[Archived] Rhodes To Boro

[yoda]

Jordan the victim!

I've heard it all now

Poor lamb.

Can't see that he has done anything wrong,

I can see that Boro have cocked up big style though

[DE.]

And then be criticised for saying nothing.

What exactly was wrong with what PL said please chaps?

It makes us sound desperate to sell him. As a result we get lower offers in future, because other clubs now know we can't rebuild until JR is sold.

Look at how WBA have handled Berahino. That's how you do it - and they're still getting very high bids despite the lad being frozen out for the better part of six months. I'd guarantee that the same won't be true of Rhodes in the summer.

[Speedie Dived]

Players have a loyalty bonus written in to their contract and when they leave without submitting a transfer request they get paid this bonus.

They don't get their contract paid up

They are due contract in full, not just loyalty bonus. It's how every transfer in football operates.

[Hasta]

You really do. It's the law.

I have never heard that ever before in football.

I've also never seen it referred to in any discussions about club accounting which it would have huge impact upon surely. A lump sum would stick out like a sore thumb, and surely they don't spread it over 3 years.

[1864roverite]

On the contrary, it shows Rovers valuation of him, fee is in the open and is the starting point for negotiations. If he now goes on a scoring bender (if he stays) then his value goes up further. There will always be a club in for him, especially one of the big boys who take the drop this year.

[Pedro]

It's not just loyalty bonus it's everything. If a player is owed 5 million to end of deal then he would talk a lump sum to leave. It's a legal contract that one party is breaking.

Sorry, I still strongly disagree. You don't pay somebody for something they haven't yet done. The transfer fee is for the registration of the player (a compensation of sorts) and that terminates the contract with the club and player. At the time of signing with a team or under renegotiation, a fee will be agreed in terms of what the club will pay the player if they sell him. If they submit a request, they waive this amount.

[Lancaster Rover]

I think the poster is confusing loyalty bonuses and contracts. From what I can glean, he thinks Rovers somehow owe JR money for breach of contract. That would only be the case if Rovers took unilateral action to breach the agreement. What he's missing is no one forced JR to speak with Middlesborough, there was nothing unilateral in Rovers' actions as we only gave JR permission to speak to the bidder. It would have been a mutual cancellation of the contract, the benefit to JR being a new deal with a new club and the benefit to Rovers being the transfer fee.

Whether JR would forfeit or earn his loyalty bonus is a completely separate issue. When he told PL that he wanted to move was it informal or was it via a transfer request? I haven't a clue and I don't think anyone who knows would have reason to let us into the private contract negotiations.

As I've mentioned before my old man works in football and from what I have seen a transfer is generally split into two parts. The existing contract is usually cancelled by mutual consent, forgoing all payments owed in return for the release of the players registration form, which is what the buying club are actually purchasing. You don't actually buy a player, you buy their registration.

[islander200]

I think the poster is confusing loyalty bonuses and contracts. From what I can glean, he thinks Rovers somehow owe JR money for breach of contract. That would only be the case if Rovers took unilateral action to breach the agreement. What he's missing is no one forced JR to speak with Middlesborough, there was nothing unilateral in Rovers' actions as we only gave JR permission to speak to the bidder. It would have been a mutual cancellation of the contract, the benefit to JR being a new deal with a new club and the benefit to Rovers being the transfer fee.

Whether JR would forfeit or earn his loyalty bonus is a completely separate issue. When he told PL that he wanted to move was it informal or was it via a transfer request? I haven't a clue and I don't think anyone who knows would have reason to let us into the private contract negotiations.

I agree with everything that you say.Speedie dived is saying that any transferring player is entitled to have their contract paid up by the selling club

[Speedie Dived]

I have never heard that ever before in football.

I've also never seen it referred to in any discussions about club accounting which it would have huge impact upon surely. A lump sum would stick out like a sore thumb, and surely they don't spread it over 3 years.

I was surprised when I first heard but it's how it works. Quick bit of googling will explain better than I can.

[Norbert Rassragr]

Sounds like Rhodes' agent pushed the negotiations too far and Boro were taken by surprise. Shame as we could have done with that money. Hopefully Villa or someone will panic and bid £15m tomorrow.

[yoda]

I think you are completely wrong. If you sell a player you don't have to pay his contract up.

The contract has to be settled in some way, or it is still in force, this could be that the new club continues to pay it (as has been suggested by Boro honouring JR's current deal) or just agreeing a sum that is acceptable to both parties.

How anyone can claim this is Lambert's fault is beyond me, absolutely ridiculous.

