Absolutely....... Unless you breach your contract; the money is as good as yours.
-
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...
Transfer Other Team Transfers
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
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.
That isn’t necessarily the case.
A transfer fee is basically a payment to the selling club to not contest a new contract between the player and the buying club.
A player would not normally accept a transfer for lower wages but he might (for any number of non-financial reasons). The selling club is not under any contractual obligation to pay the difference between the value of the old contract and the new contract if the former is higher. Of course, it may provide a financial inducement to a player to accept a transfer.
I doubt that Harry Wink’s Leicester City contract is as valuable on a weekly basis as it was with Tottenham. The value of the contract hasn’t been disclosed by it was for 3 years and so extends his guaranteed money time-wise — in itself a reason to accept a transfer (along with probably greater playing time) . We don’t know if Tottenham paid Winks to get him to accept the transfer.
might be their 3rd cheaper choice but he's a actually quite a good player. obvisouly age isnt on his side but a good stop gap for them
Don't think it's a flat yes, more of a maybe.
It's probably pretty common, but in cases where a player wants a move, and the selling club isn't willing to subsidise, the player can opt for a pay cut.
I'm sure it's almost a standard that if the selling club is desperate to shift some wages they will happily continue to pay a fraction to get rid of the player though, call it Barca-ing.