IndigoLake wrote:I actually had a dream last night that we signed Mahrez. So whatever happens on transfer deadline day, I'll just be disappointed because nothing will compare to that

Well he is on his way back from the African Nations Cup thingy, so you never know.

Did nobody get a screen shot of the picture ?

I like the way Brady has handled himself in all of this, unlike Snodgrass who threw his toys out of the pram as soon as the window opened.

Vegas Claret wrote:As far as I'm aware Brady hasn't even put in a transfer request. I would be putting intense pressure on his agent to make him do so. If Norwich still won't budge then like others have suggested he needs to say he's not playing as is the way these days.

At the moment it's just faffing about

I wouldn't want to sign any player who has refused to play for his lawful employer. F-+K that sh1t.
You can't play football not to get hurt. You get stuck in and if the worst happens live with it.

minnieclaret wrote:I wouldn't want to sign any player who has refused to play for his lawful employer. F-+K that sh1t.
You can't play football not to get hurt. You get stuck in and if the worst happens live with it.

Tarks?

minnieclaret wrote:I wouldn't want to sign any player who has refused to play for his lawful employer. F-+K that sh1t.
You can't play football not to get hurt. You get stuck in and if the worst happens live with it.

Tarkowski though.

Tall Paul wrote:Tarkowski though.

Love the guy but he was wrong.

Tarkowski was personal reasons though, family issues.
Not just football/financially motivated

Royboyclaret wrote:"don't know if this is correct or not but the Van Arnholt to Palace thing suddenly gathered pace once the player put a transfer request in.......sort it out Robbie"


Again, too many people are assuming Brady will be in some kind of hurry to leave Norwich.

Why would he be?

Premier league football?
Increased wages?
Closer to home?

Could all be factors but I see what you are saying. Unless he was seriously unhappy at Norwich then he is unlikely to want to push this too much in case it all falls through ala Peter Odemwingie (sp?)

Goobs wrote:Premier league football?
Increased wages?
Closer to home?

Could all be factors but I see what you are saying. Unless he was seriously unhappy at Norwich then he is unlikely to want to push this too much in case it all falls through ala Peter Odemwingie (sp?)

But I thought we couldn't afford his wages?

minnieclaret wrote:I wouldn't want to sign any player who has refused to play for his lawful employer. F-+K that sh1t.
You can't play football not to get hurt. You get stuck in and if the worst happens live with it.

Yeah but the issue with that is if YOU are under contract in YOUR job and a better offer comes along you can leave (notice or no notice), just because he's a footballer the employment laws don't differ. We've seen a million times that contracts aren't worth jack jones.

Vegas Claret wrote:Yeah but the issue with that is if YOU are under contract in YOUR job and a better offer comes along you can leave (notice or no notice), just because he's a footballer the employment laws don't differ. We've seen a million times that contracts aren't worth jack jones.

That's because most employment contracts are 1 month rolling contracts, hence the month's notice to leave.

Footballers contracts are fixed terms for a number of years, they can't just walk out of them when they feel like it.

Footballer employment contracts are entirely different

KRBFC wrote:Tarkowski was personal reasons though, family issues.
Not just football/financially motivated

Can't see how that is any different to other players that have ' downed tools' but I hasten to add I could,of course, be mistaken.

Isn't Tarkowski's mum very ill?

We need to move on to other targets and stop wasting our time on unrealistic players. Yes we can afford £10 m for Snodgrass but the wages he is alleged to be getting are probably twice or even more what we could pay. Brady's agent will know this and because the fee for Brady is more than Snodgrass will raise Brady's wage expectations.

Boden was smug suggesting that it was tactical that we bid for Snodgrass to help force Norwich's hand, its him and Burnley that are starting to look the mugs now.

KRBFC wrote:Tarkowski was personal reasons though, family issues.
Not just football/financially motivated

Totally understand his personal situation and skipping training, etc., I have no problem with but if called upon he should have played.

Hopefully we get some deals over the line
If there is any time to invest, it is now!
UTC

"Premier league football?
Increased wages?
Closer to home?

Could all be factors but I see what you are saying. Unless he was seriously unhappy at Norwich then he is unlikely to want to push this too much in case it all falls through ala Peter Odemwingie (sp?)"


Based on the latest financial information available for the two clubs, I'd say it's highly unlikely Brady would be coming here for a higher weekly wage than he's currently earning. That said (as with all our other players) he'd be amply rewarded for avoiding relegation this season.

The latest information shows respective wage bills for the '14/'15 season to be Burnley £29.4m in the PL and Norwich £48.5m in the Championship.

Thank God for parachute payments

Maybe we are waiting to parade the 4 signings around the pitch on Tuesday night

LawsCanalJump wrote:Maybe we are waiting to parade the 4 signings around the pitch on Tuesday night

A bit like the Swanky Pants Dog Troupe you mean?

Tall Paul wrote:That's because most employment contracts are 1 month rolling contracts, hence the month's notice to leave.

