Official transfer rumour thread

[Indy 3,300]

10 minutes 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

Technically though Hugill could decide not to move and see out the rest of his contract, so there’s a valid point to Bills statement, but you’re right once two clubs settle on contracts for transfers that’s the end of any legal right on his existing contract, exactly what I’ve been saying!

Can we all move on......

[Big O 225]

6 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Flecky might still know how to hit the onion bag. 

Chris Sutton might be able to provide a cheap alternative to hudgil as a physical presence off the bench. If not him Iwan and Hucks are still floating about 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

3 minutes ago, Big O said:

Chris Sutton might be able to provide a cheap alternative to hudgil as a physical presence off the bench. If not him Iwan and Hucks are still floating about 

There's only one man to call if we are in need of more striking options - Dean 'I can even score off my ar5e' Coney. LEG-end!

OTBC

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

26 minutes 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

Is that the screeching of brakes I hear before the Billy Bus hits reverse 🙉

[Indy 3,300]

1 minute ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

There's only one man to call if we are in need of more striking options - Dean 'I can even score off my ar5e' Coney. LEG-end!

OTBC

You’re all overlooking the only player to have a 100% scoring record with his head, big Dave.

[Surfer 1,547]

Bill is right and those who are arguing against him are wrong. 

A Player has a contract with Club A. It is a valid contract if there has been "consideration" i.e. money and services have been exchanged between the two parties. Assuming it's a normal contract, Player has the right to the full amount of his monetary compensation just as the club has the exclusive right to his services for the duration of that contract. If either party wants to terminate the contact that must be mutually agreed - there could be a release clause for example - or resolved in court or via arbitration, but assuming the Player does not want to leave Club A, it must pay up his remaining contract if they force him. 

Club B now enters into negotiation with Club A to transfer Player's registration. That cannot happen without his agreement, or forcing him out of his contract. So it's now up to the Player to consider if he will take a reduction in weekly payments, or if he insists on being paid in full for the remaining value of the contact he holds with Club A. 

You can't just transfer a player and force him to take a lower monthly payment - not since the Bosman ruling anyway. 

 

It works in a similar way in reverse too. A player can't just sign a new contract with Club B. Club A retains the right to his services under the contract. Player would be in breach of contract with Club A due to withholding his services, even if he told Club A they they no longer need to pay him. As Club A retains the Player registration until they release it he would not be able to play for Club B anyway until an agreement has been reached. Assuming the Player wants to go to Club B, an agreement between Player and Club A may be reached that does not involve payment of the full amount of the remaining contract as the Player is withdrawing his services, he is not entitled to compensation for the period of time the services are not available to the club.

Edited August 19, 2020 by Surfer

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

15 minutes 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

Sorry but you're wrong. Consideration is part of the 3 aspects of any contract. Offer, consideration and acceptance are required for a contract to be legally binding. But consideration doesn't come into play when a contract is terminated. 

If a player makes a formal request for a contract to be terminated he is not entitled to any further payment under that contract. That rarely happens unless a club are happy to keep a player and tell him he has to request a transfer if he wants to leave. 

If a club accepts an offer for a player the legal position is that they are liable to pay up his contract in full. That again rarely happens although Norwich City has done it in the past on very odd occasions. 

What normally happens is that the termination payment forms part of the negotiations between the 3 parties, being the 2 clubs and the player. 

If the reports that Hugill is on £35k a week are true then he will almost certainly be looking to be paid compensation for giving up his right to receive that amount. Although it's West Ham who are liable they will be looking for an increased fee to take account of that liability. It's one of the main reasons transfer negotiations take so long. 

A good example is Jamal Lewis. If we were offered £35m for him we would probably quite happily pay up his contract. If the offer was £15m we would probably tell him to request a transfer if he wanted to go. 

Everything is subject to negotiation but any termination payment has to be paid in full at the time of the transfer. A player cannot be paid by 2 different clubs at the same time. 

 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

8 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Is that the screeching of brakes I hear before the Billy Bus hits reverse 🙉

The Billy Bus...you'll expect to go to Yarmouth, end up in King's Lynn and get charged double for the privilege....and all of it will be your fault because you lied about where you wanted to go.

OTBC

Edited August 19, 2020 by Disco Dales Jockstrap

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

So who’s paying the contract up then, everyone in agreement yet? 

[Surfer 1,547]

In this case, West Ham (because his contract is with West Ham) . It's really not that difficult. 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry but you're wrong. Consideration is part of the 3 aspects of any contract. Offer, consideration and acceptance are required for a contract to be legally binding. But consideration doesn't come into play when a contract is terminated. 

If a player makes a formal request for a contract to be terminated he is not entitled to any further payment under that contract. That rarely happens unless a club are happy to keep a player and tell him he has to request a transfer if he wants to leave. 

If a club accepts an offer for a player the legal position is that they are liable to pay up his contract in full. That again rarely happens although Norwich City has done it in the past on very odd occasions. 

What normally happens is that the termination payment forms part of the negotiations between the 3 parties, being the 2 clubs and the player. 

