with Club B, but the Club A mindset is "you can stay for your final year, derail your career by barely playing and get a lower offer from your next club in 12 months, or take this one now". The only way I'd get my remaining years salary from Club A would be if I or my agent dug our heels in about this money and agreed a mutual termination. By the way, mutual terminations are very rarely a full pay out. Club and player come together as the club want the player off the books and most players want to get careers going again, so its never fully paid. Usually, the player wants their career to get moving again so they accept the lower termination pay out and the signing on fee and new wage makes up for it or near enough at this level.

Cant believe this conversation about something that fans will never really find out, or know the ins and outs of, or have any affect on them going forward at all has lasted nearly 24 hours

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Who has said he doesn't want to leave ? If he wants to go, there is no way we have to pay up his contract

 

Some on here would have us believe the ending of a contract by “Mutual Consent” is a figment of our imagination .

 

Contract law can be a minefield and I'm no expert but if a player has signed a long term contract then unless there is a stipulation in that contract that is broken then the club is liable to pay out if the player has not asked to move. Usually the club and agent come to an agreement with the words 'mutual termination' where it is accepted by both parties.

 

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.

 

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.

 

This is the norm anyway so i am not sure why it would need to be written into a contract.

so for clarity you don’t need to pay up a players wages to buy them.
The wages of a player do not factor into a fee calculation.

The only thing you need to pay is the fee for the player which is set by the selling club, 99% of the time it is a substantial sum as it’s pointless to sell a player at break even or even at a loss. Especially when you are selling to a club in the same league.

also as an aside I wouldn't be shocked if he got paid more at harrogate seeing as this was his first professional contract.

EDIT: case in point doyle was famously sold to us for a £1 due to a relegation clause. Not sure his wages were pennies per week!

i am constantly hearing about players being “paid up” to leave but its incredibly rare.

Most of the time with players a mutual termination has zero payout. If a player wants to leave why should they pay more money to get want they want? If they down tools just take them out of the squad as a lack of game time will hurt their chances getting a new club.

if the club want rid usually money is paid up. As the player needs compensation for doing so.

with managers its different- typically it continues to paid until they find a new club. Irrespective of the new wages at the new club.

i do think though Adams was stubborn about leaving and demanded to be paid up in full before leaving.

 

It has probably changed but it used to be if you asked for a transfer (a written request) you were not entitled to any share of the transfer fee. On the other hand, if you were sold without a written request, you received a small percentage of the fee.
As for today, I have no idea about who gets what. But the player has a contract with monies due. I suspect the “fee” paid covers an agreed amount based on the length of contract still left. Then there are the highly sought after players, let’s say some one comes in with a 10 million offer for Cook, my thinking is that 10 million would actually be a 9.5 million payment to the club plus 500k to cover the remaining term of Cook’s contract.
Like I say, I have no idea what really happens but there’s my thoughts. Where’s @Dennis when we need him, for some reason I think he’s more au fait with contract law.

 

I’m really not sure you are right on this. If I sign a 3 year contract, I would expect to receive every penny due over the course of the contract or an agreed settlement if I am asked to leave prior to end of contract. Obviously the idea that I would move on and be getting paid twice is a bit odd but this got around by the transfer “ fee” covering payments due on balance of contract and any valuation above contract residuals. So it seems to me that the case with Foulds is that the fee paid equates to the “agreed” balance of his contract, which is then paid to Foulds as his contract settlement. That way City don’t lose out by paying a fella who no longer plays for them. But, that is just a guess, not gospel.

 

I'm not pal, trust me.

Unless the player officially requests a transfer, they will usually receive all the money due for the length of their contract.

There are caveats and negotiations of course but for the majority, especially lower league players, this is nearly always the case.

 

As a random aside, playing off players wages has never happened to me on FM or fifa when transfer listing a player.

 

If a player say like Lewis is the subject of a transfer then the buying club actually are buying his contract.
The same with Foulds if city get a fee it will e the amount of the contract plus whatever is negotiated