Does anyone know?

[joe jordans teeth]

13 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It's a case of law v reality.

Legally a player has a contract of employment with a club. The player provides services, and the club pays him for that. Both promise to do that for a set period of time. Other rights and obligations exist, but those are the main ones.

The basic law of contract says that you can change a contract if all parties agree and it's done in the same form as the original contract. This is why managers often leave by "mutual consent". The club/manager mutually consent to each other breaking their side of the contract.

With a player then, as a legal position (and assuming no special terms exist), the contract exists, and the club cannot terminate the contract unilaterally without being sued by the player and paying out the rest of the promised wages (and other benefits). This is fundamentally why transfer fees exist. A transfer "fee" is in effect the purchasing club compensating the selling club for its costs incurred when it breaks the contract with the player that moves. Hence a player with more years in his contract goes for a higher fee, and one with 0 years left leaves "on a free".

Now, in reality, if a club can not only cover its costs, but also make a profit in receiving such compensation, then it is actually in their interest to terminate the contract and "sell" the player. Here, if the player resists the move it does not accept the new contract he is being offered he will be in one of a few positions:

1. His employer is angry with him and so he falls out with them and they don't play him and he rots. Some players accept this option (Rodwell, Bogarde etc) and happily see out their contract, receiving payment, training, but happily being lost in the wilderness;

2. Technically I guess the club could terminate the contract, but they'd have to pay out the player under normal employment rules. Expensive, and pointless.

3. Maybe the contract is mutually terminated, at which point the player chances his arm and free agent.

Either way, it's clear why in reality the most attractive option for all parties is to transfer the player's registration to a new club. Hence the transfer market exists.

This is a simplified version. Agents, standard contract clauses, FIFA's regs, and other laws influence things, but this basic contract law underpins it all.

So in answer to @Robbored - yes he could legally refuse, but why on earth would be do that?

 

In a year he’s going to be on a free near enough so why would you sign for let’s say a Wolves if they are the only club bidding,his agent will be telling him wait and pocket the transfer fee 

[pride of the west]

To be fair to RR there have been plenty of anecdotes from former players saying their club accepted an offer and told them they are going and they didn't even know where the club was on the map. Granted this is usually stories from years ago and no doubt its exaggerated a bit. But this day and age it's common knowledge players just sit on contracts and refuse to move

[Rocking Red Cyril]

10 hours ago, CodeRed said:

Of course he can't refuse. He has to go, the BCFC coaching staff will handcuff him to the railings at the HPC until West Ham (or whoever) arrive to transport him to a 5 bed new build with gym,cinema room, and pool in Chigwell, there he will remain under house arrest and only allowed out to train, play, visit Spearmint Rhinos, get tattooed , or romp with potential wannabe wags on the make. Summer trips to Marbella, Vegas, and Dubai (to buy Rolex watches) are conditional on good behaviour.

All this info is freely available on the OS - do keep up.

Woweeee free market professional perks there . Nice and cushty 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

12 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Why then do most of the Rovers' new signings look like someone is pointing a gun at them off camera to make them hold up the shirt?

Because why else would you sign for Rovers other being at gun point 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Rocking Red Cyril

[Curr Avon]

11 hours ago, bearded_red said:

Jesus wept.

He cried off.

[Oh Louie louie]

Can recall a deal had been agreed for one of my all-time favourite players, Frank Worthington to Liverpool, there was a rumour Frank had picked up a a non football injury, in the bedroom and Liverpool said no, was total rubbish Frank laughed it off and revealed it was due to a heart issue I think

[Lanterne Rouge]

31 minutes ago, TomF said:

Going back a fair old way back I recall Kevin Davies turning us down when he was at Chesterfield

I think that was Chesterfield going back on the deal. IIRC we had agreed to sign him and then he got a hat trick away at Bolton in the Cup and Southampton (?) came in with a much bigger bid so he went there.

[Eddie Hitler]

And of course there was Zach Clough.

Or rather his dad.

A month into the 2015–16 season, Clough dislocated his other shoulder and ruled him out for 3 months. In January 2016, a number of clubs including Everton ^[13] and Bristol City were interested in signing Clough. Bristol City had a £3,000,000 bid accepted however, Clough said that he wished to stay at Bolton so turned down his contract offer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Clough

 

[Robbored]

21 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Yes, a player can turn down a contract or even refuse to talk to a club

That’s exactly what I wanted to know - until recently I’d never given much thought to a player rights in any transfer.

[frenchred]

21 hours ago, bearded_red said:

Jesus wept.

Did he?