Transfer Requests

[Dullmoan Tone]

An interesting quote from Shay Given today reported by the BBC.

"By making me hand in a formal written request, it meant they could waive 10% of the fee I otherwise would've picked up after moving."

I never realised that players received 10% of the fee, it just shows how keen some players are to move - just think how much Coutinho was giving up to try and join Barca - or our very own Kodjia with Villa?

[Ska Junkie]

1 minute ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

An interesting quote from Shay Given today reported by the BBC.

"By making me hand in a formal written request, it meant they could waive 10% of the fee I otherwise would've picked up after moving."

I never realised that players received 10% of the fee, it just shows how keen some players are to move - just think how much Coutinho was giving up to try and join Barca - or our very own Kodjia with Villa?

This annoys me actually. While Coutinho admitted he would like to move and did actually, eventually ask for a transfer, the likes of Kodjia refused to play but didn't (afaik) ask officially for a transfer. We had no choice but to sell the moody git but the player made £1.5M by throwing his toys out of the pram rather than asking to leave officially.

Who pays that in Kodjia's case, us or Villa?

[palmerred]

Can actually spread a bit of light on this as a close mate of mine is an ex player who retired 2 years ago.

It's standard when you are out of contract that a club pays you a signing on fee, it's normally around what 10% of your contractual value would be. So for each £1m you are worth you would get say 100K.

When you are under contract and want to leave a club, many clubs will ask you to request a transfer, when you do this the club no longer has to pay up your contract when you are sold and you forfeit your right for your agreed part of future transfer fee. This is standard terms.

So it basically comes down to two factors, if a player isn't playing and wants to play and desperately wants game time, they might be happy to forgo any fee and future wages, in order to try and find a new club.

When a club is trying to sell a player, the player is entitled to their contract paid in full if the new contract is not better and longer than the period left. If the period is longer and on equal or better terms, then the club does not have to contribute to wages.

So basically when a player has no use to the club, the player will often be released by mutual agreement or the player will request a transfer.

If a club are trying to sell a player but the player is actually happy to stay, he's entitled to his fee.

My mate, about 6 years ago had 18 months on a contract when he was told he was being sold on, the club accepted a bid of 250K for him and he was on around 5K a week. The club buying him would only offer him 3K a week but on a 2 and half year deal. The selling club had to pay the 2K a week difference in wage for the remaining 18 months, whilst also paying him his 25K fee. Had he requested a transfer he wouldn't have been entitled to either.

[CodeRed]

45 minutes ago, palmerred said:

Can actually spread a bit of light on this as a close mate of mine is an ex player who retired 2 years ago.

It's standard when you are out of contract that a club pays you a signing on fee, it's normally around what 10% of your contractual value would be. So for each £1m you are worth you would get say 100K.

When you are under contract and want to leave a club, many clubs will ask you to request a transfer, when you do this the club no longer has to pay up your contract when you are sold and you forfeit your right for your agreed part of future transfer fee. This is standard terms.

So it basically comes down to two factors, if a player isn't playing and wants to play and desperately wants game time, they might be happy to forgo any fee and future wages, in order to try and find a new club.

When a club is trying to sell a player, the player is entitled to their contract paid in full if the new contract is not better and longer than the period left. If the period is longer and on equal or better terms, then the club does not have to contribute to wages.

So basically when a player has no use to the club, the player will often be released by mutual agreement or the player will request a transfer.

If a club are trying to sell a player but the player is actually happy to stay, he's entitled to his fee.

My mate, about 6 years ago had 18 months on a contract when he was told he was being sold on, the club accepted a bid of 250K for him and he was on around 5K a week. The club buying him would only offer him 3K a week but on a 2 and half year deal. The selling club had to pay the 2K a week difference in wage for the remaining 18 months, whilst also paying him his 25K fee. Had he requested a transfer he wouldn't have been entitled to either.

Interesting

So if we wanted to sell - say - Engval to a Swedish club in January , and he hasn't asked for a transfer. The Swedish club agree a fee but can only afford 4K a week (and he's on 10K her)  then we have to pay him the 6K difference - so he doesn't lose out. All we save is the 4K.    

But why don't the buying club just offer a lowly 1K per week knowing that City would have to make it up anyhow to the 10K on the contract. So they gain - we lose.