Correct, the fault here is with Boro, they have made all the running and got the sums wrong it would appear

You really do. It's the law.

Yep, that is how it works. I think some are getting contracts and transfer fees confused.

The whole £30m thing is a red herring. If he scores the goals to send them up it's irrelevant, they'll be rolling in it anyway.

It is a red herring but it looks like it spooked Gibson at the last minute, maybe a bean counter said "what if we don't get promoted"

[4000Holes]

The statement shows some frustration, yes, but its a long way from disgraceful.

All the blame is pointed at Rhodes' Agent and Boro. Not Lamberts fault they can't get their sh!t together.

Its a statement of fact that Rhodes has wanted away, presumedly for footballing reasons, for some time. And when he's on the verge of getting his wish it falls down on additional bonus demands. One word for that, GREED.

Whats out of order is you pointing the finger of blame at a manager who isn't responsible for any of the past goings on and has barely had time to shape a team to his vision.

Good signs that that is starting to happen, so lets back him and the people who are part of the clubs future and appreciatively wave good by to those who are part of Rovers past.

Could not agree more. PL inherited a team that was desperately short of any pace and latterly confidence. He has not had one transfer window until this one. In my view, he is starting to build properly and since January 1st the signs are there. We do need to rebuild because if we don't there is only one way to go. We had 2, 20 goal per season players but ended nowhere near the automatic promotion places or play offs for that matter. Rhodes can score, yes, but we also need other areas on the field to perform. If that means he needs to go because he does not fit with playing strategy or we need money from the sale to strengthen other parts then so be it. Sometimes we forget that football is a team game.

[DE.]

On the contrary, it shows Rovers valuation of him, fee is in the open and is the starting point for negotiations. If he now goes on a scoring bender (if he stays) then his value goes up further. There will always be a club in for him, especially one of the big boys who take the drop this year.

People have been saying that for, what, two years now? Our high valuation of Rhodes and the high starting point for wages makes him a difficult asset to sell. Ultimately I think Rhodes will be sold in the near future, but if something doesn't happen in this window I wouldn't expect any more than £6m. We've made it very obvious we want to sell, which typically doesn't lend itself to an increasing sales value.

[BlueMonday]

So Rhodes would have got his 45k a week contract paid up here and then got the same deal at boro?Nonsense

Definatley not the case. Issues like Loyalty/signing on bonuses are negotiated when a player agrees a contract with a club. Every contract will be different to an extent, depending on what is negotiated. But loyalty and signing on bonuses will form part of the contract and will be known in advance. Loyalty/signing on bonuses will NOT be the remainder of the contract being paid up. They will be an agreed sum or percentage, otherwise you would have every player agitating for a move 10 minutes after signing a contract.

[Speedie Dived]

Sorry, I still strongly disagree. You don't pay somebody for something they haven't yet done. The transfer fee is for the registration of the player (a compensation of sorts) and that terminates the contract with the club and player. At the time of signing with a team or under renegotiation, a fee will be agreed in terms of what the club will pay the player if they sell him. If they submit a request, they waive this amount.

Fair enough you are welcome to disagree.

Going off your theory then, can I ring up my mortgage company and say I am not paying the rest of my mortgage as it hasn't happened yet?

[donnermeat]

A termination fee/loyalty bonus is set in a players contract when they sign it. A transfer request forfeits that fee.

Players like Adebayor wouldn't agree a deal anywhere else as his contract at Spurs was more lucrative than any other offer on the table and his loyalty bonus mustn't have bridged the gap between the two.

A contract only usually gets paid up in full to a player when there is a mutual termination, unless said player accepts a fee lower than his contract is worth.

We bought Conway for about what, 100k? Say he had 6 months left on his contract at around 5k per week (not sure of the exact figure), you're saying Cardiff would have been obligated to pay him the full transfer fee, making nothing. They may as well just have kept him in the squad in case they needed him.

Hold my hand up if I'm wrong but I'd be 99% sure that's not how it works in football.

[Stuart]

it's not reasonable at all.And it is not the case.The player simply forfeits their loyalty bonus.Rhodes is on 2m per year so if we had to pay his contract up we would be left with nothing

If a player signs a five year deal for £40k per week and meets the terms of the contract then if the club decide to end that early then the player could sue for breach of contract. He would be entitled to claim for the full value of monies on the contract and the club would need to prove a breach or pay up. Paying up would be through court or via a settlement.

