Interesting that potential contract clause mentioned again.

[northeastclaret]

I see Chris Iwelumo said yesterday that he had heard there was a clause in Traffords contract he has to play 75% of first team matches and added if it is true it’s an absolute disgrace , which it would be.

With Iweumo being an ex player and Trafford’s
agent being David Eyres it could be true. Certainly it took 75% of our league matches to have been played for he was dropped.

[Winstonswhite]

Rubbish. People will believe anything.

[TheFamilyCat]

I wonder if Chris Iwelumo had "heard" it from reading this board.

[Goliath]

I see Chris Iwelumo said yesterday that he had heard there was a clause in Traffords contract he has to play 75% of first team matches and added if it is true it’s an absolute disgrace , which it would be.

With Iweumo being an ex player and Trafford’s
agent being David Eyres it could be true. Certainly it took 75% of our league matches to have been played for he was dropped.

Where did he say that? Ive never put much stock in those rumours, but an ex player saying it is a different kettle of fish. I very much the doubt hes the type to trot out rumours without some substance to be honest, which makes it quite worrying

[Holtyclaret]

Absolute tripe

[ksrclaret]

Where did he say that? Ive never put much stock in those rumours, but an ex player saying it is a different kettle of fish. I very much the doubt hes the type to trot out rumours without some substance to be honest, which makes it quite worrying

Stop being a bed wetter.

[Goliath]

Stop being a bed wetter.

I see what you've done there

[Winstonswhite]

What happens if he doesn’t play in 75% of games?

[ksrclaret]

I see what you've done there

Good. Stop it then.

[Goliath]

Presuming it would just be based on League games, he would have to play about 28 games of a 38 game season. A quick Google shows he was dropped after his 28th game.

[equinox]

What happens if he doesn’t play in 75% of games?

He then plays 74%, 73%, 72% ect.

[TheFamilyCat]

What happens if he doesn’t play in 75% of games?

Dunno, but I doubt it would be more damaging than relegation.

Also, what benefit is there to Eyres or Trafford playing every week and his saleability decreasing?

[Fretters]

Presuming it would just be based on League games, he would have to play about 28 games of a 38 game season. A quick Google shows he was dropped after his 28th game.

28.5 games, so expect him to be brought on at half time when we're already down

[northeastclaret]

Where did he say that? Ive never put much stock in those rumours, but an ex player saying it is a different kettle of fish. I very much the doubt hes the type to trot out rumours without some substance to be honest, which makes it quite worrying

I heard him say it myself on TalkSPORT , he was the co commentator on our match yesterday and his comments have been repeated on some news feeds.

[Vim Fuego]

If (fairly large if) this is common practice then it would explain a lot. It might also explain why our best striker ended up playing at right wing yesterday

[Goliath]

Good. Stop it then.

If you don't like the topic of conversation, don't involve yourself. Or just keep being a pillock, your choice.

[ksrclaret]

If you don't like the topic of conversation, don't involve yourself. Or just keep being a pillock, your choice.

Interesting response. Maybe you’ll take your own advice on other threads such as CT’s match report.

[Spijed]

If (fairly large if) this is common practice then it would explain a lot. It might also explain why our best striker ended up playing at right wing yesterday

It certainly won't be legally binding.

[Goliath]

Interesting response. Maybe you’ll take your own advice on other threads such as CT’s match report.

You cant see the difference?
I was expressing an opinion on our performance along with the view that people have overreacted to it because of the result.
You were just being ignorant, presumably because you didn't like somebody disagreeing with you.

Anyway, this is another thread ruined by somebody incapable of holding proper conversation.

[ksrclaret]

You cant see the difference?
I was expressing an opinion on our performance along with the view that people have overreacted to it because of the result.
You were just being ignorant, presumably because you didn't like somebody disagreeing with you.

Anyway, this is another thread ruined by somebody incapable of holding proper conversation.

I think your policy of justifying calling people bedwettters but not liking it when it’s used on yourself is an interesting one. Certainly more interesting than Trafford’s made up contract situation.

[TheFamilyCat]

If (fairly large if) this is common practice then it would explain a lot. It might also explain why our best striker ended up playing at right wing yesterday

If you mean why he was playing right wing while Fofana is in "his" position, then terms of loan deals more commonly stipulate number of games etc. I think we failed to meet the terms on occasions under Dyche.