It just shows how sure the club have to be when buying a player - you're locked into payments even after the player has gone.  I wonder what Cardiff offered Tomlin and how much we're still paying him

[Lanterne Rouge]

10 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

Interesting

So if we wanted to sell - say - Engval to a Swedish club in January , and he hasn't asked for a transfer. The Swedish club agree a fee but can only afford 4K a week (and he's on 10K her)  then we have to pay him the 6K difference - so he doesn't lose out. All we save is the 4K.    

But why don't the buying club just offer a lowly 1K per week knowing that City would have to make it up anyhow to the 10K on the contract. So they gain - we lose.

It just shows how sure the club have to be when buying a player - you're locked into payments even after the player has gone.  I wonder what Cardiff offered Tomlin and how much we're still paying him

Wasn`t this the situation with JET? Weren`t Ipswich still paying some of his wages?

[Midlands Robin]

It just goes to show how clubs get into so much trouble these days. Look at clubs like Portsmouth who would have been desperate to off load their high waged players to reduce their bills when they got into trouble a few years back.

From reading this thread, even if they got a decent transfer fee then they could have been locked into the high wages.

As to why clubs don't offer low wages to deliberately have the other club make up the shortfall, from what I've read here that only lasts for the duration the two contracts overlap. After that a player could find himself trapped on a ridiculously low wage so wouldn't be likely to risk signing a contract like that or the buying club would find themselves negotiating a new contract to keep the player and end up paying more in the long run. No wonder negotiations take so long.

[palmerred]

1 minute ago, Midlands Robin said:

It just goes to show how clubs get into so much trouble these days. Look at clubs like Portsmouth who would have been desperate to off load their high waged players to reduce their bills when they got into trouble a few years back.

From reading this thread, even if they got a decent transfer fee then they could have been locked into the high wages.

As to why clubs don't offer low wages to deliberately have the other club make up the shortfall, from what I've read here that only lasts for the duration the two contracts overlap. After that a player could find himself trapped on a ridiculously low wage so wouldn't be likely to risk signing a contract like that or the buying club would find themselves negotiating a new contract to keep the player and end up paying more in the long run. No wonder negotiations take so long.

Correct so in regards of offering a low wage, say it's a four year deal and the player has 18 months left, he won't be signing a deal which sees him have 1k a week after 18 months. 

[wendyredredrobin]

A player will often do better running his contract down and joining a new club for a signing on fee.

[palmerred]

My mate signed a deal after an injury with a Championship side in which he played for free until the January to get fit on the agreement that his wage would increase to 5k a week from the January and he would get a 18 month deal. This was based on a number of appearances, the club played him one below the target and dropped him for 5 weeks, then offered him 2.5 years on £2500 a week, he felt stitched up and refused to sign and ended up moving to Charlton. He couldn't believe he had been so foolish to play for a club for free on a promise which never matured. 

[palmerred]

2 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

A player will often do better running his contract down and joining a new club for a signing on fee.

Very true, unless said player has had injuries and wants to play, and feels a year or two without a game will make it very hard to get a club. walking away 6-12 months earlier and getting a club albeit at a lower level on a lesser wage short term, to get yourself back in managers eyes is often preferred by said player.

[Tipps69]

30 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

Interesting

So if we wanted to sell - say - Engval to a Swedish club in January , and he hasn't asked for a transfer. The Swedish club agree a fee but can only afford 4K a week (and he's on 10K her)  then we have to pay him the 6K difference - so he doesn't lose out. All we save is the 4K.    

But why don't the buying club just offer a lowly 1K per week knowing that City would have to make it up anyhow to the 10K on the contract. So they gain - we lose.

It just shows how sure the club have to be when buying a player - you're locked into payments even after the player has gone.  I wonder what Cardiff offered Tomlin and how much we're still paying him

Because it’s depending on how long the player has left on his contract. If they offer him a 3 year contract (to get him to join) but say he only has a year left here, he would get the full amount of his salary for the length of his contract with us but for the remaining 2 years of his contract he would only get £1k p/w going by your example. Whereas, if they offer him £4k p/w for 3 years, he would still get the £10k p/w for the last year of our contract but £4k p/w for the remaining 2 years.