Footballers contracts are fixed terms for a number of years, they can't just walk out of them when they feel like it.

I have a family member who has the TOP job of business Lawyer at one of the biggest companies in the UK and deals with contracts far more complicated and binding than those of a footballer. He reckons any half competent lawyer could get a footballer out of a contract in no time.

I'll go with the opinion of the person doing the job if that's ok

Rubbish

Sean needs to make sure that he has his mobile fully charged and switched on Tuesday night.


Could the crowd keep the noise down if it rings please.

Can somebody -anybody- confirm whether the speculation on this thread is confirmed speculation or whether it is speculation which has been confirmed?

Thanks in advance

Rowls x

Vegas Claret wrote:I have a family member who has the TOP job of business Lawyer at one of the biggest companies in the UK and deals with contracts far more complicated and binding than those of a footballer. He reckons any half competent lawyer could get a footballer out of a contract in no time.

I'll go with the opinion of the person doing the job if that's ok

Its a matter which has been litigated on various occasions, at great cost, so its clearly not that straightforward.

Apart from the fact it is a fixed term contract, which does complicate the matter somewhat, if a player wanted to hand in their notice and go and become a plumber, they might be able to do so. However, if they want to join another football club they need their current club to transfer the right to their registration. That is what a transfer fee is all about - the value placed on the right of one club to hold a player's registration. That principle has been eroded over a century - from the abolition of the old retain and transfer system, through Bosman and then the Webster case - but it is still the fundamental reason why footballers cannot do what the rest of us do.

taio wrote:Rubbish

so 30 years experience at the top end of international business law dealing with the worlds largest companies is rubbish, I'll be glad to pass on your opinion and tell him he's been doing it wrong

On a side note, I don't think they should be able to get out of contracts etc, but I wish Brady would stick in a transfer request

Ask your family member why transfer fees are not extinct. He's obviously absolutely clueless when it comes to football contracts.

Vegas Claret wrote:I have a family member who has the TOP job of business Lawyer at one of the biggest companies in the UK and deals with contracts far more complicated and binding than those of a footballer. He reckons any half competent lawyer could get a footballer out of a contract in no time.

I'll go with the opinion of the person doing the job if that's ok

Why don't they then?

I'm sure Payet could afford a half decent lawyer to get him out of his West Ham contract, for example, why hasn't he?

Rowls wrote:Can somebody -anybody- confirm whether the speculation on this thread is confirmed speculation or whether it is speculation which has been confirmed?

Thanks in advance

Rowls x

I'll speculate that no-one can confirm whether it is 'confirmed speculation' or 'speculation that has been confirmed' until someone confirms otherwise.

Tall Paul wrote:Why don't they then?

I'm sure Payet could afford a half decent lawyer to get him out of his West Ham contract, for example, why hasn't he?

Because 99.99999% of the time these things sort themselves out like Marseille and WHU virtually agreeing a price now. Maybe the cost involved and timescales involved would be well beyond that of a transfer window ? I don't know. I can only give the opinion that I learned from someone who has far greater knowledge on the subject than I would imagine any of us on here have.

It's like the contracts that certain folk have that say "if you leave our company you can't work for a competitor or within a certain radius for 6 months" - not worth anything, it was in a contract I had when I was in the UK and it didn't make a scrap of difference to me, my new employer or my old one.

LawsCanalJump wrote:Maybe we are waiting to parade the 4 signings around the pitch on Tuesday night

Lee Howey, Steve Blatherwick, Mark Winstanley and Michael Williams?

So can someone confirm when someone has confirmed whether the speculation is confirmed or has in fact been confirmed?

Vegas Claret wrote:Because 99.99999% of the time these things sort themselves out like Marseille and WHU virtually agreeing a price now. Maybe the cost involved and timescales involved would be well beyond that of a transfer window ? I don't know. I can only give the opinion that I learned from someone who has far greater knowledge on the subject than I would imagine any of us on here have.

It's like the contracts that certain folk have that say "if you leave our company you can't work for a competitor or within a certain radius for 6 months" - not worth anything, it was in a contract I had when I was in the UK and it didn't make a scrap of difference to me, my new employer or my old one.

If contracts were as easily exited as you suggest there'd be no such thing as transfer windows never mind fees. Your pal has told you a pile of horseshit

99.9999% means nothing in football where everyone else is giving 110%

They're clearly not as easy to get out of as suggested earlier if the costs and time involved would be well beyond a transfer window.

It'd only take one footballer to win such a case and then they'd all be able to rip up their contracts.

The reason they dont want to cancel the contract is they have the remainder of the contract paid to them.
So Snodgrass had 18 months left on his contract. If he was on 30 k a week , Hull have to pay him 2.3 million, now they wont pay that much they will come to a settlement. I have no idea how much it will be. He is then likely to get a signing on fee and wages of maybe 50k at WH.
So players make plenty of money out of a move.
If they put in a transfer request that means the club dont have to pay the remaining contract, I would not be giving that size of money away.

