wages and contracts and ting

[Fuglestad 0]

I''ve been reading these forums fairly often, and I''m surprised at how many posters seem to mis-understand how players contracts work. I''m no expert but here goes:

Players such as Jamie Cureton cannot simply be told to bugger off by Norwich City. He has a year running on his contract and those wages must be paid in full, unless the player agrees to mutually terminate his contract for a smaller fee, allowing him to move to pastures new. Croft has done this, albeit leaving only a month or so before his deal officially ran out.

I would imagine Cureton was given a rather large contract by Grant/Doncaster/Munby and therefore it would cost a lot of money to termninate his contract. I suspect his wages are high, because offering him a three year deal was madness in the first place, presumably we gave him more or less exactly what he asked for. I get the impression that has been a massive problem for the club, I am convinced we are just crap at negotiating and believe exactly what agents tell us about other club''s offers.

If we were to go into administration we would still have to pay all player wages in full, an agreement made by our wonderful FA with the PFA. If we go bust as some stupendously misguided individuals think would be best  we will have to pay the players contracts or we will not be allowed to play. The administrator will make the club pay around 10% of all other debts but wages must be paid in full.

You cannot sadly "sack the lot of ''em". Players are in control, you have to have a legally justifiable case to sack a player, all player wages must be paid in full. If a player doesn''t want to leave you cannot get rid of him, simple as that. Lappin is still here because he didn''t want to go and we couldn''t make him, now he''s out of contract we can let him go for free.

In my opinion we should only be offering two year contracts at the most, I have no actual evidence to support this, but I am convinced that is the way to run a football club below the Premiership. I am also convinced managers should be appointed at the start of a season and should remain until the end of said season, if a club really want to sack the manager they should only be allowed to do so once in a season and they must replace him from within the club and pay a £1,000,000 fee, which will go to the football foundation.

Sorry went off on a bit of a tangent there. Rant over.

 

[Rupethebear 0]

I agree with the managers contracts, why do we always give them long deal, fire them and pay them off for failing!!

[gsr600 0]

im not sure that cureton wouldve been on as high as you think, ive heard on good word from someone whos doing some work on the docs house that doc is on 14,000 a month after tax (Doc needs to file his payslip instead of leaving it on the side when builders come and move furniture), works out to just over 3500 a week, my guess is the reason were keeping cureton is cos we cant afford anyone else and his wages arent that high,

[Blofield Canary 11]

£3,500 net a week is close to £8 grand a week which isn''t far off half a million a year. If Cureton is on th e same thats a million wage bill for next season fro 2 players.

[USAcanary 0]

[quote user="Fuglestad"]

I''ve been reading these forums fairly often, and I''m surprised at how many posters seem to mis-understand how players contracts work. I''m no expert but here goes:

Players such as Jamie Cureton cannot simply be told to bugger off by Norwich City. He has a year running on his contract and those wages must be paid in full, unless the player agrees to mutually terminate his contract for a smaller fee, allowing him to move to pastures new. Croft has done this, albeit leaving only a month or so before his deal officially ran out.

I would imagine Cureton was given a rather large contract by Grant/Doncaster/Munby and therefore it would cost a lot of money to termninate his contract. I suspect his wages are high, because offering him a three year deal was madness in the first place, presumably we gave him more or less exactly what he asked for. I get the impression that has been a massive problem for the club, I am convinced we are just crap at negotiating and believe exactly what agents tell us about other club''s offers.

If we were to go into administration we would still have to pay all player wages in full, an agreement made by our wonderful FA with the PFA. If we go bust as some stupendously misguided individuals think would be best  we will have to pay the players contracts or we will not be allowed to play. The administrator will make the club pay around 10% of all other debts but wages must be paid in full.

You cannot sadly "sack the lot of ''em". Players are in control, you have to have a legally justifiable case to sack a player, all player wages must be paid in full. If a player doesn''t want to leave you cannot get rid of him, simple as that. Lappin is still here because he didn''t want to go and we couldn''t make him, now he''s out of contract we can let him go for free.

In my opinion we should only be offering two year contracts at the most, I have no actual evidence to support this, but I am convinced that is the way to run a football club below the Premiership. I am also convinced managers should be appointed at the start of a season and should remain until the end of said season, if a club really want to sack the manager they should only be allowed to do so once in a season and they must replace him from within the club and pay a £1,000,000 fee, which will go to the football foundation.

Sorry went off on a bit of a tangent there. Rant over.

 

[/quote]

I agree with most of your comments FWIW.

