[Archived] Rhodes To Boro

[Mike Graham]

Let's not other too much about the contract. Can we focus on the player?

Will he fit back into PL's plans if he stays, what will be our style of play if he gets a game and what will the attitude in the dressing room be?

[Stuart]

If they had given that phone (with your (1) permission) to somebody else and that other person was then paying you (2) £14 a week, then yes it would be OK. That's the same comparison.

You have two 'yous' (1) is the club (2) is the player so your analogy is confusing.

Players who do not breach their contracts are due all of the money that was agreed until the end of the contract. That's the end of it.

However, a player accepts a reduced amount (aka loyalty bonus) from the selling club based on the deal he gets from the buying club. Arguably because a court would find that he was not out of pocket providing he was happy to join the new club.

If the club tried to tear up his contract without cause and he didn't have another club then they would have to pay off his contract. Look at what has happened under Venkys with umpteen players!

[adsfortheblues]

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

Stop talking complete nonsense, it would happen on, rare, rare occasions 0.000001% of transfers.

Source: legally qualified, if you are, please re-register.

[Pedro]

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

I have not misunderstood anything.

No doubt it's with your oscar and Nobel prize for medicine.

[Speedie Dived]

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.

Ha ha, looking forward to finding out when I was wrong previously?

Fortunate to know a few in the game in different capacities and all say the same. It surprised me too.

[Stuart]

Who was forcing Rhodes to leave?

The contract discussion has gone way beyond Rhodes specific circumstances!!

[adsfortheblues]

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

Yes and they waiver 99% of that when moving clubs.

[yoda]

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.

You still don't understand, the contract ending has to be negotiated to a satisfactory conclusion, the permutations are endless.

The transfer fee is a separate issue

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I couldn't just recall who was supposed to be the person who recommended Rhodes to the club. Surely there was no conflict of interest in that post was there then ?

[Lancaster Rover]

Anyone who works in any capacity in football knows that contracts are a running joke. Nobody is getting paid to leave in a transfer. The only way you're getting paid up is if you're being binned and even then you're getting about half what your owed.

[Norbert Rassragr]

At least it didn't collapse because Barry White woke up today and cancelled the deal above Lambert's head. That would've been messy.

[islander200]

You have two 'yous' (1) is the club (2) is the player so your analogy is confusing.

Players who do not breach their contracts are due all of the money that was agreed until the end of the contract. That's the end of it.

However, a player accepts a reduced amount (aka loyalty bonus) from the selling club based on the deal he gets from the buying club. Arguably because a court would find that he was not out of pocket providing he was happy to join the new club.

If the club tried to tear up his contract without cause and he didn't have another club then they would have to pay off his contract. Look at what has happened under Venkys with umpteen players!

Nobody is disputing that when the player is out of pocket and hasn't pushed for a move they would be entitled to compensation.

If Rhodes had left today are you of the same opinion as speedie dived that he would have been entitled to having his contract paid up?

[Hasta]

You have two 'yous' (1) is the club (2) is the player so your analogy is confusing.

Players who do not breach their contracts are due all of the money that was agreed until the end of the contract. That's the end of it.

However, a player accepts a reduced amount (aka loyalty bonus) from the selling club based on the deal he gets from the buying club. Arguably because a court would find that he was not out of pocket providing he was happy to join the new club.

If the club tried to tear up his contract without cause and he didn't have another club then they would have to pay off his contract. Look at what has happened under Venkys with umpteen players!

I completely agree with the last two sentences. Unquestionable.

However in transfers where the player has an interest in leaving (without a request), then the selling club will pay very little. Certainly not his entire contract.

SpeedieDived started this by saying Rovers would definitely have to pay his entire contract up if he had been sold today.

Do you agree with that?

[T J Hooker]

i just feel sorry for Huddersfield, they might not get their little payday after all

[Speedie Dived]

I completely agree with the last two sentences. Unquestionable.

However in transfers where the player has an interest in leaving (without a request), then the selling club will pay very little. Certainly not his entire contract.

SpeedieDived started this by saying Rovers would definitely have to pay his entire contract up if he had been sold today.

Do you agree with that?

I said he would be due it but depending how much he wants to leave then that would depend on the compromise reached.

[Mr. E]

I will say this - I am not supporting a single Rovers game that features Rhodes in the Rovers shirt. There are endless of things wrong with football, but we need to have the slightest bit of self-respect here. If we're ok with players who absolutely want to play for our rivals to represent us, that says volumes about why we also allowed Venkys to crap all over the club. A stand needs to be taken at least somewhere.

[Hasta]

You have two 'yous' (1) is the club (2) is the player so your analogy is confusing.

!

No. Both you's are actually the player.

[adsfortheblues]

I said he would be due it but depending how much he wants to leave then that would depend on the compromise reached.

"When a player breaches his contract and leaves the club, the employer no longer are obliged to pay any part of that players contract. Breach can include, transfer request or showing a desire to leave club to which player is contracted too"

"When a player is forced to leave, for example a football club initiates a move, the club may be Liable to pay any differences, for example if the buying club offers X player £10 per week for 4 weeks, but the player has 1 week at £10 remaining on his current deal, the selling club would pay the 1 week remaining"

I'm intrigued to know why you think this happens, genuinely of you can give us an example I would be very interested. Not being sarcastic, genuinely interested.

[Hasta]

Edit

[Mike Graham]

i just feel sorry for Huddersfield, they might not get their little payday after all

On the published deal it was only £250K.

[yeti-dog]

The frustrating thing for me is that Rhodes has been angling for a move for ages. We finally give him permission to talk to someone and either his, or his agents' greed scuppers it for the sake a bonus here, a bonus there.

I think we've been treated with contempt and sadly we need him gone asap.

[Speedie Dived]

"When a player breaches his contract and leaves the club, the employer no longer are obliged to pay any part of that players contract. Breach can include, transfer request or showing a desire to leave club to which player is contracted too"

"When a player is forced to leave, for example a football club initiates a move, the club may be Liable to pay any differences, for example if the buying club offers X player £10 per week for 4 weeks, but the player has 1 week at £10 remaining on his current deal, the selling club would pay the 1 week remaining"

You do realise you just completely proved my point?

[had.e.nuff]

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

Usually its down to what are jokingly called loyalty bonuses selling club have to pay them if the player is sold without asking to go if they ask they forfiet any loyalty bonus .

[Jim Royle]

Can't see that he has done anything wrong,

I can see that Boro have cocked up big style though

He has wanted out in each of the last 3 transfer windows, his performances have highlighted this and then when he gets his wish he gets greedy, asks for more readies and gets his bid rejected and now rovers are to accept him back like nowt has changed.

Not in my world, yes if he stays we have to get a tune out of him, but once he has gone thru that exit door he is a goner like an ex girlfriend, it's time To move on and look forward to the next one. I bet that is how Lambert views it.

Rhodes engineered it and he fcooked it up.

[islander200]

You do realise you just completely proved my point?

How has he?Rhodes has shown a desire to move