Can a player resign?

[CheeseRolls]

My understanding is that a player is registered to play for a club, for the length of the agreed contract. If a player retired the parties could come to some mutual agreement, but the club would retain the players registration for the period of the contract, thus preventing him from coming out of retirement and playing for another club.

Little Leon got himself into a similar mess with Rushden & Diamonds. They sacked him and he hung onto a club car. R&D retained his registration in lieu of payment for use of this vehicle and he was unable to return to play over here. I think some leagues are viewed as semi-professional and the rules are not strictly applied, hence he was able to play in the league of Ireland, until of course he fell out with people there as well.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Fair enough, so that would leave the player the option to buy out their own contract then...can a club stop them from doing so?

Slightly off the main point but Liverpool recently admitted they did have that clause in Suarez's contract yet still stopped Arsenal from talking to him. How is that allowed to happen?

Legally, a fixed term contract is just that - a contract for a finite, defined period of time (unless there are break clauses, the conditions of which have been met). A buyout clause inserted into the contract would be possible, but highly unusual and unlikely. So, in the vast majority of cases, no, legally neither party has the "option" to buy out their own contract. Pragmatically, however, if either party wants out of the contract, given that it's not a criminal offence to breach a civil contract, and given that paying up the balance of the contract is likely to be all (or nearly all) of the damages that a Court would award to the damaged party, offering to pay up the contract is likely to be accepted. So - legally, no; practically, yes. That leads to your second question: can a club stop them from paying up their contract? Legally, yes, they can. However, it would be very unusual and counter-productive to do so, since they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. I would have thought that the only circumstances when they'd do so, would be if there was personal animosity involved and it wasn't just a commercial decision.

Yes, Liverpool did admit that and I was very surprised that they did so. However, the downside for them is now minimal as it relates specifically to Suarez. Suarez has signed a new contract, so he's happy; and Liverpool had no contract with Arsenal, so while Arsenal may be p*ssed at Liverpool for not honouring their contract with Suarez, since Arsenal were not a party to the contract, they have no redress. Of course, in the wider context, Liverpool have publicly stated that they are a club that is prepared to break contracts - that's likely to have an effect when the next upset player seeks to break his contract with Liverpool. It certainly would do if I were that player - "how can you expect me to honour the contract when you've said that you're happy to break them?". IMO, it was a silly remark to make.

 

[jamie (not that one)]

I'm sure if Winston Bogard offered to resign from Chelsea years ago they would've accepted it.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Legally, a fixed term contract is just that - a contract for a finite, defined period of time (unless there are break clauses, the conditions of which have been met). A buyout clause inserted into the contract would be possible, but highly unusual and unlikely. So, in the vast majority of cases, no, legally neither party has the "option" to buy out their own contract. Pragmatically, however, if either party wants out of the contract, given that it's not a criminal offence to breach a civil contract, and given that paying up the balance of the contract is likely to be all (or nearly all) of the damages that a Court would award to the damaged party, offering to pay up the contract is likely to be accepted. So - legally, no; practically, yes. That leads to your second question: can a club stop them from paying up their contract? Legally, yes, they can. However, it would be very unusual and counter-productive to do so, since they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. I would have thought that the only circumstances when they'd do so, would be if there was personal animosity involved and it wasn't just a commercial decision.

Yes, Liverpool did admit that and I was very surprised that they did so. However, the downside for them is now minimal as it relates specifically to Suarez. Suarez has signed a new contract, so he's happy; and Liverpool had no contract with Arsenal, so while Arsenal may be p*ssed at Liverpool for not honouring their contract with Suarez, since Arsenal were not a party to the contract, they have no redress. Of course, in the wider context, Liverpool have publicly stated that they are a club that is prepared to break contracts - that's likely to have an effect when the next upset player seeks to break his contract with Liverpool. It certainly would do if I were that player - "how can you expect me to honour the contract when you've said that you're happy to break them?". IMO, it was a silly remark to make.

Thank you for that very clear explanation!

With the Suarez instance, presumably the only person that could now take action is Suarez?

I'm surprised the FA/PFA haven't said anything, regardless of Suarez's current situation, surely all contract clauses should be honoured for the sake of integrity in the game (as you allude to in your post).

 

[Goldstone1976]

Thank you for that very clear explanation!

With the Suarez instance, presumably the only person that could now take action is Suarez?

