For new signings, ask the man from the Pru

[malcd1]

I'm surprised and rather touched that Holding signed the extension, if he had an option not to. Shades of Anelka.

Moving back to our level:

Irritating we have to pay him (Twardzik) off. What exactly has he contributed for all the wages he's been paid?

As usual in these things, I think we can't be irritated at being asked to honour a contract we signed. Once you take that out of contract law you, me and everyone else loses a feckload of rights to The Man.

If we signed the wrong contract, I blame the manager and the cheque-signer, not the player.

Holding's extension was automatic not optional IIRC.

Not only that but if he had signed a 3 year contract extension in June we would now have to pay Holding for those 36 months.

The right decision was made and good luck to Holding. I hope he fulfils his potential at Arsenal.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm surprised and rather touched that Holding signed the extension, if he had an option not to. Shades of Anelka.

Moving back to our level:

Irritating we have to pay him (Twardzik) off. What exactly has he contributed for all the wages he's been paid?

As usual in these things, I think we can't be irritated at being asked to honour a contract we signed. Once you take that out of contract law you, me and everyone else loses a feckload of rights to The Man.

If we signed the wrong contract, I blame the manager and the cheque-signer, not the player.

Holding's extension was automatic not optional IIRC.

Not only that but if he had signed a 3 year contract extension in June we would now have to pay Holding for those 36 months.

The right decision was made and good luck to Holding. I hope he fulfils his potential at Arsenal.

Not if we'd sold him to Arsenal....

[malcd1]

I'm surprised and rather touched that Holding signed the extension, if he had an option not to. Shades of Anelka.

Moving back to our level:

Irritating we have to pay him (Twardzik) off. What exactly has he contributed for all the wages he's been paid?

As usual in these things, I think we can't be irritated at being asked to honour a contract we signed. Once you take that out of contract law you, me and everyone else loses a feckload of rights to The Man.

If we signed the wrong contract, I blame the manager and the cheque-signer, not the player.

Holding's extension was automatic not optional IIRC.

Not only that but if he had signed a 3 year contract extension in June we would now have to pay Holding for those 36 months.

The right decision was made and good luck to Holding. I hope he fulfils his potential at Arsenal.

Not if we'd sold him to Arsenal....

I thought if we sold him and he didn't ask for a transfer then we my have to pay up the remainder of his contract? Might depend on the small print or I have misinterpreted what I have read.

[Prufrock]

Not that again. No, we don't.

There are quite often "loyalty" clauses, but they're never significant in relation to a transfer fee. And I can't see a child having one. We'd definitely have been better off having him on a 3 year contract, but I completely understand why we didn't. It's galling, because he looked proper. Will be a big loss. Pennies for Arsenal to have a gamble and hoover him up.

[boltonboris]

I thought if we sold him and he didn't ask for a transfer then we my have to pay up the remainder of his contract? Might depend on the small print or I have misinterpreted what I have read.

It is the case on some occasions, despite what some of the smartarses on here say. Usually a transfer fee comprises of the players remaining contract pay + compensation

If the fee is less than the contract is worth, the selling club can still be made to fork out wages

[BWFC_Insane]

I thought if we sold him and he didn't ask for a transfer then we my have to pay up the remainder of his contract? Might depend on the small print or I have misinterpreted what I have read.

It is the case on some occasions, despite what some of the smartarses on here say. Usually a transfer fee comprises of the players remaining contract pay + compensation

If the fee is less than the contract is worth, the selling club can still be made to fork out wages

It only happens if the player is going onto a lesser contract and the only way they agree to the deal is if the selling club makes up their salary.

[boltonboris]

I thought if we sold him and he didn't ask for a transfer then we my have to pay up the remainder of his contract? Might depend on the small print or I have misinterpreted what I have read.

It is the case on some occasions, despite what some of the smartarses on here say. Usually a transfer fee comprises of the players remaining contract pay + compensation

If the fee is less than the contract is worth, the selling club can still be made to fork out wages

It only happens if the player is going onto a lesser contract and the only way they agree to the deal is if the selling club makes up their salary.

It doesn't "only" occur in your scenario. It can ALSO occur in the scenario I posed

[BWFC_Insane]

I thought if we sold him and he didn't ask for a transfer then we my have to pay up the remainder of his contract? Might depend on the small print or I have misinterpreted what I have read.

It is the case on some occasions, despite what some of the smartarses on here say. Usually a transfer fee comprises of the players remaining contract pay + compensation

If the fee is less than the contract is worth, the selling club can still be made to fork out wages

It only happens if the player is going onto a lesser contract and the only way they agree to the deal is if the selling club makes up their salary.

It doesn't "only" occur in your scenario. It can ALSO occur in the scenario I posed

I'd be very interested in seeing a contract whereby an employee can decide to leave and thus break the employment contract and be paid for that contract in full alongside their new one.

