[Archived] Rhodes To Boro

[Hasta]

You do realise you just completely proved my point?

"FORCED TO LEAVE"

Not finally getting a move he has wanted for ages.

If Rhodes had gone to Boro today we'd would not have paid more than a small loyalty bonus.

[Pedro]

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?

My stance too. The transfer fee is compensation for the club, the departing player gets a pre-agreed amount if he doesn't hand in a request. If he is getting shipped out for lesser wages, some more negotiation will take place.

Speediedived's imaginary football friends got an amazing deal getting paid in full twice 😅 Maybe he should become an agent.

[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"

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.

Was actually a long term friend who first mentioned it, he works at the FA.

And know two lads who played in the game (different levels) and both had similar stories about how much selling club paid up there deals.

Was intrigued so did some reading into it.

[Stuart]

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?

'Entitled' is an interesting word. Had his registration actually have been transferred (without his consent) then he'd be entitled to take Rovers to court citing that he had not requested a move and his terms at his new club were not as favourable and wanting his contract paying up. A court would probably decide on a figure to cover the shortfall rather than the full amount. If he did not want to join Boro but Rovers had actually sold him then he could sue for the total amount but I suspect would have to sit out playing any football while the case was heard.

As it is his registration is still with Rovers and a figure has simply been agreed between the clubs with a dependency for Rhodes to work out compensation arrangements with Boro first. To force the move Rhodes would have to put in a transfer request which would change the game.

The fact remains that contracts cannot be terminated just because a club doesn't want a player any more. The reality is that clubs will just play the game and wait until a contract was running out before paying off the remaining term, a la Robbo.

[BlueMonday]

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

Entitled to a loyalty bonus yes, but not the entirety of his contract if a Loyalty/Singing bonus is included in the contract.

As for higher or lower wages thats up to the player to negotiate. The 2 clubs agree a fee, then player negotiates with the buying club. Its not incumbent on the selling club to make up a players wages if he wants to move to another club for lower wages.

Having said that, everything is negotiable. If the selling club is desperate to move a player on, they may agree settlement figure to facilitate a transfer. But the important word here is NEGOTIATE, if its not already covered in the contract. Likewise the buying Club could agree a settlement sum to facilitate a transfer if a non contractual matter is holding things up.

Its too simplistic to say the contract MUST be paid in full before a transfer is completed, as either player or Club could hold each other to ransom and no transfer business would ever get done.

[Speedie Dived]

How has he?Rhodes has shown a desire to move

Hells teeth. Legally he hasn't.

[Mr. E]

Rhodes has told Sky Sports he is ‘baffled and disappointed’ by Boro’s decision but added: “I’ll knuckle down and get my work head back on at Blackburn. It’s a great club.”

At least pretend, no? At least try and pretend you give two craps about football?

Play for free if you think it's a "great club."

I really hope Lambert isn't fool enough to think anyone would accept this "baffled and disappointed" fellow to put on a Rovers shirt again.

[Speedie Dived]

My stance too. The transfer fee is compensation for the club, the departing player gets a pre-agreed amount if he doesn't hand in a request. If he is getting shipped out for lesser wages, some more negotiation will take place.

Speediedived's imaginary football friends got an amazing deal getting paid in full twice [emoji28] Maybe he should become an agent.

Oh hello, someone's getting personal.

Not giving you my time anymore.

[islander200]

'Entitled' is an interesting word. Had his registration actually have been transferred (without his consent) then he'd be entitled to take Rovers to court citing that he had not requested a move and his terms at his new club were not as favourable and wanting his contract paying up. A court would probably decide on a figure to cover the shortfall rather than the full amount. If he did not want to join Boro but Rovers had actually sold him then he could sue for the total amount but I suspect would have to sit out playing any football while the case was heard.

As it is his registration is still with Rovers and a figure has simply been agreed between the clubs with a dependency for Rhodes to work out compensation arrangements with Boro first. To force the move Rhodes would have to put in a transfer request which would change the game.

The fact remains that contracts cannot be terminated just because a club doesn't want a player any more. The reality is that clubs will just play the game and wait until a contract was running out before paying off the remaining term, a la Robbo.

But Stuart Rhodes has shown a desire to leave.According to Lambert Rhodes was asked if he wanted to talk to Boro.He wasn't forced too.Il ask again if the transfer had gone through in your opinion would he have been entitled to having his contract paid up?

[Speedie Dived]

"FORCED TO LEAVE"

Not finally getting a move he has wanted for ages.

If Rhodes had gone to Boro today we'd would not have paid more than a small loyalty bonus.

Forced to leave is a club accepting a fee for you.

Why is his loyalty bonus small as well?

[philipl]

Jordan the victim!

I've heard it all now

Poor lamb.

I didn't say that. Rhodes apparently has been wanting away from Rovers for three windows and jumped at the opportunity to go to Boro.

It is unusual behaviour but the buying club is entirely in its right to walk away before signing the deal.

Quite how Boro expect to sign players in the future is another matter but it is a thoroughly cowardly and ultimately self-destructing club based on their dealings with Rovers over the years.... This is right up there with not showing up for a game at Ewood because of coughs and sniffles and getting themselves relegated for their troubles.

