Reasons Dawson left.

[Steven]

Also bits and pieces about Sheehan and McCarthy. ;-) :mrgreen:

DAWSON ON WHY HE QUIT 'BRILLIANT' CITY

10:30 - 21 May 2005
Stephen Dawson has revealed that it was with a heavy heart that he left Leicester City.

The 19-year-old, who was released this week after turning down a new one-year contract on reduced terms, said he "would have loved to have stayed".

However, Dawson decided to leave after failing to reach an agreement on the deal.

"It wasn't the fact I wanted to leave," he said. "I loved it there.

"I still have the utmost respect for Craig Levein and everyone at the club.

"I can't say any bad words about them. They were brilliant to me.

"We couldn't agree on a contract. It was nothing major but I decided to leave."

He added: "The manager was offering me a new contract, he was interested in keeping me.

"We couldn't come to an agreement on certain points and I decided then it was time to leave.

"I don't want to go into the contract. It's over now and I want to move on."

Dawson leaves City after a four-year association with the club. Last season, the young Irishman was a reserve-team regular and made it on to the substitutes' bench in four first-team matches.

The future is now uncertain, though a number of clubs are understood to be keeping tabs on him.

He said: "I have got to wait and see if clubs come in for me.

"There's nothing sorted because I remain in contract with Leicester until June 30 and I am not going to sign anything until then.

"There are a few clubs talking to my agent but I don't want to go into that until it gets definitely sorted."

He added: "I wish City all the best because I did love it there. I enjoyed being made captain of the reserves at such a young age and learning off some great players at the club.

"Hopefully, I can now go forward with my career and they can as well."

Dawson was speaking from Lilleshall, where he has been training with the Republic of Ireland Under-21 squad. City full-back Alan Sheehan, who made his league debut on the last day of the season at Plymouth, is also in the squad.

City defender Paddy McCarthy had been due to take part but withdrew because of a hamstring injury picked up at Plymouth.

The week-long get-together aims to maintain the players' fitness ahead of the European Under-21 Championship qualifier against Israel on June 3.

Don Givens, the under-21 manager, said McCarthy was an almost certain starter in the must-win game if he recovered from injury in time, while Sheehan and Dawson could both figure too.

He said: "I spoke to McCarthy on Wednesday and he assured me he would be all right for the match.

"This is the first time we have had Sheehan in. It's a problem position for us at left-back and he has done well and got better each day.

"Dawson we have had in before. He is a good lad."

He added: "We have four games left and need to win all four to qualify."

 

[EMC Fox]

Just out of interest, does his age mean we would get a fee if he signs for someone else?

 

[Brauny Blue]

Interested to see where he ends up. The fact that city could not agree terms with a 19yr old , when no other clubs were sniffing around seems to indicate he will struggle at championship level.

 

[Steven]

Interested to see where he ends up. The fact that city could not agree terms with a 19yr old , when no other clubs were sniffing around seems to indicate he will struggle at championship level.

Webbie will know about compensation for players like Dawson. ;-) :mrgreen:

As far as BB's point is concerned, I think that is a very fair observation, however he must have felt he would get a contract somewhere. ;-) :mrgreen:

 

[fitz]

Just out of interest, does his age mean we would get a fee if he signs for someone else?

nope, as he isnt leaving on a bosman but as a free agent. if he was signed with the club still wanting him i believe we would have got a small fee, but as he is chosing to bugger off then look for a club we get nothing

 

[Babylon]

Just out of interest, does his age mean we would get a fee if he signs for someone else?

nope, as he isnt leaving on a bosman but as a free agent. if he was signed with the club still wanting him i believe we would have got a small fee, but as he is chosing to bugger off then look for a club we get nothing

Bosman is the same thing as free agent though.

 

[webmaster]

Just out of interest, does his age mean we would get a fee if he signs for someone else?

nope, as he isnt leaving on a bosman but as a free agent. if he was signed with the club still wanting him i believe we would have got a small fee, but as he is chosing to bugger off then look for a club we get nothing

The compensation fee for young players was designed to stop players just walking away and going to another club at the end of their contract, without some sort of recompense for the club he left, so I don't see why you think what Dawson is doing is different.

What Dawson is doing now is no different to what Williams did to the trees last summer.

 

[Steven]

Just out of interest, does his age mean we would get a fee if he signs for someone else?

nope, as he isnt leaving on a bosman but as a free agent. if he was signed with the club still wanting him i believe we would have got a small fee, but as he is chosing to bugger off then look for a club we get nothing

The compensation fee for young players was designed to stop players just walking away and going to another club at the end of their contract, without some sort of recompense for the club he left, so I don't see why you think what Dawson is doing is different.

What Dawson is doing now is no different to what Williams did to the trees last summer.

