Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

If he’s gone on a permanent transfer then he’s off the wage bill full stop. If we didn’t get a fee we’ll still be saving a big wodge on his wages.

He’s clearly not right in the head and AEK must be off theirs signing him.

Good riddance...

If he didn't formally ask for a transfer (which I suspect) we would be legally obliged to compensate him for the remainder of his contract. So any fee we did receive will probably have gone straight to Oliviera 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

If he didn't formally ask for a transfer (which I suspect) we would be legally obliged to compensate him for the remainder of his contract. So any fee we did receive will probably have gone straight to Oliviera 

I think that's the loyalty bonus that you're thinking of. You only forego that if you hand in an official transfer request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

If he didn't formally ask for a transfer (which I suspect) we would be legally obliged to compensate him for the remainder of his contract. So any fee we did receive will probably have gone straight to Oliviera 

It might be legally correct but can’t be implemented in the vast majority of cases surely ?

When we sold Maddison to Leicester he must have signed for zillions more pay than he was on here. He hadn’t asked for a transfer but I can’t believe that the remainder of his lengthy contract with us was honoured. It must have evaporated in the T’s & C ‘s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex Moss said:

I’m not so sure, C - by the same token, I don’t think we saw the most of his talent to be honest. At the end of the day, he’s had his fair share of caps for Portugal, and you don’t get to play upfront for them unless you’re a very good footballer. He didn’t handle his behaviour well in the Fulham game, it was a very foolish thing to do in the heat of the moment, and ultimately cost him here big time, but I wish him well at AEK. A bit gutted we never really saw the best of him, but he was still 10x the player RVW or Naismith was.

Yeah, that's fair.

Maybe I'd have been more convinced if he'd kicked on after that good half season and led the line for us for an entire campaign.

Obviously he has natural talent and ability but his career path since Benfica doesnt suggest a player kicking on and improving from early promise. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had dozens better in that striker role than Oliveira in the past. Class (Davies, Ashton,) goal getting (Allcock, McDougall,) hard workers (Deehan, Jerome,) leaders (Curran, Holt) and many others so,for me, I find it difficult to wax lyrical about Nelson's talent or contribution to the cause.

He'd never make my Hall of Fame, Benfica or not. 

Good riddance say I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Not according to some on here who believe that every time we sell a player we have to carry on paying them for the duration of their contracts. 

On that basis if we don't stay up we'll be going out of business with all the new long term contracts we've been handing out. 

Maybe Webber is a closet binner and is trying to destroy us from within 😂

no. that's you making up stuff

what was said, and still holds good, is that City have to honour a player's contract and therefore cannot simply sell a player and so cancel that contract

ie if City sell Oliveira then they still have to ensure any difference in the contract is paid - which explains why City could not simply offload those on PL contracts

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bill said:

no. that's you making up stuff

what was said, and still holds good, is that City have to honour a player's contract and therefore cannot simply sell a player and so cancel that contract

ie if City sell Oliveira then they still have to ensure any difference in the contract is paid - which explains why City could not simply offload those on PL contracts

I was being ironic, 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. 

If this was the case then clubs wouldn't give any players long contracts as the long term financial effect would be crippling for the club.

Take the Maddison situation as an example, we needed to sell him so was that the club telling him he had to go and therefore not his choice or was he asking to go, if the former then he was given a new contract before he finally left that was longer in term so we are clearly still paying him are we? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

It might be legally correct but can’t be implemented in the vast majority of cases surely ?

When we sold Maddison to Leicester he must have signed for zillions more pay than he was on here. He hadn’t asked for a transfer but I can’t believe that the remainder of his lengthy contract with us was honoured. It must have evaporated in the T’s & C ‘s.

 

We'll never know. I would be happy to bet that NO had his contract paid up in full. It's easy to criticise him but after all, it was Norwich City who gave him the contract.

Madders may have agreed to give up his contract entitlement in exchange for being allowed to leave, but once again we'll never know. We were probably more desperate than him so his agent may have taken advantage. Players agents are well aware of Employment Law and work to their clients' advantage. And their advantage as well! 

In general, it's why players very rarely make a written transfer request these days and why it's even rarer that a manager resigns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

I was being ironic, 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. 

If this was the case then clubs wouldn't give any players long contracts as the long term financial effect would be crippling for the club.