Lowbankclaret wrote:The reason they dont want to cancel the contract is they have the remainder of the contract paid to them.
So Snodgrass had 18 months left on his contract. If he was on 30 k a week , Hull have to pay him 2.3 million, now they wont pay that much they will come to a settlement. I have no idea how much it will be. He is then likely to get a signing on fee and wages of maybe 50k at WH.
So players make plenty of money out of a move.
If they put in a transfer request that means the club dont have to pay the remaining contract, I would not be giving that size of money away.

I'm not convinced that's right either.

Why would clubs in financial difficulties try and offload players if it means they have to pay up their contracts?

I must have opened this thread 500 times today hoping for positive news on Brady. I hate January, let's face it, non of us have a clue, I've even started using twitter just to keep tabs on the random Irish journalist who apparently knows everything. I'm 39 this year and should really get a non football related hobby
God I hope it happens though

I have spoken to several pro footballers who have confirmed to me thats exactly what happens.

Leeds got into finantial trouble when they sold players and could not afford to pay them out so continued to pay the wages to them.

If the last few years have taught us anything, it's that 'top' lawyers, 'top' bankers, 'top' economists, 'top' political pundits get things hideously wrong , just like the rest of us.

Lowbankclaret wrote:I have spoken to several pro footballers who have confirmed to me thats exactly what happens.

Leeds got into finantial trouble when they sold players and could not afford to pay them out so continued to pay the wages to them.

Fair enough, doesn't really make sense to me though. Are you sure Leeds weren't just topping up their wages if their new clubs were paying less? That would make more sense.

Vegas Claret wrote:Because 99.99999% of the time these things sort themselves out like Marseille and WHU virtually agreeing a price now. Maybe the cost involved and timescales involved would be well beyond that of a transfer window ? I don't know. I can only give the opinion that I learned from someone who has far greater knowledge on the subject than I would imagine any of us on here have.

It's like the contracts that certain folk have that say "if you leave our company you can't work for a competitor or within a certain radius for 6 months" - not worth anything, it was in a contract I had when I was in the UK and it didn't make a scrap of difference to me, my new employer or my old one.

Hi Vegas, just to distract from this transfer window hiatus...

I worked in the London office of a US company some years back. I moved from them to a competitor. I negotiated shortening of my 3 months notice period with the first company so that I could join the second company earlier (they wanted me there earlier).

At the same time a colleague in the US moved from the same company I was with and joined the same new company. BUT, he didn't sort out his departure terms with the first company. The first company sued both the second company and the individual - it was settled by my colleague going on "garden leave" for the period of "non-compete." Yes, US employment law is different to English employment law. As you will know the US companies were both "lawyered up" and ready to meet in court. I learnt about it all because my new employer put me also through a thorough review of all my documentation and paper work. Everyone was happy that I'd done things correctly.

Early last year I left my then employer - again US company in their London office. My non-compete was 6 months. After leaving and setting up my own consulting business I was approached by a major competitor of the first company. In this case their lawyers reviewed my previous employment contract and said I couldn't do anything with them until the 6 months period was complete (which it is now).

I'm sure your UK legal "TOP lawyer" could get a footballer out of his contract - but at what price? Would the footballer be able to transfer his playing rights to a new club? How much would he need to pay his club to terminate his contract? Would he ever get a job in football again?

That simply cannot be true, there's no way a club has to pay up remainder of contract as they sell. There must be a clause that says if you choose to sign for a new club, you forgo wages due on the rest of your contract.
It would cost alot of teams money to sell, or at least they'd make very little on player sales.

Redbeard wrote:So can someone confirm when someone has confirmed whether the speculation is confirmed or has in fact been confirmed?

I'm willing to take this responsibility myself, pending confirmation.

willsclarets wrote:That simply cannot be true, there's no way a club has to pay up remainder of contract as they sell. There must be a clause that says if you choose to sign for a new club, you forgo wages due on the rest of your contract.
It would cost alot of teams money to sell, or at least they'd make very little on player sales.

Thats how it works, believe it or believe it not, its true.

Lowbankclaret wrote:I have spoken to several pro footballers who have confirmed to me thats exactly what happens.

Leeds got into financial trouble when they sold players and could not afford to pay them out so continued to pay the wages to them.

I was always under the impression clubs only have to pay out the remainder of a contract if they are terminating a contract and releasing the player on a free, not for selling. Leeds probably sold a player they were desperate to get off the wage bill and were willing to pay a % of the players wage because the buying club couldn't afford the stupid wages they used to pay.

I'm utterly amazed at that!

Lowbankclaret wrote:I have spoken to several pro footballers who have confirmed to me thats exactly what happens.

Leeds got into finantial trouble when they sold players and could not afford to pay them out so continued to pay the wages to them.

That's nonsense! If the player doesn't particularly want to go but the club does then the club could give him some financial incentive to go but there's no way that a club has to pay up the contract of a player who wants to go. If that was the case what is the point of releasing somebody on a free transfer if you have to pay their wages anyway??