Official transfer rumour thread

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

But you are not me ,so eat shoite. You are a hair splitting paranoid egotist, whereas I am not. So ,as you have been told many times before, do one. End of message. Stop.

Unsurprisingly you resort to getting angry and abuse when you find out that you have been lying

Pointing out the basic facts of pretty much every employment contract is not 'hair splitting 

likewise pointing out that what I am being accused of stating is a lie is not paranoia either

Perhaps we could discuss road sweeping next time, as I am sure that is one subject you will have a better knowledge of than me

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

4 minutes ago, rock bus said:

So depressing when a decent thread descends into two people just arguing with each other and sharing insults 😢

Oh, its more than two that get into it with  Billious. Though he'd claim that they are all the same person. In fact Im amazed that I havent been accused of being a certain retired Copper!!

Edited August 19, 2020 by wcorkcanary

[Bill 1,788]

5 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

PS with regards to Contracts and Bill. Just ignore him, it's really not worth the effort boys.

spoil sport

we've had some crackers, so don't discourage them

 

though it might help if some were able to quote from me, what they have made up 🤣

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

Well to quote you, "City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference". I'm making nothing up, I just don't understand what you mean by that, and you seem reluctant to clarify.

[All the Germans 1,078]

2 minutes ago, Fr. Chewy Louie said:

Well to quote you, "City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference". I'm making nothing up, I just don't understand what you mean by that, and you seem reluctant to clarify.

 

17 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

PS with regards to Contracts and Bill. Just ignore him, it's really not worth the effort boys.

Please just trust me.

[king canary 7,606]

3 hours ago, Bill said:

any sale will require Hugill being paid that amount in full by some combination of payment from the two clubs

Bill, this is the key sentence where you're well off base.

There is no requirement his wages be paid up in full when he is sold.

If he's on £30k a week and we offer him £20k max then any of the following could occur

1- he turns us down as he doesn't want the pay cut

2- he tells West Ham he'll only sign for us if they agree to make up part or all of the deficit, which they can agree to do or not. It doesn't have to be the full £10k p/w, just whatever is enough to make the player comfortable to sign.

3- he decides he'd rather move and play for us at £20k than stay at West Ham for £30k and signs with no agreement from West Ham.

Your claim above seems to suggest in the event of option 3, West Ham would be required to pay the extra £10k. This is not true. There may be outstanding loyalty bonuses they have to pay but they certainly aren't required to top up his wages if he agrees to a lower contract with us.

[Bill 1,788]

9 minutes ago, Fr. Chewy Louie said:

Well to quote you, "City could offer a percentage of that wage and WHU would make up the difference". I'm making nothing up, I just don't understand what you mean by that, and you seem reluctant to clarify.

I'll try is slowly

Hugill has a contract with WHU

For Hugill to sign for us it would mean WHU having to settle up the existing contract

If the mew contract is for less than that existing, WHU cannot unilaterally end that contract with the player

What is usual is that the selling club agrees to make up the difference between the two contracts

it really is that simple, honest

 

ps feel free to add to that and state 'so what you mean is' as others regularly do

as it allows them to 'prove' me wrong

 

[Indy 3,300]

So can we agree, if we sign Hugill, we will have enough cover with Pukki & Idah or do we need another striker if Drmic goes? Having seen the good post by Bill his goals certainly is different to what we have and if he’s here for Drmic even better!

We’re just a couple players in my book from our starting squad, do we need to have the eight homegrown players in each matchday squad?

Still need a decent CB and to get rid of a few fringe players off the books on loan or permanent, but great to still have the key 5 here! (Buendia, Cantwell, Aaron’s, Lewis & Godfrey).

[Bill 1,788]

"there is no requirement his wages be paid up in full when he is sold."

I got as far as that, as I have never stated that

[Grumpy 122]

Just as an aside to get away from all the playground stuff I always find it rather odd when the wage demands of any incoming player are mentioned.
Hugill is rumoured to be on about £35K a week/£140K a month. I really do find it strange that somebody earning that level of money would really be averse to taking a wage cut (albeit a sizeable chunk in my world but possibly not his,after all what the hell does he spend it all on) to play regular football.Anything over £10K a month would surely give anybody a pretty good lifestyle

[king canary 7,606]

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

"there is no requirement his wages be paid up in full when he is sold."

