Contracts

[Barbe bleu 998]

Can someone please get to the bottom of the contracts issue?

As far as I know if the two parties to a contract wish to cancel then this can be done. If the contract is cancelled then there is no need for either party to meet an obligation

So if Naismith or whoever wants to leave and we want him gone then he can go to whichever club (or no club) without any penalty to either side.

Of course he may say that he''ll agree to cancel but only if he gets a payoff. Which we can either agree to or not.

Am I missing something?

[Nexus_Canary 1,162]

Nah seems in order, although I think the important part your missing is this part.

Player A at club A being paid £100 a week

Player A at club B offered £50 a week

So why would you want to drop 50% of your wages when your making bank.

Summary = Player A is only in it for the money not love of the game, or even a real want or need to leave Club A for club B.

[Tetteys Jig 847]

Naismiths options are:

£40k a week here for the rest of his deal while he rots in the reserves and doesn''t get to be where he wants to be

£10k a week from somewhere in Scotland where he can play and enjoy football and find his level (and a bit of a mutual settlement from us, certainly not £30k a week tho).

At some point, he is going to have to give a little if he wishes to move on with his life, as are we, as are his new club. How much that is is for them to negotiate.

[Liquidator 0]

There''s no way he will cancel without us paying, which is what annoyed me so much when he said he would ''play for free'' - effectively he''s just saying he''d play for someone else while Norwich pay his wages.

[Tetteys Jig 847]

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We will mutually agree an amount of money with him to rip up his contract so he can start a fresh. The amount will be less than we owe him but certainly won''t be nothing. £40k a week for a year is £2m and he has 1 year left. I suspect we will offer him like £1m up front to leave and that will be that.

I guess now we are short of quality in the attacking third it might not even be that bad of an idea to give him a preseason and maybe keep him. He isn''t worth £40k a week but with sunk costs taken into account (we are stuck paying him £40k a week whatever unless we manage to ship him off) he''s actually a useful player in this league. Remember that goal he banged past Leeds at the end of the 2016/17 season?

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Liquidator"]There''s no way he will cancel without us paying, which is what annoyed me so much when he said he would ''play for free'' - effectively he''s just saying he''d play for someone else while Norwich pay his wages.[/quote]

There is absolutely no way that should be allowed to happen. He should be working for the Club that is paying his wages.

[Aggy 931]

Even if we did pay the 30k in your scenario there Tettey’s Jig, that’s freeing up £10k a week and getting us some capital in for the transfer fee - that’s better than him sitting in the reserves picking up the full amount and us having nothing to reinvest either.

Of course if he wants to apply himself then he may still be able to do a job - not worth what he’s on, but ‘full price - half decent player’ might be better than ‘slightly reduced price - no player’ (and both are better than full price sulking in the reserves).

[If wed only kept Howie.. 3]

i’m going to give a really boring answer..

it depends on what is in the contract.

[Badger 2,743]

The contract can be cancelled if both agree to it. Therefore it follows that it has to be in both parties interests.Using the figures given by others, if we are paying Naismith £40k pw (2m pa) and he is offered £10k pw elsewhere, there is a £30k pw shortfall, which nobody would accept. However, if were to offer him a sum (probably in stages) in compensation for this, he might consider it worth his while, dependant upon the size of the sum, "personal factors" and the attractiveness of the offer from the other club.At Naismith''s (and Martin''s) age, they might take into account the fact that they may find it easier to get a 2 or 3 year deal now rather than hardly playing (a la Bassong) and trying to get one at the end of the contract. He will want as much as possible, we will want to pay as little as we can - it boils down to negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution (or not).

[king canary 8,425]

@Badger

Yes, I think the fact Naismith only has a year left may soften his stance- ie he''d take £10k a week on a 2 year deal Hearts and a lump sum from us of less than the amount he''d lose by moving to secure the stability.

[TIL 1010 5,123]

I would have thought our resident contract expert would have been along by now. [:P]

[Big O 270]

[quote user="Tettey''s Jig"]I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We will mutually agree an amount of money with him to rip up his contract so he can start a fresh. The amount will be less than we owe him but certainly won''t be nothing. £40k a week for a year is £2m and he has 1 year left. I suspect we will offer him like £1m up front to leave and that will be that.

I guess now we are short of quality in the attacking third it might not even be that bad of an idea to give him a preseason and maybe keep him. He isn''t worth £40k a week but with sunk costs taken into account (we are stuck paying him £40k a week whatever unless we manage to ship him off) he''s actually a useful player in this league. Remember that goal he banged past Leeds at the end of the 2016/17 season?

I didn’t even think about keeping him and playing him. It’s an interesting point. We now have no Pritchard or Wes or likely Maddison so the path is clear. He is meant to be an excellent professional and if we are paying for him, we may as well use him.