I said Webbie would know. ;-) :mrgreen:

 

[EMC Fox]

So we should get something for the 4 years we've put into training him... £3.45 probably

 

[Steven]

So we should get something for the 4 years we've put into training him... £3.45 probably

... if Harry Bassett did the contract. ;-) :mrgreen:

 

[webmaster]

According to FIFA's guidelines we should get £200,000 for him!

Can't see that happening though.

But having read a long and boring FIFA document, it only talks about compensation for young players who are transfering from one association to another, so presumably there are separate regulations in England.


And in my attempts to find a plain English version of the regulations I've found something which makes me think there's a chance we won't get anything. But there are so many different versions of the rules, and none of them easy to understand, it's difficult to know what the actual position is.
One version (which may not be related to this situation at all), says something about players having to be offered a contract with terms that are at least as good as they're currently on. So if we offered Dawson less money it could mean we don't get anything for him.

So I'm still looking for the definitive answer!

 

[webmaster]

From the FA handbook:

(xiii) If the notice to exercise any option contained in the agreement on the same or not less favourable terms and conditions overall, as in the agreement but excluding the option provision, and that such further period shall not be for longer in extent than that of the initial period of employment, the agreement can continue in full force and effect, as between the parties hereto and shall terminate on the last day of the option.


So that's cleared that up...

 

[bocadillo]

From the FA handbook:

(xiii) If the notice to exercise any option contained in the agreement on the same or not less favourable terms and conditions overall, as in the agreement but excluding the option provision, and that such further period shall not be for longer in extent than that of the initial period of employment, the agreement can continue in full force and effect, as between the parties hereto and shall terminate on the last day of the option.


So that's cleared that up...

But we don't actually know that Dawson was being offered a 'less favourable' contract. It may be that it just wasn't as good as he thought it should be. In which case, we should get compensation - but I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near what we were required to pay for Williams; perhaps £50,000 tops.

 

[webmaster]

From the FA handbook:

(xiii) If the notice to exercise any option contained in the agreement on the same or not less favourable terms and conditions overall, as in the agreement but excluding the option provision, and that such further period shall not be for longer in extent than that of the initial period of employment, the agreement can continue in full force and effect, as between the parties hereto and shall terminate on the last day of the option.


So that's cleared that up...

But we don't actually know that Dawson was being offered a 'less favourable' contract. It may be that it just wasn't as good as he thought it should be. In which case, we should get compensation - but I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near what we were required to pay for Williams; perhaps £50,000 tops.

FIFA's guidelines on the compensation is based on the number of years the player was trained by the club, multiplied by a certain amount which depends on the league the club was in at the time. These figures are 90,000 Euro for Premiership teams and 60,000 for Championship teams. So if Dawson spent four years with us, two in the current league, and two in the Premiership, if the FA follow FIFA's guidelines we should get 300,000 Euro. But according to FIFA we should have paid only £240,000 for Williams, so we know the FA use their own rules - which probably takes into account stuff like appearances, wages, potential etc. Although if the FA do this I suspect it would be in breach of the European Court's ruling regarding the freedom of movement of players. The compensation is just supposed to cover training costs, and nothing else.

 

[fitz]

but forest wanted to keep williams, which is why it went to a tribunal, our club wont really miss this player so i doubt a claim for compensation would be claimed. he will be released without argument from the club, therefore becoming a free agent with no ties to city i would have thought?

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

Not so sure that is the case, surely by making Dawson the contract offer, this demonstrates our intention to have kept him at the club and therefore we will be entitled to compensation however small it turns out to be.

 

[webmaster]

but forest wanted to keep williams, which is why it went to a tribunal, our club wont really miss this player so i doubt a claim for compensation would be claimed. he will be released without argument from the club, therefore becoming a free agent with no ties to city i would have thought?

We haven't 'released' him, (despite what some websites are claiming), he's turned down a contract offer.
If we didn't want to keep him we wouldn't have offered him a contract.

Maybe the club will think the compensation payable will be so small they won't pursue it.

 

[Lboro fox]

[quote="webmaster]
Maybe the club will think the compensation payable will be so small they won't pursue it.[/quote]

I doubt it, even if its only 50k, thats the transfer fee for both de vries and maybury. I think it would be worth pursuing anyhting we can get.

 

[webmaster]

Maybe the club will think the compensation payable will be so small they won't pursue it.

I doubt it, even if its only 50k, thats the transfer fee for both de vries and maybury. I think it would be worth pursuing anyhting we can get.

I'm sure if they expect to get £50,000 they'll pursue it.
But if the expected compensation fee is so low that it doesn't justify the costs involved (in terms of time and financial costs) I don't think they'll bother.

I think if it goes to a tribunal the club would have to pay costs for the tribunal, submit a report and send people to the tribunal. If they only expect to get a few thousand from it might not be worth it.

But it would only go to a tribunal if a fee can't be agreed between the clubs.

 

[EMC Fox]

This is all assuming anyone else actually wants him :roll: