Lee Morris

[Foxes_Trust]

Morris might have to retire in which case Leicester don't owe him anything!

Via PFA standard terms, you have to pay our 1 years salary if a player retires through injury. Can only be less if the player agrees to it.

This was the situation with Matt Jones

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I think often when contracts are "mutually terminated", the contract has to be paid up, but the player often agrees to take less money in the package than he would get if he stayed for the length of his contract.
So for example, say Canero was earning £5,000 pw for 1 year more, that's £260,000 but with us paying up his contract he might've only taken about £200,000 or something..

I don't think they usually get the full amount of their contract, otherwise the club really have nothing to gain from it.

Don't know in this instance, but players often have loyalty bonuses if they see out the length of their contract, so mutually terminated often includes reducing that amouns

 

[Steven]

Via PFA standard terms, you have to pay our 1 years salary if a player retires through injury. Can only be less if the player agrees to it.

This was the situation with Matt Jones

Thank you Matt Jones.

 

[bocadillo]

Don't know in this instance, but players often have loyalty bonuses if they see out the length of their contract, so mutually terminated often includes reducing that amouns

But if the club was the prime mover in the termination of the contract, the player would still expect these bonuses to be paid.

 

[Jedi]

Via PFA standard terms, you have to pay our 1 years salary if a player retires through injury. Can only be less if the player agrees to it.

This was the situation with Matt Jones

That's what they insure players for, so that would be recouped via that

 

[bocadillo]

That's what they insure players for, so that would be recouped via that

It's some years since City insured any players - the feeling is that it is too expensive. Certainly there was no insurance money in relation to Matt Jones's injury; I have a feeling that Rob Ullathorne was the last long-term injury that was insured.

 

[Jedi]

It's some years since City insured any players - the feeling is that it is too expensive. Certainly there was no insurance money in relation to Matt Jones's injury; I have a feeling that Rob Ullathorne was the last long-term injury that was insured.

I don't know of any business that doesn't insure its assets!

 

[bocadillo]

I don't know of any business that doesn't insure its assets!

Are you saying that you don't believe me when I say that City no longer insure their players against injury? Because, if you are, I can assure you that you are wrong.

Many large businesses opt not to insure at least some of their assets, believing that the cost of insurance is higher than the likely losses spread across their sites. The Road Traffic Act does not even require road vehicles to be insured - a 'certificate of security' is sufficient whereby a business certifies that it has sufficient assets to meet any claim. Local Authorities and large businesses often take advantage of this.

 

[Jedi]

Are you saying that you don't believe me when I say that City no longer insure their players against injury? Because, if you are, I can assure you that you are wrong.

Many large businesses opt not to insure at least some of their assets, believing that the cost of insurance is higher than the likely losses spread across their sites. The Road Traffic Act does not even require road vehicles to be insured - a 'certificate of security' is sufficient whereby a business certifies that it has sufficient assets to meet any claim. Local Authorities and large businesses ofen take advantage of this.

Did i say that? I'm surprised that we agreed to buy a player with a history of bad injuries without insuring him against long term injury, disability or illness knowing that he might be ready for the knackers yard especially in our financial predicament.

And I'm and IFA so I know how much it costs to insure against loss of income and there are usually tax benefits for a company to insure key personnel.

Anyway I would be keen to know why clubs don't insure their players? I know Real Madrid were rumoured to be wanting to cash in on Woodgate

 

[bocadillo]

Did i say that? I'm surprised that we agreed to buy a player with a history of bad injuries without insuring him against long term injury, disability or illness knowing that he might be ready for the knackers yard especially in our financial predicament.

And I'm and IFA so I know how much it costs to insure against loss of income and there are usually tax benefits for a company to insure key personnel.

Anyway I would be keen to know why clubs don't insure their players? I know Real Madrid were rumoured to be wanting to cash in on Woodgate

No, you didn't say it. But your assertion that you didn't "know of any business that doesn't insure its assets!" will have led many people to believe that it is what you were saying. Anyway, you now know that lcfc does not insure all of its assets (if indeed Lee Morris ever was an asset!).

If you are an IFA you will know that the greater the risk, the greater the premium. You can therefore imagine the cost of insuring players who have a history of injuries.

The club clearly decided that the premiums were not worth it in terms of either tax benefits or potential recoupment. I do not suggest that this was a correct decision, nor that I think it was incorrect; I simply report the fact.

 

[Jedi]

No, you didn't say it. But your assertion that you didn't "know of any business that doesn't insure its assets!" will have led many people to believe that it is what you were saying. Anyway, you now know that lcfc does not insure all of its assets (if indeed Lee Morris ever was an asset!).

