Cashing in on Caulker, Fer and Sandro

[1cliveallen]

If the club choose to sell a player who hasn't requested a transfer the player gets his contract paid up. Why do you think fer Sandro etc don't request a transfer unless they have a relegation clause in their contracts?

[Greg1882]

If the club choose to sell a player who hasn't requested a transfer the player gets his contract paid up. Why do you think fer Sandro etc don't request a transfer unless they have a relegation clause in their contracts?

Erm because they are a good wedge? That doesn't mean that when the player is sold and starts picking up money from their new club that we have to pay up their contract. If they didn't have an alternative employment then maybe but not if they've got a new club. Ridiculous and untrue

[1cliveallen]

If you sign a contract and your employer ends it you are financially recompensed whatever walk of life you're in same with footballers....

[Greg1882]

If you sign a contract and your employer ends it you are financially recompensed whatever walk of life you're in same with footballers....

If I have a contract at work(which I do) and I leave for another company I don't get my contract paid up by my previous employer as I have left hence my contract is null and void. Sorry mate but your talking complete ########

[1cliveallen]

If your company push you out the door you get paid so you're talking @@@@@@@ and don't understand how to read a #### post

[Greg1882]

If your company push you out the door you get paid so you're talking @@@@@@@ and don't understand how to read a #### post

They arnt being pushed out of the door. They are being made available to clubs for an offer that QPR deem acceptable. If the offer is met the player doesn't have to leave, if they do leave however and sign for another club then we don't have to pay them any wages from the second they leave the club. It's quite simple

[1cliveallen]

Quite true we don't pay them anything from the moment they leave the club as before they go all or some of the remaining dear of their contract has been paid to them. It is as you say "quite simple".

[Norths]

If I have a contract at work(which I do) and I leave for another company I don't get my contract paid up by my previous employer as I have left hence my contract is null and void. Sorry mate but your talking complete ########

No, he isn't

[Greg1882]

Well I absolutely apologise for my ignorance if I'm incorrect but the way I understand it is if you work for someone and then you leave for another job(of your own accord) you don't get paid the remainder of your contract as you have left the company. If we put a player up for sale and we force him to move then absolutely I understand the compensation but if however they chose to leave following a successful bid then contact or no contract they have severed all ties and no longer work for the club. Why would we then pay up the remainder of their contract? They have chosen to bloody leave!!!!!

[1cliveallen]

[QUOTE=Greg1882;1536508]Well I absolutely apologise for my ignorance if I'm incorrect but the way I understand it is if you work for someone and then you leave for another job(of your own accord) you don't get paid the remainder of your contract as you have left the company. If we put a player up for sale and we force him to move then absolutely I understand the compensation but if however they chose to leave following a successful bid then contact or no contract they have severed all ties and no longer work for the club. Why would we then pay up the remainder of their contract? They have chosen to bloody leave!!!!![/ On 11 July 2013 at 11:35, Tom Fleuriot said:
There's been a lot of talk on here about how a transfer request means you don't have to pay up someone's contract. I'm a little confused by this.

My understanding is that under contract law, when you breach a contract (or end a contract early), you have to pay damages suffered by the other side. The side suffering the damage cannot claim where damage has not arisen.

So let's say that a player (let's call him Albert) is earning £2k a week (I am not saying this is what he earns, it just makes the maths easier). There are 50 weeks left on his contract, therefore £100k.

If he hands in a transfer request, he is looking to end his contract, therefore Bristol City do not owe him any damages.
This is to do with Albert adomah leaving Bristol City and is common in football. It's hard to put it in writing and make it understandable but that's why players play in the champs and don't ask for transfers.

[1cliveallen]

[QUOTE=Greg1882;1536508]Well I absolutely apologise for my ignorance if I'm incorrect but the way I understand it is if you work for someone and then you leave for another job(of your own accord) you don't get paid the remainder of your contract as you have left the company. If we put a player up for sale and we force him to move then absolutely I understand the compensation but if however they chose to leave following a successful bid then contact or no contract they have severed all ties and no longer work for the club. Why would we then pay up the remainder of their contract? They have chosen to bloody leave!!!!![/ On 11 July 2013 at 11:35, Tom Fleuriot said:
There's been a lot of talk on here about how a transfer request means you don't have to pay up someone's contract. I'm a little confused by this.

My understanding is that under contract law, when you breach a contract (or end a contract early), you have to pay damages suffered by the other side. The side suffering the damage cannot claim where damage has not arisen.

So let's say that a player (let's call him Albert) is earning £2k a week (I am not saying this is what he earns, it just makes the maths easier). There are 50 weeks left on his contract, therefore £100k.

