Transfer Window - COMPLETE. Where’s Gregg?

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, J*B said:

You’re not reading my posts -

20M transfer fee

2M for Forest, 10% of the transfer fee

6M to replace him 

Rovers set to gain 12M. 
 

The ‘loyalty bonus’ you’re describing are his wages. He is set to earn X if he stays to the end of his deal, so you make a concession and pay him Y to leave now with everybody’s blessing. 

Not what you said originally. It's entirely  Rovers choice whether or not they want to enter into an arrangement like that with the player due to the situation particular to him of his contract running out.

Your originally proposition was a selling Club are obligated to pay a players contract up whenever he leaves which is rubbish.

[Blandy]

15 minutes ago, J*B said:

You’re not reading my posts -

20M transfer fee

2M for Forest, 10% of the transfer fee

6M to replace him 

Rovers set to gain 12M. 
 

The ‘loyalty bonus’ you’re describing are his wages. He is set to earn X if he stays to the end of his deal, so you make a concession and pay him Y to leave now with everybody’s blessing. 

It would be 10% of any profit Rovers made not 10% of the transfer fee 

[J*B]

9 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You might pay part of someone's contract up to get them off the wage bill if they're stinking the place out and have the chance to move somewhere on lesser money and you want to save a bit of money at the same time.

That's a million miles away from your original proposition that if a player wants to move and you're a reluctant seller you are OBLIGATED to pay up their contract as well just to rub salt in the wound.

In BBD's case he'd be moving for more money so the considerations in my first paragraph don't apply. And I don't believe the owners need the money that badly in the first place, let alone pay up the remainder of his contract when they don't have to to ease him out of the door.

I’ll simplify and make it easier…

If Ben can leave Rovers generating 18M quid, despite his bumper new deal at his new club, Ben’s agent wants a ‘loyalty payment’ (otherwise known as some of his wages) from Rovers before they agree to the deal. That’s so little of a surprise to Rovers that when they approach Ben’s agent, they’ll put a figure (which will be negotiated) into the settlement which the agent won’t even need to ask for. 

Ben’s new contract at his new club has absolutely nothing to do with Rovers. It’s irrelevant. His transfer is worth 18M quid to Rovers, that is what’s relevant. 

Now of course Ben might want to join Sevilla so much, he tells his agent to get the deal done even if he takes a hit on his ‘loyalty payment’. Which isn’t unheard of, but a good agent will try and get it him anyway. 

[J*B]

2 minutes ago, Blandy said:

It would be 10% of any profit Rovers made not 10% of the transfer fee 

Probably, in reality, yes. I’m just using random numbers for the sake of it at this point to show how it works. 

[Hasta]

1 hour ago, J*B said:

Brilliant. Here’s what happens next, alongside some story telling…

He signs a new 4-year contract on 40K a week with a 17M release fee. His contract is now worth £8,320,00. 

He scores 10 goals by 20th Jan. Leeds are in the bottom three, 5 points from safety and Bamford gets injured. They immediately offer us the 17M and Ben goes. 

We pay off his contract that we owe him and are left with 7.5M, of which Forest take their 10%. We now have 6.75M and Ben stands us at a loss in FFP, so we can’t sign a replacement. 

Rovers pick up 4 points from 27 relying on Markanday to replace Ben. Furious, JDT walks. We hire Mowbray to steady the ship. 

A release clause means that if that value is matched then rovers would have to allow the player to talk to the bidding team and would have to accept the offer. Doesn’t mean he definitely leaves unless he wants to.

Therefore if Leeds bid £17million and the player wants to leave then we wouldn’t have to pay up BB’s contract  (or give a loyalty bonus or whatever) as the offer is still there to stop at Ewood and earn that money. We aren’t making him go or encouraging him to go. He is choosing to go. 
 

Your scenario only plays out if Leeds trigger the release close, Ben wants to stay but we want him to leave and need to encourage him to go. Which is a highly unlikely scenario. On a 4-year deal we’d be happy to keep him in January.

What would be dangerous would be sticking him on a weekly wage for 4 years which would cripple us.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Hasta

[RevidgeBlue]

7 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Well he isn't wrong either. A player who hands in a transfer request, forefeits any future wage payments left on his contract. If the club says we want to sell you ala the FDJ situation at Barca, then it's different as the club has to include whatever is owed for the amount of years left on his contract.. 

That's also nonsense. If you hand in a transfer request the only thing you forfeit are any potential benefits arising out of a loyalty bonus.

If on the other  Club attempts to sell a player who doesn't particularly want to move, he either chooses not to move and that's the end of it  or negotiates some sort of arrangement with the selling Club about the remainder of his contract if he'd have to move elsewhere for less money. 

He's not entitled to have his contract paid up as of right on leaving.

