Handing in a transfer request

[Captain...]

I'm a little confused as to what this means and why a club can reject it.

 

If I told my boss I wanted to leave he couldn't just reject it and make me stay, this phenomenon of protracted transfer sagas is getting boring, Chelsea want Stones and are willing to pay a good price for him, Stones wants to leave. I don't see how a club can stand in his way, nor why, it is not good for anyone for this to be dragged out.

 

I do think that there should be a better way of doing this, what happened to fees being decided by tribunal? I get the argument that players have too much power, but this in no way helps Everton and it is going to encourage more players to have release clauses in their contract. I think it would make sense that the release clause can only be triggered if a player hands in a transfer request.

 

What is a fair way of resolving disputes like this, and preventing the sagas that dominate our summer? Or do you enjoy the chaos that seems to surround other clubs, whilst we seem to avoid it?

[Soar Fox]

Is it because he's under contract? If you had a contract at work would you just be able to leave if you felt like it even though you've agreed and signed something.

He'll end up going Chelsea anyway it will just drag out until the last day of the transfer window. It's just a ploy by Everton to squeeze as much more money out of Chelsea as possible.

[RobHawk]

I assume its because players are seen as a commercial commidity, so its not just all about the players contract.

 

The problem with valuing a player is that its impossible to do objectively especially with all the money in football these days. What would it mean if a player was the difference between relegation a and survival - how would a tribunal factor in that huge loss of income to the sale of a player? Its impossible but it is a judgement clubs have to make when selling players.

 

Ultimately, Footballers are payed extremely well and fixed term contracts, so they need to get over it in my opinion. In Stones' case, he's done it to try and force a move, but this usually lowers the asking price as well so Everton are within their right to do what they need to do to ensure they get what they feel he is worth.

[ramboacdc]

I'm a little confused as to what this means and why a club can reject it.

 

If I told my boss I wanted to leave he couldn't just reject it and make me stay, this phenomenon of protracted transfer sagas is getting boring, Chelsea want Stones and are willing to pay a good price for him, Stones wants to leave. I don't see how a club can stand in his way, nor why, it is not good for anyone for this to be dragged out.

 

I do think that there should be a better way of doing this, what happened to fees being decided by tribunal? I get the argument that players have too much power, but this in no way helps Everton and it is going to encourage more players to have release clauses in their contract. I think it would make sense that the release clause can only be triggered if a player hands in a transfer request.

 

What is a fair way of resolving disputes like this, and preventing the sagas that dominate our summer? Or do you enjoy the chaos that seems to surround other clubs, whilst we seem to avoid it?

he is under contract they have no need to sell him unless they need the money. in theory Liverpool could have done the same with sterling and just let him play in the under 21's until his contract expired. then its a case of the club getting nothing but the player eventually getting his wish. 

[Ross-Kemp]

If a club sells you, you get 10% of the transfer fee.

If you hand in a transfer request, you automatically lose that 10%.

[Kent]

I think it can also be used for PR reasons ie. if the selling club will look bad to its fans it can tell the player he can go if he submits a transfer request. Saves the club money and the fans are more likely to turn on the player instead of the club.

[mozartfox]

Why didn't Conrad Logan ever hand in a transfer request?

[Benji]

Why didn't Conrad Logan ever hand in a transfer request?

He was one of those few legends in the game who just loved being at the club.

[Captain...]

If a club sells you, you get 10% of the transfer fee.

If you hand in a transfer request, you automatically lose that 10%.

 

I'd heard that, but what is the benefit to the player, he loses his 10%, but seemingly submitting a transfer request can be refused, so what is the point?

[ramboacdc]

If a club sells you, you get 10% of the transfer fee.

If you hand in a transfer request, you automatically lose that 10%.

i thought this was dependent on contract agreements? 

[VLC86]

He was one of those few legends in the game who just loved sitting on a bench doing fk all and picking up his wages.

 

Edited for you.

[Leeds Fox]

If a club sells you, you get 10% of the transfer fee.

If you hand in a transfer request, you automatically lose that 10%.

As Rambo said, it's all to do with what's in the contract. This isn't a rule.

It is sometimes beneficial to the selling club for the player to hand in a transfer request.

[Wymsey]

Another reason might be that it's very too before the deadline, that the club may not replace the player that handed in the request and panic buy.

[Vicki Vixen]

Is it because he's under contract? If you had a contract at work would you just be able to leave if you felt like it even though you've agreed and signed something.

Most employment contracts specify a notice period for both employer and employee. Footballers' contracts are different in that they don't have a notice period so unless the contract has expired, the only practical way to break it is by mutual consent.

[Bert]

If a club sells you, you get 10% of the transfer fee.

If you hand in a transfer request, you automatically lose that 10%.

Which the buying club give back in a signing on fee.