ALL Transfer talk - merged thread

[A11M11]

As I understand it . If we sell Ramsdale and he signs for another club depending on the salaryofferred we may be required to top up his wages for the duration of his contract with us . If however which seems more likely he goes on a loan , we may get a loan fee the size of which depends on whether we are picking upbthe full tab . Complicated but I am sure that the various agents know how to best milk the system.

[Redarmy]

Ok whatever augie. If you think you know why ask?!

I'm 99%sure your compleltey wrong as its nonsensical.

People mention wage savings getting them off the wage bill etc when selling players. If your belief holds then that's bllx as you say the selling club has to pay up what's outstanding. I cannot believe I any world that correct.

Edit. to add wages are stumbling block for many deals. If the seller was obliged to pay up his contract then why would that ever be the case?? In your world the player is having his cake and eating it if thrbold club had to pay him the rest of his contract.

Nonsense I'm afraid augie.

Always though new club takes over existing terms of contract for remainder such as wages

[mcdowell42]

Think if there's a loyalty bonus in the players contract ,if the club sell him the player would be entitled to have his loyalty bonus paid in full ,because he wouldn't have asked to leave the club,but there's no way they would be obliged to pay the remaining wages left on his contract ,his wages then become part of the new club

[Perryashburtongroves]

Think if there's a loyalty bonus in the players contract ,if the club sell him the player would be entitled to have his loyalty bonus paid in full ,because he wouldn't have asked to leave the club,but there's no way they would be obliged to pay the remaining wages left on his contract ,his wages then become part of the new club

Contracts quite often have a loyalty bonus inserted as a payment once a player has been at the club for X number of years or makes X number of appearances. I was reading about it the other day. It's a sort of hang over from the days when agents weren't always trying to force moves every season for their players and clubs therefore held a bit more power over them. It was a way to pay a player more money and not draw up a new contract. There were of course, loads of stories of players receiving the loyalty bonus and then engineering a move the next day. I really don't know how the contracts and payments and whatever work these days but aren't transfer fees the payment that a club holding a player's contract receives so that another club can then hold their contract and draw up their own agreement? Once a player leaves a club then that contract is over unless there is something fucking mad in the terms and the buying club hasn't noticed. All those stories about 20 odd years ago of Leeds selling players and still having to pay them for years afterwards for certain things because the agents stuck conditions in and they were so desperate for the money they just agreed.

[the playing mantis]

Yep so my original response to augie is correct.

Transfer request only relevant if a loyalty bonus.

We could potentially have to top up wages to get someone to move if paying club cannot meet there demands and its only way to shift them.

However we would not pay a players basic/normal weekly wage or pay up thr equivalent in one lump sum simply through selling him.

Only scenario if we terminated contract, and not via mutual consent,simply to flush a turd. Then we would likely have to pay them in full unless some sort of agreement could be reached with said turd.

[Redarmy]

Think if there's a loyalty bonus in the players contract ,if the club sell him the player would be entitled to have his loyalty bonus paid in full ,because he wouldn't have asked to leave the club,but there's no way they would be obliged to pay the remaining wages left on his contract ,his wages then become part of the new club

exactly thats my understanding too.....

[DB10GOONER]

Ornstein? Ffs lads get a grip.

He is the biggest bullshitter in football. The cùnt literally lives his life by the premise of throw enough shit at a wall and some will stick. He gets one prediction right out of about 70 and mongs hail him as the king of the ITK wánkers.

Blasphemy

Tbf and I'm no fan or not of his but can you give us some examples of the ones he's got wrong ? He seemingly only commits once it's nailed on from my memory and widely reported by others so not really a itk??

Do your own research you lazy cùnt!

In fairness, think of a player, search them on Google, then search Ornstein, and he will pop up stating he knows they are going here there and everywhere. He's done hundreds, possibly thousands of them.

My point is most of these media ITK fuckheads know about as much as you or me do (rumours basically) but try to present it like they were the first with that info and they were correct all along.

Inevitably they fluke one or two right (ffs I can do that!) and morons point at those one or two right and then state that Ornstein or whichever other fucking bullshitter is ITK and a reliable source of transfer news before the clubs announce anything. It's all horseshit ffs.

[Nick Nack]

There is a potential surprise we are working on.

Sorry mate, couldn't resist and also surprised no one had done it sooner.

I'm quite a few hours behind in the Keys and WiFi actually bloody works

[BobbyPires7]

Marseille in for Neal Maupay on loan.

Surely proof of all the cash people reckon they have.

[Retro Gunner]

Ok whatever augie. If you think you know why ask?!

I'm 99%sure your compleltey wrong as its nonsensical.

People mention wage savings getting them off the wage bill etc when selling players. If your belief holds then that's bllx as you say the selling club has to pay up what's outstanding. I cannot believe I any world that correct.

