Contractual Matters when a Player Leaves Early

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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