Paying Up Contracts

[Tom Fleuriot]

There's been a lot of talk on here about how a transfer request means you don't have to pay up someone's contract. I'm a little confused by this.

My understanding is that under contract law, when you breach a contract (or end a contract early), you have to pay damages suffered by the other side. The side suffering the damage cannot claim where damage has not arisen.

So let's say that a player (let's call him Albert) is earning £2k a week (I am not saying this is what he earns, it just makes the maths easier). There are 50 weeks left on his contract, therefore £100k.

If he hands in a transfer request, he is looking to end his contract, therefore Bristol City do not owe him any damages.

If Bristol City accept an offer and he hasn't handed in a transfer request, then City are looking to end his contract. But the damages should be the margin between his wages at City and his wages at the new club.

Therefore if at the new club, Albert is earning more than £2k per week, there is no damage anyway. Albert would not be able to claim compensation as he has suffered no loss in the early ending of his contract. If he is earning, say, £1k per week at the new club then City would have to pay £50k.

If I'm right, then Albert handing in a transfer request is of no benefit to the club whatsoever - it is highly likely that the next club he moves to will offer him more money. The players that you want to hand in a transfer request are those who will move down the ladder and earn less money at their new club - your Nicky Hunts, Damion Stewarts etc.

So does anybody out there know whether I've missed the point (e.g. because of standard clauses in footballers' contracts)?

[Guest]

That is exactly my understanding of it also.

[Philly The Kid]

In employment law yes.

But there is nothing to stop both parties negotiating additional compensation as long as it is within the legal framework, so, for instance, your player Albert, may have negotiated that in addition to the damages he could receive if the club decide to sell him (with himself NOT requesting a move) being the difference between his city contract, and that of the contract offered by the new club, his current club (City) will pay the remainder of his contract in full....

We don't get to see contracts unfortunately (more's the pity), so we don't get to see what clauses are written in, but as long as the legal minimum is adhered to, the player (his agent), or indeed the club, can negotiate in whatever they feel they can get away with to achieve maximum value for money.

As long as both parties are acting within the law, anything goes.

[Tom Fleuriot]

Makes sense. It does seem strange to me if there are additional clauses to pay up remainder regardless of subsequent employment. Perhaps another sign of slightly ridiculous player power.

[Mickey Bells left foot]

i find incredibly bizarre that players being sold would to better themselves would have their remaining wages paid up by the selling club. For example someone like Suarez at liverpool is on say 70k a week and has 2 years left and lets say he gets sold to Arsenal who offer him 80k a week, he hasn't put in a transfer request then surely Liverpool would not need to pay him a percentage of his wages on the 2 years left. It just makes no financial sense.

[Philly The Kid]

i find incredibly bizarre that players being sold would to better themselves would have their remaining wages paid up by the selling club. For example someone like Suarez at liverpool is on say 70k a week and has 2 years left and lets say he gets sold to Arsenal who offer him 80k a week, he hasn't put in a transfer request then surely Liverpool would not need to pay him a percentage of his wages on the 2 years left. It just makes no financial sense.

Lets be honest, very little in football makes common sense, that's why it's in the state it is.

I s'pose you could compare it to redundancy, in as much as there is a minimum payment you could expect to receive, which is something like a week for every year you've been there, with percentage increases after you are aged 40 and above.

Now some companies (like lower division clubs, and every company I've worked for!!, for instance) will only pay the absolute legal minimum, where as other, bigger, more wealthier companies (like premier league clubs) will pay an additional ex gratia amount in order to attract the better staff (players)...

Contracts are complex, and I believe are made more complex by the scourge of the modern game, AGENTS!! Obviously the days of clubs shafting poorly paid players is long over (rightly so), but the balance has swung too much in favour of the player.

That said, if someone is stupid enough to pay you these sums of money, and include very attractive terms in their contracts, would you turn it down?...No, neither would I.

I know we're not talking about the same thing, strictly speaking, but it's a comparison worth making.

[REDOXO]

A transfer request is simply that. It neither invalidates or terminates an existing contract and both party's are still bound by that agreement.

[B-Rizzle]

This thread has confused me a bit. I always thought I had a decent understanding of the transfer process but maybe not...

My previous understanding was that if Albert, for example, has one year left on his contract and Wigan come in to buy him, by bidding for him they are attempting to buy the player out of his contract with BCFC. By accepting an offer for him and Albert registering and signing a contract with a new club we are released from our contract with the player and no longer have to pay him for that final year.

Is this not correct?!

[Philly The Kid]

This thread has confused me a bit. I always thought I had a decent understanding of the transfer process but maybe not...

My previous understanding was that if Albert, for example, has one year left on his contract and Wigan come in to buy him, by bidding for him they are attempting to buy the player out of his contract with BCFC. By accepting an offer for him and Albert registering and signing a contract with a new club we are released from our contract with the player and no longer have to pay him for that final year.

Is this not correct?!

No, in as much that the player hasn't asked to move, therefore he is entitled to receive the terms of his contract with his current club.