[J*B]

1 minute ago, Hasta said:

A release clause means that if that value is matched then rovers would have to allow the player to talk to the bidding team and would have to accept the offer. Doesn’t mean he definitely leaves unless he wants to.

Therefore if Leeds bid £17million and the player wants to leave then we wouldn’t have to pay up BB’s contract  (or give a loyalty bonus or whatever) as the offer is still there to stop at Ewood and earn that money. We aren’t making him go or encouraging him to go. He is choosing to go. 
 

Your scenario only plays out if Leeds trigger the release close, Ben wants to stay but we want him to leave and need to encourage him to go. Which is a highly unlikely scenario. On a 4-year deal we’d be happy to keep him in January.

It’s all hypothetical, but I don’t think it’s an unlikely scenario at all. Ben has 12 months on his deal, in 1 years time the world is his oyster. 

Again, hypothetical - you’re Ben and Southampton have a bid accepted by Rovers. They’re trebling you’re wages, you’re on 30K a week on a 4 year deal. Do you accept? Because I don’t! 

[Hasta]

2 minutes ago, J*B said:

It’s all hypothetical, but I don’t think it’s an unlikely scenario at all. Ben has 12 months on his deal, in 1 years time the world is his oyster. 

Again, hypothetical - you’re Ben and Southampton have a bid accepted by Rovers. They’re trebling you’re wages, you’re on 30K a week on a 4 year deal. Do you accept? Because I don’t! 

If you’re  Rovers and you have him tied on a 4 year deal you don’t need to accept it. He’s young, his value is still rising. There will be other bids. 
 

I don’t for one minute think BBD will sign a new contract. But if he did, it’s certainly not against Rovers interests.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Hasta

[J*B]

5 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Therefore if Leeds bid £17million and the player wants to leave then we wouldn’t have to pay up BB’s contract  (or give a loyalty bonus or whatever) as the offer is still there to stop at Ewood and earn that money. We aren’t making him go or encouraging him to go. He is choosing to go. 

OK, let’s work with this as well. 

You're GB. The 17M figure (which doesn’t exist, but let’s say it does) is bid, accepted and Southampton can now negotiate terms with Brereton. 

I’m Ben’s agent.

48 hours later, I come back and say we have agreed terms with Southampton but will only finalise the deal if Rovers pay him the rest of his contract, 7.5K / week for 52 weeks, 390K. If you don’t accept the deal then we’re happy to wait and see if anyone else hits the 17M this season or, if not, will leave on a free next summer and look at our options. 

Do you:

1) call my bluff… get stuffed! If you want to leave we aren’t paying you  

2) accept, pay the 390K, take the 16.6M and work with JDT to replace Ben. 

3) Negotiate, will I accept 50%? 
 

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, J*B said:

I’ll simplify and make it easier…

If Ben can leave Rovers generating 18M quid, despite his bumper new deal at his new club, Ben’s agent wants a ‘loyalty payment’ (otherwise known as some of his wages) from Rovers before they agree to the deal. That’s so little of a surprise to Rovers that when they approach Ben’s agent, they’ll put a figure (which will be negotiated) into the settlement which the agent won’t even need to ask for. 

Ben’s new contract at his new club has absolutely nothing to do with Rovers. It’s irrelevant. His transfer is worth 18M quid to Rovers, that is what’s relevant. 

Now of course Ben might want to join Sevilla so much, he tells his agent to get the deal done even if he takes a hit on his ‘loyalty payment’. Which isn’t unheard of, but a good agent will try and get it him anyway. 

Again, that's nothing whatsoever with what you said originally about him being entitled to the wages for the remainder of his contract being paid up in full.

IF Rovers had been stupid enough to agree to something like that being inserted in his deal when he signed originally then obviously that's their funeral and they'd have to pay it. Normally you'd expect any remuneration for the agent or any additional inducement for the player such as a signing on fee to be paid by the buying Club.

If such a clause existed, barring a remarkable coincidence it would be a different figure from his outstanding wages though.

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, J*B said:

It’s all hypothetical, but I don’t think it’s an unlikely scenario at all. Ben has 12 months on his deal, in 1 years time the world is his oyster. 

Again, hypothetical - you’re Ben and Southampton have a bid accepted by Rovers. They’re trebling you’re wages, you’re on 30K a week on a 4 year deal. Do you accept? Because I don’t! 

That's the end of that then.

[Iceman]

11 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

That's also nonsense. If you hand in a transfer request the only thing you forfeit are any potential benefits arising out of a loyalty bonus.

If on the other  Club attempts to sell a player who doesn't particularly want to move, he either chooses not to move and that's the end of it  or negotiates some sort of arrangement with the selling Club about the remainder of his contract if he'd have to move elsewhere for less money. 

He's not entitled to have his contract paid up as of right on leaving.