Edit. to add wages are stumbling block for many deals. If the seller was obliged to pay up his contract then why would that ever be the case?? In your world the player is having his cake and eating it if thrbold club had to pay him the rest of his contract.

Nonsense I'm afraid augie.

I can't claim to know definitively and of course, it depends on the terms of the contract, but augie isn't wrong as far as I'm aware. A contract is a contract and if either side breaks it, they're liable to penalties. I would assume that in the case of Ramsdale, he'd rather be playing, so an agreement can probably be reached whereby no compensation is due if he agrees to go to an interested club. I don't think there's any obligation for him to go to a club that he doesn't want to join.

A good example is Winston Bogarde at Chelsea. He refused to move elsewhere, so as the management didn't want him around, he sat at home and they had to pay him for the duration of his contract. They couldn't just terminate it and surely the principle is the same.

You'll also notice that managers who are taking their club into an undeniable nose dive, never resign. Everyone knows they'll be sacked, but once sacked, the club owes them compensation. If they resign, it's not due. I believe that clauses are written in, so that a manager with a 4 year contract, who is completely fucking up after 6 months, can't claim 3 1/2 years of wages, but some compensation will be due.

Anyway, this is my layman's understanding and might be wrong, so hopefully someone qualified will know better.


Edit. I wrote this without seeing all the posts above it on this page. Looks like some informative posts.

[the playing mantis]

But sacking is different to selling retro. See my points about terminations. That would involve paying up unless mutually agreed.

If clubs had an obligation to pay a sold players contract there would not be thr need to top up which occasionally happens or contract quibbles because a player would be getting there big fat old wage and a new one too.

Also if that was the case then the fact we put crap on big fat contracts and they don't want to leave wouldn't make any difference as based on augie and your take we would have to pay them that when sold anyway.

Edit you bogarde point is valid but that was about terminating. They couldn't sell him as no-one would pay him the same. If selling a player still kept the selling club liable to pay his contract then he would surely have happily moved as chavs would have paid him his contract term and his new club would have paid him whatever they agreed too.

As soon as a player is sold and signs for another club be it after a transfer request or not, as redarmy says his contract with legacy club is done.

There may be special cases where the seller has to top up the guys wages for a bit to make sure he accepts the move. Much like a loan where the loaner can only afford a portion of wages...the seller must weight up the benefit of getting rid vs the extra cost of topping up the wages. This is the issue we likely have...other clubs simply cannot afford to pay thr crap we pay dross thus the dross doesn't want to move.

[augie]

But sacking is different to selling retro. See my points about terminations. That would involve paying up unless mutually agreed.

If clubs had an obligation to pay a sold players contract there would not be thr need to top up which occasionally happens or contract quibbles because a player would be getting there big fat old wage and a new one too.

Also if that was the case then the fact we put crap on big fat contracts and they don't want to leave wouldn't make any difference as based on augie and your take we would have to pay them that when sold anyway.

Edit you bogarde point is valid but that was about terminating. They couldn't sell him as no-one would pay him the same. If selling a player still kept the selling club liable to pay his contract then he would surely have happily moved as chavs would have paid him his contract term and his new club would have paid him whatever they agreed too.

As soon as a player is sold and signs for another club be it after a transfer request or not, as redarmy says his contract with legacy club is done.

There may be special cases where the seller has to top up the guys wages for a bit to make sure he accepts the move. Much like a loan where the loaner can only afford a portion of wages...the seller must weight up the benefit of getting rid vs the extra cost of topping up the wages. This is the issue we likely have...other clubs simply cannot afford to pay thr crap we pay dross thus the dross doesn't want to move.

Ok so lets say that your version is the correct interpretation and mine was only half correct, doesnt that mean that we are still hit with a hefty bill every time we sell a player like ramsdale or lokongo or whoever ?? I mean we are well known for over-paying unproven/average players, so no way is any other club gonna match what we paying, so buying all these players and disposing of them within 2 or 3 years is hitting our finances and that is the point I was making all along

[Retro Gunner]

But sacking is different to selling retro. See my points about terminations. That would involve paying up unless mutually agreed.

If clubs had an obligation to pay a sold players contract there would not be thr need to top up which occasionally happens or contract quibbles because a player would be getting there big fat old wage and a new one too.

Also if that was the case then the fact we put crap on big fat contracts and they don't want to leave wouldn't make any difference as based on augie and your take we would have to pay them that when sold anyway.

Edit you bogarde point is valid but that was about terminating. They couldn't sell him as no-one would pay him the same. If selling a player still kept the selling club liable to pay his contract then he would surely have happily moved as chavs would have paid him his contract term and his new club would have paid him whatever they agreed too.

As soon as a player is sold and signs for another club be it after a transfer request or not, as redarmy says his contract with legacy club is done.

There may be special cases where the seller has to top up the guys wages for a bit to make sure he accepts the move. Much like a loan where the loaner can only afford a portion of wages...the seller must weight up the benefit of getting rid vs the extra cost of topping up the wages. This is the issue we likely have...other clubs simply cannot afford to pay thr crap we pay dross thus the dross doesn't want to move.