So by accepting peanuts, he could be doing himself out of money for a few years.

[Robbored]

5 minutes ago, palmerred said:

My mate signed a deal after an injury with a Championship side in which he played for free until the January to get fit on the agreement that his wage would increase to 5k a week from the January and he would get a 18 month deal. This was based on a number of appearances, the club played him one below the target and dropped him for 5 weeks, then offered him 2.5 years on £2500 a week, he felt stitched up and refused to sign and ended up moving to Charlton. He couldn't believe he had been so foolish to play for a club for free on a promise which never matured. 

I'm guessing that he didn't have an agent.

[Tipps69]

9 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

It just goes to show how clubs get into so much trouble these days. Look at clubs like Portsmouth who would have been desperate to off load their high waged players to reduce their bills when they got into trouble a few years back.

From reading this thread, even if they got a decent transfer fee then they could have been locked into the high wages.

As to why clubs don't offer low wages to deliberately have the other club make up the shortfall, from what I've read here that only lasts for the duration the two contracts overlap. After that a player could find himself trapped on a ridiculously low wage so wouldn't be likely to risk signing a contract like that or the buying club would find themselves negotiating a new contract to keep the player and end up paying more in the long run. No wonder negotiations take so long.

The exact situation Leeds got themselves in when they had the squad that got them to the Champions League semifinals & then they bombed out & were left paying many thousands of pounds p/w to players that weren’t even playing for them & I can see Leicester being in a very similar position if they aren’t careful.

[palmerred]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I'm guessing that he didn't have an agent.

Couldn't afford one. 

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, palmerred said:

Couldn't afford one. 

What percentage do agents charge?  It City's annual financial returns there were large amounts paid to agents.....That suggests the agents get paid not only by the club but the player as well.

Nice work if you can get it.

[palmerred]

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

What percentage do agents charge?  It City's annual financial returns there were large amounts paid to agents.....That suggests the agents get paid not only by the club but the player as well.

Nice work if you can get it.

All I know Is my mate got rid of an agent after he left Bolton. He joined Bolton and the deal was worth about 1.5m, he paid his agent £30,000 as a fee for getting him the deal, and the agent was paid the same fee from Burnley and Bolton. In return he got a deal where he earned £12,000 a week and a joining fee of £100k. His agent took 15k of the joining fee and 15% of his wages, for costs, management and arrangement fees. At the start of his 3rd season at Bolton he starting having muscle issues and couldn't stay fit, his agent booked him a 30k a month recovery physio and took 4.5k a month arrangement fee as well. He was released by Bolton, and sacked his agent, he later signed for Blackpool. He's been back to and got a degree and for the last two years took part time roles at lower league clubs, but since he left his last club in the summer, he's given up football and concentrating on other matters. He still plays for a small Saturday league side but he struggles with muscle issues caused by the treatement for injuries he got earlier in his career. 

[archie andrews]

5 minutes ago, palmerred said:

All I know Is my mate got rid of an agent after he left Bolton. He joined Bolton and the deal was worth about 1.5m, he paid his agent £30,000 as a fee for getting him the deal, and the agent was paid the same fee from Burnley and Bolton. In return he got a deal where he earned £12,000 a week and a joining fee of £100k. His agent took 15k of the joining fee and 15% of his wages, for costs, management and arrangement fees. At the start of his 3rd season at Bolton he starting having muscle issues and couldn't stay fit, his agent booked him a 30k a month recovery physio and took 4.5k a month arrangement fee as well. He was released by Bolton, and sacked his agent, he later signed for Blackpool. He's been back to and got a degree and for the last two years took part time roles at lower league clubs, but since he left his last club in the summer, he's given up football and concentrating on other matters. He still plays for a small Saturday league side but he struggles with muscle issues caused by the treatement for injuries he got earlier in his career. 

go on palmerered tell us who he is........

[palmerred]

1 minute ago, archie andrews said:

go on palmerered tell us who he is........

Wouldn't take much working out. 

