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

Or unless a club make an offer, and that offer is acceptable to the player. We should only have to pay up a contract if we force a player to move on against his will. At this point we have no evidence to suggest that Foulds isnt open and willing to a permanent move to Harrogate. In fact, I'd say if he goes then he is willing, as if he wasn't we would move him out on a years loan with them paying his wages and no need to offset any contractual payments against the transfer fee,

 

If it is accepted to cancel by mutual consent that is extremely generous of Foulds. More likely they have agreed a severance deal and the “fee” Harrogate are paying covers that.

 

Quickly skimmed through this thread and read various different opinions on the matter, and I recon pretty much all opinions have truth in them, as I'm pretty sure it go many ways and is all based on negotiation. So if a club want a player to move on but the club he's going to can only afford a lower wage then a sum of money from the selling club will probably be offered to the player based on his losses to help push the deal through in some cases. If the buying club are paying the same wages or more then I don't think the player would get any settlement.

 

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

 

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.

 

Doesn't make a blind bit of difference unfortunately.

 

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.

 

The flipside is stay here and rot or move on for the good of your career.....alternative is send out on loan again.

If someone wants him and he wants to play then I dont understand why we need to pay him up.

 

No, I wasn't referring to mutual consent. It was a hyperthetical point about a contract being written in the clubs favour, ie if a player is sold to another club, then the selling club does not have to pay up the rest of the players contract.

As that would be less appealing to a player- and given the competitive nature of the transfer market - I would imagine that is not a very common clause.

 

Absolutely, he can stay and take up room in the budget instead.

Of course there might be negotiation and he might leave with less than he was entitled to but usually, the "transfer fee" more or less negates that issue so we get to move him on, in effect, for free.

 

You probably should have started that with "once upon a time" given that it's complete make believe.

 

Think ya need to stand down on this one! You are in the minority.

 

https://sqaf.club/do-footballers-get-cut-of-transfer-fee/

“Although it may seem unfair that the player does not receive any of the fee,“

Having an in-contract player needing their wages paid up in a transfer fee is one of the daftest things i have heard. Why would anyone buy players if they pay 3 times for a player?

transferring to another other club does not mean any monies are due. Its for the length of time you play for the club.
on a transfer their old contract is terminated.


Also the term “off the wage bill” makes no sense as the wage bill be the same if not worse.

 

As for the “off the wage bill” , if a 1500 quid a week player is bench warming and has 2 years left on his contract. Imagine some club comes in and with an offer to the said player, say 1250 quid a week and City and player agree a settlement of 500 quid a week for remaining contract. City are a 1000 quid a week better off and the player is off the wage bill. He’s happy too because he’s now on 1750! This is why sometimes players agree to settle contracts early and the join a new club straight away.