jimmeh Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 But surely if they transfer away, they get the money we 'owe' them plus whatever their new club is paying them? Yeah so Beckford will be earning the same as he was here for the next 2 years at Bolton. That's why It's only a reported 2 year deal at Bolton for Beckford. They will be paying probably around 15k to him and the rest will be money we will have to pay Beckford. So he has no lost earnings. If they were to pay him the same or more as we were paying him then we would have to pay nothing. It's only if there's loss of earnings involved. Rarely when a player moves, he earns less. That's probably why you haven't heard of this before. I hadn't heard of it before we sold mills to bolton. It is only happening because we paid way too much to these players.
jimmeh Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 I thought they just got 10% of the transfer fee if they moved and didn't request a transfer?? If we have to make up the in the wages for the rest of the contract that makes it pointless selling them anyway, you telling me Beckford could agree to a deal worth £1,000 a week without our consent and we still have to make up the shortfall? That can't be right. It is right yeah. It's essentially a way of releasing him for free. Because if we were to release him we would have to pay the remainder of his contract. (About 3 Million) This way we receive money from Bolton for Beckford, which we immediately pay back to Beckford. So he's off the wage bill for free
jimmeh Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 We clearly wouldn't agree to it if Bolton were only going to pay him 1K a week. As we would make a loss on the deal. As 800K wouldn't cover the severance package we would have to pay Beckford. As far as I can tell. The deal agreed means we can get Beckford off the wage bill for free. Basically he's leaving on a free transfer in other words.
Ross-Kemp Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 They get 10% of the transfer fee if they don't ask to leave and they can request that leicester pay a proportion of their wages should they be offered a lower wage at their new club for the remainder of their contract at the selling club.
Finn Claw II Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 I'm pretty sure there isn't any 'rule' about lost earnings. For a transfer to take place the club have to agree a fee for his registration and the player and his new club wages. If a player doesn't accept the wages offered his fall back option is to see out his exisiting contract (which he is legally entitled to). It comes down Beckford's threat of seeing out his contract vs. our threat of making him sit on the bench for two years if he does so. If we take Beckford's threat seriously then we might provide some sort of severance package to encourage him to go It all amounts to the same thing as above but I think it is negotiation rather than any 'right'
Jace Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 jimmeh is right Beckford would have to have to have to come to an agreement with the club regarding his current contract in order to sign a new contract hes not going to want to terminate his current contract for nothing if his new 1 is only worth half the annual wage for example
Babylon Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 There is no rule about lost earnings Finn is correct. Comes down to negotiation and who is willing to play hardball. Secondly Peaeson said Beckdord had asked to leave last year, so he may well have forgone any chance of a payoff if that is correct.
Babylon Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 jimmeh is right Beckford would have to have to have to come to an agreement with the club regarding his current contract in order to sign a new contract hes not going to want to terminate his current contract for nothing if his new 1 is only worth half the annual wage for example He could do if he wanted to, just as we could stick him on the reserves for two years. If the Bolton Package is good enough and he just wants to play then he could very well just go without us paying anything.
Babylon Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 That doesn't matter, we still have money for transfers its just the Thais know about the FFP and will not sign anyone until wages are freed upAny transfer fee also counts towards FFP. Wages and Fees come from the same pot.
Bert Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 They get 10% of the transfer fee if they don't ask to leave and they can request that leicester pay a proportion of their wages should they be offered a lower wage at their new club for the remainder of their contract at the selling club. Correct. He could do if he wanted to, just as we could stick him on the reserves for two years. If the Bolton Package is good enough and he just wants to play then he could very well just go without us paying anything. But why should he? There is no rule about lost earnings Finn is correct. Comes down to negotiation and who is willing to play hardball. Secondly Peaeson said Beckdord had asked to leave last year, so he may well have forgone any chance of a payoff if that is correct. Never asked for a transfer, just to go out on loan.
Babylon Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 Correct. But why should he? Never asked for a transfer, just to go out on loan. Because he might want to play football, he might want his long term future sorted out, he might not want to train with the kids for two years or keep getting sent out to the highest bidder on loan.. People keep telling us what a nice bloke he is after all.A transfer is a transfer. If we did not want to let him leave and he then requested any move it means we can no longer use him.
