Cheerio

[Bill 1,788]

14 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

Am I the only one who thinks everyone is essentially saying the same thing, only in a different way? I don't understand the argument.

nope

one one side are those of us who state that contracts are binding

on the other are 'those' who state that there are in some way 'voluntary'

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

47 minutes ago, Bill said:

dear me, it gets worse

knowing very basic contract law does not equate to knowing NCFC players contract

to claim that a contract is non binding and is dependent upon the whim of one party is absurd

the words ' breach of contract' should tell you all you need to know

or maybe you could tell us why the club had the problem with player contracts when parachute payments lessened.... why did the club simply not sell that player to another club for a lesser wage ?

Contract law is contract law, there isn't a whole separate law for footballer, oh am I'm not sure I have said anything about non-binding contracts, nor breach of contract so keep playing to the crowd. 

Because that would be business suicide, suspect you've never run a business to ask such a stupid question. A club wouldn't sell a player for a lesser wage as the player has to agree terms and if they can't agree terms, guess what they go nowhere. 

In your argument if the club did do that they'd still be liable for the remainder of the contract anyway so I think you've just made yourself look like a bit of a wally 👍🏼

Keep quoting stuff I haven't said though old boy, that hole is only getting bigger 😉

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

nope

one one side are those of us who state that contracts are binding

on the other are 'those' who state that there are in some way 'voluntary'

Who has said that contracts are voluntary? 

[Van wink 2,994]

 

 

   56 minutes ago,  Bill said: 

dear me, it gets worse

   51 minutes ago,  Van wink said: 

Exactly!

What else can you do Hairy 😉

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Who has said that contracts are voluntary? 

you, as pointed out previously

" yes I'm sure in some cases there will be situations where the club has to honour a contract but some on here have previously stated that this is the case whenever a player leaves us for a new club, which simply isn't the case otherwise Norwich and every other club would be forever paying players when they leave unless their contract has expired.  "

I think you will find it is in ALL cases, there is no 'option'

[Van wink 2,994]

😂😂😂

[Bill 1,788]

4 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

you've got a real habit of insulting and mocking people for being stupid

so if I stop my part, will they stop being stupid ?

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

you, as pointed out previously

" yes I'm sure in some cases there will be situations where the club has to honour a contract but some on here have previously stated that this is the case whenever a player leaves us for a new club, which simply isn't the case otherwise Norwich and every other club would be forever paying players when they leave unless their contract has expired.  "

I think you will find it is in ALL cases, there is no 'option'

In this case we were talking about when a player ie Nelson was leaving the club not staying at the club but 10 out of 10 for trying to change the topic to make your argument stick. 

Although I at least assume that's what you've done as otherwise you think that as players like Maddison who on left a year ago is still being paid by Norwich as his contract term still has more years left 🤷‍♂️

Either way I got given some really great advice a few years ago...... Never try and reason with an idiot as they are an idiot for a reason 😉

[Indy 3,283]

I’m not sure how it works in football but in real terms contracts are terminated and gardening leave is offered for the remainder of any notice period. As I’m not sure how morally it would work to be paying half of a players wage say if you sold him to another premiership team on a new contract! That’s why I believe upon any transfer the norm is to agree on a severance payment agreement between the player agent and club to terminate the existing contract before the new one is signed.

I’ve never heard of any player being paid by two clubs unless on-loan. I might well be wrong but I’d love for someone to post a link to say where a players been transferred and still being paid a wage by the selling club?

Edited July 21, 2019 by Indy

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,775]

1 hour ago, All the Germans said:

Am I the only one who thinks everyone is essentially saying the same thing, only in a different way? I don't understand the argument.

Everyone except Bill, anyway. 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

So what if a gardener has his contract terminated? 

Would that be like a busman's holiday....

[All the Germans 1,073]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

so if I stop my part, will they stop being stupid ?

I think those two things may be mutually exclusive.

[king canary 7,559]

Oh god it is this discussion again?

[Bill 1,788]

11 hours ago, Indy said:

I’m not sure how it works in football but in real terms contracts are terminated and gardening leave is offered for the remainder of any notice period. As I’m not sure how morally it would work to be paying half of a players wage say if you sold him to another premiership team on a new contract! That’s why I believe upon any transfer the norm is to agree on a severance payment agreement between the player agent and club to terminate the existing contract before the new one is signed.

