Transfer Salaries

[bobbyzam]

I have just been having a discussion with a friend.

They reckon that if a player who is in contract is sold by their club, to another without them requesting a transfer and the club they are transferred to pays them less money. Their old club must pay the difference in salary for the remainder of the contract.

For Example:

We sell Johnny Dixon to Crawley without him requesting a move. If assuming he has 1 year left on his deal (not sure if it is 1 or 2 years, but for arguements sake)

Say he is on £1,000 a week, but Crawley only agree to pay him £500

So for the remaining year of his contract we would have to pay the £500 difference.


Obviously all of the above is hypothetical but could someone confirm whether that is the case or not. Because I was adament that it wasn't

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Might explain why we havent signed Richards yet.

Interesting example, why Dixon and Crawley

 

[severnside gull]

Don't know to be honest but I would insist on being paid up or I would sit out the contract so law/regulation or not it makes a heap of sense

 

[northstandnorth]

this is usualy the case because the leaving player would be a mug to give up a guaranteed wage in exchange for an inferior contract.
but often the player will take less for a lump sum.

it the bad old days of bamber and mullery we shifted out loads of players at a loss to get them off the stupid 10 year contracts they had been given.

most famous case was steve foster who cost us more to pay up his contract than we got for him

 

[bobbyzam]

this is usualy the case because the leaving player would be a mug to give up a guaranteed wage in exchange for an inferior contract.
but often the player will take less for a lump sum.

it the bad old days of bamber and mullery we shifted out loads of players at a loss to get them off the stupid 10 year contracts they had been given.

most famous case was steve foster who cost us more to pay up his contract than we got for him

But surely it is a case of stay put and take the salary, or move to somewhere you would rather be / actually getting a game, and taking a hit on wages.

It strikes me as having your cake and eating it.

 

[northstandnorth]

we wanted foster off the wage bill we got something like 350grand from villa we paid him up for 400grand but the saving was in the wage bill,villa picked that up till they punted him out to luton(after about 15 games)and probably paid him up again.

as for your point about getting a game are you seriously saying if your employer was paying you not to do your job you would take a 50% pay cut to work hard somewhere else?

 

[bobbyzam]

as for your point about getting a game are you seriously saying if your employer was paying you not to do your job you would take a 50% pay cut to work hard somewhere else?

Football is different though. I would imagine 99% of Footballers want to play football and not sit and rot in the reserves. So yes I think some players would take a 50% pay cut just to play.

 

[severnside gull]

Football is different though. I would imagine 99% of Footballers want to play football and not sit and rot in the reserves. So yes I think some players would take a 50% pay cut just to play.

cuckoo










cuckoo







cuckoo



:thud:

 

[northstandnorth]

Football is different though. I would imagine 99% of Footballers want to play football and not sit and rot in the reserves. So yes I think some players would take a 50% pay cut just to play.

and santa exists right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


look at lampard a serial badge kisser,harding,leon shite and every other tosser who has "always wanted to play for my boyhood team" players are no more dedicated to their employer than you or i are.

 

[northstandnorth]

some might as hull city have shown but ONLY when they are financially secure AND extend their playing careere(spelling?)

 

[northstandnorth]

and your question was about what a players is entitled to upon giving up a contract.

you are now moving it into speculation about what a player MIGHT accept.

your friend is right, players moving at the request of a selling club will get any difference in wages made up by the selling club(for at least the length of contract still between themselves and the seller)

in other words if they had a 3 year contract at 1000 a week with 2 years left to run the seller would make up the difference.

in fosters case he had 7 years left on a 10 year contract,villa only offered him a 3 year deal so we had to pay him 4 years money to make up the difference.

but we saved 2 and a half years of his wages on the deal

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I would have thought it would have been against the governing bodies of footballs rules to allow a player to be paid by two clubs, the reason being there can be an arguement over whether that player was still being influcenced by his previous club and therefore possibly engineering results to benefit his original club (especially if moving to another club in the same division)

If the player was offered less money by the new club, all the player has to do is refuse to sign, he can stay at the original club and see out his contract or hope another, better wage offer comes in that will interest him.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

and santa exists right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


look at lampard a serial badge kisser,harding,leon shite and every other tosser who has "always wanted to play for my boyhood team" players are no more dedicated to their employer than you or i are.

what about Matt Le Tissier at Soton, he could have moved for higher wages at a better club and chose to earn less and stay put

 

[BensGrandad]

If I was a player and my club wanted to sell me I would sit tight until somebody, either club, paid me up or the club that wanted me offered me more money it seems logical to me but I have never really thought about it. I know that if a player doesnt ask for a transfer and is transferred he gets a % of the fee, I think that it is 5% to him and 5% to the PFA.

 

[Hercules Rockerfeller]

what about Matt Le Tissier at Soton, he could have moved for higher wages at a better club and chose to earn less and stay put

That's cos he is a fat, overrated bottler who was too scared to try and make it with a real club and now has nothing to show for his pathetic career... well apart from shagging Marilyn from Home and Away.

 

[Skint Gull]

That's cos he is a fat, overrated bottler who was too scared to try and make it with a real club and now has nothing to show for his pathetic career... well apart from shagging Marilyn from Home and Away.

Apart from the overrated bit thats pretty much spot on. Bloke certainly had talent but he was just about the laziest bugger ever in the Premier League

 

[scooter1]

I was always under the impression that if you were sold(without a transfer request) then the remainder of your contract was paid up by the selling club - done deal. However, if you requested a move then you forfeited the remaining term on your contract and moved onto a new contract with a new employer. - thus the selling club was liable for nothing.

Thats why you see clubs saying "we're not prepared to sell player X unless they hand in a transfer request", its to remove all financial liability from the selling club.