Popular Post dounavilla Posted July 22, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted July 22, 2016 37 minutes ago, AndyC said: I keep seeing these posts about paying off contracts. Why do people think this? It simply wont happen, if players cant be sold or loaned then they are here to stay until their contract is up. hilarious how black and white people think the world is. Racist. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 5 hours ago, Gary Thomas said: Genuine question, but wouldn't these negotiations go something like, "Gabby" [insert preferred name] we are sorry but we no longer feel you are fit our future plans and you will not see first team football here again. However, we would to help you engineer a move by allowing you a free transfer and helping any prospective buyer cover your wages. This will mean your financial terms would remain in tact in terms of wages - albeit with another club - and you would have a much better chance of actually playing. Then we would essentially pay someone a lump sum to cover a percentage of his % of his wages - making him more affordable. It sounds crazy suggesting we pay someone to take a player, I know, but if he stays and does not play we would be worse off keeping him because would have to pay the full wages ourselves. Then there are the other negative effects of keeping a player who is not playing. I have no knowledge of these issues, it would just make financial sense to me and it would be a better outcome for Gabby or whoever. Then, they all held hands and flew off to never land. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villan_of_oz Posted July 23, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted July 23, 2016 On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 01:58, Delphinho123 said: Our owners tweets are embarrassing. Some of our fans are emabrassing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Only one way to be certain of keeping a player - pay them what they want. Tony's a billionaire. = Confident Tony on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 23, 2016 Administrator Share Posted July 23, 2016 12 hours ago, Gary Thomas said: Genuine question, but wouldn't these negotiations go something like, "Gabby" [insert preferred name] we are sorry but we no longer feel you are fit our future plans and you will not see first team football here again. However, we would to help you engineer a move by allowing you a free transfer and helping any prospective buyer cover your wages. This will mean your financial terms would remain in tact in terms of wages - albeit with another club - and you would have a much better chance of actually playing. Then we would essentially pay someone a lump sum to cover a percentage of his % of his wages - making him more affordable. It sounds crazy suggesting we pay someone to take a player, I know, but if he stays and does not play we would be worse off keeping him because would have to pay the full wages ourselves. Then there are the other negative effects of keeping a player who is not playing. I have no knowledge of these issues, it would just make financial sense to me and it would be a better outcome for Gabby or whoever. I'm pretty sure that players aren't allowed to have multiple ownership, even if it's hidden in a legal construct. If we are paying something towards his salary, then he is still under contract to us and we have to hold his registration. We can loan him as his registration is owned by us in toto. We can't part own his registration as that isn't allowed by the FL / FA / UEFA. Either he is our player or he isn't and legal trickery won't be tolerated. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Tony has lots of money, he doesn't need to sell, therefore unless a ridiculous offer (50m) comes in then why would he sell. Yes Ayew may want to go, but it doesn't mean we'll sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Thomas Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, limpid said: I'm pretty sure that players aren't allowed to have multiple ownership, even if it's hidden in a legal construct. If we are paying something towards his salary, then he is still under contract to us and we have to hold his registration. We can loan him as his registration is owned by us in toto. We can't part own his registration as that isn't allowed by the FL / FA / UEFA. Either he is our player or he isn't and legal trickery won't be tolerated. Surely it is just a negative transfer fee (we pay instead of them) - the ownership would be 100% the other club. It would essentially be a termination of his contract with a settlement that covers a % of his prospective wage. Edited July 23, 2016 by Gary Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Thomas Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, villan_007 said: Then, they all held hands and flew off to never land. Mock away but financially it would make sense, to me at least. If we have players on contracts with huge wages (assuming we have no use of them) why keep them when we can reduce the financial hit? We would never pay off a contract and cover a 100% of a players prospective wages for the legal duration of a contract; but it would make financial sense to compensate him by covering a % of his prospective wages - even is that is 75% we save money because we've rid ourselves of a sunk cost. My point was Gabby would only need to find club that will pay 25% of his current wage and he will be no worse off. People talk about the signal it sends - well what signal does it send if we keep players no one wants, never playing them and paying astronomical wages - that's a better option? Edited July 23, 2016 by Gary Thomas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Gary Thomas said: We would never pay off a contract and cover a 100% of a players prospective wages for the legal duration of a contract; we would compensate him by covering a % of his prospective wages - even is that is 75% we save money because we've rid ourselves of a sunk cost! My point is Gabby only needs to find club that will pay 25% of his current wage and he will be no worse off. People talk about the signal it sends - well what signal does it send if we keep players no one wants, never playing them and paying astronomical wages - that's a better option? I don't think you are far off with this mate but I'd imagine it would be done differently with the same result. I can see a few more players having to be sent out on long term loans much like Darren Bent was for his last two seasons under contract here. We still I imagine paid two thirds of his wages. In this scenario I guess the hope is that if they have more than a year remaining then in the first few months/year out on loan they do well and then someone comes in and buys them. Edited July 23, 2016 by markavfc40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Thomas Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) I suppose it will come down to what motivates the player - I just assume that any professional footballer would want to "play" regular football and that desire would make them more receptive to a loan deal or or contract settlement - but then again we are talking about modern day footballers here so who knows. Edited July 23, 2016 by Gary Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) Tony back on Twitter, wishing kids happy birthday and telling us more about the future. I for one bloody love it. This below a reaction to question on the north stand Edited July 23, 2016 by Jareth 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GENTLEMAN Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 New stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Theme park! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dounavilla Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Michael Jackson statue ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 A great wall? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holteendhero Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 I went on a recent stadium tour and there was talk about filling in the corners of the North Stand removing the ex boxes and making it three tiers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno_2004 Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 He really has hung his hat on those Ayew and Amavi tweets. He's either incredibly confident for a reason we are not privy to or is very naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post limpid Posted July 23, 2016 Administrator Popular Post Share Posted July 23, 2016 1 minute ago, jonno_2004 said: He really has hung his hat on those Ayew and Amavi tweets. He's either incredibly confident for a reason we are not privy to or is very naive. In what way? If they've said they are staying then if they ask to leave he can say he was lied to. They are the ones who will look bad. He can only be in the wrong if they haven't said they are staying. Even then he can say that he did everything he could to keep them. Haters gonna hate whatever he does. I'd rather he talks than stays silent. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 This football, Ayew and Amavi may have said they will stay but I won't be confident until the end of the window, heads can be turned pretty damn easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted July 23, 2016 Administrator Share Posted July 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Gary Thomas said: Surely it is just a negative transfer fee (we pay instead of them) - the ownership would be 100% the other club. It would essentially be a termination of his contract with a settlement that covers a % of his prospective wage. Because you are introducing a third party (the other club) I think that this would represent undue influence on the player's contract with the other club. IANAL though. It looks like a legal trick to get out of the contract to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts