Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

Remi Mathews

Recommended Posts

It’s not about the contract being broken by one side or the other.

When a player is transferred the first bit of paperwork he signs is that to terminate his previous contract. This happens in every single transfer. FA rules state it must happen for the transfer to be valid.

In rare cases the selling club will agree to continue to pay a portion of the players wages, but this is generally done in an up front lump sum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bigears"][quote user="hogesar"]City 1st, for someone who comes across as so pompous your lack of ability to understand contracts is astounding.[/quote]Your ability not to be able to refute what I have stated is not outstanding seeing as it is coming from you.However I will try to help you.If a player has a contract worth x with NCFC. It cannot be simply broken by NCFC selling on that player to another club where his new contract pays a lower wage as has been repeatedly claimed.I welcome your attempts to disprove this, removing my supposed pompous guise I suggest you..............put up or shut up ![/quote]
Sorry, you''re just entirely wrong.
If the player is sold, then he has to agree to cancel his contract and any liabilities therein. That''s why we had Lafferty sat on the bench for so long. It may be that the club and player can come to terms on a settlement for the outstanding value of the contract if there is no buying club willing to take the wages on (Player x has left by mutual agreement), or if the selling club cannot match current wages but this would not be a "top up" to the player''s wages etc, it would be a lump sum settlement privately negotiated between player and selling club. Otherwise the contract negotiation would not happen between player and buying club, it would be between the two clubs. 
The player taking on a contract at another club cannot concurrently run two contracts so the selling club contract has to be void, otherwise the player would be in breach of contract (and FA registration rules). The selling club may be keen enough for the player to leave that they agree to pay a lump sum settlement in the event that a player signs somewhere else for far less money.
A loan agreement works differently, and can work as the club paying a proportion of the player''s wages but that is because they still hold his registration and permanent contract. In the event of a player registration being changed then the selling club is no longer liable for remaining wages because the contract is void, less any agreement they have come to with the player to settle up contract/difference in contract.
Lafferty is an excellent example of this, as aforementioned. It was clear he was not going to play here, so we wouldn''t even put him in the shop window to attempt to attract suitors. He could have moved on and taken less money elsewhere, I am sure the club tried to settle up his contract for a percentage of it''s final value, but the difference in Lafferty''s wages with us, and his prospective earnings was so great that he decided to sit and rot on the bench until the contract was up. If it worked the way you think it does, then Lafferty would have simply been sold at the first opportunity as we would have had to "top up" his wages anyway so it wouldn''t have made any difference.
You seem to envisage this as some sort of NFL type scenario where the player signs a contract with the league, the league holds the registration and any club acquiring him is liable for the contract in full, but that is not the case in the UK because our contracts are between player and club, not between player and league. 
In summary - You''re right, in so much as the club cannot sell somebody without their consent and in that scenario they would be liable for the entirety of the contract (but moreover, this never happens as they would also be in breach of contract), but if the player consents to be sold, then the contract with the club is voided to allow the registration to be moved. If the player''s current wages are far above his earning potential then there will be a negotiation over a severance payment but that will not be 100% of outstanding earnings for the contract period, it will be a % of that, certainly not the selling club being liable to "top up" wages to match his current contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@City1st

But what you don''t seem to get is that in a transfer, the contract isn''t being broken by one side. That player is agreeing to leave by agreeing to sign his new contract with the buying club so it is a mutual agreement. As Bethnal says, they may ask for some compensation to make up the shortfall but it isn''t compulsory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hallelujiawe are finally getting therewith an acknowledgement that the selling club (with whom the player has a contract) has a legal obligation to that contract this is NOT a rare caseit is in force in EVERY caseas the idea that a club can simply sell a player and at the same time terminate his contract is ludicrous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m so confused.

Literally every person has said you''re idea that we have to ''make up the shortfall'' is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]I''m so confused.

Literally every person has said you''re idea that we have to ''make up the shortfall'' is wrong.[/quote]Ignorance on the prt of a number of other is not evidence of anything being correct.You cannot break a contract with penalties and compensation.Therefore Norwich City cannot simply terminate a players contract on the basis that they want to sell that player. To keep claiming they can is patent nonsense. Otherwise why did the club not simply sell off unwanted players (Jarvis) thereby removing the burden of his wages.To compound this idiocy we see now that there is a claim that in rare cases we might have to give him ''some'' money. Beyond laughable.If we sell a player to a club where the wage is lower we are due the shortfall in those wages for the REMAINING part of OUR contract.That should be blindingly obvious, and should explain why we are stuck with players until their contract ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ll certainly take the word of Bethnal (someone who actually works in something to do with football) over your deranged rambling.

