Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Lets be aving you!

SSN: Butterfield offer rejected, probable tribunal

Recommended Posts

SSN story:

 

"Sky Sports understands that Barnsley have rejected an offer from Norwich City for Jacob Butterfield.

The England Under-21 midfielder looks set for a switch to Carrow Road after rejecting the chance to remain at Oakwell.

Barnsley had hoped that they had persuaded Butterfield to stay put, but a late move from Norwich has seen them seemingly win the race for his signature.

Norwich have now made a firm offer for Butterfield, as Barnsley will need to be compensated due to his age.

However, Sky Sports understands that Barnsley consider the original offer as ''derisory'' and are ready for the matter to go to a transfer tribunal.

The 23-year-old missed most of last season due to a knee injury but he is now fully fit and ready for pre-season."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Presumably the reason behind the delay in announcing his signature. We were obviously hoping to have the compensation agreed before completing the deal. Guess we will now have to decide whether to risk the tribunal fee. surely tribunal couldn;t award too high a fee. Champ player, bad injury etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how does this work then?  He is free to join any club he likes but because of his age and the fact he came through their youth system, the club are due compensation.  Thats fair enough I guess but does this mean that he can sign for Norwich and the fee decided by tribunal at a later date?  Is there a time limit set on Tribunals, do they have to be completed within a certain timeframe? Could we still be sitting here in a month or 2''s time waiting for this to go through...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So our 2 signings so far, one a dispute with Rangers the other a dispute with Barnsley.

Meanwhile we are in dispute with Villa over our ex manager.

Nothing straight forward these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="NCFCgardener"]So how does this work then?  He is free to join any club he likes but because of his age and the fact he came through their youth system, the club are due compensation.  Thats fair enough I guess but does this mean that he can sign for Norwich and the fee decided by tribunal at a later date?  Is there a time limit set on Tribunals, do they have to be completed within a certain timeframe? Could we still be sitting here in a month or 2''s time waiting for this to go through...[/quote]If we choose to risk the tribunal, we sign him now, and he''s our player. The date of the hearing is irrelevant, just like the fact Lambert was our manager for months before the fee was set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribunal is going to be a gamble for both sides I guess, Barnsley could end up with less than they want or less than has already been offered, likewise Norwich could end up forking out a fortune.  Hope we come to a comprmise soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="NCFCgardener"]So how does this work then?  He is free to join any club he likes but because of his age and the fact he came through their youth system, the club are due compensation.  Thats fair enough I guess but does this mean that he can sign for Norwich and the fee decided by tribunal at a later date?  Is there a time limit set on Tribunals, do they have to be completed within a certain timeframe? Could we still be sitting here in a month or 2''s time waiting for this to go through...[/quote]

He''s free to sign and can be registered with Norwich and play games before the tribunal has agreed the fee. It is a widely held fact that the amount of money tribunals award is tiny compared to the true value of a player - they tend to consider how much Barnsley spent developing his talent etc, rather than the market value of the player.

 

He can still sign for Norwich (which will probably happen in the next few days) but I guess Norwich wanted to avoid the tribunal system which can be a little variable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably he becomes our player, and the amount we have to pay is decided by the tribunal. In the past such tribunals have tended to "split the difference". We wanted to get him as cheaply as possible, and Barnsley natrually wanted as big a sum as possible, but he is our players immediately we sign our agreement to go to Tribunal.

 

This is all understandable, but I am not absolutely sure that the tribunal decision is binding, unless both wish it to be so. The ball is in our court now. We could make an increased offer, which means that Barnsley would get their money earlier.

 

The worry is that we could be gazumpted, that another team will come in and offer more bfore we offer or pay more. Perhaps Barnsley have alredy been approached by another club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="NCFCgardener"]Tribunal is going to be a gamble for both sides I guess, Barnsley could end up with less than they want or less than has already been offered, likewise Norwich could end up forking out a fortune.  Hope we come to a comprmise soon.[/quote]

 

I don''t think I''ve ever seen a tribunal that''s resulted in a fortune being paid out. Especially for a Championship player. It should be a relatively small amount either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Salopian"]

Presumably he becomes our player, and the amount we have to pay is decided by the tribunal. In the past such tribunals have tended to "split the difference". We wanted to get him as cheaply as possible, and Barnsley natrually wanted as big a sum as possible, but he is our players immediately we sign our agreement to go to Tribunal.

