Dany N'Guessan

[bocadillo]

Plenty of players have had their contracts paid up, we've done it enough in recent years. Negotiate with them a percentage of their overall wages they are will to accept to bugger off elsewhere. We might save 10% and they can go elsewhere and get wages from another team meaning they probably come out on top.

No, they don't come out on top. Any extra they earn is recouped by the club that paid them off. There is really very little incentive for a player to accept a termination of his contract until he has another ready to sign.

 

[bocadillo]

Surely that has bugger all to do with the selling team. They are the ones who want to get rid of the player after all, and to do so they have to give them an incentive. eg. 90% of you're wages and your free to get any contract you want elsewhere.

If the player is only going to earn exactly the same where is the incentive? Other than playing football obviously, not that this means much to many players now days.

A club won't pay 90% of a contract when there is a chance that a player might get a new contract with another club which would mean that they could have got away with paying only 80%. The money would not in any case be paid in a lump sum; it would be dripped out over the course of the original contract and there would be a clause that future earnings would be set against the amount due.

There is very little incentive for these players to move. Why do you think there are so many of them sitting around at so many clubs?

 

[Real Sharapova]

The money would not in any case be paid in a lump sum; it would be dripped out over the course of the original contract and there would be a clause that future earnings would be set against the amount due.

I think Babs is making the point that you don't put that clause in - give the player an incentive to take a reduced payoff. If he then can earn more overall with a new contract elsewhere, good luck to him. The club he leaves is still better off than him seeing out his contract, plus you don't have a potentially disruptive influence on the training ground.

 

[bocadillo]

I think Babs is making the point that you don't put that clause in - give the player an incentive to take a reduced payoff. If he then can earn more overall with a new contract elsewhere, good luck to him. The club he leaves is still better off than him seeing out his contract, plus you don't have a potentially disruptive influence on the training ground.

I realise that is what he is suggesting but in reality it doesn't happen like that, other than in the last few months of a contract.

 

[TommyK]

I would image it would completely depend on the contact of the player. If a player is on a contract which is heavy weighted with performance related bonuses such as appearances/goals/promotion etc and a smaller weekly base wage then it may make sense for the player to want to leave.

 

[Babylon]

A club won't pay 90% of a contract when there is a chance that a player might get a new contract with another club which would mean that they could have got away with paying only 80%.

So clubs risk ending up paying 100% of his wages for a player they don't want, just because they could have got away with with saving 15% rather than 10%.

If what you are saying is true (not sure how you know the exact details but will trust what you say) then clubs needs to take a look at themselves, because you'd have to be a frigging loony to work it that way if you are 100% certain you want rid of the player.

 

[bocadillo]

So clubs risk ending up paying 100% of his wages for a player they don't want, just because they could have got away with with saving 15% rather than 10%.

If what you are saying is true (not sure how you know the exact details but will trust what you say) then clubs needs to take a look at themselves, because you'd have to be a frigging loony to work it that way if you are 100% certain you want rid of the player.

You have to be a frigging loony to pay players as much as they are paid in the first place, so I don't know what makes you think that frigging lunacy won't come into play at other times. From the other angle, a player would have to be a frigging loony not to squeeze every last contracted penny out of his club.

 

[Babylon]

You have to be a frigging loony to pay players as much as they are paid in the first place, so I don't know what makes you think that frigging lunacy won't come into play at other times.

I'd already thought about that, but even an idiot can see it's a stupid thing for both parties giving the right circumstances. I can't believe that EVERYONE in football from players to agents to managers and board members are all idiots. If there is a situation where one party will save money, and one party can make money.... they will do it.

From the other angle, a player would have to be a frigging loony not to squeeze every last contracted penny out of his club.

Not sure that's another angle, because as I said i'm talking about when they CAN get another club. If a player can't get one then I fully understand and would do it myself.

But if I were in a position to be able to collect 80/90% of my contracted wages and then move to another club and get more wages it's a no brainer (unless you don't want to play football).

The club saves 10/20% and you get two lots of wages coming in, one from your old club and one from the new one. It's win win in those situations.

 

[bocadillo]

But if I were in a position to be able to collect 80/90% of my contracted wages and then move to another club and get more wages it's a no brainer (unless you don't want to play football).

The club saves 10/20% and you get two lots of wages coming in, one from your old club and one from the new one. It's win win in those situations.

We're going round in circles here. Players and clubs often come to an agreement to terminate a contract early - but usually only when the player has already been offered a contract by another club. The pay-off is then reduced by the amount payable to the player under the new contract. There is no point in a club paying off a player with a greater sum than that. Equally there is no point in a player taking less than 100% of the moneys due to him, unless he knows he can get somebody else to pay it. This is why the two processes are simultaneous/closely-linked.

I'm not sure how you work out the win-win situation. If a player receives more than he is entitled to under his contract, the club has paid more than it needed to and has therefore 'lost' - and vice versa.

 

[Billy Boy]

Fcuk this is heavy reading !

 

[Jeff]

Players and clubs often come to an agreement to terminate a contract early - but usually only when the player has already been offered a contract by another club.

The key word here is 'usually'. Sometimes players will agree to the contract being terminated early for a reduced payment. Sometimes the player will instigate this if they think being unattached will help them find another club more easily, or if they want to retire early.

There's no harm offering players a pay-off and seeing if they'll accept it.

 

[bocadillo]

The key word here is 'usually'. Sometimes players will agree to the contract being terminated early for a reduced payment. Sometimes the player will instigate this if they think being unattached will help them find another club more easily, or if they want to retire early.

There's no harm offering players a pay-off and seeing if they'll accept it.

Agreed - but it rarely happens in the way you suggest, other than in the last few months of the contract. Any earlier and there is too much risk on both sides.


Billy Boy (and others) will be pleased to know that this is my last word on the subject, all that has to be said having been said at least twice.

 

[fitz]

Perhaps if we used a bike chain to fix them to the railings outside of Tesco someone may take them off our hands? Its about as feckin likely as any of them securing permanent deals elsewhere

 

[Chrysalis]

Less kit to wash. The savings could be spent on some blue flowers for the training ground.

Usually if buying out some is written off. So short term loss but long term gain but it assumes the player wouldnt have been sold.

 

[Babylon]

I'm not sure how you work out the win-win situation. If a player receives more than he is entitled to under his contract, the club has paid more than it needed to and has therefore 'lost' - and vice versa.

It's win win because the other option on the table is having him on the books paying him 100% and saving nothing. Cutting off your nose to spite your face springs to mind.

Like you said, going round in circles.

 

[David Gwilliam]

I doubt we could even give him away - one of the many shitehouses we are stuck with for another eighteen months, if not longer


N'Guessan, Nielsen, Kermogant, Lamey, Moreno, Logan, Crncic, Kennedy

No wonder we are bound forever to the loan market - it's feckin' criminal

I think Dany would be a regular in most Division 1 and 2 teams. Lincoln were reluctant to let him go and might well want to sign him again. Tom Kennedy is getting games for Rochdale and I would guess they would be happy to have him back permanently.