Hunt the 1st to go - more to follow

[parkfieldowl14]

6 hours ago, meggoisgod said:

If we sell Fox I'm literally having a party

Are we all invited then in the event that Fox is finally off our Books ?

[OWLERTON GHOST]

3 minutes ago, Bolsterstone Owl said:

 

 

Sadly I am one of the above and unfortunately it ain't footballer. 

Can I book the lab in for his Anàl Gland doing  Steve?

Edited July 5, 2018 by OWLERTON GHOST

[meggoisgod]

1 hour ago, parkfieldowl14 said:

Are we all invited then in the event that Fox is finally off our Books ?

Yep massive party

[Birley Owl 1867]

2 hours ago, Bolsterstone Owl said:

No. 

It's the biggest player con in football. 

Many players move for that very reason. 

Effectively get paid twice for one year, or more. 

The club only do not have to pay if the player  requested the transfer. 

Standard PFA contract law. 

 

Is that correct? I only thought it was the loyalty bonus which was payable and not the remaining wages? Which in that case would be nothing for us towards Hunt as he will have received his on 1 July.

[Birley Owl 1867]

But in theory the Hunt could accept a payment of 400k instead if of what he is owed.

[RichieB]

24 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

Turns out it's not all outstanding wages.

 

Its the difference between the wages for us and for his new club. For example if he was on 20k for us and gets 30k at Bristol, we have to pay him that 10k a week (520k a year) effectively saving 520k.

 

That is an astonishing claim to make about Fletcher though. I'd be careful if j was you.

 

If that's true it's not likely we'll have to pay him much at all, I doubt Bristol will be paying him £10k a week more than us, it's likely they wont even be paying him more, but the lure and security of a 3 year deal will obviously attract JH. 

 

I know loyalty bonuses have to be paid by the selling club but I've never heard of them having to pay the full wages. 

 

If that's the case imagine how much Real Madrid will have to pay Ronaldo if he moves to Juve. 

[Birley Owl 1867]

9 minutes ago, RichieB said:

 

If that's true it's not likely we'll have to pay him much at all, I doubt Bristol will be paying him £10k a week more than us, it's likely they wont even be paying him more, but the lure and security of a 3 year deal will obviously attract JH. 

 

I know loyalty bonuses have to be paid by the selling club but I've never heard of them having to pay the full wages. 

 

If that's the case imagine how much Real Madrid will have to pay Ronaldo if he moves to Juve. 

If I'm honest I'd never heard of that either but after some research it seems to be the case.

 

I know I just used 20k/30k as an example.

 

In theory if Ronaldo gets less money at Juve then Real don't have to pay anything as there is no shortfall in his old deal to his new one.

[bradowl]

20 hours ago, Alan Robinson said:

Rumour around Ashton Gate is that we're after Jack Hunt - any substance to the rumour? 

 

Personally Id like to see Reach and Bannon joining us as well!

 

Only if you've got about £25Million transfer funds.

[RichieB]

1 minute ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

If I'm honest I'd never heard of that either but after some research it seems to be the case.

 

I know I just used 20k/30k as an example.

 

In theory if Ronaldo gets less money at Juve then Real don't have to pay anything as there is no shortfall in his old deal to his new one.

 

I still reckon it's only the loyalty bonus that needs paying by the selling club. 

 

Think about it, if we had to pay the difference in wages from us to his new club, what would that mean if we unearthed a young gem like Ryan Sessegnon just for example , we then put him on £5k a week, and sold him to man utd where he gets put on £100k a week, are you saying we'd have to pay £95k a week difference

 

 

[Birley Owl 1867]

2 minutes ago, RichieB said:

 

I still reckon it's only the loyalty bonus that needs paying by the selling club. 

 

Think about it, if we had to pay the difference in wages from us to his new club, what would that mean if we unearthed a young gem like Ryan Sessegnon just for example , we then put him on £5k a week, and sold him to man utd where he gets put on £100k a week, are you saying we'd have to pay £95k a week difference

 

 

Yes that would be c correct.

 

But it seems that cases like that the bigger club pays that difference themselves as a gesture to the smaller club they've bought from.

[Bolsterstone Owl]

I've worked in contract law for 20 years, sometimes in football related matters. I have already said enough in this thread. But you're wrong. The selling club has to pay up in full outstanding wages to the departing player. Often negotiated down, yes, as a one off settlement, and often offset against the transfer fee. A selling clubs ties then end. They do not subsidise a shortfall in the new players wages, nor an uplift. Once they've settled up with the player that's them done. 

Loyalty payments are nothing to do with wages. It's a completely separate issue, whose terms vary. 

You would not believe the things in some contracts. But these are all separate to the wages part. 

 

[Triple O]

6 minutes ago, Bolsterstone Owl said:

I've worked in contract law for 20 years, sometimes in football related matters. I have already said enough in this thread. But you're wrong. The selling club has to pay up in full outstanding wages to the departing player. Often negotiated down, yes, as a one off settlement, and often offset against the transfer fee. A selling clubs ties then end. They do not subsidise a shortfall in the new players wages, nor an uplift. Once they've settled up with the player that's them done. 

Loyalty payments are nothing to do with wages. It's a completely separate issue, whose terms vary. 

You would not believe the things in some contracts. But these are all separate to the wages part. 

