[Archived] Rhodes To Boro

[Pedro]

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.

That's another poor comparison. The club own the registration outright. If Rhodes gets injured you can't pick up the phone and tell Huddersfield we won't pay them.

Simple maths and an ounce of common sense is vastly missing today.

[Speedie Dived]

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.

Yeah messi would be due his contract. Why do you think the Spanish have stupidly high release clauses?

But deals are always done between selling club and player.

[Hasta]

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.

If they had given that phone (with your permission) to somebody else and that other person was then paying you £14 a week, then yes it would be OK. That's the same comparison.

[Pedro]

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.

Exactly.

[islander200]

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.

Exactly.Rhodes wouldn't have been out of pocket if he left and we didn't force him to leave.

[Lancaster Rover]

This is all on the premise that the player is being pushed out/binned. In 99% of cases the player is leaving of their own accord and as such the contract is terminated by mutual consent. Even when it comes to paying players up they often get stitched as the club still holds the rights to their registration. I've seen loads of players with my dad who have to give up their final months pay and loyalty payments in order to get their registration released.

By Rhodes asking for permission to speak to them it would signal that this was a mutual agreement, no?

[BlueMonday]

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.

This

[Hasta]

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

I have. Apart from a bristol city fans forum, I can't find anything related to football that agrees with you.

[Speedie Dived]

That's another poor comparison. The club own the registration outright. If Rhodes gets injured you can't pick up the phone and tell Huddersfield we won't pay them.

Simple maths and an ounce of common sense is vastly missing today.

A distinct lack of understanding of basic employment law and how football actually operates is being highlighted in certain quarters.

[yoda]

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.

You are getting confused, the contract has to be settled in some way that is agreeable to the contract holder. This could be the continuation of the contract at existing rates or improved rates with the new club with amendments. The contract holder could agree to cancel the contract on receipt of a new contract from the new club. Lots of different scenarios but the contract issue has to be settled in some way.

[Mike Graham]

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.

It also depends whether there is an employment contract or not. I know two players (not Rovers) and they are paid via their own limited company who provide services (as a contractor) to the club. This way they limit tax and take home, via dividend payments, some 75% of their "pay".

[adsfortheblues]

Or we might give him 1.5 and ask Boro to pay the rest.

It can be structured many ways. But Rhodes may waive the entire lot if he really wants to move.

Doubt that very much though. Every deal works like this.

Clubs budget for paying off contracts, so doesn't always come out of transfer fee.

Nonsense, stop reading other clubs old forum posts.

[Pedro]

Yeah messi would be due his contract. Why do you think the Spanish have stupidly high release clauses?

But deals are always done between selling club and player.

Have you even looked into this yourself? Back it up with any resemblance of evidence and I'll hold my hands up - you've definitely misinterpreted something along the way.

[cop]

PL has his hands tied to be fair, yes the squad has been 'rebuilt' over and over, but to be fair Paul Lambert is the only realistic long term appointment Rovers have made since the sacking of Sam Allardyce.

In the interview the board will have said

"We're unable to sign players, however with the sale of Rhodes, that should lift the embargo and give you time to assemble your own team. The club hasn't achieved the goals we set after relegation, but the signing of Rhodes was a statement of intent and that's why Jordan signed for us. However it's clear that after previous mismanagement, it's unlikely the club will be returning to top flight this season and the player wants to move on, we need to sell and release some funds for you to buy some players, but in the meantime we need to recoup as much as we spent - so Jordan will have to continue to play for Blackburn until he moves on"

"Great, where do I sign?"

[Speedie Dived]

Nonsense, stop reading other clubs old forum posts.

Been involved in a lot of transfers have you? It's how is works.

[yoda]

It also depends whether there is an employment contract or not. I know two players (not Rovers) and they are paid via their own limited company who provide services (as a contractor) to the club. This way they limit tax and take home, via dividend payments, some 75% of their "pay".

Oh dear, third party ownership in another guise

[T J Hooker]

That statement the club has put out is disgraceful.

