Cheerio

[Hairy Canary 668]

18 minutes ago, Indy said:

 

“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.”

 

Interesting that that figure puts Nelson's wage at around the £20k a week mark. It does says "in excess" of £1m so would be more than that but the £30k and £40k figures that get quoted look to be wide of the mark.

[king canary 7,578]

1 minute ago, Hairy Canary said:

Interesting that that figure puts Nelson's wage at around the £20k a week mark. It does says "in excess" of £1m so would be more than that but the £30k and £40k figures that get quoted look to be wide of the mark.

He was signed in the Championship so I doubt he was on more than £25k max. May have gone up after promotion though.

[Mr Angry 1,545]

Just Googled it, when Robbie Fowler moved from Leeds to Man City it was agreed that he would still be paid by Leeds until the end of his contract-which wasn’t ending for another 3 years! 

Apparently Steve Morison also carried on getting paid by Leeds after he moved to Millwall.

[king canary 7,578]

Just now, Mr Angry said:

Just Googled it, when Robbie Fowler moved from Leeds to Man City it was agreed that he would still be paid by Leeds until the end of his contract-which wasn’t ending for another 3 years! 

Apparently Steve Morison also carried on getting paid by Leeds after he moved to Millwall.

It is quite common, especially when players are into the last year or so of their contract. 

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

Just now, Mr Angry said:

Just Googled it, when Robbie Fowler moved from Leeds to Man City it was agreed that he would still be paid by Leeds until the end of his contract-which wasn’t ending for another 3 years! 

Apparently Steve Morison also carried on getting paid by Leeds after he moved to Millwall.

Leeds paid Robbie Keane too after his move to Spurs. 

I'm still looking forward to Bill shouting at us about how he is indeed right and we're all wrong. 

[Six Pack 91]

It appears that Nelson was on about £20,000 per week which isn't excessive prem wages. We are looking for players to backup Pukki.

You don't have to like the guy. We know he'd be hard to work with but if we are just needing people that can come on and get us goals when required (i.e. Fulham) - why not persevere with play him ? Surely Webber or someone at the club could have talked him around. Too late now !

[splendidrush 699]

4 minutes ago, Six Pack said:

 

You don't have to like the guy. We know he'd be hard to work with but if we are just needing people that can come on and get us goals when required (i.e. Fulham) - why not persevere with play him ? Surely Webber or someone at the club could have talked him around. 

I thought you were talking about Bill. Then I realised you were talking nonsense. 🤭

[Six Pack 91]

3 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

I thought you were talking about Bill. Then I realised you were talking nonsense. 🤭

What part do you see as nonsense splendidrush ? The part that he's on £20,000 per week or the part that you think just because he's a bad apple - he can't score goals ?

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

31 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Just Googled it, when Robbie Fowler moved from Leeds to Man City it was agreed that he would still be paid by Leeds until the end of his contract-which wasn’t ending for another 3 years! 

Apparently Steve Morison also carried on getting paid by Leeds after he moved to Millwall.

Which is actually what I said, although not with specifics when I said in some cases. 

In those cases I suspect the clubs wanted them off the wage bill and rather than paying a lump sum they wanted to account for it over a period of time. 

My original point is that some on here suggest that everytime a player leaves a club before the end of his contract whether through choice or not the current club has to carry on paying the player. 

In Nelsons situation it seems to suggest that we haven't asked for a fee therefore Nelson has maybe taken a signing on fee from AEK therefore removing the problem of less wages if that is even indeed the case. 

[hogesar 9,618]

As if there's been three pages of discussion on if a player could still be paid by his previous club to make up for a wage shortfall 😂😂😂

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

Just now, hogesar said:

As if there's been three pages of discussion on if a player could still be paid by his previous club to make up for a wage shortfall 😂😂😂

Tell me about it. Welcome to the Pinkun Forum! Many a time have I seen longer discussions on far more trivial topics.

[BobLoz3 492]

Oh has Nelson gone has he?

Hadn't noticed.

Well, that's some wages freed up for a new Defensive Mi.... Oh screw it! 😂

[splendidrush 699]

1 hour ago, Six Pack said:

What part do you see as nonsense splendidrush ? The part that he's on £20,000 per week or the part that you think just because he's a bad apple - he can't score goals ?

Never said that he can't score goals, the idea that, with his attitude, DF/SW would risk 'a bad apple' in the group, after all the hard work from everyone at the Club..... I'm sorry, but I stand by what I said, it's nonsense. 

[Indy 3,283]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

It is quite common, especially when players are into the last year or so of their contract. 

