Offloading contracted players

[Ned]

There has been some discussion on the problems of offloading players who are on contract and wonder if anyone can clarify the position in relation to the following:-

I understand when a club signs a player on a 2 year contract and then decides after the 1st season he has not met their expectations the club are contracted to pay up the remainder of his contract if they want to release him from the wage bill.
However, is it correct that unless the player insists on sitting out the remainder of his contract the manager can make the player available on a free transfer. If the player then agrees a satisfactory deal with a new club then the selling club does not have to pay up the remainder of his contract? If the player is unable to agree a deal with a club then he remains until his contract expires.

[shrimper]

Hi Ned, welcome back.

I think that's the case and I think that's what we did with a couple of players last season who then failed to find a suitable deal with another club.
I think we also did 'pay up' the contracts of one or two players who agreed to our 'paying up' terms.



I suspect a supplementary question or comment may soon follow..... the floor is yours.

[feelingguilty]

Virtually spot on.

Even if the player insists on sitting out his contract - he can still be put on the transfer market. He would then simply refuse to sign a contract with anybody else - therefore practically there is no point in doing it. However from a legal perspective it can be done.

[burple]

I'd advise any player from doing that though...

... we live in Morecambe there is Wicks and a stone jetty. Concrete boots….


It’s not a threat I’m just saying accidents happen

[Gnasher]

And I'm sure SV members could negotiate the cost of the concrete from Wickes

[burple]

good idea

anyone wanna take a bag of cement to training? might give them a bit of inspiration to try harder

[heysham_mfc]

good idea

anyone wanna take a bag of cement to training? might give them a bit of inspiration to try harder

sounds good to me so we still have any of that water left

[Posh]

There has been some discussion on the problems of offloading players who are on contract and wonder if anyone can clarify the position in relation to the following:-

I understand when a club signs a player on a 2 year contract and then decides after the 1st season he has not met their expectations the club are contracted to pay up the remainder of his contract if they want to release him from the wage bill.
However, is it correct that unless the player insists on sitting out the remainder of his contract the manager can make the player available on a free transfer. If the player then agrees a satisfactory deal with a new club then the selling club does not have to pay up the remainder of his contract? If the player is unable to agree a deal with a club then he remains until his contract expires.

It's not that clear cut.

Let's say player x has one year on his contract with club y. He gets paid £1,000 a week. If club y put him on the transfer list (even for free) they're immediately saying to other clubs that he's not good enough for them or surplus to requirements. As a result another club is unlikely to meet the same wage demands that would enable a move. So the circumstances you describe at the end of your post are very unlikely.

However let's say club y put player x on the transfer list and say a previous manager with club z who knows and rates the player comes along via the efforts of club or agent and offers the player a two-year contract on £750 a week. The player may still be unlikely to move so club y offer to pay up part of the contract let's say a one-off payment of £20,000, which means player x is better off in the first year of his contract. He then leaves y and joins z.

Given Ryan McCann walked straight back into the Queen of the South squad the scenario above is what's likely to have happened there.

Back to the scenario, OK Morecambe are norminally out of pocket with an up front payment of £20K but over the course of a season they've now freed up £30K to spend.

[Christies Child]

Didn't Ryan McCann then move on again to an Irish club?

[feelingguilty]

Some (not that many) players just want to be playing and its not all about the money.

Transfer dealings would be a lot easier if there are more players with that view.

[Christies Child]

Some (not that many) players just want to be playing and its not all about the money.

Transfer dealings would be a lot easier if there are more players with that view.

Mr T being a classic case. Moved to us from Chester even though the money was less.

Just wants to play.

[heysham_mfc]

Didn't Ryan McCann then move on again to an Irish club?

no he went back to Queen of the South

[campdave]

Didn't Ryan McCann then move on again to an Irish club?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_McCann

[Number 1]

I'd advise any player from doing that though...

... we live in Morecambe there is Wicks and a stone jetty. Concrete boots….


It’s not a threat I’m just saying accidents happen

Seriously, I think Ned is technically correct, but the way things are now, contracts actually mean nothing, and it may be that a player would take far less than his contract is worth if he was going to a club to play football.

Also, you have to question the wisdom of staying at a club to sit out a contract, if not involved in the side, as it would surely look a bit pathetic to other potential clubs. Said players should be making noises of "I know the manager doesn't see me in his plans, but I'm going to prove him wrong" or "I'm willing to take a pay cut to get playing again".

[P/T Indie]

And I'm sure SV members could negotiate the cost of the concrete from Wickes

In the past we could have got staff discount but didn't he deflect to the dark side?