I’ve never heard of any player being paid by two clubs unless on-loan. I might well be wrong but I’d love for someone to post a link to say where a players been transferred and still being paid a wage by the selling club?

Thank you

Unfortunately Biscuit keeps chuntering on that the club can simply welsh on the contract if it wishes - and that any attempt to correct him means that I am suggesting that the player continues to get the remainder of his contract paid whilst also being paid by his new club 🤪

Whereas the club is liable for the full amount of the remainder of the contract. If the new contract is less then the player is entitled to have that amount paid to him, less the new wage, before his contract is ended.

I fail to see how this quite basic of understanding cannot be grasped. Players like Naismith should have highlighted this. The club cannot simply flog a player where it will be a lower waged contract and so cancel out his current contract, as claimed.

[king canary 7,559]

Just now, Bill said:

Thank you

Unfortunately Biscuit keeps chuntering on that the club can simply welsh on the contract if it wishes - and that any attempt to correct him means that I am suggesting that the player continues to get the remainder of his contract paid whilst also being paid by his new club 🤪

Whereas the club is liable for the full amount of the remainder of the contract. If the new contract is less then the player is entitled to have that amount paid to him, less the new wage, before his contract is ended.

I fail to see how this quite basic of understanding cannot be grasped. Players like Naismith should have highlighted this. The club cannot simply flog a player where it will be a lower waged contract and so cancel out his current contract, as claimed.

Oh christ.

I've read this thread and he claims nothing of the sort.

As someone else has mentioned you are basically saying the same thing. We can't force a player to accept a lower contract elsewhere but if a player agrees to that pay cut without any sweetner from us then we don't have to make up the shortfall. If we did shifting players would actually be quite a bit easier than it is.

[Bill 1,788]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Oh christ.

I've read this thread and he claims nothing of the sort.

As someone else has mentioned you are basically saying the same thing. We can't force a player to accept a lower contract elsewhere but if a player agrees to that pay cut without any sweetner from us then we don't have to make up the shortfall. If we did shifting players would actually be quite a bit easier than it is.

No, that is NOT what biscuit has been saying. His view is that the contract is not binding, but optional on the club's part

" who believe that every time we sell a player we have to carry on paying them for the duration of their contracts.   "

" yes I'm sure in some cases there will be situations where the club has to honour a contract but some on here have previously stated that this is the case whenever a player leaves us for a new club, which simply isn't the case "

" the in some cases I am referring to is if the new contract is of less value than the old contract, in this situation of course the player will want incentivising to move and this is normally a lump sum from either the new club or the old club depending on whether a transfer has taken place.  "

as you can see clearly not the same, as biscuit seems to think that is at the club's discretion, rather than a legal requirement ie the contract.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Bill

[BroadstairsR 2,135]

Wrong thread, I threaded that wrong oops.

Now deleted.

 

Bye Nelson (rasp.)

Edited July 22, 2019 by BroadstairsR

[king canary 7,559]

20 minutes ago, Bill said:

His view is that the contract is not binding, but optional on the club's part

Is it?

 

20 minutes ago, Bill said:

" who believe that every time we sell a player we have to carry on paying them for the duration of their contracts.   "

 " yes I'm sure in some cases there will be situations where the club has to honour a contract but some on here have previously stated that this is the case whenever a player leaves us for a new club, which simply isn't the case "

" the in some cases I am referring to is if the new contract is of less value than the old contract, in this situation of course the player will want incentivising to move and this is normally a lump sum from either the new club or the old club depending on whether a transfer has taken place.  "

 

None of those things say contracts are non-binding and none of them say we can just welch on a contract. All three of those statements are correct.

We don't HAVE to keep playing a player if we sell them, only if that agreement is struck between club and player, just as the player doesn't HAVE to accept the lower wage and move.

 

[SteveN8458 61]

23 minutes ago, Bill said:

".....biscuit seems to think that is at the club's discretion, ....

Where has he actually stated that?

Not your interpretation of what he wrote, but what he actually posted.

Please show me as I can not see it anywhere!

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

A player's contract is terminated upon transfer to another club.

If a player chooses to accept a lower wage at a different club, the selling club does not have to make up any shortfall.