[bumba]

What could be gained from it in the contract though?
I don't believe it's true.
What could the options be if we fail to play him in 75% of the games.....
He gets paid money? - staying up would cover the cost.
His release clause to City is lower? - winner for us.
He gets a release clause to go elsewhere? - winner for us.
He gets to go back to City for what we paid? - winner for us.
The only way it'd effect us if he didn't play 75% of games he could then move for a lower fee than what we paid but then he isn't worth anywhere close to what we paid because he's played so many games and poorly.

[Darthlaw]

If this clause was real - I’d be interested to know what the penalty would be should we fail to play him in 75% of the games.

Wage rise or penalty payment to him?
Released from his contract?
Lowering of his release fee?

The middle one aside, I’m sure someone at the club would have the nous to drop him and take the hit, in favour of the potential for money for staying up?

[Bordeauxclaret]

If this clause was real - I’d be interested to know what the penalty would be should we fail to play him in 75% of the games.

I think the Kosovan Mafia take over at that point.

[Rileybobs]

Leaving aside the question raised by others about what the penalty for breaking this contractual agreement would be, how exactly would this be enforced? If a player believes they are physically fit enough to play, and the club disagrees, then who makes this call?

I can’t for one minute believe that the player would insist or the club would agree on such a ridiculous clause.

[JohnMac]

Iwelumo probably read it on here...

[Funkydrummer]

There is clearly something somewhere to explain the change
from ever present to not even being on the bench.

The club doesn't help speculation with their lack of info on such
matters of injury, illness etc - always respecting player's right to privacy.

[Rileybobs]

There is clearly something somewhere to explain the change
from ever present to not even being on the bench.

The club doesn't help speculation with their lack of info on such
matters of injury, illness etc - always respecting player's right to privacy.

Bloody club, respecting their employees’ rights of privacy.

[BurnleyFC]

If this is remotely true, in a season full of batshit crazy decisions, this would be the weirdest of the lot.

[Paul Waine]

I've worked it out, the deal is with Gareth Southgate: once James Trafford has played 75% of Burnley's Premier League games Southgate is obliged to pick him for England squad.

Of course, the more important contract clause is the one that says how many games Trafford needs to play before he gets England start.

[Cooclaret]

Questioned it all along, fishy deal.

I love Trafford and I have clearly nailed my colours to the mast about him. But, I do think we have helped Man City out in someway. Potentially with FFP or another issue.

I’m sure Trafford is headed back there with a buy back clause. So a guaranteed playing time clause isn’t something too far off the mark. Inserted by the player but guided by Man City.

I know nothing, so it’s all speculation.

I also don’t wet the bed.

[Shaggy]

I can see there being a promise to start so many games in order to sign being agreed.

Let’s be honest this transfer has been the biggest **** up of the whole summer full of **** ups.

If we could recoup our money on him or close to it then we should be all over it like a tramp on a bag of chips.

[Cooclaret]

Bloody club, respecting their employees’ rights of privacy.

I know! People get so bent out of shape about the club not following the same practices previous regimes did. It’s their club, they can do what they want!

I totally agree that medical info etc should not be broadcast about any player at the club (1st team or youth).

[CrosspoolClarets]

Though I suspect this whole story is nonsense (and irresponsible tittle tattle from Iwelumo on that joke station) it is certainly adding fuel if the 75% of games for which he is available is reduced by him being declared ill by the club last week. That means he has played in 28 out of 36 games which is the minimum to be over 75%. It would also mean almost by definition that VK wanted to drop him sooner.

Still cannot believe it though. It would be the road to ruin and would mean we were stitched up by City as well, selling us an undroppable player who ties Kompany’s hands which relegates us if he doesn’t perform. Just cannot believe it is true.

BUT - the question must be formally asked now it has been stated on a major media station, these rumours cannot go on.

[criminalclaret]

Yeah I think this is all codswallop to be honest.

Let's just think about the practicalities for a second. Say "if" (big bloody if) that something like this was in his contact.

a) Relegation is worth tens of millions. There is no way you keep a player in a team who may increase your chances of being relegated. The cost of paying a supposed "fee" for not playing him will be dramatically smaller than the cost of relegation. It's a financial no brainer to drop them if it decreases your chances of relegation.

b) in what way at all is that enforceable in an employment contract? You can have bonuses and add on clauses in contracts, as we do with our relegation clauses, but there can be nothing which can be put in place a dictation to work X % or be sued or fined. (I'm sure someone with more employment contact knowledge can't confirm that)

In my opinion, VK bought a young player he had great faith in, but that player had to massively step up far, far beyond his range in the toughest league in thr world. He and everyone around knew at an early start of the season it was too much. Albeit his performances have greatly improved over the season, psychologically the young kid must have had his confidence shot to pieces. Muric coming in right now to the end of the season is probably to give the kid a reset and to focus on next season where I think he will go back to No 1 choice when we are in the Championship. He is an expensive experiment this season, but is absolutely not the sole reason we are going down as people like to believe.