IF, however, said player submits a formal request to move (as Albert has) he then forfeits any payments due to him from his current club, Unless he has negotiated anything different.

Once the move is contractually complete, the current club then cease any responsibility for making any payment unless further payments are a negotiated part of the deal, (as in the case of Fielding and JET if you believe what you read).

However long the player has left on his contract is irrelevant. it only affects his value to the current club, and those who may want to purchase him. it doesn't have any bearing on what he gets paid.

For anyone who has ever had a company lease car, and has expressed an interest in buying it, the length of time left on the lease directly affects the residual value and the price the lease company quotes you. So as you near the end of the lease, the price is less than it would be if the lease is quite new. Look at it like that...

[Tom Fleuriot]

A transfer request is simply that. It neither invalidates or terminates an existing contract and both party's are still bound by that agreement.

Yes. But I would have thought that as it is a request to terminate, when the club is granting that request the player is no longer an innocent party.

[downendcity]

My understanding, albeit a very simple one, has always been that the main difference between a player asking for a move or not, is that by asking for a move the player forfeits a slice of the transfer fee ( didn't it used to be 5%??) and would also forfeit any bonuses or loyalty payments within his current contract.

I've never thought that not asking for a move meant the selling club had to pay up the players contract, because the player can turn down any move he wants while he remains under contract. Imagine if Albert was on £4000 a week with us and we accepted an offer from Wigan, say, who were offering Albert only £3000 a week. If Albert doesn't fancy the wages or the new club ( a la Maynard and Leicester) then he declines the move and stays put because he's under contract, and we would be legally bound to maintain the current contract terms till the end of the contract. If, say, Albert was unhappy and wanted to move in order to get guaranteed first team football by moving to Wigan , even at lower wages, then it would be his choice, and I would think our contractual obligations to him would end when he was transferred.

If we wanted to move a highly paid player off the payroll, then it might be that we would negotiate a deal so that if he moved to lower wages elsewhere, we would agree a cash settlement for the wages he would be losing.

Then again, my simple understanding might be way off the mark!

[RedM]

I thought transfer request = 'I do not want to play for your club anymore therefor if you agree you do not owe me wages etc for the time remaining on my contract' ie you save wages but you can ask another club to pay a fee for my registration.

If a player is transfer listed by the club = ' i am still owed a years wages, wasn't my idea to leave, I have to find another club and probably move house, why should I lose out financially, I haven't broken my contract but done everything asked'

If you do not agree to my request I will not be happy but reluctantly fulfil my obligations, eg play when requested, turn up on match days etc, otherwise I would be breaking my contract.

[mcbcfc]

I believe that generally players have it written into their contract that they get the remainder of their contract payed up by the selling club. In some cases if the buying club is bigger then they get round this by waiving this and paying additional on to the signing on fee. If a transfer requested is entered this normally means the player forfeits his right to get payment for the remainder of his contract from the selling club.

[Philly The Kid]

I believe that generally players have it written into their contract that they get the remainder of their contract payed up by the selling club. In some cases if the buying club is bigger then they get round this by waiving this and paying additional on to the signing on fee. If a transfer requested is entered this normally means the player forfeits his right to get payment for the remainder of his contract from the selling club.

In a nutshell....

[Nibor]

There's been a lot of talk on here about how a transfer request means you don't have to pay up someone's contract. I'm a little confused by this.

My understanding is that under contract law, when you breach a contract (or end a contract early), you have to pay damages suffered by the other side. The side suffering the damage cannot claim where damage has not arisen.

So let's say that a player (let's call him Albert) is earning £2k a week (I am not saying this is what he earns, it just makes the maths easier). There are 50 weeks left on his contract, therefore £100k.

If he hands in a transfer request, he is looking to end his contract, therefore Bristol City do not owe him any damages.

If Bristol City accept an offer and he hasn't handed in a transfer request, then City are looking to end his contract. But the damages should be the margin between his wages at City and his wages at the new club.

Therefore if at the new club, Albert is earning more than £2k per week, there is no damage anyway. Albert would not be able to claim compensation as he has suffered no loss in the early ending of his contract. If he is earning, say, £1k per week at the new club then City would have to pay £50k.

If I'm right, then Albert handing in a transfer request is of no benefit to the club whatsoever - it is highly likely that the next club he moves to will offer him more money. The players that you want to hand in a transfer request are those who will move down the ladder and earn less money at their new club - your Nicky Hunts, Damion Stewarts etc.

So does anybody out there know whether I've missed the point (e.g. because of standard clauses in footballers' contracts)?

There isn't general "contract law" that covers this so specifically. The assumption that the difference matters is wrong, in any normal situation your current employer would know nothing about your remuneration at your new employer for example.

With high value temporary contracts it is common for severance terms to be provided in the contract.

In the football league, contracts are standardized and the terms are pretty much that the contract is payable in full unless a written transfer request is submitted.

There is always the option of both parties agreeing whatever they like, but the norm is that they're paid in full.