If the buying club aren't matching or bettering them, then yes.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
If the buying club aren't matching or bettering them, then yes.
New contract length, wanting to play because of a tournament - loads comes into it. Maguire demanding 7m is rather unusual.
So if in three years these Chelsea signings aren’t playing or out of favour are Chelsea on the hook for the remainder of these contracts. That’s a potential massive loss
I wasn't aware that HMcG was cock-blocking the move for monetary reasons.....
Keep reading that he wants to stay to fight for a place and that ETH is playing silly bugger over whether he is prepared to let him go or not.
He's got 2 year's left on 10m a year; assuming WH wouldn't match his wages; the 7m doesn't sound crazy.
Absolutely....... Unless you breach your contract; the money is as good as yours.
No. The selling club owes nothing but usually the player won’t agree to a move if they are taking a pay cut. So the selling club may pay out the difference to make sure the deal happens.
only the difference.
That's what I hoped to infer, yes.
No wanted 7m payout (his wages) man u didn't agree so he is staying to fight for his place. Man U wouldn't pay it because it's not the norm (hence using it as an example). Only when the selling club is desperate and the player won't budge it happens.
It's the exception rather than the rule
That's not true though.........
If I'm locked into a contact and for whatever reason my employer opts to end it without me being in breach, I'm owed to value of that contract.
Depends how successful they are and what they can recoup in sales. It’s a risky game but as FFP is worthless I can’t see what real consequence there is.
The only suitable ending is for this club to go bust. But that would probably be stopped somehow as well.
Sounds like a Leeds to me. This cannot end well.
Leeds owners had no money (they went bust pre ffp). Chelsea are playing hoping ffp won't be a thing, possibly ESL or enough PL owners vote against it.
In the short-term I reckon their slush-funders are happy to pay any impending FFP fine.
It was inevitable that someone would opt to stick two fingers up at it eventually......... Though it might be Newcastle, but no-one can be too suprised that it's dirty Chavs.
In the short term long contracts and Saudi purchases remove ffp.
Just read today that amortisarion over 5 years is a uefa rule change not PL. So for PL OK, when back in europe next year wonder how it effects them
I think it's fair to say that Livramento hasn't passed beyond 'gamble' status, yet given his lack of football since such a serious injury. 40m is no joke..........
re: Hall -
That's supposing they start to reign it in though.... I suspect they won't.
That the UEFA & EPL opt to have two diff. sets of rules is a total recipe for a clusterfuck.
They always had different rules to some extent . Spain has a whole different set of rules compared to ueffa, I'm pretty sure France too.
Quick Google
FFP also keeps an eye on a club's losses. Currently, UEFA permits clubs to lose €60m over a three-year period while the Premier League has a much higher threshold at £105m. However, it is important to note owners must provide £90m of cash injections to cover that cost.
yeah, 40m was a decent chunk for him alright, but acl repair is a long way from what it was years ago. Another 2/3 months and he should be back to something approaching his top physical level. Still only 20yo, guy should become a serious player
In the event of a sale, It’s a mutual agreement to end the contract though.