Can a club just sell a player?
Discussion
Or does he have a choice in where he goes? I was reading an article about Harry Kane who Levy doesn't want to sell to a PL club but might let go to Bayern. Presumably Kane (or any other player) can just say no thanks.
In the case of Kane in particular why wouldn't he just sit tight for another year until he is out of contract & then presumably he could pocket the £50/60/100m instead of Spurs getting it?
In the case of Kane in particular why wouldn't he just sit tight for another year until he is out of contract & then presumably he could pocket the £50/60/100m instead of Spurs getting it?
It's up to the player. If you have a much smaller contract than Kane you have to consider what the club can do to make your life unpleasant until your contract runs out - training with the academy team, no contact with the first team, made to play in reserve games, maximum fines for being late, missing training etc.
Winston Bogarde saw out his £40,000 a week contract at Chelsea rather than move on.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article...
In american sports though only the high level stars have 'no trade' clauses which means they have a say where they end up. Majority of trades, players have no say.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article...
In american sports though only the high level stars have 'no trade' clauses which means they have a say where they end up. Majority of trades, players have no say.
Mr Pointy said:
Or does he have a choice in where he goes? I was reading an article about Harry Kane who Levy doesn't want to sell to a PL club but might let go to Bayern. Presumably Kane (or any other player) can just say no thanks.
In the case of Kane in particular why wouldn't he just sit tight for another year until he is out of contract & then presumably he could pocket the £50/60/100m instead of Spurs getting it?
If the player has a contract they can refuse a move and just sit and do the minimum to pick up wages. Obviously that doesn't normally happen as the parent club can make it difficult for the player (exclude from squads / train with reserves etc), plus players want to play and they might see it impacting there development especially if they want to play international football. In the case of Kane in particular why wouldn't he just sit tight for another year until he is out of contract & then presumably he could pocket the £50/60/100m instead of Spurs getting it?
Often clubs will offer players a lump sum to move, especially if the move means they will lose wages.
Mr Pointy said:
In the case of Kane in particular why wouldn't he just sit tight for another year until he is out of contract & then presumably he could pocket the £50/60/100m instead of Spurs getting it?
Because if he gets a career ending injury during the coming season, and his contract only runs a few months, he's going to get a few months money and that's his lot. If he goes elsewhere today and signs a 5 year deal, that 5 years salary is guaranteed, even if his career is ended in a pre season friendly. Mr Pointy said:
Or does he have a choice in where he goes? I was reading an article about Harry Kane who Levy doesn't want to sell to a PL club but might let go to Bayern. Presumably Kane (or any other player) can just say no thanks.
In the case of Kane in particular why wouldn't he just sit tight for another year until he is out of contract & then presumably he could pocket the £50/60/100m instead of Spurs getting it?
It may be contract specific but my impression has always been that both the clubs and player need to agree to a transfer.In the case of Kane in particular why wouldn't he just sit tight for another year until he is out of contract & then presumably he could pocket the £50/60/100m instead of Spurs getting it?
In 2003 Man Utd issued a press release stating that they had accepted an offer from Barcelona to buy David Beckham. Nobody at Man Utd or Barcelona spoke to Beckham or his agent before the deal was announced. Beckham refused to discuss terms with Barcelona saying that he would only discuss terms with Real Madrid. Man Utd eventually sold Beckham to Real Madrid that summer.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Because if he gets a career ending injury during the coming season, and his contract only runs a few months, he's going to get a few months money and that's his lot.
But what are the chances of that and would a player consider that?If a player runs down his contract he'd obviously expect his new club to make up what they're saved in transfer fee in his signing bonus/salary. It's up to his current club to persuade him not to run down his contract.
My perception is the player's agent is the deciding factor in this. No disrespect to players but assume most aren't too bright so they're influenced by their agent. Pay the agent enough money and he'll persuade the player.
jonsp said:
ut what are the chances of that and would a player consider that?
If a player runs down his contract he'd obviously expect his new club to make up what they're saved in transfer fee in his signing bonus/salary. It's up to his current club to persuade him not to run down his contract.
My perception is the player's agent is the deciding factor in this. No disrespect to players but assume most aren't too bright so they're influenced by their agent. Pay the agent enough money and he'll persuade the player.
There is an element of agent management and direction but to assume most aren’t too bright is a commonly held fallacy. There will be some who which that is true but having a natural sporting talent =/= thick. If a player runs down his contract he'd obviously expect his new club to make up what they're saved in transfer fee in his signing bonus/salary. It's up to his current club to persuade him not to run down his contract.
My perception is the player's agent is the deciding factor in this. No disrespect to players but assume most aren't too bright so they're influenced by their agent. Pay the agent enough money and he'll persuade the player.
It’s risk and reward, each player along with their agent will have their own view on it.
For example, look at how Mbappe is managing his career with a short highly lucrative contract with PSG with the aim of moving on a free. It’s possible he will decide to continue relatively short highly remunerated contracts through his career. But when you have a 9 figure bank account it’s much easier.
On the other hand some Chelsea players have agreed very long contracts of up to 8/9 years which gives huge minimum earning certainty.