Yes some contracts have clauses in them for payments, loyalty bonuses and the like and yes sometimes clubs will subsidise a players wage after they go to get them off the books and save some of their salary, but I don't believe that on a standard deal such as Holding to Arsenal that Bolton pay off his contract. He goes to Arsenal and signs a new contracting terminating his previous deal with Bolton and in this case, presumably an amicable deal to boot.

I'm not doubting there has been the odd bonkers deal done whereby clubs are committed to the full term regardless, I just believe that is very rare, and certainly won't be the case here.

In the past I've known several members of our youth team languishing in the reserves or worse on decent contracts who wouldn't move lower because they'd lose money. They certainly would have moved if they'd have retained the salary from BWFC and their new club.

If your scenario was the norm, players like Pratley would be outta here to virtually anywhere as they'd be financially better off with a double salary irrespective of a new salary being less than the Bolton one.

[boltonboris]

I never said it was the norm FFS - Just that is does happen and occurs more than you'd realise

[Norpig]

Contracts since Bosman won his case and the money has increased (in the PL) are in favour of the player or manager. Apart from Banking where do you get a bonus for failing. Every manager since Allardyce has failed and yet we have had to pay them off! There should be an agreement that all players are paid a set amount, wage cap for want of a better word, and then paid by incentive amount of goals, clean sheets wins etc. Failing teams and managers would then be paid less and successful ones paid more.

The problem is that this needs to come from the top and FIFA is currently in a bit of a mess, also all nations would need to agree to this and that is never going to happen!

[Prufrock]

I thought if we sold him and he didn't ask for a transfer then we my have to pay up the remainder of his contract? Might depend on the small print or I have misinterpreted what I have read.

It is the case on some occasions, despite what some of the smartarses on here say. Usually a transfer fee comprises of the players remaining contract pay + compensation

If the fee is less than the contract is worth, the selling club can still be made to fork out wages

I'll take "smartarse"

It certainly does happen, my point is that it does not *have* to happen. A player can make you pay them the, say 3, years left on their contract, but only by playing for you for those years. If they want to play for somebody else, they need your agreement to break that contract and so they can't get you to pay them the rest of their contract AND sign for someone else unless you agree to that.

I've heard it happens, often because clubs don't want to lose the much bigger income of the transfer fee for the sake of paying off a smaller amount, but I don't think it's all that common, even in these days of player power.

[Harry Genshaw]

Didn't Collymore sue Forest (& lose) when he went to Liverpool. He claimed iirc that he was entitled to his Forest contract being paid in full because he hadn't asked to leave. Forest had merely accepted a bid for him. I thought he'd lost the case because Forest had interviews where he'd stated his wish to move on although he hadn't formally handed in a request.

Anyway - good luck to Holding. I hope he fulfills his undoubted potential

[Nicko58]

I'd be interested to know whether a club accepting an offer for a player has any legal bearing i.e. the player can argue that they're due monies owed on the basis that the club agreed, in effect, to cancel the contract by accepting an offer.

I know that if a player hands in a transfer request then they forego certain bonuses.

[Worthy4England]

I'd be interested to know whether a club accepting an offer for a player has any legal bearing i.e. the player can argue that they're due monies owed on the basis that the club agreed, in effect, to cancel the contract by accepting an offer.

I know that if a player hands in a transfer request then they forego certain bonuses.

I would think that the Club could choose to terminate a players Contract by paying it up. But then the player would be a "free agent" so the transfer fee wouldn't be needed...

So I guess, theoretically....

[Nicko58]

Iles is reporting that the club have sorted loan deals for two strikers, both of whom are on pre-season with Premier League clubs.

[Worthy4England]

Ibrahimovic is getting on a bit, though...Where's Veloso when we need him, anyhow?

[BWFC_Insane]

Iles is reporting that the club have sorted loan deals for two strikers, both of whom are on pre-season with Premier League clubs.

Says on Twitter they aren't definite and either Premiership club could change their minds.

[officer_dibble]

Do we need 2? Seems to me we've got an either/or for the target man with proctor and madine. Then for support striker/quick bloke off the target man there is Clough, Clayton, Woolery...plus George Newell looked good to me in his cameo ladt seadon.

[BWFC_Insane]

Do we need 2? Seems to me we've got an either/or for the target man with proctor and madine. Then for support striker/quick bloke off the target man there is Clough, Clayton, Woolery...plus George Newell looked good to me in his cameo ladt seadon.

Depends if they are really strikers or perhaps number 10's or wide men.

Clayton may be considered more of a wide player too.

And perhaps they think someone will come in for Clough or Madine?

[bobo the clown]

^^^ & you were doing so we till that last word !!