Take the Maddison situation as an example, we needed to sell him so was that the club telling him he had to go and therefore not his choice or was he asking to go, if the former then he was given a new contract before he finally left that was longer in term so we are clearly still paying him are we? 

oh dear

oh dearie, dear me

it should beggar belief that someone could post up such absurd nonsense

ie it is at the whim of a club if they honour a player's contract :classic_wacko:

what on earth would be the point of a contract if it was not binding on both parties ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bill said:

no. that's you making up stuff

what was said, and still holds good, is that City have to honour a player's contract and therefore cannot simply sell a player and so cancel that contract

ie if City sell Oliveira then they still have to ensure any difference in the contract is paid - which explains why City could not simply offload those on PL contracts

If a player moves club, the contract he had with his previous club becomes null and void. A player cannot have two contracts with two clubs at the same time. If a player accepts a contract on a lower wage at his new club then the old club may have to pay part of his wages, but his old contract no longer exists.

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

oh dear

oh dearie, dear me

it should beggar belief that someone could post up such absurd nonsense

You've got a real habit of insulting and mocking people for being stupid when it is in fact you talking nonsense. Grow up.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely post nowadays but I feel I've gotta say this all seems pretty ludicrous. Of course if a player signs a new contract at another club his contact at their previous club becomes void. There may be some agreement of sorts about settlement to pay off the remainder of the contact as part of the sale negotiations, but they definitely would not be getting paid by 2 clubs at once. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A player cannot be forced to move clubs. So when an offer is made by a prospective new club, they will weigh up the pros and cons. If Nelson has a year left on his contract here which would pay £20K more than the contract on offer at AEK, he could well turn down the offer. If we then said we will give you £10K a week for that year, he might then change his mind and accept the offer. He’d be £500K  better off and so would we. That’s all that is going on here, all parties are negotiating to get the best result.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Vazzza said:

I rarely post nowadays but I feel I've gotta say this all seems pretty ludicrous. Of course if a player signs a new contract at another club his contact at their previous club becomes void. There may be some agreement of sorts about settlement to pay off the remainder of the contact as part of the sale negotiations, but they definitely would not be getting paid by 2 clubs at once. 

however that is how biscuit keeps claiming it is

neither is any 'settlement' down to it being 'may' either, as it is a contract

the usual term is of 'buying out a contract

the original 'argument was one of some claiming that a player could be sold into a lower contract with no regard to the current contract

that was, and still is, patent nonsense, if only that being shown by the problems caused by players we were stuck with after being relegated

if Biscuit and the others thoughts were correct we could have simply sold them without any recourse to their standing contract

absolutely absurd

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love what he could do when he was in the mood, for his sake I hope he gets his head down and works hard to do his best in Greece. I wish him well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most times once a player falls out with the club for whatever reason and is sold early in his contract, part of the negotiations will include any potential sweetener to encourage an early exit, to cover or partly cover any potential shortfall in the players contract. Most of the time it’ll be less than the club would need to finance to keep paying the remaining contracted wages.

Once a player is sold and enters a new contract with a new club the existing contract is concluded! The only time wages are payed by the parent club is during any loan agreements.

Im sure Beth would clear this up pretty quickly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Vazzza said:

I rarely post nowadays but I feel I've gotta say this all seems pretty ludicrous. Of course if a player signs a new contract at another club his contact at their previous club becomes void. There may be some agreement of sorts about settlement to pay off the remainder of the contact as part of the sale negotiations, but they definitely would not be getting paid by 2 clubs at once. 

It's only a problem if the player is moving on to a new club for less money and his current contract still has time to run.

I.e if you take Oliveira as an example, he has a year to run on his contract with us at 30k per week. We dont want him, we want to move him on. AEK will take him but can only afford 20k pw.

Nelson could just say, "Nah, I'm not moving" and wed be stuck still paying 30k per week for a player we arent using. 

So instead, we still pay 10k per week to cover that shortfall. Reality is we may have met in the middle and are paying 5k per week for the next 12 months.

So yes, Nelson could be receiving money from 2 clubs. 

It's really common for clubs that have an expensive player that they want to offload.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It's only a problem if the player is moving on to a new club for less money and his current contract still has time to run.