I've always understood that transfer fees are actually compensation payments to cover these monies. The amount of compensation would be negotiated as part of any trade. In some infamous cases, Robbie Fowler springs to mind, the club that the player leaves may pay the amounts to the player to offset any losses. So if Boro's wage ceiling is 30k per week and he's on 40k per week at Rovers then we may offer to pay 10k per week for the remaining period of his current Rovers contract.

If a player is simply binned then he could claim for the full amount, barring any breach, or more likely come to an agreement (mutual consent) to end the contract.

[Stuart]

Sorry, I still strongly disagree. You don't pay somebody for something they haven't yet done. The transfer fee is for the registration of the player (a compensation of sorts) and that terminates the contract with the club and player. At the time of signing with a team or under renegotiation, a fee will be agreed in terms of what the club will pay the player if they sell him. If they submit a request, they waive this amount.

You do if you've agreed a contract and you don't let them complete it without due cause (breach).

If you lent somebody some money to buy a mobile phone and they agreed a contract to pay you back at £10 per week (with no interest because you are a nice guy). Would it be okay for them to stop paying you back after two weeks because they lost it? Their argument would be that they can't use it any more so they shouldn't have to pay for it.

[Speedie Dived]

The contract has to be settled in some way, or it is still in force, this could be that the new club continues to pay it (as has been suggested by Boro honouring JR's current deal) or just agreeing a sum that is acceptable to both parties.

Yep, that is how it works. I think some are getting contracts and transfer fees confused.

"

I think it's one thing that a lot of people are not aware of.

[Pedro]

Fair enough you are welcome to disagree.

Going off your theory then, can I ring up my mortgage company and say I am not paying the rest of my mortgage as it hasn't happened yet?

That is a ridiculous comparison though. If you are paying a mortgage, you don't own that asset until it is paid. We own Rhodes' registration.

I'll put it to you like this. Say Messi is on 500k a week and is contracted to a 5 year deal. He gets sold for £100m after twelve months - do Barca then pay him £106m to go (remainder of his contract) and he gets to pocket a a further £130m for 5 years at his new club? So to sell Messi, Barca would actually be paying £6m to get rid of him?

Not a chance.

[Atomicrover]

Definatley not the case. Issues like Loyalty/signing on bonuses are negotiated when a player agrees a contract with a club. Every contract will be different to an extent, depending on what is negotiated. But loyalty and signing on bonuses will form part of the contract and will be known in advance. Loyalty/signing on bonuses will NOT be the remainder of the contract being paid up. They will be an agreed sum or percentage, otherwise you would have every player agitating for a move 10 minutes after signing a contract.

I always thought if a player requested a transfer, he waived his loyalty bonus but if not he was entitled to it. Furthermore if a players contract is effectively cancelled by being transferred he should be entitled to some compensation IF it results in a loss to the individual. - no loss, no compensation. So if you move for lower wages the selling club owes the difference between the two sets of wages, if you move for higher wages I would think a court would throw any claim out

[islander200]

Sorry, I still strongly disagree. You don't pay somebody for something they haven't yet done. The transfer fee is for the registration of the player (a compensation of sorts) and that terminates the contract with the club and player. At the time of signing with a team or under renegotiation, a fee will be agreed in terms of what the club will pay the player if they sell him. If they submit a request, they waive this amount.

What he said

[Stuart]

It is not the Law! The Law only comes into play if one party breaks the contract and in the case of a transfer it Is, in effect, a mutual ending of the contract. In football, transfers are also covered by the relevant league regulations, approved by national association and FIFA endorsement.

The key bit is the part in bold. Both parties have to agree to amend or terminate the contract. If the player does not want to leave then he can't be forced to unless he is in breach - or forfeits certain fees because of a transfer request.

[Speedie Dived]

It is not the Law! The Law only comes into play if one party breaks the contract and in the case of a transfer it Is, in effect, a mutual ending of the contract. In football, transfers are also covered by the relevant league regulations, approved by national association and FIFA endorsement.

Contracts are covered by employment law.

Stuart and Yoda are clued up on it above.

[Hasta]

If a player signs a five year deal for £40k per week and meets the terms of the contract then if the club decide to end that early then the player could sue for breach of contract. He would be entitled to claim for the full value of monies on the contract and the club would need to prove a breach or pay up. Paying up would be through court or via a settlement.

If a player is simply binned then he could claim for the full amount, barring any breach, or more likely come to an agreement (mutual consent) to end the contract.

But we haven't ended his contract. If he wants, he can sit on his arse and pick up his £40k a week here. He has a choice as to whether he wants the 'new' deal or the old contract.