[TheFamilyCat]

Leaving aside the question raised by others about what the penalty for breaking this contractual agreement would be, how exactly would this be enforced? If a player believes they are physically fit enough to play, and the club disagrees, then who makes this call?

I can’t for one minute believe that the player would insist or the club would agree on such a ridiculous clause.

They could break hid arm, like in Escape to Victory.

[dougcollins]

What happens if he doesn’t play in 75% of games?

Haven't you ever seen 'Gremlins'?

[Pickles]

Some people have never played Football Manager and it shows.

Quite common for players to sign for clubs upon having agreed a certain amount of playing time conditions. Fairly well known isn't it that Bellingham turned down Man United and chose Dortmund because they promised him consistent first team appearances.

Not saying that justifies the Trafford signing and the amount he has featured however.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Dunno, but I doubt it would be more damaging than relegation.

Also, what benefit is there to Eyres or Trafford playing every week and his saleability decreasing?

I don't think, if we accept the premise that the clause exists, that they anticipated it going so badly when they inserted such a clause

[TheFamilyCat]

I don't think, if we accept the premise that the clause exists, that they anticipated it going so badly when they inserted such a clause

Of course not. But if a clause that is in the player's favour isn't working outdoors him, he/his agent would be looking to renegotiate.

[Devils_Advocate]

I heard from someone inside the club that this contract clause rumour is true but that it wasn't Trafford or his agent who requested it. Apparently JJ Watt insisted that Trafford has to be selected for 75% of Burnley's PL fixtures as he wanted to put him in his fantasy football team and needed to be sure he was going to play.

I think one of the reasons we didn't get the Maatsen deal over the line at the end of the window is because Watt had picked Taylor in his FF team and didn't want Maatsen to jeopardise that choice

[aggi]

What happens if he doesn’t play in 75% of games?

A good question. The only real remedy would be financial or termination so are we really expecting the board to have signed a contract where Trafford gets a bonus for not playing or is allowed to leave for cheap/free?

There's no point just having the clause without the remedy so what do those people who thinks the clause exists think it is?

[Rileybobs]

Some people have never played Football Manager and it shows.

Quite common for players to sign for clubs upon having agreed a certain amount of playing time conditions. Fairly well known isn't it that Bellingham turned down Man United and chose Dortmund because they promised him consistent first team appearances.

Not saying that justifies the Trafford signing and the amount he has featured however.

Do you see anything wrong with this comparison?

[Pickles]

Do you see anything wrong with this comparison?

Is it a guessing game? Not saying it's a direct comparison. Just that it wouldn't be totally surprising if it's true. Players and agents plan and track out their careers.

[Rileybobs]

Is it a guessing game? Not saying it's a direct comparison. Just that it wouldn't be totally surprising if it's true. Players and agents plan and track out their careers.

Well I think Jude Bellingham, like Lionel Messi, Mbappe etc, will have a lot more bargaining power when negotiating a contract than James Trafford did. Do you honestly think the club would be stupid enough to agree that a player will definitely start 75% (very arbitrary percentage btw) of games?

[Pickles]

Do you honestly think the club would be stupid enough to agree that a player will definitely start 75% (very arbitrary percentage btw) of games?

I don't know. And I'd be surprised if you or anyone on the messageboard knows for certain. I'm just saying - it happens.

[Superjohnnyfrancis]

So going off this we can expect Trafford in 75% of the championship games as well. Christ on a bike.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot , we have won the league in that.

[criminalclaret]

I don't know. And I'd be surprised if you or anyone on the messageboard knows for certain. I'm just saying - it happens.

See point a) in my post above.

It would be financially incompetent to back a struggling player due a contractal clause when the overall financial loss would be much much more than a fee for breach of contract. Could take years for that outcome in the courts.

I think it's a load of shite. VK backed him until his confidence was fully dismantled and now he needs a deserved rest, physically and mentally.

[Corway]

The biggest question is why £20m was good business for us and will we ever get that back?
An absolutely crazy use of scarce resources when we had two keepers.

[Vegas Claret]

The biggest question is why £20m was good business for us and will we ever get that back?
An absolutely crazy use of scarce resources when we had two keepers.

it wasn't 20 but yes, we didn't need him either way