I thinks its evident from Gunns comments that Cureton will be staying, mainly because of the reasons you stated.

Its unlikley another club will offer him the wages he is currently on.

I predict he will be a bit part player or maybe another club will loan him for part of the season so we are not left with the whole wage bill.

You correctly posted the reasons why clubs such as ourselves, Saints and Charlton are in such a mess.

We all hit the Prem and vastly increased the wage structure at the club.

The trickle down effect is you WAY overpay for the mediocre talent at the club.

When the better players leave you are left with many average players that you are vastly overpaying.

The only way out of this vicious circle is to completely strip out all the highest payed talent at the club and build from a much more realistic wage structure.

Teams like Swansea, Burnley, Doncaster, Blackpool and Preston have built from the ground up.(from virtually nothing)

They were forced to find hungry players from the lower leagues who are looking for a chance.

I can see a team like Burnley going through exactly what we are going through now.

[Blue 0]

[quote user="jbghost"]£3,500 net a week is close to £8 grand a week which isn''t far off half a million a year. If Cureton is on th e same thats a million wage bill for next season fro 2 players.[/quote]

 

How did you get from £3500 to £8000 a week? 

[Fig Roll 0]

14,000 a month actually works out at less than 3500 a week and if that''s net, adding on tax and national insurance conts,  the gross figure will be about 7000 a week

[south east canary 0]

Tax at 50% i believe and then National insurance and other payments that come out to leave him with £14K per week.

Although I''m not sure if 50% tax rate has begun yet.

 

Thats how he/she arrived at £8k.

[Soldier on 160]

one year contracts are no good.  The policy should be sign good promising players for 200K or so on 3 year deals.  Some will progress and make big money and allow us to reinvest others will fall by the wayside.

1 year deals will create the same set of problems as the loan policy with team spirit etc

[south east canary 0]

Plus national insurance contributions the club has to make on his behalf at around 13% i believe - makes doc an expensive defender for league one!

[Blue 0]

[quote user="south east canary"]

Tax at 50% i believe and then National insurance and other payments that come out to leave him with £14K per week.

Although I''m not sure if 50% tax rate has begun yet.

 

Thats how he/she arrived at £8k.

[/quote]

Top rate tax is currently 40%.  However this is only payable above the maxium level of the std rate. Without digging out the latest tax values, the first £x is zero tax, then basic rate from this to something like £40k a year then anything above this is taxed at 40%. With NI, it is only payable up to a threshold (£40k a year?) - not payable above this figure.  Therefore a good average deduction for a top rate pax payer on gross earnings is 30-35% (sliding inc scale).  So £3500 / 0.65  = £5400.  On top of this will be bonuses etc payable at various times.    

[ca 1]

[quote user="Forces canary fan"]im not sure that cureton wouldve been on as high as you think, ive heard on good word from someone whos doing some work on the docs house that doc is on 14,000 a month after tax (Doc needs to file his payslip instead of leaving it on the side when builders come and move furniture), works out to just over 3500 a week, my guess is the reason were keeping cureton is cos we cant afford anyone else and his wages arent that high,[/quote]

 

Bet that builder won''t get any more work from Doc or any NCFC players!!

Thought he''d be on about £7k - £8k and Cureton would be on about £6k ( he was on £2k at ColU)

[JuanVelasco 27]

[quote user="Fuglestad"]

I''ve been reading these forums fairly often, and I''m surprised at how many posters seem to mis-understand how players contracts work. I''m no expert but here goes: Name one person that doesnt understand how contracts work? I have read almost every post on here for the last month as a result of having far too much time on my hands, and havent seen this once. I have seen a couple of people believing that Cureton was out of contract, which was as a result of incorrect national newspaper reports, but to suggest that people dont know how contracts work is insulting. If somebody on here doesnt, then direct the post to them.

Players such as Jamie Cureton cannot simply be told to bugger off by Norwich City. He has a year running on his contract and those wages must be paid in full, unless the player agrees to mutually terminate his contract for a smaller fee, allowing him to move to pastures new. Croft has done this, albeit leaving only a month or so before his deal officially ran out. - Quite possibly the most patronising comment I have ever seen. You fail to acknowledge the possibility that Cureton, the multi millionarie Jamie Cureton, could have offered to leave the club without compensation? Possibly to retirement? In acknowledgement that he has drained this club of money with no product and has been carried for most of the last two years?