Yep, some good points Mantis.

The issue with overpaying second rate players is a point that augie and I have made previously. It's a huge obstacle to selling them, regardless of paying up a contract or not and it's something we need to correct. I might be wrong, but I've a feeling that in the past we've valued a player at, for arguments sake, 30 million, but have had to agree to 20 or 25, so that the buying club can give the player a huge signing on fee to make up for the lower wages they'll pay him. Of course, it's us paying the signing on fee by reducing the asking price.

Anyway, it's all indicative of our shambolic transfer dealings. I'm sure every club finds themselves in a similar mess occasionally, but we seem to make a habit of it and never learn.

[the playing mantis]

But sacking is different to selling retro. See my points about terminations. That would involve paying up unless mutually agreed.

If clubs had an obligation to pay a sold players contract there would not be thr need to top up which occasionally happens or contract quibbles because a player would be getting there big fat old wage and a new one too.

Also if that was the case then the fact we put crap on big fat contracts and they don't want to leave wouldn't make any difference as based on augie and your take we would have to pay them that when sold anyway.

Edit you bogarde point is valid but that was about terminating. They couldn't sell him as no-one would pay him the same. If selling a player still kept the selling club liable to pay his contract then he would surely have happily moved as chavs would have paid him his contract term and his new club would have paid him whatever they agreed too.

As soon as a player is sold and signs for another club be it after a transfer request or not, as redarmy says his contract with legacy club is done.

There may be special cases where the seller has to top up the guys wages for a bit to make sure he accepts the move. Much like a loan where the loaner can only afford a portion of wages...the seller must weight up the benefit of getting rid vs the extra cost of topping up the wages. This is the issue we likely have...other clubs simply cannot afford to pay thr crap we pay dross thus the dross doesn't want to move.

Ok so lets say that your version is the correct interpretation and mine was only half correct, doesnt that mean that we are still hit with a hefty bill every time we sell a player like ramsdale or lokongo or whoever ?? I mean we are well known for over-paying unproven/average players, so no way is any other club gonna match what we paying, so buying all these players and disposing of them within 2 or 3 years is hitting our finances and that is the point I was making all along

I am right!

But your point is valid but only if we are having to top up those wages of the exited player to make them fck off...which I suspect we do quite a bit to get them out the door as thr buyer wouldn't match what there currently on let alone improve it and thus we pay the difference on occasions. For thr terminations we likely pay over 50% of future contract value at least.

So yes your also quite right that us over paying crap is a big problem as it means we can't shift it easily and when we do are likely contributing in some way.

[the playing mantis]

But sacking is different to selling retro. See my points about terminations. That would involve paying up unless mutually agreed.

If clubs had an obligation to pay a sold players contract there would not be thr need to top up which occasionally happens or contract quibbles because a player would be getting there big fat old wage and a new one too.

Also if that was the case then the fact we put crap on big fat contracts and they don't want to leave wouldn't make any difference as based on augie and your take we would have to pay them that when sold anyway.

Edit you bogarde point is valid but that was about terminating. They couldn't sell him as no-one would pay him the same. If selling a player still kept the selling club liable to pay his contract then he would surely have happily moved as chavs would have paid him his contract term and his new club would have paid him whatever they agreed too.

As soon as a player is sold and signs for another club be it after a transfer request or not, as redarmy says his contract with legacy club is done.

There may be special cases where the seller has to top up the guys wages for a bit to make sure he accepts the move. Much like a loan where the loaner can only afford a portion of wages...the seller must weight up the benefit of getting rid vs the extra cost of topping up the wages. This is the issue we likely have...other clubs simply cannot afford to pay thr crap we pay dross thus the dross doesn't want to move.

Yep, some good points Mantis.

The issue with overpaying second rate players is a point that augie and I have made previously. It's a huge obstacle to selling them, regardless of paying up a contract or not and it's something we need to correct. I might be wrong, but I've a feeling that in the past we've valued a player at, for arguments sake, 30 million, but have had to agree to 20 or 25, so that the buying club can give the player a huge signing on fee to make up for the lower wages they'll pay him. Of course, it's us paying the signing on fee by reducing the asking price.

Anyway, it's all indicative of our shambolic transfer dealings. I'm sure every club finds themselves in a similar mess occasionally, but we seem to make a habit of it and never learn.

I think the club are meant to be moving to incentivised contracts more which is the norm for big clubs. I may have just made that up though!

Lower base wage topped up by achievable bonuses which should in theory mean getting rid is easier as lower base wage and in thr interests of the player not to be shit. Eddie's 100k a week and absolute phoning it in would cast doubt on that however!

Anyway let's get back on topic. And moan about lack of striker...I just hope Bobby is right and the surprise could be toney. I know it won't happen as he's too much of a 'charachter'.