Marley Watkins to Bristol?

[Bill 1,788]

No. As long as the player is contracted to NCFC he is due the terms and payments of his contract.If he joins another club he will expect that club to make good the previous terms and payments. He can demand that the remainder of his contract is paid if the club sells him, if the new contract is not the same or better.This is borne out by Naismith, Jarvis and Martin still ''being with us''. And taking on the wages of the previous contract is all too often put out as a transfer fee, as are any improved wages (see Strivka) or check what was actually paid by Coventry for Bellamy.Unfortunately, the usual suspects have yet again chosen to make up stuff so they can replay to that instead.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

The reason Naismith is still being paid by us is beause what we owe him is more than what he''s worth, we literally can''t give him away.

If he was to say he''d take a lesser deal elsewhere, then we wouldn''t have to pay him, fact is, he wants his money and has every right to be like that, given we gave him the deal. Naismith is also only out on loan as well, as is Martin and Jarvis literally is still with us.

Watkins is a far different prospect, Bristol City actually value him enough to pay us a fee to get him out of his contract and pay him a brand new contract. Believe it or not, we will make money out of him. We won''t be paying him any more of his wages, as he''ll likely cancel his contract here when he agrees to his deal at Bristol City who will likely match his pay here or something.

The only reason we''d have to pay him his wages is if we had him on such big money, no club rich enough to afford to offer him a deal he was happy to take was wanting to take him. Say we had Watkins on £100k a week. The only clubs interested in Watkins are only willing to pay him £10k a week max, so if we wanted rid, we''d have to pay £90k (or slightly less if he agreed to forego a bit of money to get regular football) to make up the difference until his existing deal expired and the new club would pay the rest.

What is more likely is that he''s on about £10k with us and happy to make the sideways step to a £10k salary at Bristol City under a boss he''s worked well with before in the same league. We are not prepared to simply give him away due to the value we place on him hence where the £2m fee comes in. Because he''ll be getting the money he wants at Bristol City and they can afford it, he will rip up our deal when he signs for them and still get his £10k a week.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

You really think Juve are still paying Paul Pogba for instance? or Liverpool are paying Suarez? When they move clubs for fees, they start a new deal with the new club. The fact they were on long contracts in the first place was to protect the club mainly, so other teams have to pay a transfer fee. You don''t just go around accumulating new contracts to add to your old ones.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Tetteys Jig"]The reason Naismith is still being paid by us is beause what we owe him is more than what he''s worth, we literally can''t give him away.

If he was to say he''d take a lesser deal elsewhere, then we wouldn''t have to pay him, fact is, he wants his money and has every right to be like that, given we gave him the deal. Naismith is also only out on loan as well, as is Martin and Jarvis literally is still with us.

Watkins is a far different prospect, Bristol City actually value him enough to pay us a fee to get him out of his contract and pay him a brand new contract. Believe it or not, we will make money out of him. We won''t be paying him any more of his wages, as he''ll likely cancel his contract here when he agrees to his deal at Bristol City who will likely match his pay here or something.

The only reason we''d have to pay him his wages is if we had him on such big money, no club rich enough to afford to offer him a deal he was happy to take was wanting to take him. Say we had Watkins on £100k a week. The only clubs interested in Watkins are only willing to pay him £10k a week max, so if we wanted rid, we''d have to pay £90k (or slightly less if he agreed to forego a bit of money to get regular football) to make up the difference until his existing deal expired and the new club would pay the rest.

What is more likely is that he''s on about £10k with us and happy to make the sideways step to a £10k salary at Bristol City under a boss he''s worked well with before in the same league. We are not prepared to simply give him away due to the value we place on him hence where the £2m fee comes in. Because he''ll be getting the money he wants at Bristol City and they can afford it, he will rip up our deal when he signs for them and still get his £10k a week.[/quote]Dear me, it just gets worseAll that is already known, apart from this bit "hence where the £2m fee comes in" which is nothing more than speculation.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]that is Correct IF a player does not ask for a transfer and Norwich sell him he is due the remainder of his contract

If he puts in a transfer request that is different as he is asking to cancel his contract[/quote]

Not quite true, the player doesn''t have to leave, he''s entitled to reject any moves and stay at the club. If we agree a fee for a player who hasn''t asked to move then it''s up to the player to then agree terms with the new team OR reject them and stay. Occasionally these days, the player would move to the new club but not for what they are offering, his current club agrees to pay part of the wage to make up the difference needed. (usually means no transfer fee would be involved though as why would a fee be paid if the wages were too high, if you were paying a fee but couldn''t afford the wages you''d reduce the fee and pay the wages... if you''d agreed to keep giving a guy £5k a week for a year to get him to move after agreeing a £1m fee then why not just agree a £750k fee and let the club pay him the full wage.)

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="TIL 1010"]In six months time nobody will even remember his name such was his impact.[/quote]There will definitely be a ''We let Marley Watkins go'' post.

[/quote]

Every time he scored a goal, rather like Sergi Canos

[Tetteys Jig 830]

You really have no idea, like talking to a brick wall.

You really think we''d reject £2m 3 months ago (official news, even Farke said we rejected a bid) only to give him away now and agree to pay part of his wages?! Fact is, Watkins isn''t as unwanted as you think, just Bristol City want him more and are prepared to pay for him. If he plays well there, as a Wales International who hit double figures from the wing last season should, then £2m will be a bargain.

[ron obvious 1,504]

I''d give up TJ, apparently you have to be insane to expect a sensible reply on a football forum :-)

[Van wink 2,994]

Yet another classic from the face changer 😂

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

I’m off to consult my lawyer, I got approached for my current job, didn’t really want to leave my old job but they accepted me going (just like a transfe) so as my contract with my previous employer had no termination date I must be do the terms of that contract to retirement as a pay off from my previous employee.

Anyone want to join me in the Caribbean retreat that I’ll buy with all that money?

[AJ 1,222]

Anybody who thinks breaking a contract to join another club results in getting paid the remainder of the contract has no understanding of contracts!

[If wed only kept Howie.. 3]

I wonder how much time/effort mankind is wasting (collectively) on discussions like this?

The internet has allowed the ignorant/stupid an equal voice - and i’m fed up with it.

[Van wink 2,994]

It’s certainty given big mouth clowns a chance to show off🤥

[Bonzo 198]

Marley might move but he’s not the first priority for Webber. Firstly he’s getting selected by DF, secondly he’s got previous form in the league, thirdly he’s a British player. DF seems to think Marley can turn it around based on his public statements and selection of the player.

If we do sell him we may need to get our quota of British players from somewhere else first.That could mean we have to buy before we sell Marley if indeed that is on the cards at all.

It is not unusual for transferred players to perform at a lower level when they move clubs. A different style of play and different team mates can determine how well they perform. Marley has been slow to adapt that’s all. Then again so has Nelson based on his last years goal scoring record. Neither player lacks effort though so perhaps time is all that is required.