Bert Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 Because he might want to play football, he might want his long term future sorted out, he might not want to train with the kids. People keep telling us what a nice bloke he is after all. A transfer is a transfer. If we did not want to let him leave and he then requested any move it means we can no longer use him. Just playing devils advocate really, you, or even myself wouldn't waive money that in theory you're entitled to - he never categorically asked for a transfer which was more to the point. All we heard from Pearson was "Well, he wanted to go". Never did at any time anyone say that he'd requested a transfer from the club. Either well, it's irrelevant now as we've both moved on.
Jace Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 Hopefully he would of considered what his options were as a footballer long term if he wasn't to move on before agreeing terms
NewquayFox Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 Expect a bit of bum biting when we play Bolton then.... ;0/
Finn Claw II Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 Just playing devils advocate really, you, or even myself wouldn't waive money that in theory you're entitled to - he never categorically asked for a transfer which was more to the point. All we heard from Pearson was "Well, he wanted to go". Never did at any time anyone say that he'd requested a transfer from the club. Either well, it's irrelevant now as we've both moved on. It is as Babs states because he wants the secruity of not being on loan or in the reserves for 2 years. I'd personally accept a lower wage if I was unhappy where I was, the new job offered me something that I thought was acceptable and it meant I could bring some extra stability to my family etc.
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 It is as Babs states because he wants the secruity of not being on loan or in the reserves for 2 years. I'd personally accept a lower wage if I was unhappy where I was, the new job offered me something that I thought was acceptable and it meant I could bring some extra stability to my family etc. Unfortunately there are a lot on here that consider money as the overriding factor and Beckford as the injured party. I don't a d the sooner he is gone the better. Or is he hoping for a golden handshake for failing to do what he is contracted to do. It is a very strange deal that footballers get. All this talk of why should he not get the money as pre his contract, maybe I should sue him, I am sure I could think of some good reasons using the logic he is using.
GingerrrFox Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 One of two things has happened. 1) Beckford will be paid compensation for the difference in wages. Example if he was on £35,000 a week and at Bolton is only on £20,000 a week, we are paying him the £15,000 a week difference for the remaining time he would have been under contract with us. 2) Beckford will have settled for a lump sum payment that will be less than if he got the wage differential but he gets it in a nice hefty wad. Either way Beckford and his agent are pretty happy right about now. He would have stayed here and sat out his contract and carried on going out on loan if the financials didn't make sense.
CosbehFox Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 If player doesn't ask to leave, and a fee is accepted from another club, if his wages are less than he's currently on, any 'lost earnings' the club has to pay the player. Happened with Peltier and Mills. Now Beckford. Some players have agreed 'loyalty figures'; we are very foolish if we haven't done this. The loyalty figure is not paid if a player makes a transfer request or similar.
CosbehFox Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 Never did at any time anyone say that he'd requested a transfer from the club. Either well, it's irrelevant now as we've both moved on. Beckford wouldn't request a transfer, he loses a figure agreed within his contract. It's common practice.
Webbo Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 It is as Babs states because he wants the secruity of not being on loan or in the reserves for 2 years. I'd personally accept a lower wage if I was unhappy where I was, the new job offered me something that I thought was acceptable and it meant I could bring some extra stability to my family etc. Depends what you mean by lower wage, if an ordinary man was was to be £500/1000 a year worse off but in a job where he was happier then I guess we can all see that. If somebody said you'd be £200/300k a year worse off then it would be a much harder decision, even if you were still earning the thick end of £1million a year.
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 Depends what you mean by lower wage, if an ordinary man was was to be £500/1000 a year worse off but in a job where he was happier then I guess we can all see that. If somebody said you'd be £200/300k a year worse off then it would be a much harder decision, even if you were still earning the thick end of £1million a year. Oh please please please we are not talking about everyday people because if we are he would have been sacked by now, or at least moved sideways and then made redundant.
Webbo Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 Oh please please please we are not talking about everyday people because if we are he would have been sacked by now, or at least moved sideways and then made redundant. What's your point?
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 What's your point? That to try and draw comparisons between a regular contract and a footballers is pointless.
Toffee_Fox Posted 3 July 2013 Posted 3 July 2013 apparently any money received has gone straight to Everton due to money still being owed on a monthly basis, Leicester just glad to get him off the wage bill.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.