[westred1]

14 minutes ago, palmerred said:

All I know Is my mate got rid of an agent after he left Bolton. He joined Bolton and the deal was worth about 1.5m, he paid his agent £30,000 as a fee for getting him the deal, and the agent was paid the same fee from Burnley and Bolton. In return he got a deal where he earned £12,000 a week and a joining fee of £100k. His agent took 15k of the joining fee and 15% of his wages, for costs, management and arrangement fees. At the start of his 3rd season at Bolton he starting having muscle issues and couldn't stay fit, his agent booked him a 30k a month recovery physio and took 4.5k a month arrangement fee as well. He was released by Bolton, and sacked his agent, he later signed for Blackpool. He's been back to and got a degree and for the last two years took part time roles at lower league clubs, but since he left his last club in the summer, he's given up football and concentrating on other matters. He still plays for a small Saturday league side but he struggles with muscle issues caused by the treatement for injuries he got earlier in his career. 

Say hello to Chris Eagles!

[palmerred]

6 minutes ago, westred1 said:

Say hello to Chris Eagles!

Will do ! He wasn't the first mate was talking about who retired 2 years ago, that lad still coaches for Bamber Bridge whilst running a Sandwich shop ! 

[CodeRed]

4 hours ago, Tipps69 said:

Because it’s depending on how long the player has left on his contract. If they offer him a 3 year contract (to get him to join) but say he only has a year left here, he would get the full amount of his salary for the length of his contract with us but for the remaining 2 years of his contract he would only get £1k p/w going by your example. Whereas, if they offer him £4k p/w for 3 years, he would still get the £10k p/w for the last year of our contract but £4k p/w for the remaining 2 years.

So by accepting peanuts, he could be doing himself out of money for a few years.

ok, makes sense now

far too much money sloshing around football - what other worker moves on and still gets paid by his former employer.

[Tipps69]

8 hours ago, CodeRed said:

ok, makes sense now

far too much money sloshing around football - what other worker moves on and still gets paid by his former employer.

Similarly, what managers get rewarded so handsomely for failure? Even in Craig Shakespeare’s case, signed a 3 year contract & actually did the job for only about 6 months or even Alan Pardew, he signed a 10 year contract at Newcastle which was ludicrous.

You’re completely right, there is far too much money in football & when it’s compared to jobs that put lives in danger & they have to work ridiculously long hours, there is no logic in it. In my opinion.

[EnderMB]

A lot of this was covered in The Secret Footballer's book(s). If you sign a player on a three year contract and sell him after two, they are entitled to the last year of their contract. If they hand in a transfer request, they waive their right to the remainder of their contract, and any loyalty-based bonuses they also have.

The reason we don't see as many transfer requests nowadays is because players now have a lot of money to lose. If you're on £5k a week, and Man City want to sign you then it's worth risking that money. If you're on £80k a week and Barcelona want you, a transfer request means you'll lose a ton of money, even if Barcelona are opting to pay double.

[Davefevs]

On 18/10/2017 at 17:04, palmerred said:

Can actually spread a bit of light on this as a close mate of mine is an ex player who retired 2 years ago.

It's standard when you are out of contract that a club pays you a signing on fee, it's normally around what 10% of your contractual value would be. So for each £1m you are worth you would get say 100K.

When you are under contract and want to leave a club, many clubs will ask you to request a transfer, when you do this the club no longer has to pay up your contract when you are sold and you forfeit your right for your agreed part of future transfer fee. This is standard terms.

So it basically comes down to two factors, if a player isn't playing and wants to play and desperately wants game time, they might be happy to forgo any fee and future wages, in order to try and find a new club.

When a club is trying to sell a player, the player is entitled to their contract paid in full if the new contract is not better and longer than the period left. If the period is longer and on equal or better terms, then the club does not have to contribute to wages.

So basically when a player has no use to the club, the player will often be released by mutual agreement or the player will request a transfer.

If a club are trying to sell a player but the player is actually happy to stay, he's entitled to his fee.

My mate, about 6 years ago had 18 months on a contract when he was told he was being sold on, the club accepted a bid of 250K for him and he was on around 5K a week. The club buying him would only offer him 3K a week but on a 2 and half year deal. The selling club had to pay the 2K a week difference in wage for the remaining 18 months, whilst also paying him his 25K fee. Had he requested a transfer he wouldn't have been entitled to either.

This is very useful insight for those on the forum who just think you can play football manager with players and just get rid of.  In fact football manager replicate the rules pretty well from memory.