As people keep pointing out we''re not talking about simply ''terminating a players contract.'' We''re talking about that player agreeing a new contract elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are either delusional or on a massive wind up. Either way it is pointless arguing with you as you will never admit you are wrong.

Yes, one side cannot unilaterally break a contract but that does not mean that the player cannot take a wage cut to sign for another club. They would have to agree to it, but that does happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bigears"]as the idea that a club can simply sell a player and at the same time terminate his contract is ludicrous[/quote]
I''m pretty sure nobody suggested that they could. 
The dispute isn''t whether they can sell the player without consent, nobody except you seems to find disagreement in that point, we all agree you can''t. 
People are confused because you''re saying that should a player be sold before the end of contract, then we are liable to pay all monies from the contract, which is just patently wrong, because for the transfer to take place, the player HAS to agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kick it off has"Sorry, you''re just entirely wrong"his argument being based on what I have not said, however after arguing with himself he finally says"In summary - You''re right, in so much as the club cannot sell somebody

without their consent and in that scenario they would be liable for the

entirety of the contract"
And that has been my point all along. Unfortunately others have chosen to argue against what I have not said.A contract is a contract FULL STOP.It is from that understanding that anything else flows. Understand that and the rest fall into place, and please if you reply to me reply to what I have said not some conjured up scenario of your own making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you''ve basically been arguing against nobody? Because I think most people aren''t so stupid that they need it explained to them that we can''t force a player to sign a contract with another team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
orf arhtthe big wide world awaitstoodle pip !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why didn''t we sell off Jarvis? Probably because nobody wants to buy a winger who has been injured for two years and is the wrong side of 30?
The reason we haven''t terminated Jarvis'' contract (which you seem to be interchanging with selling a player quite confusingly) is as you suggest, we have a contractual obligation and are liable for his wages as he is injured, but should somebody decide they wanted to buy an injured winger, and Jarvis agreed to the contract then we would owe him nothing. 
That''s why Jarvis wouldn''t agree to a transfer even if we could find a suitor, unless we made an agreement with him to settle the contract. That agreement would not be the entirety of his contract though, it would be a mutually agreeable severance payment, negotiated outside of his contract as when he moves to another club, he ceases to have a contract with NCFC.
You can capitalise all you like, but we are not due to pay any wages for the remaining part of our contract, as we cease to have a contract upon the transfer so any monies would need to be settled pre-emptively.
What you''re suggesting is the equivalent of a player putting a transfer request in, us agreeing to a transfer, and then after the transfer, demanding that he play for us every week because of his contractual obligation to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bigears"]Kick it off has"Sorry, you''re just entirely wrong"his argument being based on what I have not said, however after arguing with himself he finally says"In summary - You''re right, in so much as the club cannot sell somebody

without their consent and in that scenario they would be liable for the

entirety of the contract"
And that has been my point all along. Unfortunately others have chosen to argue against what I have not said.A contract is a contract FULL STOP.It is from that understanding that anything else flows. Understand that and the rest fall into place, and please if you reply to me reply to what I have said not some conjured up scenario of your own making.[/quote]
If everybody else is saying they''re confused about what point you''re making, as it doesn''t make sense, then you''re probably not putting your point across very well. Several people have explained it to you, in very simple terms. If you''re still not understanding then I''m afraid there''s not much anybody can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]It’s not about the contract being broken by one side or the other.

When a player is transferred the first bit of paperwork he signs is that to terminate his previous contract. This happens in every single transfer. FA rules state it must happen for the transfer to be valid.

In rare cases the selling club will agree to continue to pay a portion of the players wages, but this is generally done in an up front lump sum.[/quote]
Thank god Bethnal. Explained succinctly to the point there shouldn''t need to be any sarcastic response....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KIO to City 1st:

''You''re right, in so much as the club cannot sell somebody without their consent and in that scenario they would be liable for the entirety of the contract''

City 1st:

''''And that has been my point all along. Unfortunately others have chosen to argue against what I have not said.''''

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, your point all along has been that a club would have to make up any shortfall on a player''s new contract if they sold them without consent - an obvious breach in contract.

Yet, this is what you said:

''''I can''t see McGovern taking a pay cut. If he leaves then we will still be liable for the full amount of the remainder of his contract, less whatever he is being paid at his new club.''''