Nonsense... You are the one asking to leave the club, not the other way around. Why should the club pay you for remaining term of your contract, when you are not going to adhere to that length of it? You can't expect the club, to pay you, when you are telling them hey I want out. In theory, you are breaking that agreement, not the club 

[J*B]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Again, that's nothing whatsoever with what you said originally about him being entitled to the wages for the remainder of his contract being paid up in full.

IF Rovers had been stupid enough to agree to something like that being inserted in his deal when he signed originally then obviously that's their funeral and they'd have to pay it. Normally you'd expect any remuneration for the agent or any additional inducement for the player such as a signing on fee to be paid by the buying Club.

If such a clause existed, barring a remarkable coincidence it would be a different figure from his outstanding wages though.

With respect Rev, you’re posts are what you think happens. I’m basing mine on how I’m told transfers happen by players and the earlier mentioned book, which explains all of this. 

Transfers are the Wild West and if a club is benefiting financially, a good agent will even the playing field. I’m happy for you to think I’m wrong, it’s easier that way. 

[Exiled_Rover]

No transfer news then.

[Hasta]

12 minutes ago, J*B said:

OK, let’s work with this as well. 

You're GB. The 17M figure (which doesn’t exist, but let’s say it does) is bid, accepted and Southampton can now negotiate terms with Brereton. 

I’m Ben’s agent.

48 hours later, I come back and say we have agreed terms with Southampton but will only finalise the deal if Rovers pay him the rest of his contract, 7.5K / week for 52 weeks, 390K. If you don’t accept the deal then we’re happy to wait and see if anyone else hits the 17M this season or, if not, will leave on a free next summer and look at our options. 

Do you:

1) call my bluff… get stuffed! If you want to leave we aren’t paying you  

2) accept, pay the 390K, take the 16.6M and work with JDT to replace Ben. 

3) Negotiate, will I accept 50%? 
 

4) Say to Southampton you pay the £390k or you may lose the player to Sevilla or elsewhere.

Also, the original point was about him signing a new 4 year deal with Rovers which is completely different from above. That 4 year contract removes the threat of him leaving for nothing.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Hasta

[CambridgeRover]

9 minutes ago, J*B said:

OK, let’s work with this as well. 

You're GB. The 17M figure (which doesn’t exist, but let’s say it does) is bid, accepted and Southampton can now negotiate terms with Brereton. 

I’m Ben’s agent.

48 hours later, I come back and say we have agreed terms with Southampton but will only finalise the deal if Rovers pay him the rest of his contract, 7.5K / week for 52 weeks, 390K. If you don’t accept the deal then we’re happy to wait and see if anyone else hits the 17M this season or, if not, will leave on a free next summer and look at our options. 

Do you:

1) call my bluff… get stuffed! If you want to leave we aren’t paying you  

2) accept, pay the 390K, take the 16.6M and work with JDT to replace Ben. 

3) Negotiate, will I accept 50%? 
 

Call the bluff every single time. The player is going to let 390k stand in the way of a premier league deal. No chance!!

[CambridgeRover]

No minutes for Van Hecke at Brighton and in fact Colwill was subbed on. Come on Brighton let him go haha

Edited August 7, 2022 by CambridgeRover

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, J*B said:

OK, let’s work with this as well. 

You're GB. The 17M figure (which doesn’t exist, but let’s say it does) is bid, accepted and Southampton can now negotiate terms with Brereton. 

I’m Ben’s agent.

48 hours later, I come back and say we have agreed terms with Southampton but will only finalise the deal if Rovers pay him the rest of his contract, 7.5K / week for 52 weeks, 390K. If you don’t accept the deal then we’re happy to wait and see if anyone else hits the 17M this season or, if not, will leave on a free next summer and look at our options. 

Do you:

1) call my bluff… get stuffed! If you want to leave we aren’t paying you  

2) accept, pay the 390K, take the 16.6M and work with JDT to replace Ben. 

3) Negotiate, will I accept 50%? 
 

You've changed the goalposts and the argument substantially now.

As a point of order, isn't BB still on his original deal he signed here which was on a relatively low wage supposedly (Just feel the flex!) So the remainder of his wages probably wouldn't even be £390k. And in all probability he'd be moving for a lot more than £30k p.w. Why would his agent risk jeopardising a move to the PL  (and possibly) a seven figure signing on fee for a sum that might not be much more than a month's wages?

[tomphil]

4 minutes ago, J*B said:

With respect Rev, you’re posts are what you think happens. I’m basing mine on how I’m told transfers happen by players and the earlier mentioned book, which explains all of this. 

Transfers are the Wild West and if a club is benefiting financially, a good agent will even the playing field. I’m happy for you to think I’m wrong, it’s easier that way. 

You're basing it on one example you say you know about and that doesn't involve the level here.