Lambert has made it clear Rhodes is not part of his plans and has chucked a number of digs in his comments.

Lets be under no illusion, Under Lambert the football has been dross and if anything has been a number of steps behind what Bowyer produced.

For a number of windows, the message of "we need to rebuild" has been over used. Exactly how many times do we need to rebuild this squad?

The truth is, Rovers for a number of windows have played the numbers game and have brought in a number of players which are poor and straight off the bottom shelf.

In Rhodes they have a player, who im pretty sure without we would of been relegated.

The player wanting to move on is natural, he wants to play at the highest level, at rovers this is never going to happen.

Yesterday we beat a league 2 team 3-0 convincingly, but lets not be under any illusions. Our league form and performances have been attrocious.

The money from Rhodes deal is being muted as a way to rebuild squad? This works if we actually bring in players who will reignite the supporter base

Crowds continue to fall and we are a team who are showing relegation form.

glen mullan defending rhodes and his cronies to the hilt, slightly biased though since its common knowledge that g mullan was the one that talked shabby into signing him in the first place

lamberts only mistake was making comment before the deal was sealed, and its one ill forgive him for no problem, how was he to know rhodes, rhodes agent and gibson would stitch us up like this, i wouldnt be suprised at all if rhodes agent and gibson where in cahoots on this, i think they're trying to unsettle things so much in hope that we will accept a lower offer for rhodes, we just need to be strong and not bend for them an inch.

[Lancs Rover]

Boro have no real money. They blamed Rhodes. He takes the hit from his manager. No one was up in arms about Jordan's loyalty before this fell through and PL tried to make a chump out of him.

That's my reading of it.

[Speedie Dived]

Have you even looked into this yourself? Back it up with any resemblance of evidence and I'll hold my hands up - you've definitely misinterpreted something along the way.

I will get a photocopy of a transfer, hang on its in my bottom drawer.

I have not misunderstood anything.

[Hasta]

You are getting confused, the contract has to be settled in some way that is agreeable to the contract holder. This could be the continuation of the contract at existing rates or improved rates with the new club with amendments. The contract holder could agree to cancel the contract on receipt of a new contract from the new club. Lots of different scenarios but the contract issue has to be settled in some way.

Ok. I get that if a player was sold for say £10million, and the new club was offering less wages, then the player may want extra from the selling club in order to agree the move. However SpeedieDived says we definitely have to pay Rhodes contract up if he had been sold today. Rubbish.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

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.

If he just sat on his arse wouldn't he be in breach of contract then ?

[BlueMonday]

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?

No, because you have agreed to pay the full amount.

But football contracts are negotiated differently, with flexibility built in. Otherwise you would have footballers and clubs locked in with no prospect of movement. So they negotiate clauses within the contract to cover such eventualities of players wanting to transfer and Clubs wanting to move players on.

[Speedie Dived]

No, because you have agreed to pay the full amount.

But football contracts are negotiated differently, with flexibility built in. Otherwise you would have footballers and clubs locked in with no prospect of movement. So they negotiate clauses within the contract to cover such eventualities of players wanting to transfer and Clubs wanting to move players on.

What flexibility? You have agreed to pay a player an amount for X years.

[Pedro]

A distinct lack of understanding of basic employment law and how football actually operates is being highlighted in certain quarters.

At the end of all of this, as always you won't admit you are wrong. So I'll stop now. No doubt someone who knows what they are on about will step in and you can dance around and tell them they are wrong too. Enjoy it.

[Blue blood]

You have to wonder now whether players like Tom Laurence would have been persuaded to stay etc. if Rhodes was not on his way out/ players lined up to replace etc.

This will have HUGE knock on developments for the team etc. as i'm sure we will realise over the next few months.

I wonder who we might have seen at Ewood had this been signed sealed etc.?

I bet Lambert is not a happy chappy right now as i'm sure a lot of behind the scenes plans have now been scuppered.

Why would we gave wanted to keep Lawrence?