[unsall]

Got this off a mate, no idea where he got it from

Wheelock: Boro knew wages in advance and agreed to them plus a 5yr deal, but didn't realise he had a 20% increase built in on promotion. Gibson wouldn't pay that, Rhodes' agent wouldn't take less than his current deal plus his fee (10% off transfer fee) which would've been paid as a signing on fee to Rhodes. Rhodes is not happy, this deal is not dead, if Rhodes wants to go then the signing on fee and/or wage increase will have to go. Gut feeling is this is Boro playing hard ball. Medical all complete so would be a quick completion if an agreement can happen. I believe it will tomorrow.

[Hasta]

Forced to leave is a club accepting a fee for you.

Why is his loyalty bonus small as well?

Forced to leave isn't accepting a fee because he could turn around and say he doesn't want to go. (See Adebayor)

It's small compared to paying his contract up.

[Pedro]

Oh hello, someone's getting personal.

Not giving you my time anymore.

Excellent, make it permanent.

[Veevs]

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!

What are you talking about..? A loyalty bonus is a payment that a player gets if he sees out his contract, you can look it up anywhere online it just part of the contract and agreed when they initially sign.

If the club end his contract by selling him/releasing him (without him asking for a transfer) this also effectively ends the contract so he gets the bonus, the player does not get a loyalty bonus if he asks for a transfer or if the contract is terminated by mutual consent (a separate settlement is agreed on for this, though the loyalty bonus is taken into consideration when calculating this amount).

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

Got a feeling that this move may still happen. We want it to happen, Rhodes wants it to happen and Boro want it to happen. Common sense needs to prevail. It's in everyone's interests, particularly if we're talking about one or two bonus payments.

[Speedie Dived]

Forced to leave isn't accepting a fee because he could turn around and say he doesn't want to go. (See Adebayor)

It's small compared to paying his contract up.

It's basically one or the other.

Transfer request handed in or club accepts bid.

They are basically just terms for who owes who.

Transfer request =waive any payment

Fee accepted = player negotiates remainder of contract

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

But Stuart Rhodes has shown a desire to leave.According to Lambert Rhodes was asked if he wanted to talk to Boro.He wasn't forced too.Il ask again if the transfer had gone through in your opinion would he have been entitled to having his contract paid up?

The player holds all the cards. He asked to " talk to Middlesborough " . We all know why he wanted to talk to them but it's not tantamount to asking for a transfer of putting in a written request for a transfer. It stinks but that's modern football. Money is the certainly the root of all evil in football.

[had.e.nuff]

My stance too. The transfer fee is compensation for the club, the departing player gets a pre-agreed amount if he doesn't hand in a request. If he is getting shipped out for lesser wages, some more negotiation will take place.

Speediedived's imaginary football friends got an amazing deal getting paid in full twice Maybe he should become an agent.

So from what some are saying in here if i was a player on £100,000 a week and had a 5 year contract with a buy out clause of £10,000,000 if i bought myself after 1 year, for £10,000,000 the club would have to pay me the rest of my contract so that would

make me £10,800,000 just do the maths

[oldjamfan1]

But Stuart Rhodes has shown a desire to leave.According to Lambert Rhodes was asked if he wanted to talk to Boro.He wasn't forced too.Il ask again if the transfer had gone through in your opinion would he have been entitled to having his contract paid up?

How would that affect Jordan Rhodes' situation though?

Sorry, (and not aimed at you islander200) but I've just had to wade through pages of speculation about players' contracts and transfer pay offs and it has just about done my nut in!

[islander200]

Oh hello, someone's getting personal.

Not giving you my time anymore.

So when a player has a transfer release clause in their contract and clause is met giving the club no choice but to accept,then the club are forcing him out?

[Speedie Dived]

Excellent, make it permanent.

I will be. Look forward to reading about Koita's shots being spilled by the goalie.

[BlueMonday]

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

A contract is binding on both parties and a player has agreed to play for x amount of years. But if a player wants to move before his contract is complete, you are in the territory of negotiating a settlement. The Club could say you're not moving, you agreed to play for 5 seasons, end of story.

And as we see players are transferred frequently before contracts are honoured. Sometimes it benefits the player sometimes the Club. Sometimes contracts are canceled by mutual agreement.

Thats why contacts are negotiated, to account for these eventualities.

[DE.]

If Boro are balking at the overall amount they'll be paying JR over the course of his contract, trying to reduce the transfer fee isn't going to do much for them. If it is around £30m, is shaving an extra £1-2M off the initial fee going to make such a huge difference that they go ahead with it?

Surely either Jordan has to give in to Boro's request to lower his demands, or there's no transfer.

[VinjayV4]

I didn't say that. Rhodes apparently has been wanting away from Rovers for three windows and jumped at the opportunity to go to Boro.

It is unusual behaviour but the buying club is entirely in its right to walk away before signing the deal.

Quite how Boro expect to sign players in the future is another matter but it is a thoroughly cowardly and ultimately self-destructing club based on their dealings with Rovers over the years.... This is right up there with not showing up for a game at Ewood because of coughs and sniffles and getting themselves relegated for their troubles.

Think Gibson's been a good owner actually though it isn't that long since he was being criticised. So much for Middlesbrough suddenly being the pinnacle of ambition. Though they are lucky to have had an owner that cares for the last 30 years. As for the 96-97 incident you never know what could have happened. If any of their usual first team squad had been fit (don't know if any were) they could have shown up and broken their leg during the game. Then the other fixtures would have worked out differently. The arrogant Bryan Robson was there as well perhaps he influenced Gibson on postponing the game.