I got as far as that, as I have never stated that

Just to clarify, I mean his wages to be paid up in full between the two clubs- ie norwich to pay £20k and West Ham required to pay the remaining £10k.

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

So can we agree, if we sign Hugill, we will have enough cover with Pukki & Idah or do we need another striker if Drmic goes? Having seen the good post by Bill his goals certainly is different to what we have and if he’s here for Drmic even better!

We’re just a couple players in my book from our starting squad, do we need to have the eight homegrown players in each matchday squad?

Still need a decent CB and to get rid of a few fringe players off the books on loan or permanent, but great to still have the key 5 here! (Buendia, Cantwell, Aaron’s, Lewis & Godfrey).

Much will depend on how various players are able to perform

Football is not battle ships or netball, and despite the formation fannies players do move around the pitch

Which suggest we appear to have enough defensive cover with new signings being able to plat in various roles ie the Danish lad in a back 'four'

it is more about having a bid enough squad up to championship standard than trying to sign specialist'' players

[Indy 3,300]

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

I'll try is slowly

Hugill has a contract with WHU

For Hugill to sign for us it would mean WHU having to settle up the existing contract

If the mew contract is for less than that existing, WHU cannot unilaterally end that contract with the player

What is usual is that the selling club agrees to make up the difference between the two contracts

it really is that simple, honest

 

ps feel free to add to that and state 'so what you mean is' as others regularly do

as it allows them to 'prove' me wrong

 

By Jove I think I agree...... but the shortfall has to be settled on termination from what I read, I’m trying my hardest to find it, something to do with not one player can have two contracts with two teams and can only be registered by one club at a time. So no future wages can be paid as no contract is there.

Only when a player is rented can you agree to pay a percentage of wages, but the players still contracted to the original club, the payments are made to the parent club who still pays the loan player.

Anyhow who really cares, I think we all sort of agree, let’s move on!

What else do we need before we start the new season? CB

[Indy 3,300]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

Much will depend on how various players are able to perform

Football is not battle ships or netball, and despite the formation fannies players do move around the pitch

Which suggest we appear to have enough defensive cover with new signings being able to plat in various roles ie the Danish lad in a back 'four'

it is more about having a bid enough squad up to championship standard than trying to sign specialist'' players

I like having a decent squad with a few players who are happy to play multiple roles, but I also like a settled side too, I can see if we keep Godfrey, him & Zimbo getting their partnership back to the levels they were re promotion, with Skipp Dowell and Sørensen we have far stronger midfielders than we had, hopefully should help our defenders more with less goals conceded this coming season.

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Just to clarify, I mean his wages to be paid up in full between the two clubs- ie norwich to pay £20k and West Ham required to pay the remaining £10k.

His current contract requires WHU to pay him ;say; £3.5m over the next two years

Whether he chooses to terminate the that contract and sign for City on a lower figure is immaterial.

What matters is that he has the legal right to that contract being paid in full

What arrangement City and WHU come to is their business, but my point all along, as last year, is that this is the 'worst case' scenario is City have to buy out that full amount

You can then scale down from there

So if City need to spend £3.5 m buying out that contract would they then be so ready to add a large fee (£5m) on top

This is where it becomes a moot point. I would say that City would not, others will have their opinion

But ant opinion only has validity if that contract is accepted as the starting point

[Bill 1,788]

10 minutes ago, Indy said:

By Jove I think I agree...... but the shortfall has to be settled on termination from what I read, I’m trying my hardest to find it, something to do with not one player can have two contracts with two teams and can only be registered by one club at a time. So no future wages can be paid as no contract is there.

Only when a player is rented can you agree to pay a percentage of wages, but the players still contracted to the original club, the payments are made to the parent club who still pays the loan player.

Thank you, it really is not that difficult is it

[Indy 3,300]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

His current contract requires WHU to pay him ;say; £3.5m over the next two years

Whether he chooses to terminate the that contract and sign for City on a lower figure is immaterial.

What matters is that he has the legal right to that contract being paid in full

What arrangement City and WHU come to is their business, but my point all along, as last year, is that this is the 'worst case' scenario is City have to buy out that full amount

You can then scale down from there

So if City need to spend £3.5 m buying out that contract would they then be so ready to add a large fee (£5m) on top

This is where it becomes a moot point. I would say that City would not, others will have their opinion

But ant opinion only has validity if that contract is accepted as the starting point

👍 agree, on the flip side, the £3 + million figure being touted might be West Ham covering this wage shortfall and cutting their losses by not having to pay the wages for the next two years.