Haven’t read the secret footballer stuff, but if you think life is a bed of Roses for a footballer then have a read of Ben Smith’s "Journeyman", and how there are subtleties between getting short-term deals and professional contracts and therefore getting paid over the close season or not.  Bit of an eye-opener.

[Taz]

On 18/10/2017 at 18:01, CodeRed said:

Interesting

So if we wanted to sell - say - Engval to a Swedish club in January , and he hasn't asked for a transfer. The Swedish club agree a fee but can only afford 4K a week (and he's on 10K her)  then we have to pay him the 6K difference - so he doesn't lose out. All we save is the 4K.    

But why don't the buying club just offer a lowly 1K per week knowing that City would have to make it up anyhow to the 10K on the contract. So they gain - we lose.

It just shows how sure the club have to be when buying a player - you're locked into payments even after the player has gone.  I wonder what Cardiff offered Tomlin and how much we're still paying him

May be wrong but I think that's effectively how we were able to afford JET - Ipswich were paying him the difference in his wage whilst he was here.

[Lrrr]

6 hours ago, Taz said:

May be wrong but I think that's effectively how we were able to afford JET - Ipswich were paying him the difference in his wage whilst he was here.

Yeah Ipswich were paying half his wages, in all likelihood he was only ever going to be with us for the two seasons as I doubt we could have afforded his wages after that.

[ScottishRed]

The key difference is that players and indeed coaches are on fixed term contracts rather than contracts of employment that have notice periods.

Therefore if a player joins a club on a 3 year deal the club are liable to pay him the agreed salary for that 3 year period as long as he does not get 'sacked' for mis- conduct, behavior that could be defined as mis-conduct will be part of the contract.

No club would want to sack a player mid-contract through choice, unless the mis- conduct dictated that was their only and correct option - witness Adam Johnstone as one example.

A lesser misdemeanor would mean they would try and 'sell' the player as ultimately he would have a value - and is we all know, it's all about money now.

If the club decides to sell the player during the contract then they may have to 'pay him up' that depends on each individual situation.

What Bosman did is give the player the ability to leave at the end of his contract with no transfer fee, giving the player the ability to negotiate his own 'joining' fee, this can be significant given his new club have not had to pay his previous club a fee.

As for agents, I am at a loss as to why players choose to have them. If I had ever been in their situation I would employ an employment lawyer for the detailed contract negotiations and deal with the rest myself.

 

[RedorDead BCFC]

38 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

The key difference is that players and indeed coaches are on fixed term contracts rather than contracts of employment that have notice periods.

Therefore if a player joins a club on a 3 year deal the club are liable to pay him the agreed salary for that 3 year period as long as he does not get 'sacked' for mis- conduct, behavior that could be defined as mis-conduct will be part of the contract.

No club would want to sack a player mid-contract through choice, unless the mis- conduct dictated that was their only and correct option - witness Adam Johnstone as one example.

A lesser misdemeanor would mean they would try and 'sell' the player as ultimately he would have a value - and is we all know, it's all about money now.

If the club decides to sell the player during the contract then they may have to 'pay him up' that depends on each individual situation.

What Bosman did is give the player the ability to leave at the end of his contract with no transfer fee, giving the player the ability to negotiate his own 'joining' fee, this can be significant given his new club have not had to pay his previous club a fee.

As for agents, I am at a loss as to why players choose to have them. If I had ever been in their situation I would employ an employment lawyer for the detailed contract negotiations and deal with the rest myself.

 

I suppose an agent is a bit like these no win no fee solicitors, or PPI agents. You was always entitled to get the compensation yourself but they will no doubt get a better deal for you..  

[downendcity]

30 minutes ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

I suppose an agent is a bit like these no win no fee solicitors, or PPI agents. You was always entitled to get the compensation yourself but they will no doubt get a better deal for you.. themselves 

More like it.

[Davefevs]

I think a lot of the debate about agents is a negative one, e.g. they just take.  In a lot of cases that’s true.

But don’t you think the clubs would screw over the player if he went in unrepresented?

The players need to be more savvy and take more responsibility when appointing agents and then the terms of that deal with that agent.

Its also a very different discussion when talking about a Prem player’s agent and a player at League Two / National League Level.