I.e if you take Oliveira as an example, he has a year to run on his contract with us at 30k per week. We dont want him, we want to move him on. AEK will take him but can only afford 20k pw.

Nelson could just say, "Nah, I'm not moving" and wed be stuck still paying 30k per week for a player we arent using. 

So instead, we still pay 10k per week to cover that shortfall. Reality is we may have met in the middle and are paying 5k per week for the next 12 months.

So yes, Nelson could be receiving money from 2 clubs. 

It's really common for clubs that have an expensive player that they want to offload.

thank you 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill said:

oh dear

oh dearie, dear me

it should beggar belief that someone could post up such absurd nonsense

ie it is at the whim of a club if they honour a player's contract :classic_wacko:

what on earth would be the point of a contract if it was not binding on both parties ?

Think you need to read again what I posted before you start the insults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Think you need to read again what I posted before you start the insults. 

" yes I'm sure in some cases there will be situations where the club has to honour a contract "

which suggests there are situations where a club does not have to honour a contract

do tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

It's only a problem if the player is moving on to a new club for less money and his current contract still has time to run.

I.e if you take Oliveira as an example, he has a year to run on his contract with us at 30k per week. We dont want him, we want to move him on. AEK will take him but can only afford 20k pw.

Nelson could just say, "Nah, I'm not moving" and wed be stuck still paying 30k per week for a player we arent using. 

So instead, we still pay 10k per week to cover that shortfall. Reality is we may have met in the middle and are paying 5k per week for the next 12 months.

So yes, Nelson could be receiving money from 2 clubs. 

It's really common for clubs that have an expensive player that they want to offload.

Thanks Hog, that makes it very clear 😎, after the Naismith saga I’m surprised some people don’t realise this is how it works!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bill said:

" yes I'm sure in some cases there will be situations where the club has to honour a contract "

which suggests there are situations where a club does not have to honour a contract

do tell

As you seem to like quoting stuff and I assume you have had the deceny to read again what I put. 

When a player is sold his contract with the selling club is terminated as the new club is giving him a new contract, 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. 

There are a lot of people on here who seem to know all of the contracts that players are on and the financial deals involved in transfers which is utter nonsense. 

I know someone senior at the club and he often chuckles at the crap posted on here by those making claims about wages and contracts. 

My suggestion about some cases is where the new wage is less, there have been some on here who have claimed that every contract has been honoured not just those on less money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Think you need to read again what I posted before you start the insults. 

Dont bother, no chance.

I assume you have had the deceny to read again what I put. "

He's posting in a drunken fenzy and reads only what he wants to see.....a bit pathetic for a grown man 😀

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Van wink said:

Dont bother, no chance.

I assume you have had the deceny to read again what I put. "

He's posting in a drunken fenzy and reads only what he wants to see.....a bit pathetic for a grown man 😀

Every forum has one I guess 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Every forum has one I guess 😂

That’s because he doesn’t “doff his cap to his betters“......sounds to me like he worked to rule during the 1970’s 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Indy said:

That’s because he doesn’t “doff his cap to his betters“......sounds to me like he worked to rule during the 1970’s 👍

A modern day Arthur Scargill  :classic_biggrin:

 

"I WAS astonished and gratified to read a letter published in a conservative newspaper from the arch bogeyman of my middle years, Arthur Scargill.

In his letter, Mr Scargill puts very forcefully and succinctly the case for getting out of the EU as quickly as possible without any transitional period.

Mr Scargill wrote from Barnsley in his capacity as leader of the Socialist Labour Party."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

As you seem to like quoting stuff and I assume you have had the deceny to read again what I put. 

When a player is sold his contract with the selling club is terminated as the new club is giving him a new contract, 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. 

There are a lot of people on here who seem to know all of the contracts that players are on and the financial deals involved in transfers which is utter nonsense. 

I know someone senior at the club and he often chuckles at the crap posted on here by those making claims about wages and contracts. 

My suggestion about some cases is where the new wage is less, there have been some on here who have claimed that every contract has been honoured not just those on less money. 

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bill said:

dear me, it gets worse

19 minutes ago, Van wink said:

:classic_biggrin::classic_biggrin::classic_biggrin:

Exactly!

Edited by Hairy Canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 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.

Yes, but that is rapidly becoming  "I couldn't really give a flying **** any more".

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

×
×
  • Create New...