Andy Carroll

[RichC]

Yep, but that was a specific clause that was written into his contract. It's not like that for every player. We have no idea what's written into Carroll's contract, so I don't know how Lec can say we're going to have to pay him approx 30% of his unpaid wages, because from what I can tell that's not the norm. I can't find a single thing on anything like that and I've been all over the frigging net looking.

If a player asks for a transfer he waives the right of his outstanding contract, if a player is sold by the club without a request the club pays off his contract with them or come to some sort of arrangement.

[Daniel 7]

HE's not been very good. Usually when players have not been very good, we want them to leave so we can buy someone with the money we get from them who is very good.

In conclusion, LFC should sell him because he isn't very good and buy someone who is very good.

[cream]

HE's not been very good. Usually when players have not been very good, we want them to leave so we can buy someone with the money we get from them who is very good.

In conclusion, LFC should sell him because he isn't very good and buy someone who is very good.

It's not rocket surgery, is it?

[peekay]

Lec is right. If we force a transfer on any player that player is entitled to have the difference of his contract paid up. If the player requests the transfer then the club doesnt have to pay anything.

Its going to cost us a fortune to get him off the books and it doesnt make much sense. The other way to look at it is that if hes not wanted he will be picking up his wages anyway if hes at the club for the length of his contract like bogarde.

If he has four years left on his contract at 4m per season its 16m hes due over his contract. so we sell him for 15 and then agree a 5m pay off. It still saves us 11m on wages to have him off the books so the net gain would be his fee and the saved wages.

Only numbers can make sense whereas in the real world it seems crazy. Thats why eveyone hates accountants.

Sorry lec. Ive only just seen your post at the top of the page where it says exactly what I just said. Sorry mate looks like ive just ripped off your post.

Shame on you.

Here at EST we have really high standards on the quality of posts.

Dont make that mistake again

[BrooklynRed]

oops.

[Lecter]

no worries mate - not reading it as cruel! I don't think it is common knowledge mate. I literally can't find anything on it and I've been looking. Now maybe I'm just being a useless prick here and searching for the wrong thing.

Obviously a contract can have clauses that are triggered by a transfer request, but I don't think what Lec is saying is true across the board as far as football transfers are concerned.

Sorry Kris but it is pretty much true across the board

The deals that dont involve payments such as I have suggested will be few and far between

[kris90210]

If a player asks for a transfer he waives the right of his outstanding contract, if a player is sold by the club without a request the club pays off his contract with them or come to some sort of arrangement.

I don't think that's true. I can't find anything saying that and believe me I've looked. The only time that would be true is if the player had something stipulated in his contract.

I've looked at anatomies of transfer deal articles on the bbc and from the guardian. I've looked on wikipedia. Looked at giant ****ing fifa pdf's. Blogs. I've literally spent the last 2 hours looking. Haven't got a bit of work done! I can't find a single thing anywhere where it says that's the case. Would be more than happy to admit I'm wrong though if you guys can show me something I'm missing.

[kris90210]

Sorry Kris but it is pretty much true across the board

The deals that dont involve payments such as I have suggested will be few and far between

Fair enough man. You know way more about this stuff than me, I'm sure. But can you please tell me how you know this?

[Lecter]

Yep, but that was a specific clause that was written into his contract. It's not like that for every player. We have no idea what's written into Carroll's contract, so I don't know how Lec can say we're going to have to pay him approx 30% of his unpaid wages, because from what I can tell that's not the norm. I can't find a single thing on anything like that and I've been all over the frigging net looking.

It is the norm

We had to do the same for Heskey, Jovanovic, PFK, Poulsen etc..

Unless the player asks for a transfer in whicbh case he waives the right to such compensation

Its pretty standard, I didnt say it was a flat fee of 30% but it certainly could be up to that amount

[peekay]

It is the norm

We had to do the same for Heskey, Jovanovic, PFK, Poulsen etc..

Unless the player asks for a transfer in whicbh case he waives the right to such compensation

Its pretty standard, I didnt say it was a flat fee of 30% but it certainly could be up to that amount

I maybe wrong here but I think the wage difference plays a role in the amount of compensation we have to provide also.

[Lecter]

Fair enough man. You know way more about this stuff than me, I'm sure. But can you please tell me how you know this?

Its common knowledge as Kenneth says

Look at even our managers contracts and we have had to pay off huge proportions of the remainder contracts when we have sacked them

I think there was a notation in one of our accounts one time that detailed pay off amounts

[kris90210]

Its common knowledge as Kenneth says

Look at even our managers contracts and we have had to pay off huge proportions of the remainder contracts when we have sacked them
I think there was a notation in one of our accounts one time that detailed pay off amounts

That's a completely different kettle of fish. We aren't sacking Carroll. We're transferring him.

[Lecter]

I maybe wrong here but I think the wage difference plays a role in the amount of compensation we have to provide also.

I'm not sure that is a rule set in stone

More that agents are willing to negotiate less enthusiastically when thheir client is going elsewhere on improved wages

Whereas if they are to be earning less then the agents will drive a harder bargain

[dom9]

Fair enough man. You know way more about this stuff than me, I'm sure. But can you please tell me how you know this?

Jeez Kris. It just is. Obviously. Surely this thread is all the proof you need.

[Kenneth]

I don't think that's true. I can't find anything saying that and believe me I've looked. The only time that would be true is if the player had something stipulated in his contract.

I've looked at anatomies of transfer deal articles on the bbc and from the guardian. I've looked on wikipedia. Looked at giant ****ing fifa pdf's. Blogs. I've literally spent the last 2 hours looking. Haven't got a bit of work done! I can't find a single thing anywhere where it says that's the case. Would be more than happy to admit I'm wrong though if you guys can show me something I'm missing.

As you yourself mentioned, if a club want rid they can pay off the contract in one and **** off the player. So that's

good work. But its not worth that much effort is it?