I'm surprised the FA/PFA haven't said anything, regardless of Suarez's current situation, surely all contract clauses should be honoured for the sake of integrity in the game (as you allude to in your post).

Yes, the only person who could claim damages in the Suarez/Liverpool thing is Suarez. Given he's signed a new contract he's pretty unlikely to do so, I'd have thought! Also, by signing a new contract with the party that broke the previous contract, I would expect any Court to throw out any case he now brought, saying "Hang on. You haven't been disadvantaged in any way now. What "damage" have you actually suffered?" However, if he hadn't signed a new contract, he would, imo, have had a strong case. No doubt, in those circumstances, Liverpool would have sought to counter-claim by citing examples of where Suarez had himself broken the contract. I'm not itk re Suarez's contract, so I'm not asserting that he did break any clauses, merely saying that trying to find such breaches would be Liverpool's defence.

I agree strongly with your last paragraph: yes, imo, all contract clauses should be honoured - not just in football. However, football has such a bad reputation in this area, with contracts being broken all the time and in very public way, it will be very difficult to make an industry-wide change. This is why the situation concerning Gus and BHAFC was so unusual - the club ostensibly went the legal way of resolving what they have asserted was a breach of contract. I'm not sure it's unique in football, but it's certainly highly unusual.

 

[father_and_son]

Probably about right, thing is, how does that work in terms of employment law then (speaking as a layman to all things law related)?

Are there similar arrangements in other professions?

"Non-Compete" clauses are fairly standard in many professions. If you leave a company but are still contacted (via notice period or some other contractual obligation) then it is often contractual that you do not work for another company in a similar capacity. Applying this to footballers, then walking out on one club would they could go off and become, say, a butcher, but not a professional footballer playing for another club.

Legally, a company cannot reasonably stop someone earning a living, but they could take out an injunction to stop you earning a living in a certain way.

Because a contract aids both parties and either could sue if there is a breach, a compromise agreement is the normal way to end the contract early. This normally means the "aggrieved" party waives any right to sue while the party in breach offers some level of compensation to end the contract.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

"Non-Compete" clauses are fairly standard in many professions. If you leave a company but are still contacted (via notice period or some other contractual obligation) then it is often contractual that you do not work for another company in a similar capacity. Applying this to footballers, then walking out on one club would they could go off and become, say, a butcher, but not a professional footballer playing for another club.

Legally, a company cannot reasonably stop someone earning a living, but they could take out an injunction to stop you earning a living in a certain way.

Iain Dowie from Palace to Charlton (I think) being an example of this presumably?

Vaguely remember some sort of incident at a press conference when he was announced as manager after leaving Palace for 'family reasons'.

 

[Uncle C]

Croft resigned after being at Norwich.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Iain Dowie from Palace to Charlton (I think) being an example of this presumably?

Vaguely remember some sort of incident at a press conference when he was announced as manager after leaving Palace for 'family reasons'.

Yes, Simon Jordan sent some lawyers to the press conference I believe - got quite messy. This link explains a bit of what happened - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Dowie

 

[Puppet Master]

Didn't Lee Bradbury do this a few years back?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The Suarez situation is quite clear cut if I recall correctly. I think it was said that Liverpool merely agreed that Suarez had the contractual right to be notified of any bid over £40m. They didn't agree to sell him for that price, only to make him aware of any bids. Which they duly did, thus fulfilling their obligations to the player, but still reserving their right to tell Arsenal to poke it.

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

The Suarez situation is quite clear cut if I recall correctly. I think it was said that Liverpool merely agreed that Suarez had the contractual right to be notified of any bid over £40m. They didn't agree to sell him for that price, only to make him aware of any bids. Which they duly did, thus fulfilling their obligations to the player, but still reserving their right to tell Arsenal to poke it.

I thought (and I guess if there's nothing out there to the contrary then that's all any of can do) that any bid over the £40m mark meant that Liverpool had to let the club that made the approach talk to Suarez, not just make him aware of it. That's why I thought it was pretty odd that they've come out and admitted that not only does the clause exist but that they completely ignored it.

 

[drew]

My understanding is that a player is registered to play for a club, for the length of the agreed contract. If a player retired the parties could come to some mutual agreement, but the club would retain the players registration for the period of the contract, thus preventing him from coming out of retirement and playing for another club.

