Marshall contract cancelled

[Year of the tiger 54]

By mutual consent

https://www.canaries.co.uk/News/2019/july/ben-marshall-contract-with-norwich-city-terminated-by-mutual-consent/

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

Odd that we would just let him go for nothing...a player with 3 years still left on a contract would still surely be worth something in the transfer market?

[smooth 114]

Guess a nice pay off too!

[Surfer 1,547]

Unless the player and club agree otherwise, a player with three years left on his contract is owed three years of wages though, that is irrespective of whether he is transferred, so for the club the judgement is - what can we get for him v what are we committed to pay him? 

Agreeing to terminate a contract implies both sides see financial advantage to changing the status quo. As a free agent he can ask for higher wages as any new club will not also have to pay a transfer feee. NCFC lose any transfer fee, but reduce their future wage commitments - possibly for 2020 21, and 2021-22 but not this season, IMO. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Surfer

[......and Smith must score. 1,332]

3 minutes ago, Surfer said:

Unless the player and club agree otherwise, a player with three years left on his contract is owed three years of wages though, irrespective of whether he is transferred, so for the club the judgement is - what can we get for him v what are we committed to pay him? 

Agreeing to terminate a contract implies both sides see financial advantage to changing that status quo. As a free agent he can ask for more in wages as any new club will not also have to pay a transfer feee. NCFc lose A transfer fee, but reduce wage commitments - possibly for 2020 21, and 2021-22 but not this season. 

No offence but best we await confirmation of the above from our resident legal expert, City 1st, who’ll be along very shortly 

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Hope this doesn't turn in to a contract debate!?

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

...could understand this if the transfer window had shut...but to do it beforehand must show a lack of intetested parties??......we even got £1m for Marley Warkins last year!

[AJ 1,218]

Makes sense seeing as we’ve signed another right back now

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

3 hours ago, AJ said:

Makes sense seeing as we’ve signed another right back now

Whatever Marshall was....a right back he certainly wasnt

Edited July 27, 2019 by GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary

[dylanisabaddog 4,859]

We wouldn't have got any more than £1m for him and the wages remaining owing on his contract would have far exceeded that. It makes good sense to negotiate a compromise and let him go. It would be easy to criticise the club for making a mistake with him but it's peanuts compared to the profit we will make on some of the Webber/Farke signings.

Someone has said we got £1m for Watkins but he didn't have a promotion increase in salary and we may in any case have agreed a compromise on the remainder of his contract as well.

Sh*t happens. In days gone by it used to happen all the time 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

we basically were paying him more than he was worth. Nobody interested in him would match what he could earn here even with no transfer fee so we have come to a compromise with him so now he can go accept a lower wage and get on with playing football again.

[Indy 3,283]

Looks like we’ve certain trimmed all high earning non contributors and filled their places with young under 23 youth players, certainly looks like we’ve changed our philosophy and sticking by it regardless of what money comes in.

Great to see, I’d much rather a settled squad with a really good youth set up with bags of potential to keep quality youngsters coming through.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,076]

It's possible he may have had a sell-on clause in his contract (cant remember if we paid for him or if he was a free). This would also impact on any calculations regarding a realistic fee. Presumably if he had any performance related pay (promotion etc) he has already copped that

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

It's also extremely unlikely that he's walked away with 3 years salary as a lump sum. 

There is absolutely no point in the club doing that as on that basis we might aswell keep him and play him in the u23's as paying off the whole of his contract doesn't give the club any benefit. 

The benefit to Marshall is getting a lump sum and he's probably already got another contract lined up. 

And before anyone starts, yes I know that contractually he can be paid for 3 years but if he's instigated this as has been reported it has to also make sense for the club and there is no value in paying a player to leave at the same value as if he stayed. 

[Surfer 1,547]

That's why I suggested he's gone with maybe a years salary. If we had to pay up all three years, then NCFC should try to sell him for whatever money they can get, even if they still had to subsidise a portion of his salary over that timeframe. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Surfer

[Indy 3,283]

44 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

It's also extremely unlikely that he's walked away with 3 years salary as a lump sum. 

There is absolutely no point in the club doing that as on that basis we might aswell keep him and play him in the u23's as paying off the whole of his contract doesn't give the club any benefit. 

The benefit to Marshall is getting a lump sum and he's probably already got another contract lined up. 

And before anyone starts, yes I know that contractually he can be paid for 3 years but if he's instigated this as has been reported it has to also make sense for the club and there is no value in paying a player to leave at the same value as if he stayed. 

If we had to pay for the full three years it would be more beneficial to keep him and loan him to get partial wages covered over the three years.

I’m pretty sure as you said it’ll be a limited severance payment to terminate his contract.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

11 minutes ago, Surfer said:

That's why I suggested he's gone with maybe a years salary. If we had to pay up all three years, then NCFC should try to sell him for whatever money they can get, even if they still had to subsidise a portion of his salary over that timeframe. 

Sorry, missed that bit 🤦🏻‍♂️

[dylanisabaddog 4,859]

29 minutes ago, Indy said:

If we had to pay for the full three years it would be more beneficial to keep him and loan him to get partial wages covered over the three years.

I’m pretty sure as you said it’ll be a limited severance payment to terminate his contract.

If I had to guess I'd say he has a 3 year contract on Championship money lined up somewhere and we have paid the balance to bring him up to what he would have earned if he had stayed. So back of a fag packet we will have coughed up £600k minimum instead of paying him £3m over 3 years.  Those figures are a complete guess but it is still a cheap way out of one of the few signings in the last couple of years that hasn't worked 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Pity Naismith had'nt been so gracious.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

Might be worth keeping an eye on where he ends up, if it is for a team with a player we have an interest in, letting him go this way may be part of any future deal.......

[Nuff Said 5,088]

If anyone thinks Webber will have negotiated a poor deal by letting Marshall go for whatever it cost us, I can put them in touch with a Nigerian prince who could do with their help getting his money out of the country.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

53 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

If anyone thinks Webber will have negotiated a poor deal by letting Marshall go for whatever it cost us, I can put them in touch with a Nigerian prince who could do with their help getting his money out of the country.

No one has said that as yet, mind you Bill hasn't been on yet 😂

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

2 hours ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

No one has said that as yet, mind you Bill hasn't been on yet 😂

He'll insist that we paid up his entire contract in full. Either that or we acted illegally by cancelling it because contract means contract.

[splendidrush 699]

There's talk on the paupers website that he'd be ideal on a free.... surely he's better than that. 

[Unhinged Canary 375]

13 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Pity Naismith had'nt been so gracious.

I've not been on here for a bit, but at the bottom of that article it said that Marshall, Husband, Naismith, Wildshut, Jarvis and Oliviera have all gone! Am I dreaming?

[splendidrush 699]

2 hours ago, Unhinged Canary said:

I've not been on here for a bit, but at the bottom of that article it said that Marshall, Husband, Naismith, Wildshut, Jarvis and Oliviera have all gone! Am I dreaming?

Nope, just Unhinged 😉

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

That all those players at their best (with the possible exception of Hubby?) would have been capable of being in a competitive Championship side shows just how far we have come in such a short time.

 It would not be a side that would threaten the relegation places that's for sure. No wonder the binners on TWTD have expressed an interest in both Marshall and Windshutt recently.

Edited July 28, 2019 by BroadstairsR

[AJ 1,218]

On 27/07/2019 at 13:47, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Whatever Marshall was....a right back he certainly wasnt

Have to disagree with this, even if he was capable of playing elsewhere he was our only defensive cover for right back once Pinto left! He was kept until we signed Passlack then shipped out, and now dumped because we’ve sold Byram. Make of that what you will!