If the reports that Hugill is on £35k a week are true then he will almost certainly be looking to be paid compensation for giving up his right to receive that amount. Although it's West Ham who are liable they will be looking for an increased fee to take account of that liability. It's one of the main reasons transfer negotiations take so long. 

A good example is Jamal Lewis. If we were offered £35m for him we would probably quite happily pay up his contract. If the offer was £15m we would probably tell him to request a transfer if he wanted to go. 

Everything is subject to negotiation but any termination payment has to be paid in full at the time of the transfer. A player cannot be paid by 2 different clubs at the same time. 

 

A transfer fee is really just compensation to the selling club, taking into account the player value, commercial worth, previous contract elements that might cost his present club etc etc. If we pay £5 million for this new chap, all of those elements will be accounted for in that fee.

OTBC

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

Just now, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

A transfer fee is really just compensation to the selling club, taking into account the player value, commercial worth, previous contract elements that might cost his present club etc etc. If we pay £5 million for this new chap, all of those elements will be accounted for in that fee.

OTBC

Precisely 

[Dr Greenthumb 749]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Anyone with any thoughts on this Ryan Nolan?  Anyone?

I’d imagine it’d be the same as all the other youth signings. Club will loan out. Can’t say I have ever heard of him and he won’t be ready for the champs yet. Good to hear he has inter experience though

[Bill 1,788]

58 minutes ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Is that the screeching of brakes I hear before the Billy Bus hits reverse 🙉

or, the posts following your stupidity, confirm what is known and what I have stated

 

p[s best not to use the name Billy, bit of a give away, cumprende

Edited August 19, 2020 by Bill

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

46 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry but you're wrong. Consideration is part of the 3 aspects of any contract. Offer, consideration and acceptance are required for a contract to be legally binding. But consideration doesn't come into play when a contract is terminated. 

If a player makes a formal request for a contract to be terminated he is not entitled to any further payment under that contract. That rarely happens unless a club are happy to keep a player and tell him he has to request a transfer if he wants to leave. 

If a club accepts an offer for a player the legal position is that they are liable to pay up his contract in full. That again rarely happens although Norwich City has done it in the past on very odd occasions. 

What normally happens is that the termination payment forms part of the negotiations between the 3 parties, being the 2 clubs and the player. 

If the reports that Hugill is on £35k a week are true then he will almost certainly be looking to be paid compensation for giving up his right to receive that amount. Although it's West Ham who are liable they will be looking for an increased fee to take account of that liability. It's one of the main reasons transfer negotiations take so long. 

A good example is Jamal Lewis. If we were offered £35m for him we would probably quite happily pay up his contract. If the offer was £15m we would probably tell him to request a transfer if he wanted to go. 

Everything is subject to negotiation but any termination payment has to be paid in full at the time of the transfer. A player cannot be paid by 2 different clubs at the same time. 

 

I think there is a lot of confusion here because it is fairly obvious that a player and a club that owns his registration can change the terms of contract at any time if both sides mutually agree. Nobody is disputing that. So if a second club comes along and wants to sign up that player then if the player and his first club are in agreement to terminate the original contract and work out some termination settlement between them then no one disputes their right to do that. But this is not what Bill says. Bill's claim is that the player has the right to demand payment for the remaining amount yet to be paid on the rest of the contract. He even claimed that it might even be Norwich, as the purchasing club, who might have to pay the outstanding amount.

Of course Consideration ends when a contract is terminated, but there has to be Consideration for a contract to be valid. So a club has to pay a salary, provide training facilities, transport to games etc and a player has to turn up for training, turn up for matches, etc in order to provide Consideration. If a player is no longer turning up for training at WHU because he has signed a new contract with NCFC he is no longer performing his contract and he won't be entitled to be paid for services he hasn't provided.

Otherwise, a player can just see out his contract by turning up for training and abide by the terms of his contract and the club will have to pay him, that's true enough.

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

I was thinking having very limited Internet access at the moment was a bit of a pain, until I read the last four pages of this thread, and suddenly I saw the upside... 

[Bill 1,788]

I;ll admit that I never said that the sky is blue and the sun is yellow.

Oversights that prove what I did say must therefore be wrong

My failure to mention the colour of grass also negates my points

Bill's claim is that the player has the right to demand payment for the remaining amount yet to be paid on the rest of the contract.  That makes no sense whatsoever

He even claimed that it might even be Norwich, as the purchasing club, who might have to pay the outstanding amount. Nope, that is just you lying as I have never said that,

a player can just see out his contract by turning up for training and abide by the terms of his contract and the club will have to pay him, that's true enough. err yes, most already know that - and it just contradicts the rest of the nonsense you have spouted

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I was thinking having very limited Internet access at the moment was a bit of a pain, until I read the last four pages of this thread, and suddenly I saw the upside... 

good to see habitual whiners like you and plod read all this

I must admit I am nowhere near as diligent

so well done to the pair of you

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Is it not just as simple as it is in Football manager? If hugill is on £35k then the only way that changes is if we buy him outright and offer him a contract for more or less money and different conditions. His contract with WHU would then be over since we agreed a fee to release him from it.