 

This is all understandable, but I am not absolutely sure that the tribunal decision is binding, unless both wish it to be so. The ball is in our court now. We could make an increased offer, which means that Barnsley would get their money earlier.

 

The worry is that we could be gazumpted, that another team will come in and offer more bfore we offer or pay more. Perhaps Barnsley have alredy been approached by another club.

[/quote]

 

As long as he wants to join us and has agreed already then we should be fine. Hopefully we can announce that we''ve signed him regardless in next 24hrs. That would settle us all down nicely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Assuming he has signed a contract with us, I guess another club cannot come in for him now. He is out of contract (I believe) at Barnsley, so it doesn''t matter what they wish to accept or whether another club offers a bigger fee to Barnsley.

I think compensation is only required due to his age - if he was above 24 he would be a Bosman transfer like any other player out of contract. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can confirm this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going to a tribunal would probably be much worse for Barnsley than us, so unless our offer really is poor they''re taking a massive gamble by doing this.Take into account the changes recently to youth, the elite system etc and I can''t see them getting a massive fee for him, especially on the back of relatively limited playing time and after a long term injury.Sounds more like a desperate gamble on their part as they know full well the guy is leaving, they just wanted more money when it happened and I can''t blame them for this, but it is a bit naive tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple really. Butterfield''s contract with Barnsley has ended however because he is under the age of 24 Barnsley are entitled to some form of compensation. The clubs tend to agree a fee amongst themselves (i.e. Jacobs recent transfer to Derby) but when the clubs cannot agree a fee a tribunal is called in to declare a fee, the tribunal fee is non-negotiable for either side and must be payed. Tribunals have a history of giving, what many consider, very unfair fees to the ''selling'' club. Sturridge, who left Man City in a similar way, was valued in the double figures by Man City, Chelsea ended up paying an initial 3.5 million which eventually rose to 6 million (very recently). Butterfield will not be in the same catergory as Sturridge. Sturridge was only 19 when he transferred (increased price), was a regular England youth international (having been part of the set up since under-16) and had already made appearances in the Premier League for Man City.
Barnsley were reported at valuing Butterfield at 3 million, I doubt they''ll get anything near that at tribunal.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Going to a tribunal would probably be much worse for Barnsley than us, so unless our offer really is poor they''re taking a massive gamble by doing this.

Take into account the changes recently to youth, the elite system etc and I can''t see them getting a massive fee for him, especially on the back of relatively limited playing time and after a long term injury.

Sounds more like a desperate gamble on their part as they know full well the guy is leaving, they just wanted more money when it happened and I can''t blame them for this, but it is a bit naive tbh.
[/quote]

 

But that is the question. Barnsley have apparently called our offer "derisory" which may be spin, or it may be true. We do have some history here. What we offered Colchester by way of compensation for Lambert really was derisory, and that backfired on us to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand pounds. In this case we can''t get fined, but there will presumably be costs to pay, and if our offer is absurdly low the tribunal might take that into account in setting the fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I should add the reason we have to pay compensation is that Barnsley offered Butterfield a new contract, that he refused. As such compensation is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First report of Butterfield signing. Don''t know how reliable it is but an interesting analysis of his attributes:

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/football-sport/norwich-city-fans-should-get-in-a-lather-about-their-new-gazza-jacob-butterfield/?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Yelloow Since 72"]First report of Butterfield signing. Don''t know how reliable it is but an interesting analysis of his attributes:

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/football-sport/norwich-city-fans-should-get-in-a-lather-about-their-new-gazza-jacob-butterfield/?[/quote]I read that earlier, too. Sounds promising.Tribunal isn''t exactly a bad thing. The money will be minor in comparison to the actual market value and I don''t think we can really lose in the sense that however much we pay, it will be good value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howson is quite two-footed as well and even Pilks so we''d be building quite a technically solid midfield, which is great. I always think being two-footed is a great bonus (apart from in the tackle of course!).

 

 

I often try to introduce my weaker right foot when I''m playing football to help improve my game..unfortunately for me, this usually results in a ''shanked'' strike, weak sidefoot shot/pass or (more commonly) loss of the ball:-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barnsley Chronicle reporting that he''s signed:

"Jacob signs for Canaries

Jacob Butterfield has put pen to paper on a new deal with Premier League club Norwich City.