 

Thanks guys, I wasn’t aware of this.

[Budapest Canary 152]

AEK made it to the group stages of the Champion's League last season (after knocking out Celtic and Fehérvár - the latter with some luck and help from the ref as I witnessed it on the spot), which means they may have enough money to afford his wages (or contribute a large chunk) . As AEK is a big team in Greece, they are likely to fight for the title this season besides playing some European football in the EL. All in all he's likely to enjoy himself more than he did with us.  Anyway I wish him the best. The same goes for Pinto, whom I'm likely to see in a fortnight with his old/new team, Dynamo Zagreb in a fortnight or so in Budapest against Ferencváros in the CL.

[SwindonCanary 455]

https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/football/transfer-news/former-nottingham-forest-star-nelson-3120162

[Van wink 2,994]

9 hours ago, Ian said:

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

One trick pony

[Bill 1,788]

9 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Just Googled it, when Robbie Fowler moved from Leeds to Man City it was agreed that he would still be paid by Leeds until the end of his contract-which wasn’t ending for another 3 years! 

Apparently Steve Morison also carried on getting paid by Leeds after he moved to Millwall.

oh dear the thickos won't welcome that - their view is that a contract is optional as to whether it has to be adhered to. Payments are made at the club's discretion rather than being a legally binding agreement.

Which rather begs the question of why there was such a fuss about the club's high wage bill when the parachute payments were only 2 years. NCFC should have employed Biscuit who could help sell the players then told them there was no legal requirement to honour there contract !

Yes I know.... absolute bollox.

The contract IS binding. Therefore the player is due what was agreed with the selling club.How this is funded will eventually fall on the buying club. But the idea that a palyer moving on to a lower wage contract can simply be 'fobbed off' with what the selling club thinks is utter nonsense. If it were not nonsense then NCFC could have simply sold all the unwanted, high wage players to clubs for a lower contract.

If as with McNally the clubs wants to terminate his contract then he is due the amount left on his contract, as with Moxey..... but not players it would seem.

Payments due will not be a lump sum as said on here but will simply continue as per normal.  With any new football contract being deducted from the old contract. That is all that happens with players.

Odd that something so simple cannot be grasped by some.

[SteveN8458 61]

11 minutes ago, Bill said:

oh dear the thickos won't welcome that - their view is that a contract is optional as to whether it has to be adhered to. Payments are made at the club's discretion rather than being a legally binding agreement.

Which rather begs the question of why there was such a fuss about the club's high wage bill when the parachute payments were only 2 years. NCFC should have employed Biscuit who could help sell the players then told them there was no legal requirement to honour there contract !

Yes I know.... absolute bollox.

The contract IS binding. Therefore the player is due what was agreed with the selling club.How this is funded will eventually fall on the buying club. But the idea that a palyer moving on to a lower wage contract can simply be 'fobbed off' with what the selling club thinks is utter nonsense. If it were not nonsense then NCFC could have simply sold all the unwanted, high wage players to clubs for a lower contract.

If as with McNally the clubs wants to terminate his contract then he is due the amount left on his contract, as with Moxey..... but not players it would seem.

Payments due will not be a lump sum as said on here but will simply continue as per normal.  With any new football contract being deducted from the old contract. That is all that happens with players.

Odd that something so simple cannot be grasped by some.

from what I have read, only you BILL has used the term 'optional'

Prey show me, as a new be, where someone else has used that very term please.

[Van wink 2,994]

No dont Steve, the skill 😉 is in making things up that people didnt say, then pretending you said something else, then congratulating yourself for getting something right that either you never said or you got wrong or was so bleedin obvious nobody else bothered to post it.( something like that anyway )

Its a needy individual😀

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

1 hour ago, SteveN8458 said:

from what I have read, only you BILL has used the term 'optional'

Prey show me, as a new be, where someone else has used that very term please.

Don't bother Steve, it's not worth the finger effort to bother with him. 

He reads what he wants, interprets what he needs and tries to come across as some kind of authority. 

Great though that I've just earned myself a job at the club, look out Mr Webber in coming for you 😂

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

oh dear the thickos won't welcome that - their view is that a contract is optional as to whether it has to be adhered to. Payments are made at the club's discretion rather than being a legally binding agreement.

Which rather begs the question of why there was such a fuss about the club's high wage bill when the parachute payments were only 2 years. NCFC should have employed Biscuit who could help sell the players then told them there was no legal requirement to honour there contract !

Yes I know.... absolute bollox.