Even if they loan him for the next two years I doubt they would cover his wages.

[Indy 3,300]

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

Thank you, it really is not that difficult is it

Now now play nice!

[Top corner 228]

Any chance of these pages getting back to being about Official Transfer Rumours, inside of big kids refusing to back down & agreeing to disagree. Let’s just get back to the topic, after all, we all want the same thing OTBC

[Dr Greenthumb 749]

25 minutes ago, Bill said:

Thank you, it really is not that difficult is it

TRANSFER RUMOURS

[shefcanary 2,408]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

So, no-one interested in this Irish lad, brought up in Spain but played only in Italy then?  Seems far fetched but stranger things have happened.  

Anyone with any thoughts on this Ryan Nolan?  Anyone?

[ged in the onion bag 855]

29 minutes ago, Indy said:

I like having a decent squad with a few players who are happy to play multiple roles, but I also like a settled side too, I can see if we keep Godfrey, him & Zimbo getting their partnership back to the levels they were re promotion, with Skipp Dowell and Sørensen we have far stronger midfielders than we had, hopefully should help our defenders more with less goals conceded this coming season.

This is exactly the point.... provided we keep our better players.  

The problem wasn't the defence this season (in the main) it was the lack of cover, quality, pace and power in the DM position as well as the tactics that put intolerable strain on the defence.

Hopefully this Sorensen will be the answer.    Defensively, we have enough in Godfrey, Zimm, Famewo, Hanley and Klose.   Looks like it will be a squad of 25 (EFL voting soon) so some culling will be needed.    

[Uncle Fred 526]

Makes sense to have Cody McDonald back as 4th choice striker and 3rd choice keeper

[Midlands Yellow 3,985]

7 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

Makes sense to have Cody McDonald back as 4th choice striker and 3rd choice keeper

Jamie Cureton could be an option if Cody turned us down. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

42 minutes ago, Bill said:

His current contract requires WHU to pay him ;say; £3.5m over the next two years

Whether he chooses to terminate the that contract and sign for City on a lower figure is immaterial.

What matters is that he has the legal right to that contract being paid in full

What arrangement City and WHU come to is their business, but my point all along, as last year, is that this is the 'worst case' scenario is City have to buy out that full amount

You can then scale down from there

So if City need to spend £3.5 m buying out that contract would they then be so ready to add a large fee (£5m) on top

This is where it becomes a moot point. I would say that City would not, others will have their opinion

But ant opinion only has validity if that contract is accepted as the starting point

What matters is that he has the legal right to that contract being paid in full

 

This is not correct under the circumstances you've provided. For a contract to be legal and enforceable there has to be an element called 'consideration' present. You can google what consideration means in a contract. Consideration cannot be something in the past. So when the player signs a new contract with Norwich he is unable to perform the necessary conditions of consideration with WHU, and so the terms of contract with WHU no longer apply and the WHU contract is void. He no longer has the right to be paid in full

[kick it off 1,952]

1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

What matters is that he has the legal right to that contract being paid in full

 

This is not correct under the circumstances you've provided. For a contract to be legal and enforceable there has to be an element called 'consideration' present. You can google what consideration means in a contract. Consideration cannot be something in the past. So when the player signs a new contract with Norwich he is unable to perform the necessary conditions of consideration with WHU, and so the terms of contract with WHU no longer apply and the WHU contract is void. He no longer has the right to be paid in full

Finally some sense. Not often I'm on the same page as RTB but I've been hoping someone would chip in with something sensible and stop the nonsense (I couldn't be bothered to get dragged into it). This is how contract law works, those on here who are professing otherwise don't really know what they're on about, no matter how forcefully they say it.

[TIL 1010 4,746]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Jamie Cureton could be an option if Cody turned us down. 

Rob Newman lives locally so would be cheap as chips.

[Jerrykerry 223]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Rob Newman lives locally so would be cheap as chips.

Unfortunately he's eaten so many chips he would be useless. 

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

It makes you wonder how anyone can ever sign anyone who is under contract, the way some seem to think it works... 

[Midlands Yellow 3,985]

4 minutes ago, Jerrykerry said:

Unfortunately he's eaten so many chips he would be useless. 

Flecky might still know how to hit the onion bag.