However, some players will not accept a lower wage at a different club, and this is why clubs sometimes have trouble selling players. The player simply refuses to leave.

This is when a club might pay part of the player's salary at his new club to move him on and lessen their wage bill. However, it is not a contractual obligation.

So, in an example, Oliveira might have been on 30K a week, AEK come along only wanting to pay 20K a week. Norwich City suggest paying the difference to shift him. This is a business deal/negotiation, not a contractual clause.

It's all quite simple, and has been explained time and time again.

[king canary 7,559]

1 minute ago, Hoola Han Solo said:

A player's contract is terminated upon transfer to another club.

If a player chooses to accept a lower wage at a different club, the selling club does not have to make up any shortfall.

However, some players will not accept a lower wage at a different club, and this is why clubs sometimes have trouble selling players. The player simply refuses to leave.

This is when a club might pay part of the player's salary at his new club to move him on and lessen their wage bill. However, it is not a contractual obligation.

So, in an example, Oliveira might have been on 30K a week, AEK come along only wanting to pay 20K a week. Norwich City suggest paying the difference to shift him. This is a business deal/negotiation, not a contractual clause.

It's all quite simple, and has been explained time and time again.

Exactly.

Bill seems to think people are suggesting that we can just terminate a contract unilaterally or that we can somehow force a player to take a lower contract elsewhere but as far as I can see nobody is suggesting that. 

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

He's talking s hite on this one, but no doubt he'll change the wording/meaning and claim misrepresentation. Some people hate admitting they're wrong.

[JF 694]

Bill in being an argumentative insulting **** shocker. Amazing that he hasn’t been banned from the forum by now.

[Indy 3,283]

The reality.....

A player offered less wages can stay and see out his contract.

A player might decide to further his career to accept a move and a wage cut, ensuring he plays regular football, allowing the selling club to offload the player. (Huckerby signed for us and by all accounts took a wage cut, when signing for us, Man City didn’t carry on paying his wage shortfall).

A club trying to offload a high earning player can’t sell to another club and force a transfer without paying off an agreed severance payment to terminate the current contract.

Nelson left and by the report in the EDP

“City confirmed on Saturday afternoon that the Portuguese player had left on a permanent basis and it's understood that move did not involve a fee, as the final year of the striker's contract would have been worth in excess of £1million.”

that suggests we’re not paying any part wage (again something I’ve not heard any club do for a selling player) and the deal made was to wave any transfer fee. It might be that by doing so AEK made a one off signing fee to Oliveria additional to his wages. Unless the clubs are transparent in what happened it’s all supposition, I’d still like someone to point out where a players has terminated a contract signed for a new club and is still being paid by his previous club? 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Indy

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

1 hour ago, SteveN8458 said:

Where has he actually stated that?

Not your interpretation of what he wrote, but what he actually posted.

Please show me as I can not see it anywhere!

 

1 hour ago, SteveN8458 said:

Where has he actually stated that?

Not your interpretation of what he wrote, but what he actually posted.

Please show me as I can not see it anywhere!

I haven't actually said it. 

I do now give up though, as put before you can't reason with idiots so I've stopped trying 😂

[Mr Angry 1,542]

9 minutes ago, Indy said:

Unless the clubs are transparent in what happened it’s all supposition, I’d still like someone to point out where a players has terminated a contract signed for a new club and is still being paid by his previous club? 

I seem to remember a few transfers where Leeds were paying part of the player’s wages long after they were sold. 

[SteveN8458 61]

4 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

 

I haven't actually said it. 

I do now give up though, as put before you can't reason with idiots so I've stopped trying 😂

I'm just waiting for his reply 🙂

[Ian 1,129]

1 minute ago, SteveN8458 said:

I'm just waiting for his reply 🙂

I'm guessing it's going to involve the words "hand" and "crank"...

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

1 minute ago, SteveN8458 said:

I'm just waiting for his reply 🙂

It will just be quoting me on something else I hadn't actually said. 

Wish I'd not started now, although it has entertained me over the weekend. 

On a relevant note, bye Nelson 😁

[king canary 7,559]

21 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’d still like someone to point out where a players has terminated a contract signed for a new club and is still being paid by his previous club? 

https://www.complex.com/sports/2015/04/adebayor-still-paid-man-city