If its a loan, he stays on his West Ham contract and we pay an agreed proportion of it and perhaps a loan fee on top of that if required.

To me, the final deal will look like this:

We pay £2m up front and agree £2m of bonuses basically based on if we go up.

We agree a contract with Hugill but for around £25k-£30k a week but maybe an extra year on it and incentives for promotion that maybe means he would be on £40k. He happily takes the hit so he can get his career back on track and have a route to first team football at a more suitable level for him.

If we can't persuade him to drop his wage then maybe it will be a loan where we take his wages on board for the season with a nominal fee on top and then obligation to buy if promoted (like Quintilla deal).

[Bill 1,788]

11 minutes ago, Tetteys Jig said:

 If hugill is on £35k then the only way that changes is if we buy him outright and offer him a contract for more or less money and different conditions. His contract with WHU would then be over since we agreed a fee to release him from it.

If its a loan, he stays on his West Ham contract and we pay an agreed proportion of it and perhaps a loan fee on top of that if required.

To me, the final deal will look like this:

We pay £2m up front and agree £2m of bonuses basically based on if we go up.

We agree a contract with Hugill but for around £25k-£30k a week but maybe an extra year on it and incentives for promotion that maybe means he would be on £40k. He happily takes the hit so he can get his career back on track and have a route to first team football at a more suitable level for him.

If we can't persuade him to drop his wage then maybe it will be a loan where we take his wages on board for the season with a nominal fee on top and then obligation to buy if promoted (like Quintilla deal).

all of that is conjecture...... if

what is fact however is that he has a contract with WHU, and he has the right to sit it out' as with Naismith

if he stands by his contract the amount liable of the remaining term will have to be paid

whether by WHU, or an equal contract from City, or some combination of payment from both

the point is it is the discussion that always happens in these situations

the above post does not change that reality, whatever variables are thrown into the mix

Edited August 19, 2020 by Bill

[NWC 240]

Thought this was the Transfer Rumour thread, not a **** swinging competition 😳🙄

[Tetteys Jig 830]

1 minute ago, Bill said:

all of that is conjecture...... if

what is fact however is that he has a contract with WHU, and he has the right to sit it out' as with Naismith

putting up possibilities does not negate that reality

if he stands by his contract the amount liable of the remaining term will have to be paid

whether by WHU, or an equal contract from City, or some combination of payment from both points is the discussion that always happens in these situations

the above post does not change that reality, whatever variables are thrown into the mix

He does have a contract he is entitled to but its not like we are miles off paying him what he wants like Hearts were with Naismith. There would surely be some compromise if he's wanting to get his career back on track. If there isn't but WHU still want rid then they might agree to pay some of his wages but then they might want a bigger fee that we aren't happy to pay.

All a big fat triangle of negotiation and I'm sure we will come to some kind of compromise where perhaps he will be on less per week but have a longer deal and incentives for promotion (which is funny you mention Naismith since we had to pay him £1m on promotion!)

If it all goes pear shaped then Hugill is entitled to sit in the reserves and pocket the money but neither WHU or him would really want that. Perhaps they might wait for QPR to sell Eze and hope they come in with a better offer but its a gamble.

 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Leeds are going through the same thing trying to get Ben White back permanently. He's priced himself out of a move though it seems by being too good for them. Perhaps an official transfer request might go in but then he'd relinquish certain parts of his contract. Difference is, White is upwardly mobile so ready to earn more money than he is currently on whereas Hugill is going down a level so may need to accept a bit of a pay cut to rescue his footballing career.

[Bill 1,788]

TJ, it is all par for the course

What has stretched this out is numpties who have tried to make up stuff so as to prove me ;wrong'

At the moment the three parties will all be trying to get the best for themselves. None of us know how this will pan out, as none of us know what pressures each party is under - but we should at last know the parameters all are working under

Which does  rather suggest an awful lot of work was put in by the club leading up to the signing of so many

Well done them

[BigGrantsTash 70]

My Daddy’s stronger than your Daddy 

[NFN FC 1,123]

5 minutes ago, BigGrantsTash said:

My Daddy’s stronger than your Daddy 

No he's not! You can't prove it! 😝

[BigGrantsTash 70]

2 minutes ago, NFN FC said:

No he's not! You can't prove it! 😝

But I’m the son of Zeus. Sent to earth to educate Bill in the ways of Modern Football. 

[Essjayess 307]

West Ham were hoping to use Hugill as bait as they are after QPR's Eberechi Eze, i guess as some kind of swap, but QPR have today signed a new centre forward in Lyndon Dykes.

How and if this has any bearing on negotiations for Hugill to City is anyones guess, but the coming days will tell us no doubt.

Edited August 19, 2020 by Essjayess
spelling correction

[NFN FC 1,123]

3 minutes ago, BigGrantsTash said:

But I’m the son of Zeus. Sent to earth to educate Bill in the ways of Modern Football. 

I want to see evidence! 

[BigGrantsTash 70]

1 minute ago, NFN FC said:

I want to see evidence! 

When we’re all allowed back to Carrow RD and an opposition striker is bearing down on our goal I’ll strike him with a lightning bolt.