The contract IS binding. Therefore the player is due what was agreed with the selling club.How this is funded will eventually fall on the buying club. But the idea that a palyer moving on to a lower wage contract can simply be 'fobbed off' with what the selling club thinks is utter nonsense. If it were not nonsense then NCFC could have simply sold all the unwanted, high wage players to clubs for a lower contract.

If as with McNally the clubs wants to terminate his contract then he is due the amount left on his contract, as with Moxey..... but not players it would seem.

Payments due will not be a lump sum as said on here but will simply continue as per normal.  With any new football contract being deducted from the old contract. That is all that happens with players.

Odd that something so simple cannot be grasped by some.

And there we go again with the condescending playground insults, when everyone has pointed out that you are indeed wrong and not one person agrees with you. 

Re-read your last sentence and add the letters 'o', 'n' and 'e' at the end of the final word.

[Barbe bleu 812]

If the two parties to a contract agree to cancel it then it no longer binds either.

If a player wants to leave and the club want him to leave then the contract is annulled with no further money to be paid.

Slightly different situation if the club wants to sell but the player doesn't want to break his current contract ( for instance if the buying club won't match his wage expectations).  In this case the player may choose to stay or negotiate an inducement to annul. Any inducement won't be his salary as there will be no contract of employment although it may look as though it is.

[All the Germans 1,075]

Definitely a windup.

[Indy 3,283]

56 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

If the two parties to a contract agree to cancel it then it no longer binds either.

If a player wants to leave and the club want him to leave then the contract is annulled with no further money to be paid.

Slightly different situation if the club wants to sell but the player doesn't want to break his current contract ( for instance if the buying club won't match his wage expectations).  In this case the player may choose to stay or negotiate an inducement to annul. Any inducement won't be his salary as there will be no contract of employment although it may look as though it is.

In other words severance pay, might not be a one of payment but a series of agreed payments, but certainly not wages, agreed.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

8 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

If the two parties to a contract agree to cancel it then it no longer binds either.

If a player wants to leave and the club want him to leave then the contract is annulled with no further money to be paid.

Slightly different situation if the club wants to sell but the player doesn't want to break his current contract ( for instance if the buying club won't match his wage expectations).  In this case the player may choose to stay or negotiate an inducement to annul. Any inducement won't be his salary as there will be no contract of employment although it may look as though it is.

And I guess therefore only relevant on SOME of the contracts and not on all contracts 🤔

[SteveN8458 61]

@VW/RTTB,

Thanks guys, I appreciate your sentiment but I much rather have firsthand experience before I consider the individual to be a Richard Head. Bill has avoided 2 direct questions, spouted bo//oks but doesn't have any!

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

12 hours ago, Bill said:

oh dear the thickos won't welcome that - their view is that a contract is optional as to whether it has to be adhered to. Payments are made at the club's discretion rather than being a legally binding agreement.

Which rather begs the question of why there was such a fuss about the club's high wage bill when the parachute payments were only 2 years. NCFC should have employed Biscuit who could help sell the players then told them there was no legal requirement to honour there contract !

Yes I know.... absolute bollox.

The contract IS binding. Therefore the player is due what was agreed with the selling club.How this is funded will eventually fall on the buying club. But the idea that a palyer moving on to a lower wage contract can simply be 'fobbed off' with what the selling club thinks is utter nonsense. If it were not nonsense then NCFC could have simply sold all the unwanted, high wage players to clubs for a lower contract.

If as with McNally the clubs wants to terminate his contract then he is due the amount left on his contract, as with Moxey..... but not players it would seem.

Payments due will not be a lump sum as said on here but will simply continue as per normal.  With any new football contract being deducted from the old contract. That is all that happens with players.

Odd that something so simple cannot be grasped by some.

Please point us to some evidence that backs up your 'claims'.

Odd that everybody apart from you, 'the thickos', are able to grasp it, but you still have no idea what you're going on about.

 

 

ps please do remove your head from your a rse.

[Barbe bleu 812]

If bill is correct that the old contract is still running despite a new one being signed elsewhere what would stop the old club sacking the player when he doesn't turn up for training or a game?

 

Presumably the contract works both ways?

[king canary 7,578]

10 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

If the two parties to a contract agree to cancel it then it no longer binds either.

If a player wants to leave and the club want him to leave then the contract is annulled with no further money to be paid.

Slightly different situation if the club wants to sell but the player doesn't want to break his current contract ( for instance if the buying club won't match his wage expectations).  In this case the player may choose to stay or negotiate an inducement to annul. Any inducement won't be his salary as there will be no contract of employment although it may look as though it is.

This is the most succinct way of putting it.