This is mostly focussed at elite level but once you drop a level or two the focus is likely to be more on contract and certainty over a slight earnings boost.
jonsp said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Because if he gets a career ending injury during the coming season, and his contract only runs a few months, he's going to get a few months money and that's his lot.
But what are the chances of that and would a player consider that?If a player runs down his contract he'd obviously expect his new club to make up what they're saved in transfer fee in his signing bonus/salary. It's up to his current club to persuade him not to run down his contract.
My perception is the player's agent is the deciding factor in this. No disrespect to players but assume most aren't too bright so they're influenced by their agent. Pay the agent enough money and he'll persuade the player.
48k said:
jonsp said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Because if he gets a career ending injury during the coming season, and his contract only runs a few months, he's going to get a few months money and that's his lot.
But what are the chances of that and would a player consider that?If a player runs down his contract he'd obviously expect his new club to make up what they're saved in transfer fee in his signing bonus/salary. It's up to his current club to persuade him not to run down his contract.
My perception is the player's agent is the deciding factor in this. No disrespect to players but assume most aren't too bright so they're influenced by their agent. Pay the agent enough money and he'll persuade the player.
Player contracts are amortised, wages are straight lined for FFP. Much better for the paying club to have a fee to pay then inflated wages.
Both parties are better selling now, club gets cash, player gets contract paid up (10m), player gets new deal (400k pw), club gets money to re invest. (unless he actually wants to stay, then just sign the contract).
FFP has kind of stopped Bosmans, although it would be hilarious if he did a Campbell.
Dingu said:
On the other hand some Chelsea players have agreed very long contracts of up to 8/9 years which gives huge minimum earning certainty.
It does - but it also limits their options because another club who might fancy them would find the transfer fee they'd need to pay Chelsea too high. Makes sense for Chelsea to lock a player in. Makes sense for the player if he's happy with the club and his wife/family are settled. For a good player - assuming he stays good - he'd be sacrificing potential future earnings for security. But as you say once the player signs an 8/9 year contract he's set for life whatever happens.
jonsp said:
Dingu said:
On the other hand some Chelsea players have agreed very long contracts of up to 8/9 years which gives huge minimum earning certainty.
It does - but it also limits their options because another club who might fancy them would find the transfer fee they'd need to pay Chelsea too high. Makes sense for Chelsea to lock a player in. Makes sense for the player if he's happy with the club and his wife/family are settled. For a good player - assuming he stays good - he'd be sacrificing potential future earnings for security. But as you say once the player signs an 8/9 year contract he's set for life whatever happens.
48k said:
The only reason Chelsea are offering such long contracts is to circumvent FFP rules.
You don't think there might be another reason a club would offer long term contracts to players with decent expected playing years head of them?Obviously whether the player chooses to sign a long term contract is another issue.
jonsp said:
48k said:
The only reason Chelsea are offering such long contracts is to circumvent FFP rules.
You don't think there might be another reason a club would offer long term contracts to players with decent expected playing years head of them?Obviously whether the player chooses to sign a long term contract is another issue.
Reward - Player gets certainty on wages, club gets to protect their asset, and ensure a good fee if they decide to sell
Risk - If player is a dud then the club is lumbered with said player. Also if the move doesn't work out and the player is not getting game time they will struggle for an exit. Also depending when the contract he might lose out the opportunity to get a bumper deal in their prime.
Obviously Chelsea see the long term contracts as a plus, but will see how it pans out especially as they end up with duds.
Challo said:
jonsp said:
48k said:
The only reason Chelsea are offering such long contracts is to circumvent FFP rules.
You don't think there might be another reason a club would offer long term contracts to players with decent expected playing years head of them?Obviously whether the player chooses to sign a long term contract is another issue.
Reward - Player gets certainty on wages, club gets to protect their asset, and ensure a good fee if they decide to sell
Risk - If player is a dud then the club is lumbered with said player. Also if the move doesn't work out and the player is not getting game time they will struggle for an exit. Also depending when the contract he might lose out the opportunity to get a bumper deal in their prime.
Obviously Chelsea see the long term contracts as a plus, but will see how it pans out especially as they end up with duds.
48k said:
Some agents aren't too bright either. Kane's brother is his agent, Kane is his only client. He's not really covered himself in glory historically.
Isn't that a case of the player not being too bright in appointing his brother?Why would you entrust your financial future to a family member with zero experience. Maybe he wants to share the wealth with his less fortunate family members, which is fair enough, but there must be better ways to do that.
jonsp said:
sn't that a case of the player not being too bright in appointing his brother?
Why would you entrust your financial future to a family member with zero experience. Maybe he wants to share the wealth with his less fortunate family members, which is fair enough, but there must be better ways to do that.
I can see the logic in appointing a sibling to a position where you need absolute confidence that they are acting in your best interest.Why would you entrust your financial future to a family member with zero experience. Maybe he wants to share the wealth with his less fortunate family members, which is fair enough, but there must be better ways to do that.
I suspect that football players view other football agents with a great deal of suspicion.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff