| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 16:16 - May 5 with 965 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:47 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
What nobody is taking into account is the cost of settling player contracts. We paid £20M (+ add ons) for Omari. He has another 4 years on his contract. What's he earning - £60k per week? That's £3M per year. If he hasn't asked for a transfer and we accept a bid, we have to settle his contract. That costs us £12M. So where is the profit? It just isn't worth selling him unless we get a bid of £40M, unless he has a release clause he activates, which is the same as asking for a transfer.
Liam Delap - his release clause (reportedly £30M) if he activates it means we don't have to settle his contract (the buying club would though). If he didn't have a release clause, we'd need well over £40M to get the same net profit. [Post edited 5 May 15:32]
|
What?!
Football would have literally collapsed a long time ago if this was true. |  | |  |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 16:24 - May 5 with 929 views | DavoIPB |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:47 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
What nobody is taking into account is the cost of settling player contracts. We paid £20M (+ add ons) for Omari. He has another 4 years on his contract. What's he earning - £60k per week? That's £3M per year. If he hasn't asked for a transfer and we accept a bid, we have to settle his contract. That costs us £12M. So where is the profit? It just isn't worth selling him unless we get a bid of £40M, unless he has a release clause he activates, which is the same as asking for a transfer.
Liam Delap - his release clause (reportedly £30M) if he activates it means we don't have to settle his contract (the buying club would though). If he didn't have a release clause, we'd need well over £40M to get the same net profit. [Post edited 5 May 15:32]
|
this must be wrong.ot would bankrupt any club and remove the ability id clubs to make profits on sales of players. |  | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 16:29 - May 5 with 907 views | mellowblue |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:47 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
What nobody is taking into account is the cost of settling player contracts. We paid £20M (+ add ons) for Omari. He has another 4 years on his contract. What's he earning - £60k per week? That's £3M per year. If he hasn't asked for a transfer and we accept a bid, we have to settle his contract. That costs us £12M. So where is the profit? It just isn't worth selling him unless we get a bid of £40M, unless he has a release clause he activates, which is the same as asking for a transfer.
Liam Delap - his release clause (reportedly £30M) if he activates it means we don't have to settle his contract (the buying club would though). If he didn't have a release clause, we'd need well over £40M to get the same net profit. [Post edited 5 May 15:32]
|
It really doesn't work like that. | | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 16:33 - May 5 with 890 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 15:48 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
With respect Phil, I don't think that's right. A contract is a contract. If the player doesn't request a move, and the club decide they want t sell him, then the club are breaking the contract - hence they would need to settle it, or be in breach of contract and could be sued.
Of course, there could be a compromise settlement figure agreed if player and club both want the move. [Post edited 5 May 15:51]
|
Mate, you have got this completely wrong. The player has a contract and he doesn't have to leave. But if he accepts/wants to take the other offer then he goes. The only scenario we would pay anything in terms of his current contract is in the scenario we are trying to shift a high earner and the other party can't offer this wages. All parties then may agree that we would for example pay off the difference. Or if the player simply won't go then the club may agree to settle a contract or part of it.
In no world does the selling club always pay off the remainder of the contract. That would make no sense. Nobody would ever sell!! | |
| |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 18:58 - May 5 with 761 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 15:37 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
Nope. The club decide if they want to accept a bid to sell a player. That means the club have to pay up the contract. Unless the player requests a transfer - which is in essence the same as invoking a release clause. It's then up to the buying club to agree terms, and where the player may (or may not depending upon demand) get the buying club to compensate him for the old contract.
It's worth reading The Secret Footballer where he talks about this.
It's one of the main reasons that transfer fees just keep going up and up and up, to cover the cost of settling the player's contract.
Hence we won't be selling Omari for £30M. [Post edited 5 May 15:40]
|
Who’s a silly goose |  |
| |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 19:11 - May 5 with 733 views | OldFart71 |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:47 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
What nobody is taking into account is the cost of settling player contracts. We paid £20M (+ add ons) for Omari. He has another 4 years on his contract. What's he earning - £60k per week? That's £3M per year. If he hasn't asked for a transfer and we accept a bid, we have to settle his contract. That costs us £12M. So where is the profit? It just isn't worth selling him unless we get a bid of £40M, unless he has a release clause he activates, which is the same as asking for a transfer.
Liam Delap - his release clause (reportedly £30M) if he activates it means we don't have to settle his contract (the buying club would though). If he didn't have a release clause, we'd need well over £40M to get the same net profit. [Post edited 5 May 15:32]
|
A club doesn't have to settle the players contract. The fee the new club pays is essentially a fee to end that players contract and a new one will be given by the players new club. Contracts only have to be paid up if a players contract as with a manager is terminated and even then I would suspect there are occasions where the full amount isn't paid because of mutual agreement or that the player or manager has broken club or FA/FIFA rules. | | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 09:20 - May 6 with 514 views | Bellevue_Blue |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:47 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
What nobody is taking into account is the cost of settling player contracts. We paid £20M (+ add ons) for Omari. He has another 4 years on his contract. What's he earning - £60k per week? That's £3M per year. If he hasn't asked for a transfer and we accept a bid, we have to settle his contract. That costs us £12M. So where is the profit? It just isn't worth selling him unless we get a bid of £40M, unless he has a release clause he activates, which is the same as asking for a transfer.
Liam Delap - his release clause (reportedly £30M) if he activates it means we don't have to settle his contract (the buying club would though). If he didn't have a release clause, we'd need well over £40M to get the same net profit. [Post edited 5 May 15:32]
|
A 'transfer fee' is the amount of money one football club pays to another to secure the registration of a player who is still under contract. It essentially compensates the selling club for the early termination of the player's contract.
In nearly every transfer, the player’s contract ends cleanly as a result of the fee being paid, and the buying club negotiates a new one. | | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 09:46 - May 6 with 461 views | bournemouthblue |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 07:55 - May 5 by mikeybloo88 |
So essentially they’d have given us Philogene plus £15m for Omari...great deal for them |
It's a strange world out there |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 10:36 - May 6 with 385 views | Wright1 |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 15:48 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
With respect Phil, I don't think that's right. A contract is a contract. If the player doesn't request a move, and the club decide they want t sell him, then the club are breaking the contract - hence they would need to settle it, or be in breach of contract and could be sued.
Of course, there could be a compromise settlement figure agreed if player and club both want the move. [Post edited 5 May 15:51]
|
Pretty irrelevant in my opinion because there is no way in hell the club sell Omari against his will. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm certain we will move heaven and earth to keep him and he'll only go if he pushes to play PL football next season. | | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 12:09 - May 6 with 322 views | xrayspecs |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 15:48 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
With respect Phil, I don't think that's right. A contract is a contract. If the player doesn't request a move, and the club decide they want t sell him, then the club are breaking the contract - hence they would need to settle it, or be in breach of contract and could be sued.
Of course, there could be a compromise settlement figure agreed if player and club both want the move. [Post edited 5 May 15:51]
|
Tell me you do not know what you are talking about, without saying "I do not know what I am talking about".
Suspect this is a deliberate trolling exercise.
Phil is correct, if the players has not asked for a transfer, then he remains entitled to any signing on bonuses that were agreed. He is paid until the day he signs for another club. There is no settlement of the rest of his contract. [Post edited 6 May 12:11]
| | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 12:14 - May 6 with 303 views | warky_1970 |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:47 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
What nobody is taking into account is the cost of settling player contracts. We paid £20M (+ add ons) for Omari. He has another 4 years on his contract. What's he earning - £60k per week? That's £3M per year. If he hasn't asked for a transfer and we accept a bid, we have to settle his contract. That costs us £12M. So where is the profit? It just isn't worth selling him unless we get a bid of £40M, unless he has a release clause he activates, which is the same as asking for a transfer.
Liam Delap - his release clause (reportedly £30M) if he activates it means we don't have to settle his contract (the buying club would though). If he didn't have a release clause, we'd need well over £40M to get the same net profit. [Post edited 5 May 15:32]
|
Well that’s absolute made up nonsense.
We will not have to pay his contract up. |  | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 12:18 - May 6 with 299 views | warky_1970 |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 15:48 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
With respect Phil, I don't think that's right. A contract is a contract. If the player doesn't request a move, and the club decide they want t sell him, then the club are breaking the contract - hence they would need to settle it, or be in breach of contract and could be sued.
Of course, there could be a compromise settlement figure agreed if player and club both want the move. [Post edited 5 May 15:51]
|
With respect you are out of your depth and have no idea what you are on about.
It may be that’s what someone once told you but it is absolute nonsense. As Phil says, he would get the remainder or his signing on fee (which is spread over the term of the contract and paid annually in instalments in the anniversary of the commencement of the contract), he will then negotiate a new signing on fee with his new club and that’s it. Contract terminated and registration of player passed to the buying team. | | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 12:36 - May 6 with 263 views | HighgateBlue |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 15:48 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
With respect Phil, I don't think that's right. A contract is a contract. If the player doesn't request a move, and the club decide they want t sell him, then the club are breaking the contract - hence they would need to settle it, or be in breach of contract and could be sued.
Of course, there could be a compromise settlement figure agreed if player and club both want the move. [Post edited 5 May 15:51]
|
It's got nothing to do with who requests the move.
If the player agrees to bring the contract with club A to an end in order to move to club B, then the contract with club A is at an end. Naturally the player has no obligation to go along with this.
If the player does not want this, then club A are stuck with him, unless there is a mutual termination deal without another club to go to immediately.
In Omari's case, it's fairly likely that a bigger club will be paying him bigger wages. So he'd be getting more than he was on at Ipswich, and playing in the Premier League. Unless he's wedded to Ipswich and Kieran and thinks his progress will benefit from staying, you can see how he would jump at this sort of chance and it makes sense for all parties, as long as the price is right for Ipswich.
You talk about being sued - in the unlikely event that Ipswich force Omari to leave even though he doesn't want to go (how would they even do this?) and the buying club is paying more in wages, what would Omari be suing /for/?
He would have no real loss. 'But for' the breach of contract he would have been earning lesser wages at Ipswich. With the breach of contract he'd be earning /more/. If there's no loss then there's no claim. In which case, Ipswich plainly have no incentive to pay up his contract. |  | | |
| Interesting discussion.... I went straight to AI... on 14:13 - May 6 with 193 views | BristolBlue42 |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 12:36 - May 6 by HighgateBlue |
It's got nothing to do with who requests the move.
If the player agrees to bring the contract with club A to an end in order to move to club B, then the contract with club A is at an end. Naturally the player has no obligation to go along with this.
If the player does not want this, then club A are stuck with him, unless there is a mutual termination deal without another club to go to immediately.
In Omari's case, it's fairly likely that a bigger club will be paying him bigger wages. So he'd be getting more than he was on at Ipswich, and playing in the Premier League. Unless he's wedded to Ipswich and Kieran and thinks his progress will benefit from staying, you can see how he would jump at this sort of chance and it makes sense for all parties, as long as the price is right for Ipswich.
You talk about being sued - in the unlikely event that Ipswich force Omari to leave even though he doesn't want to go (how would they even do this?) and the buying club is paying more in wages, what would Omari be suing /for/?
He would have no real loss. 'But for' the breach of contract he would have been earning lesser wages at Ipswich. With the breach of contract he'd be earning /more/. If there's no loss then there's no claim. In which case, Ipswich plainly have no incentive to pay up his contract. |
No, a football club does not have to settle (i.e., pay out) a player's contract just because they accept a transfer bid from another club.
Here’s how it typically works:
Transfer bid acceptance: When the selling club accepts a transfer bid, that simply gives the buying club permission to negotiate with the player. It doesn't automatically terminate the player's contract.
Player agreement required: The transfer can only happen if the player agrees to personal terms (e.g., salary, contract length) with the buying club. The player is not obligated to leave just because a bid is accepted.
No settlement if player moves: If the player agrees to the transfer, their existing contract with the selling club is terminated by mutual agreement, and the new club takes over with a new contract. In this case, the original club doesn’t owe the player anything further under the old contract.
Settlement may be needed if terminating early without transfer: If the club wants to terminate the contract unilaterally (e.g., releasing a player without a new club), they may have to negotiate a settlement for the remaining value of the contract.
So, unless the player is being released or the contract is being terminated outside of a transfer, no settlement is typically required. | | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:38 - May 6 with 150 views | tivo |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:47 - May 5 by LegendofthePhoenix |
What nobody is taking into account is the cost of settling player contracts. We paid £20M (+ add ons) for Omari. He has another 4 years on his contract. What's he earning - £60k per week? That's £3M per year. If he hasn't asked for a transfer and we accept a bid, we have to settle his contract. That costs us £12M. So where is the profit? It just isn't worth selling him unless we get a bid of £40M, unless he has a release clause he activates, which is the same as asking for a transfer.
Liam Delap - his release clause (reportedly £30M) if he activates it means we don't have to settle his contract (the buying club would though). If he didn't have a release clause, we'd need well over £40M to get the same net profit. [Post edited 5 May 15:32]
|
Nobody is taking it into account because it is not true. | | | |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 14:39 - May 6 with 148 views | tivo |
| Aston Villa and West Ham United among clubs fighting to sign Omari on 15:42 - May 5 by PhilTWTD |
In that situation they would pay what remained of his signing on fee, not the remainder of his contract. If that were the case, then clubs who are broke would be even more broke when the sold players. |
There are no 'Signing on Fees'. They're all loyalty/retention bonus' split over the length of the contract. Leaving and signing a contract with someone else means you lose this bonus. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