...twice:

''''McGovern will take what is offered with only a year left on his contract if he wants to play, and it is doubtful he would want to sit on the subs bench for another season. However we will still have to make up any shortfall for the rest of his contract.''''

and here you used an example:

''''If we sell a player to move to a lower contract we are obliged to make up the shortfall ie what he would have received for the remainder of his contract with us and what he is getting now ie

Player A get 10k a week and has one year on his contract

He is sold to a club that offers him a contract for 6k per week for 3 years.

We are obliged to make up the shortfall of 4k for that remaining year of his contract.

That is standard practice.''''

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where have you mentioned lack of consent? Or were we supposed to assume that''s what you meant because you didn''t mention that he WAS consenting in these scenarios? An odd assumption to expect anyone to make, because its clearly far from the norm. Interestingly, you only managed to worm your way into this explanation after KIO mentioned it..

How many examples are there of a club selling a player without his consent and having to do this?

It is amusing how you become more arrogant and patronising in the face of such glaring stupidity, are you this unpleasant in person too? I suppose its rather embarrassing to find out that you''re way off the mark after talking down to literally everyone on the board.

Just admit you''re wrong and also a bellend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The guy is a rude, pompous know-it-all. Which would be a bit better if he knew his stuff. Unfortunately for him, he’s a clueless buffoon - more of a “knows-f uck-all”

Fortunately for us it doesn’t seem as though he’s been to Carrow Road for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you ask him about attending matches he has a long history of swerving an answer but will bluster his way through it in his usual manner. When asked about renewing.... no answer. When asked where he sits in the ground .......no answer. I have done that a few times only to be met with his usual Youtube pig videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hank shoots Skyler"]Where have you mentioned lack of consent? Or were we supposed to assume that''s what you meant because you didn''t mention that he WAS consenting in these scenarios? An odd assumption to expect anyone to make, because its clearly far from the norm. Interestingly, you only managed to worm your way into this explanation after KIO mentioned it..

How many examples are there of a club selling a player without his consent and having to do this?  [/quote]
There are precisely no examples Hank, as myself and Bethnal pointed out the player has to sign a document cancelling his contract before his registration can be transferred. If he doesn''t want to leave then a negotiation will take place to see how much you will need to pay to convince him to sign the voiding document.
but anyway, back on topic - I think Remi has earned a chance to show us what he can do. If Gunn isn''t coming back, which he 99% isn''t then the keeper spot should be his to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@KIO

Agreed.

There is a stage with younger players where you have to ''shit or get off the pot'' and I think Remi has reached that. He''s shown himself capable at the level below ours, now it should be his chance to show he can do it at our level.

If we can offload McGovern then I''d like to see us get a veteran backup in for him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven''t seen enough of Remi to know whether he suits Farke''s passing style. Gunn is very comfortable receiving the ball at his feet from the defence and always looks for the short pass rather than the long punt downfield. I''m sure we''ll continue that method next season under the current coaching set up, so whoever the keeper is, they will need to be good at that. I''m not sure McGovern is, but as has been said, I think he''ll be off anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Where have you mentioned lack of consent? Or were we supposed to assume

that''s what you meant because you didn''t mention that he WAS consenting

in these scenarios? An odd assumption to expect anyone to make, because

its clearly far from the norm. Interestingly, you only managed to worm

your way into this explanation after KIO mentioned it.."oh dear, it just gets worseso slowly..............both parties to a contract are obliged to uphold their side of that contractif a player leaves during that contract period he is entitled to have the remainder of that contract paid upah but, bleat the not too bright, what happens if he breaches that contract by being ''naughty''...... see you didn''t say thatwhat happens if he dies....... see you didn''t say thatby all means continue in your circular wa nk fest, excited in the belief that somehow you have bested the nasty man - where all you have done is argued against what I never statedso well done you .......... all you have to do now is decide who gets the biscuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were wrong and you’ve been swerving this thread to avoid embarrassment. Now you’re twisting people’s words and LYING to save a bit of face. Tragic stuff.

#MouseBrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you said is that a player has to be paid a shortfall in his wages if he transfers to another club, on a lower salary.

It’s there in black and white.

Another LIE from Bigtw at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]You were wrong and you’ve been swerving this thread to avoid embarrassment. Now you’re twisting people’s words and LYING to save a bit of face. Tragic stuff.

#MouseBrain[/quote]Or maybe out enjoying the sun, some folk dothough I''m not sure how I can ''swerve a thread '' eitherperhaps it''s just some hip newspeak that you old codgers like to lose so so as appear ''down wid da kids''there is no embarrassment in my being correcthowever feel free to explain how a contract such as this can be broken by one side with no redressI am all ears

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...