[J*B]

2 minutes ago, Hasta said:

4) Say to Southampton you pay the £390k or you may lose the player to Sevilla or elsewhere.

Regardless, the original point was about him signing a new 4 year deal with Rovers which is completely different from above. That 4 year contract removes the threat of 1)

A 4 year deal:

Increases the transfer fee

Increases the cost of option 2. 

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Nonsense... You are the one asking to leave the club, not the other way around. Why should the club pay you for remaining term of your contract, when you are not going to adhere to that length of it? You can't expect the club, to pay you, when you are telling them hey I want out. In theory, you are breaking that agreement, not the club 

That's exactly what I'm saying! Your post came over as if you requested a move and it fell through you wouldn't be entitled to any further wages.

[J*B]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You've changed the goalposts and the argument substantially now.

As a point of order, isn't BB still on his original deal he signed here which was on a relatively low wage supposedly (Just feel the flex!) So the remainder of his wages probably wouldn't even be £390k. And in all probability he'd be moving for a lot more than £30k p.w. Why would his agent risk jeopardising a move to the PL  (and possibly) a seven figure signing on fee for a sum that might not be much more than a month's wages?

Yes I think he’s still on the same deal as originally - the 390K is based on 7.5K / week… which feels realistic to me? 

How much do you think Arma is on, who made the same move?

I don’t think a good agent would see Southampton as a good move for an international player, that scored 20+ goals last season, with 12 months on his deal. There’s plenty of risks:

1) They’re going down - so he’s going to have a relegation reduction on whatever contract he signs. 

2) He is going to struggle to shine in a team due to lose each week. 

3) Any interested club is 12 months away from not having to pay a fee. He will have more options in 12 months and would likely earn more because there’s no transfer fee involved. 

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 minute ago, J*B said:

With respect Rev, you’re posts are what you think happens. I’m basing mine on how I’m told transfers happen by players and the earlier mentioned book, which explains all of this. 

Transfers are the Wild West and if a club is benefiting financially, a good agent will even the playing field. I’m happy for you to think I’m wrong, it’s easier that way. 

I think you created a problem with your original post which I - and it appears other posters - read as saying that if the player agreed to leave, even on higher wages, that the club had a contractual obligation to pay up the outstanding wages on his contract. What I think you meant to do was to explain the commercial reality of the situation whereby, as a player's contract is winding down, they will often only agree to move if they take a cut of the transfer fee in order to compensate them for not receiving a large signing on fee from their new club which the latter will no longer pay as they have had to pay a transfer fee instead. I don't think any of us would disagree with that latter analysis.

As far as Brereton is concerned I would imagine that he and his representatives have already decided that it is not in his interests to sign a new contract with us NOW although he might decide differently if he stays and we are promoted.

As for the club's response to any transfer offer that might be made the situation is clouded by the strange attitude of our owners who may simply decide as a matter of principle that they will not accept any offers - especially if the player is expecting a cut of the fee. Although one poster has decided a refusal to sell as "criminal" any fault, if that is the right word, if the player then leaves without a fee will lie with the owners not anyone working at ewood park.

[J*B]

1 minute ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I think you created a problem with your original post which I - and it appears other posters - read as saying that if the player agreed to leave, even on higher wages, that the club had a contractual obligation to pay up the outstanding wages on his contract. What I think you meant to do was to explain the commercial reality of the situation whereby, as a player's contract is winding down, they will often only agree to move if they take a cut of the transfer fee in order to compensate them for not receiving a large signing on fee from their new club which the latter will no longer pay as they have had to pay a transfer fee instead. I don't think any of us would disagree with that latter analysis.

As far as Brereton is concerned I would imagine that he and his representatives have already decided that it is not in his interests to sign a new contract with us NOW although he might decide differently if he stays and we are promoted.

As for the club's response to any transfer offer that might be made the situation is clouded by the strange attitude of our owners who may simply decide as a matter of principle that they will not accept any offers - especially if the player is expecting a cut of the fee. Although one poster has decided a refusal to sell as "criminal" any fault, if that is the right word, if the player then leaves without a fee will lie with the owners not anyone working at ewood park.

I agree with the above. 

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, J*B said:

With respect Rev, you’re posts are what you think happens. I’m basing mine on how I’m told transfers happen by players and the earlier mentioned book, which explains all of this. 

Transfers are the Wild West and if a club is benefiting financially, a good agent will even the playing field. I’m happy for you to think I’m wrong, it’s easier that way. 

We'll have to agree to disagree then. It seems clear to me from your contributions on the subject (and it's a point you've attempted to make before) that you're mistaking sums paid to players on a voluntary basis by Clubs as a result of negotiation in an attempt to make deals happen with being contractually obligated to pay up their wages for the remainder of their contract if they leave.