Can Someone Explain Why The Club Say ...

[Number 5]

Isn't it because unless the player specifically request a transfer a club would have to pay out the remainder of their contract?

That can't be entirely it, surely? Because effectively you saying that if a player gets transferred by his club, he gets both his wage at the new club and also the remainder of what he would have earned off his contract from his old club (albeit probably in a lump sum) - providing that he didn't ask for a transfer? And we're supposed to feel sorry for the fuckers and not dare criticise the poor sensitive souls!!

And signing bonus from the new club don't forget.

I could be entirely wrong, but I do remember a few examples of this. The one that sticks the most in my mind as above, Sol.

[I Hate Hleb]

All I know is that life is so fucking unfair!!!

[Number 5]

and unlike some mentioned here, we obviously DON'T keep paying the player's wages when he moves on. the contract is terminated and the new club becomes responsible for his new contract (and wages). hence why can't sell bendtner and almunia (no one wants to pay the same wages we do, and the players obviously don't want to earn less than they did at arsenal)

As I've understood in the past, the player would get a payment in one lump sum at contract termination point.

I haven't read or talked about this in a while, it may have changed, but I'm sure the exact thing happened when we let Sol go first time round.

We had to pay him a bomb just so we could let him go to Portsmouth because he didn't submit a transfer request.

I think the players who dont put in a transfer request paid a loyalty bonus of some kind but not their contract paid up its an agreed fee at the time of signing a contract

You could be right Flash.

But what about a player who is simply released on a free before his contract is up?

Clubs still have to stump up the rest of those wages I believe. Not exactly a transfer but still a case of them shipping out a player who hasn't asked to leave.

[flash gunner]

and unlike some mentioned here, we obviously DON'T keep paying the player's wages when he moves on. the contract is terminated and the new club becomes responsible for his new contract (and wages). hence why can't sell bendtner and almunia (no one wants to pay the same wages we do, and the players obviously don't want to earn less than they did at arsenal)

As I've understood in the past, the player would get a payment in one lump sum at contract termination point.

I haven't read or talked about this in a while, it may have changed, but I'm sure the exact thing happened when we let Sol go first time round.

We had to pay him a bomb just so we could let him go to Portsmouth because he didn't submit a transfer request.

I think the players who dont put in a transfer request paid a loyalty bonus of some kind but not their contract paid up its an agreed fee at the time of signing a contract

You could be right Flash.

But what about a player who is simply released on a free before his contract is up?

Clubs still have to stump up the rest of those wages I believe. Not exactly a transfer but still a case of them shipping out a player who hasn't asked to leave.

oh yeah a player who is released while in a contract is still paid until the contract runs out, same with a manager who is sacked often solicitors for both parties agree on some kind of pay off

[SteveO 35]

Quite frankly its utter bullshit - confusing future liabilities with current year cashflow impact.

If you take out a 25 year mortgage at 200,000 you don't suddenly claim that your cashflow has been hit by 200,000 in one go. You have a spread liability secured against an asset. The only slight difference in football is that the asset may be worthless if the player winds the contract down to zero, as is the norm at Arsene FC. But if he doesn't then he has a resale value like any asset...

The only other possibility may be that the bank covenants factor future liabilities into their debt calculations. For example a lending bank may offer a facility of 10x annual earnings but include future wage liabilities in the debt calculation. If that is the case, it will restrict the amount of money available for transfers. If we bought a player for £10m on wages of £2m per annum for 4 years....the bank would classify £18m as debt (rather than £10m).

You'd need to see the lending terms to work it out.

[flash gunner]

Without taking this down the childish lane, this financial thread is vaguely interesting (only vaguely remember ) due to no hijacking etc

[Babu]

and unlike some mentioned here, we obviously DON'T keep paying the player's wages when he moves on. the contract is terminated and the new club becomes responsible for his new contract (and wages). hence why can't sell bendtner and almunia (no one wants to pay the same wages we do, and the players obviously don't want to earn less than they did at arsenal)

As I've understood in the past, the player would get a payment in one lump sum at contract termination point.

I haven't read or talked about this in a while, it may have changed, but I'm sure the exact thing happened when we let Sol go first time round.

We had to pay him a bomb just so we could let him go to Portsmouth because he didn't submit a transfer request.

I think the players who dont put in a transfer request paid a loyalty bonus of some kind but not their contract paid up its an agreed fee at the time of signing a contract

You could be right Flash.

But what about a player who is simply released on a free before his contract is up?

Clubs still have to stump up the rest of those wages I believe. Not exactly a transfer but still a case of them shipping out a player who hasn't asked to leave.

Flash is right on that, and Number 5 is right on the other point. Brazilian Gooner hits the nail on the head as well.

If a player doesn't put in a transfer request and is then sold he will get a loyalty bonus for not 'requesting' to go. Like Cesc at the moment. He wants to go, but hasn't officially asked to be 'freed', so will get a loyalty bonus.

If a player hands in a transfer request then he doesn't get a loyalty bonus, but as soon as he signs for another Club his previous contract is invalid and no money is given to him by his previous club.
Let's say Cesc asks to go, Barca and The Arsenal agree a transfer fee, then Cesc's Arsenal wages are stopped, and the contract and his deal for his personal terms at Barca will take over.

If however The Arsenal want to release Cesc ( no, not Cesc, let's say Diaby ) from his contract then they have to pay his full wages up to the end of the contract that he signed to get him to leave the Club. He can then sign for another Club on a free and pocket a signing-on fee from the other Club.

The other way of getting to be a free transfer is to run your contract down, and then when the contract finishes you are then also a free agent who will probably get a very big signing-on fee from your next Club, as you have saved them a fortune with the transfer fee. This could happen with Nasri.

[SWLGooner]

Flash is right on that, and Number 5 is right on the other point. Brazilian Gooner hits the nail on the head as well.

[Babu]

Flash is right on that, and Number 5 is right on the other point. Brazilian Gooner hits the nail on the head as well....And SWL is sooooooooo wrong, as usual.

[SWLGooner]

Desperately trying to shake the 'evidence' off your tongue? I'm afraid Jayson still remembers...

[Babu]

Desperately trying to shake the 'evidence' off your tongue? I'm afraid Jayson still remembers...

I detect a note of jealousy there.

[SWLGooner]

Desperately trying to shake the 'evidence' off your tongue? I'm afraid Jayson still remembers...

I detect a note of jealousy there.

[the playing mantis]

this is rubbish. if a player is sold, whether he submitted a transfer request or not, he does not recive any wage recompense form the selling club.

the only possible thing is a notional loyalty bonus, but that is i believ very unusual. if players wages were paid up by the seller ther would be very little transfer activity activity amongst smaller clubs.

the whole, it will cost x in transfer fee and y in wages and both totals will come out of our transfer budget seems only to ever be mentioned in terms of arsenal (imo becasue the club themsleves spout this line) and only in the last 5 years (ie the time we have spent practically nothing)

coicidence??? i dont think so, its just another way of the club short changing the supporters. most clubs have seperate transfer and wage budget.