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

Alternatively, let's say for argument's sake that Foulds is on 1k a week with us with a year left of his contract. Harrogate are in talks with him and offer him a 2 year deal on 1200 a week and he's keen to accept this offer. Why in that scenerio are we obliged to pay anything? Surely the solution is to cancel his contract by mutual consent and let him sign for Harrogate?

 

Of course the aspect that is key here is that to cancel the contract needs mutual consent and he has a contract that states he will be paid x amount for x years.

Now, this scenario is different to others because the player wants to leave but still, in order to sign another contract the existing one needs to be brought to an end and therefore there would be negotiation on it but the weight of cost will be less on us in this scenario unlike a situation where we want a player to leave but they don't want to. In that scenario we'd have to pay up all their wages plus give a contribution for any potential/expected bonuses and the fact that we did well last season means that we'd have to pay more for the win bonus, position bonus etc because it's more likely we'd have more wins and be higher up the league based on last season's performance.

 

If you are being asked to leave you stay. They cannot force you to leave to a new club.

if the club you are going to is giving you lower wages, you have zero obligation to leave.

case in point, maguire is rumoured to have his contract paid up soon to the tune of £10m as he doesn’t want to leave.

 

Nope leaving a club in contract has nothing to do with wages.

If you have a job on a 4 year FTC if you had in your resignation do your old employer paid up the rest of the term? No.

everyone seems to ignore the fact we paid £1 for Doyle.

Naymar was bought for 200m and its rumoured gavi has a 500m release clause.

levy wants 100m+ for kane but his wages are nowhere near that.

 

Thats NFL you are thinking of, on a football transfer the old contract is void and a new one is created.

this is why personal terms are discussed. This wouldn’t need to be if its the same contract.

“Then the buying club must negotiate a fresh contract with the player they wish to recruit, endeavouring to meet the terms requested in respect of salary, bonuses, contract length and so on.”

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/how-does-a-football-transfer-work/130og8e76770l1dcqbne3jntx7#

 

General!!!

 

If Foulds had agreed to cancel his contract by mutual consent then he would be free to sign for Harrogate for nothing.

 

But this is the point, MUTUAL consent simply means they have come to an agreement to cancel the contract. That agreement could be as you say, or it could include a MUTUALLY agreed pay off for the remaining term of the contract.

Does all this need a separate thread mods?

 

You dont pay a player a severance fee for a player to leave on a transfer.

99% of the time the player actually wants to leave themselves.

can you find a source to show that wages are also paid up in a player transfer? As then it would be simpler to run down contracts.

case in point, when a player signs a new contract at the same club, does the club pay up the remaining wages due? Or do they transfer onto the new wages immediately?

How does Doyles £1 transfer fee work then?

 

So answer this. If Harry Kane signs for Real Madrid, without asking for a transfer, will Spurs pay up his contract ? Course they won't. This thread is getting silly.

If a club sells a player to another club, and that player happily agrees to sign, he doesn't leave by mutual consent, he doesn't have his contract paid up in full. He agrees to waive the balance of his contract and signs a new one at the new club.

Foulds will be on peanuts at City. If we sell him, he will be getting more money there.

 

Where I think people are getting confused is that lots of players have signing on fees and loyalty bonuses agreed when a contract is signed, if a player doesn't request a transfer then the fees are owed to the player as they weren't the one to instigate the transfer and once an offer is accepted it could be deemed the player is being forced out.

 

Here is my take on it.

player signs deal and they are entitled to full payment of their contract as long as they fulfil their duties.

if a player leaves before the contract is up that can only be done with agreement of both the club and player. So that means a discussion has to be had, sometimes that will end with some sort of payment to the player, and sometimes nothing depending on the whole package including transfer fees etc.

the only bit that I think is different is signing on fees and loyalty fees as they will be paid in full if the player doesn’t request a transfer. Reason behind that is the loyalty fee is for exactly that, not asking to leave, and the signing on fee was due on the signing of the contract but is usually spread over the deal for the benefit of club/player for tax purposes

 

Harry Kane's agent will negotiate with the club as to what he leaves spurs with although with him probably wanting to move and almost certainly achieving a higher financial package at Madrid it would be much easier to reach an agreement I'd imagine.

 

I cant imagine any way in which if Foulds is getting sold for a fee and he wants to leave - why City would owe him anything.

I know one player who got 10% of their transfer fee (to the sum of about 700k) but that was foreign league into the prem. I have no idea how it would work at Citys level. I would be v surprised if Foulds was getting 10% - but who knows.