 

Not according to the 10 or so sites I've just viewed. Inc BBC and reeves. Transfer fee is compensation to selling club for player not completing contract. Buyers assume responsibility for player as detailed in new contract

[the mighty wednesday]

18 minutes ago, Bolsterstone Owl said:

I've worked in contract law for 20 years, sometimes in football related matters. I have already said enough in this thread. But you're wrong. The selling club has to pay up in full outstanding wages to the departing player. Often negotiated down, yes, as a one off settlement, and often offset against the transfer fee. A selling clubs ties then end. They do not subsidise a shortfall in the new players wages, nor an uplift. Once they've settled up with the player that's them done. 

Loyalty payments are nothing to do with wages. It's a completely separate issue, whose terms vary. 

You would not believe the things in some contracts. But these are all separate to the wages part. 

 

So if Hunt's wages over the length of his remaining contract are say £1.5m and we sell him for £1.5m we have to pay him the amount of his remaining contract? This means we gain £1.5m and lose £1.5m. Why not just keep him? If this is correct there is no point in the sale unless he waives part or all of the sum and I'd suggest it renders the majority of player sales totally pointless from a financial point of view.

Edited July 5, 2018 by the mighty wednesday

[Bark1062]

20 hours ago, Bluesteel said:

 

He came here after a series of loan spells elsewhere. He was a bit of a rough diamond in that every where he’d been (hudds, forest, Rotherham) he’d do these marauding runs up field taking players on (limited end product) but was perhaps a bit of a loose cannon positionally. 

 

Carvalhal seemed to want to make him a more disciplined player and reigned that in. He was still one of our main outlets but he really didn’t like players running with the ball so Hunt would need to operate in a more possession based game, picking the moment to make the runs. Sounds great in theory but I thought he looked much better as that slightly cocky unreserved player than the one we’ve had. Perhaps because his strength is dribbling rather than assists and actual defending. A lot of his tackles are last minute recovery and he isn’t as comfortable as more “boring” fullbacks when faced with direct wingers, he can get isolated by them and have been known to give him problems.

 

Lee Johnson should just give him free reign to bomb on with the ball if he wants to see the best of him in my view.

Just don’t ask him to defend or cross a ball and you have a player that can fly up and down the line with nothing at either end....make of that what you will.

[RichieB]

18 minutes ago, Bolsterstone Owl said:

I've worked in contract law for 20 years, sometimes in football related matters. I have already said enough in this thread. But you're wrong. The selling club has to pay up in full outstanding wages to the departing player. Often negotiated down, yes, as a one off settlement, and often offset against the transfer fee. A selling clubs ties then end. They do not subsidise a shortfall in the new players wages, nor an uplift. Once they've settled up with the player that's them done. 

Loyalty payments are nothing to do with wages. It's a completely separate issue, whose terms vary. 

You would not believe the things in some contracts. But these are all separate to the wages part. 

 

 

Again I'm going to use Ronaldo as an example, so if Juve buy him for €100m, then Real Madrid have to pay his remaining wages in full? He has 3 years left on his contract worth €21.5m a year

 

So they gain €100m for the fee and instantly have to pay €64.5m of that straight away to Ronaldo? 

 

Doesn't seem likely. 

[Bolsterstone Owl]

You haven't read my post correctly. Technically that is correct unless a player waives it. That may happen for a number of reasons. But more likely a comprise is made. With a settlement made on the % outstanding, where the selling club still realistically benefits. Otherwise why sell. 

However, because of this technicality it is always in the players and his agent's interest to keep moving. Hence, the transfer merry go round. 

[nethertonowl]

14 minutes ago, RichieB said:

 

Again I'm going to use Ronaldo as an example, so if Juve buy him for €100m, then Real Madrid have to pay his remaining wages in full? He has 3 years left on his contract worth €21.5m a year

 

So they gain €100m for the fee and instantly have to pay €64.5m of that straight away to Ronaldo? 

 

Doesn't seem likely. 

I agree wirh you , that’s not how I understood it worked. 

[Bolsterstone Owl]

18 minutes ago, RichieB said:

 

Again I'm going to use Ronaldo as an example, so if Juve buy him for €100m, then Real Madrid have to pay his remaining wages in full? He has 3 years left on his contract worth €21.5m a year

 

So they gain €100m for the fee and instantly have to pay €64.5m of that straight away to Ronaldo? 

 

Doesn't seem likely. 

 

Why not? 

Real are  35 million up. 

Ronaldo and his agent are richer. 

Real realise 35 million on an asset now they may get nothing for in three years and Juve get a flagship signing. 

All are happy bar one set of fans. That's business. 

[RichieB]

7 minutes ago, Bolsterstone Owl said:

 

Why not? 

Real are  35 million up. 

Ronaldo and his agent are richer. 

Real realise 35 million on an asset now they may get nothing for in three years and Juve get a flagship signing. 

All are happy bar one set of fans. That's business. 

 

Real Madrid aren't bothered about €35m that's why, that's nowt to them. For one of the world's best players, getting only €35m, for them it wouldn't be worth it, even considering his age. 

[Guest]

I'm not sure this works like this in practice. Once a player agrees to sign a new contract with another club during the period of his contract at a previous club that effectively ends the previous contract. There may be some negotiation to settle on amounts but I can't see it regularly being the case that full terms are paid up  - as some have said, if it were the case that we were to receive £1.6M for Hunt but had to pay him a years wages which amounted to around this sum anyway then what is the point in selling him? It is often reported that players have taken a cut in wages to facilitate a move but you don't hear the report also state that he got his previous wage paid to him as well.