I would imagine Cureton was given a rather large contract by Grant/Doncaster/Munby and therefore it would cost a lot of money to termninate his contract. I suspect his wages are high, because offering him a three year deal was madness in the first place, presumably we gave him more or less exactly what he asked for. I get the impression that has been a massive problem for the club, I am convinced we are just crap at negotiating and believe exactly what agents tell us about other club''s offers. Again, yes we are crap at negotiating, but Cureton is clearly sitting out his contract. He claims to love the club, knows that his legs are gone, but would still prefer to take 500k+ out of coffers next year.

If we were to go into administration we would still have to pay all player wages in full, an agreement made by our wonderful FA with the PFA. If we go bust as some stupendously misguided individuals think would be best  we will have to pay the players contracts or we will not be allowed to play. The administrator will make the club pay around 10% of all other debts but wages must be paid in full. There is nothing to suggest that we are close to administration, and there will be no reason to suggest this until the accounts for the 2008/2009 financial year are published and distributed.

You cannot sadly "sack the lot of ''em". Players are in control, you have to have a legally justifiable case to sack a player, all player wages must be paid in full. If a player doesn''t want to leave you cannot get rid of him, simple as that. Lappin is still here because he didn''t want to go and we couldn''t make him, now he''s out of contract we can let him go for free. Again, very patronising. Everybody knows this, just like everybody knew that Roeder was very expensive to sack. As it happens, most people supported Simon Lappins stance against the club and felt that he was treated very unfairly. Many people would also like him to stay if the new contract is one that suits the club.

In my opinion we should only be offering two year contracts at the most, I have no actual evidence to support this, but I am convinced that is the way to run a football club below the Premiership. I am also convinced managers should be appointed at the start of a season and should remain until the end of said season, if a club really want to sack the manager they should only be allowed to do so once in a season and they must replace him from within the club and pay a £1,000,000 fee, which will go to the football foundation. Two year contracts are exactly the reason that we are going to have to sell Sammy Clingan this summer, and a three year contract is the only thing stopping us having to sell Wes Hoolohan this summer. Thats our two best players, enough said. Also, we would have paid £3,000,000 to this ''football foundation'' in about four years. If you claim to know so much about football finance, then you will know that Norwich cant afford anything like £1,000,000 and this would bankrupt many clubs. What about Peter Grant? He walked with almost no compensation, are you suggesting that we should have paid £1,000,000 instead? All this system would do is see every manager ''resign'' or ''mutually terminate'' instead, agreeing to say..... £500,000 instead of being sacked and getting nothing. The entire League One transfer spend last year was £6.7m.  Thats 267k per club, and you are saying that they should be made to put £1m in some stupid pot?

Sorry went off on a bit of a tangent there. Rant over. Ditto.

 

[/quote]

[south east canary 0]

[quote user="Blue"][quote user="south east canary"]

Tax at 50% i believe and then National insurance and other payments that come out to leave him with £14K per week.

Although I''m not sure if 50% tax rate has begun yet.

 

Thats how he/she arrived at £8k.

[/quote]

Top rate tax is currently 40%.  However this is only payable above the maxium level of the std rate. Without digging out the latest tax values, the first £x is zero tax, then basic rate from this to something like £40k a year then anything above this is taxed at 40%. With NI, it is only payable up to a threshold (£40k a year?) - not payable above this figure.  Therefore a good average deduction for a top rate pax payer on gross earnings is 30-35% (sliding inc scale).  So £3500 / 0.65  = £5400.  On top of this will be bonuses etc payable at various times.    

[/quote]

 

BONUSES?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!

[ca 1]

[quote user="south east canary"][quote user="Blue"][quote user="south east canary"]

Tax at 50% i believe and then National insurance and other payments that come out to leave him with £14K per week.

Although I''m not sure if 50% tax rate has begun yet.

 

Thats how he/she arrived at £8k.

[/quote]

Top rate tax is currently 40%.  However this is only payable above the maxium level of the std rate. Without digging out the latest tax values, the first £x is zero tax, then basic rate from this to something like £40k a year then anything above this is taxed at 40%. With NI, it is only payable up to a threshold (£40k a year?) - not payable above this figure.  Therefore a good average deduction for a top rate pax payer on gross earnings is 30-35% (sliding inc scale).  So £3500 / 0.65  = £5400.  On top of this will be bonuses etc payable at various times.    

[/quote]

 

BONUSES?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!

[/quote]

 

They didn''t get many win bonus''s

[LQ 0]

I think they got one win bonus last season (in September v Sheff Utd) because of the new rule that they were only paid for the win if we were put or remained in the top half of the table.Cared a lot, didn''t they?