If he hands in a transfer request, he is looking to end his contract, therefore Bristol City do not owe him any damages.
This is to do with Albert adomah leaving Bristol City and is common in football. It's hard to put it in writing and make it understandable but that's why players play in the champs and don't ask for transfers.

[Greg1882]

[QUOTE=1cliveallen;1536512]

Well I absolutely apologise for my ignorance if I'm incorrect but the way I understand it is if you work for someone and then you leave for another job(of your own accord) you don't get paid the remainder of your contract as you have left the company. If we put a player up for sale and we force him to move then absolutely I understand the compensation but if however they chose to leave following a successful bid then contact or no contract they have severed all ties and no longer work for the club. Why would we then pay up the remainder of their contract? They have chosen to bloody leave!!!!![/ On 11 July 2013 at 11:35, Tom Fleuriot said:
There's been a lot of talk on here about how a transfer request means you don't have to pay up someone's contract. I'm a little confused by this.

My understanding is that under contract law, when you breach a contract (or end a contract early), you have to pay damages suffered by the other side. The side suffering the damage cannot claim where damage has not arisen.

So let's say that a player (let's call him Albert) is earning £2k a week (I am not saying this is what he earns, it just makes the maths easier). There are 50 weeks left on his contract, therefore £100k.

If he hands in a transfer request, he is looking to end his contract, therefore Bristol City do not owe him any damages.
This is to do with Albert adomah leaving Bristol City and is common in football. It's hard to put it in writing and make it understandable but that's why players play in the champs and don't ask for transfers.

Yeah that makes sense. Think I've probably got my wires crossed, my point was if a player let's say caulker is under contract and we make him available for say a million quid and a club meets that valuation then the player has two choices. A) stay and see his contract out which he is well within his rights to do or b) join said club and negotiate a contract with them. If all is agreed and the player moves we owe him zilch as he's moved of his own free will. I read that you were suggesting that if we make a player available whilst he's under contract and he moves then we owe him his contract but surely that only applies if he's forced to go against his will. Apologies for any confusion

[1cliveallen]

No worries mate it's a weird thing to try to get across and make any logical sense...

[klonk]

[QUOTE=1cliveallen;1536512]

Well I absolutely apologise for my ignorance if I'm incorrect but the way I understand it is if you work for someone and then you leave for another job(of your own accord) you don't get paid the remainder of your contract as you have left the company. If we put a player up for sale and we force him to move then absolutely I understand the compensation but if however they chose to leave following a successful bid then contact or no contract they have severed all ties and no longer work for the club. Why would we then pay up the remainder of their contract? They have chosen to bloody leave!!!!![/ On 11 July 2013 at 11:35, Tom Fleuriot said:
There's been a lot of talk on here about how a transfer request means you don't have to pay up someone's contract. I'm a little confused by this.

My understanding is that under contract law, when you breach a contract (or end a contract early), you have to pay damages suffered by the other side. The side suffering the damage cannot claim where damage has not arisen.

So let's say that a player (let's call him Albert) is earning £2k a week (I am not saying this is what he earns, it just makes the maths easier). There are 50 weeks left on his contract, therefore £100k.

If he hands in a transfer request, he is looking to end his contract, therefore Bristol City do not owe him any damages.
This is to do with Albert adomah leaving Bristol City and is common in football. It's hard to put it in writing and make it understandable but that's why players play in the champs and don't ask for transfers.

...but what's the situation where the player holding the contract has publicly expressed his wish to sign for another team, but not handed in a transfer request? fer has been open about wanting to stay in wales and sandro has said that he wants to play for west brom (although not as clearly and openly as fer has). surely this would at lest partially negate the need for a financial settlement. in any case, the club would only be liable for any difference between current earnings and future earnings (which is the players responsibility to negotiate), because this is the sum of any financial dmage caused by the transfer. the player would probably have very limited legal rights if they agreed terms with the new club and then asked their previous club to stump up any shortfall (although i accept that they could refuse to move until they got some form of payoff - like some of our previous players have probably managed to do).

[Hitman34]

i would let sandro go on a free, 4mil for fer, cannot see anyone buying caulker but i would be happy for him to tay with us.

philips has to be 4mil.

thats 8 mil plus another year of parachute money. how much will the board give us to spend?

would rather buy 4 quality players than 9-10 shyte ones just to fill out the squad.

i'd plum for................

lansbury 3-4 mil.

the two french lads 3mil the pair.

ravel- loan

lynch 1mil

rightback