If you are an IFA you will know that the greater the risk, the greater the premium. You can therefore imagine the cost of insuring players who have a history of injuries.

The club clearly decided that the premiums were not worth it in terms of either tax benefits or potential recoupment. I do not suggest that this was a correct decision, nor that I think it was incorrect; I simply report the fact.

Then we are lumbered with a player who unless agrees to have his contract terminated, we can't get rid of and even so will still cost us a small fortune for nil return! Can't imagine anyone taking his contract over. Good old Mickey Adams...

 

[bocadillo]

Then we are lumbered with a player who unless agrees to have his contract terminated, we can't get rid of and even so will still cost us a small fortune for nil return! Can't imagine anyone taking his contract over. Good old Mickey Adams...

Contract termination also costs a small fortune for nil return. The possible advantages of an early termination of the contract have been discussed further up the thread.

 

[Feriol]

Contract termination also costs a small fortune for nil return. The possible advantages of an early termination of the contract have been discussed further up the thread.

If Morris has any hope (in himself) of returning to football, the treatment he is getting from the physio's at the expence of the club, would be worth a lot of money. if he leaves, he will ave to pay for it all himself. if i were him, i wouldn't agree to terminate my contract.

If Canero was still undergoing treatment i doubt he would have accepted even a 100% payout on his contract.

 

[Chrysalis]

are the club obliged to pay for lee's treatment. They could make a business decision on the basis they think he will be not playing again and just pay his wages and allow him to be sick. A case of cutting short the loss.

 

[Redditch Fox]

Are you saying that you don't believe me when I say that City no longer insure their players against injury? Because, if you are, I can assure you that you are wrong.

Many large businesses opt not to insure at least some of their assets, believing that the cost of insurance is higher than the likely losses spread across their sites. The Road Traffic Act does not even require road vehicles to be insured - a 'certificate of security' is sufficient whereby a business certifies that it has sufficient assets to meet any claim. Local Authorities and large businesses ofen take advantage of this.

Spot on - for instance local authorities have been able to argue that since they are in a position to raise council tax/ rates revenue that they can meet all contingencies.

 

[DesertFox]

are the club obliged to pay for lee's treatment. They could make a business decision on the basis they think he will be not playing again and just pay his wages and allow him to be sick. A case of cutting short the loss.

I'd have thought to legally terminate his contract he'd either have to agree to it, or be guilty of a sackable offense. If D***** W***'s beating of a fellow player is not considered sackable, then I doubt being not as good as we thought or being a bit too keen on crisps is going to qualify!

So... no, probably not. Contracts are a two-way thing - we can hold players to contracts, and they can hold us to them.

 

[Redditch Fox]

I'd have thought to legally terminate his contract he'd either have to agree to it, or be guilty of a sackable offense. If D***** W***'s beating of a fellow player is not considered sackable, then I doubt being not as good as we thought or being a bit too keen on crisps is going to qualify!

So... no, probably not. Contracts are a two-way thing - we can hold players to contracts, and they can hold us to them.

I think the situation is straight forward.

If the club judges that Lee Morris is never going to make a worthwhile contribution then it may be worthwhile to terminate his contract through paying him off.

We seem to have rather more of these situations than most clubs - which is possibly a mixture of bad luck and bad judgement - much more the latter in this case.

 

[DesertFox]

I think the situation is straight forward.

If the club judges that Lee Morris is never going to make a worthwhile contribution then it may be worthwhile to terminate his contract through paying him off.

But surely Morris would have to agree to it. As he's no doubt receiving treatment, getting paid, and won't have a club lined up to move to, what will be his motivation to leave? Players who we've recently released in this manner have either had clubs to move to (sounds like Canero has a couple of possible moves) or have retired (Jones, Elliot). If his injuries are serious enough to be retirement-forcing (and I can't even remember what this month's injury is) then I suppose he could be forced to retire.

But if he thinks he can come back (unlikely to say the least, but stick with me), and CL and the club docs agree that maybe he can come back, then it would seem pointless to pay up his contract (in full) only for him to get fit and start banging in goals for someone else later this season.

 

[bocadillo]

If D***** W***'s beating of a fellow player is not considered sackable, then I doubt being not as good as we thought or being a bit too keen on crisps is going to qualify!

Oddly enough, "being a bit too keen on crisps" probably would be a valid reason for sacking a footballer. Not being good enough definitely would not be.

 

[bocadillo]

If the club judges that Lee Morris is never going to make a worthwhile contribution then it may be worthwhile to terminate his contract through paying him off.

Worthwhile in what way? There would certainly be no financial advantage.