Little Leon got himself into a similar mess with Rushden & Diamonds. They sacked him and he hung onto a club car. R&D retained his registration in lieu of payment for use of this vehicle and he was unable to return to play over here. I think some leagues are viewed as semi-professional and the rules are not strictly applied, hence he was able to play in the league of Ireland, until of course he fell out with people there as well.

I was going to say the same. Registration is far more important than contracts. I believe players can only play for two clubs in any one season, ie they can't sign for one club, play several games for them, then get sold before the end of August and play for another club in the same league and then get sold again in January. This doesn't apply to loan deals.

 

[AZ Gull]

I was going to say the same. Registration is far more important than contracts. I believe players can only play for two clubs in any one season, ie they can't sign for one club, play several games for them, then get sold before the end of August and play for another club in the same league and then get sold again in January. This doesn't apply to loan deals.

Arron Davies was caught out by these regulations in the 2009-10 season. He was contracted to Forest, and then came to Brighton on a long-term loan (until December 31st) on September 1st. After returning to Forest, he was released by them on January 19th. Yeovil wanted to sign him, but FIFA regulations restricted players to signing for two clubs in one season (the long-term loan was classified in the same way as a permanent deal, whereas short-term loans were not). Therefore, Brighton agreed to sign Davies on a permanent contract (which was allowable), and then immediately loan him to Yeovil.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

If a player is really really Unhappy at a club, whats to stop him "retiring" and then a few months later signing for another club??

The best example of this happening is by one Brighton and Hove Albions top scorers - Leon's wiki page will try and explain

On 12 December, Rushden & Diamonds confirmed that Knight had been sacked after continual breaches of conduct between November and December 2008. Despite his contract having been terminated, Rushden & Diamonds retained the players registration, preventing Knight from joining another English club until the term of his contract had expired, unless £30,000 in compensation was paid to the club.[8] The FA confirmed and validated the retaining of the registration, meaning Knight could not play at any level of English football until the contract had expired.[8] The contract had initially been due to expire following the 2009–10 season, but Rushden & Diamonds invoked a clause allowing them to extend the contract by a further year.[8]

On 13 January 2009, Knight joined Greek club Thrasivoulos Filis on a six-month contract.[8] He made his Super League debut on 25 January as a second half sub playing 20 minutes against Skoda Xanthi. Knight made only 2 subsequent appearances as a sub, his last appearance coming on 8 February 2009. Knight had not been involved in any game for the club in over 3 months and looked certain to leave Thrasivoulos when his contract expired at the end of the season. After his contract expired he went on trial with Major League Soccer side San Jose Earthquakes.[8]

Knight was later released by Hamilton on 14 January 2010.[19] The next day, Knight joined Dumfries club Queen of the South until the end of the season.[16][20] He made his debut in a 1–1 draw with Dundee on 23 January.[21] He was released at the end of the 2009–10 season, having made six league appearances for the club. In September 2010, Knight was set to return to English football with Conference side Darlington after a successful trial,[22] but his transfer was blocked by previous club Rushden, who had held onto his registration and demanded £30,000 for the deal to be completed.[23][24] Knight responded by criticising Rushden & Diamonds on his Twitter account, saying that he has chosen not to buy-out his contract as a matter of principle. "Rushden have said they don't want the money from Darlington, they want it from me – I refuse to pay them out of principle. If I wanted I could raise the money and pay them but I don't want to give them the satisfaction."[23][25]

The following month, Knight elected to continue his career outside of England by signing for Northern Irish side Coleraine.[26] He scored twice on his debut in a 2–1 win away to Glenavon on 16 October 2010.[27] He agreed an 18-month contract extension with the club in January 2011,[28] and finished the 2010–11 season with 14 league goals from 23 matches. In June, he went on trial with Swindon Town, but was released after two days because of insufficient fitness levels. "He's not the player for us. It's not his fault, we tried, but his fitness at the moment is not good," said Swindon manager Paolo Di Canio. "We are not in a position where we can wait for a player to be fit, we need a player to be ready and fit in the next two weeks, to compete and challenge during the season."[29] Two weeks later, Knight was transfer-listed and suspended by Coleraine for failing to appear for training and matches. He also breached club rules by stating his desire to return to England and play for another IFA Premiership club.[30][31] However, a fortnight later, Knight signed a new two-year contract with the club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Knight