 

The 22-year-old midfielder told the Chronicle last week that he would only leave Barnsley for a club in the top flight. He has been linked with various Premier League teams but has now settled on Chris Hughton''s Norwich.

 

The Reds are reported to have rejected a bid for Butterfield by the Canaries and the deal is now likely to go to tribunal as the player is under 24.

 

Butterfield joined Barnsley at 16 and made exactly 100 appearances for the club and scored eight goals. He was made captain by manager Keith Hill last season and impressed before injuring his knee against Leeds in December."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Barnsley fan here – and a rather sad one.

You’ve got a very good player in Butterfield, but also a potentially excellent one. I’d agree with the David Preece article posted earlier, don’t go overboard on the Gazza comparison, but it’s true he has two excellent feet and  is more than capable of beating men.

Most Barnsley fans rate him highly, others think he’s good but over-rated. His only shortcoming most would agree with is that he’s not the quickest. That’s not to say he’s slow, but perhaps short of a yard or two that gives him that bit extra. Barnsley dropped a massive ball in not offering him a new contract half way through last season, especially when we’ve made such a big deal about bringing players through the ranks at the club.

I only hope the tribunal pay a good sum to the club, because Norwich apparently offered a ‘derisory amount, considerably less than £500k’. Which with all due respect is laughable. He’s capped at Under 21 level (You Tube has a great goal he scored in training, left foot!). His injury can’t be a concern as the surgeon gave him the all clear and your club has offered him a 4 year deal. If he were 1 year into a 3 year contact id say going on the price of other players recently sold, we’d be looking for £2.5m for him, possibly a bit more (what did you pay for Howson?!)

Anyhow, enjoy him, im sure once he’s adjusted to the Premiership he will do you proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BarnsleyBob"]

Hi,

Barnsley fan here – and a rather sad one.

You’ve got a very good player in Butterfield, but also a potentially excellent one. I’d agree with the David Preece article posted earlier, don’t go overboard on the Gazza comparison, but it’s true he has two excellent feet and  is more than capable of beating men.

Most Barnsley fans rate him highly, others think he’s good but over-rated. His only shortcoming most would agree with is that he’s not the quickest. That’s not to say he’s slow, but perhaps short of a yard or two that gives him that bit extra. Barnsley dropped a massive ball in not offering him a new contract half way through last season, especially when we’ve made such a big deal about bringing players through the ranks at the club.

I only hope the tribunal pay a good sum to the club, because Norwich apparently offered a ‘derisory amount, considerably less than £500k’. Which with all due respect is laughable. He’s capped at Under 21 level (You Tube has a great goal he scored in training, left foot!). His injury can’t be a concern as the surgeon gave him the all clear and your club has offered him a 4 year deal. If he were 1 year into a 3 year contact id say going on the price of other players recently sold, we’d be looking for £2.5m for him, possibly a bit more (what did you pay for Howson?!)

Anyhow, enjoy him, im sure once he’s adjusted to the Premiership he will do you proud.

[/quote]Thanks for the insight, Bob. Nice to hear we have a solid player on our hands. Fortunately for us, he is out of contract, and compensation wont be anywhere near market value (unfortunately for yourselves). As you say, Barnsley made a massive mistake in not sorting out his contract earlier in the season.Good luck in 2012/13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the inside track on our new signing, Barnsley Bob. I''m really looking forward to seeing him play.

 

Sorry you have lost a player for what will likely be only a fraction of his real value.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gareth, its because he is under 24 that a tribunal sets the fee not because he was offered a new contract!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baldyboy, from what i understand for compensation to be due for a player under 24 the club losing the player has to make a new contract offer to that player of equal or greater value than their previous one. Without this all players released under the age of 24 would cost their new clubs money, even if the parent club didnt want them.

However i dont think this is what the barnsley fan meant, he meant that Barnsley should have tied Butterfiled down to a new contract and not allowed the situation to arise where he could leave for very little cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="NCFCPaul"]Baldyboy, from what i understand for compensation to be due for a player under 24 the club losing the player has to make a new contract offer to that player of equal or greater value than their previous one. Without this all players released under the age of 24 would cost their new clubs money, even if the parent club didnt want them. However i dont think this is what the barnsley fan meant, he meant that Barnsley should have tied Butterfiled down to a new contract and not allowed the situation to arise where he could leave for very little cash.[/quote]

You are correct regarding the new contract offer rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×