[Albion] Marc Cucurella *Signed For Chelsea 05/08/2022*

[Justice]

In theory - sure. But when we were scouting Alexis Mac or Caciedo and sending a number of staff down to South America we weren’t meeting with players agents at least to sound out a deal?

Especially a club like Brighton could waste a lot of time negotiating with a club , only to find out the player has no interest in coming here

I don’t think we go around tapping up players like you are suggesting.

 

[middletoenail]

Forgive me for sounding really stupid, but in the 'real world' most people have a notice period. You can be bought out of that notice period by your prospective employers paying your salary up.

How does it work with footballers? Is it all about the registration period with the FA/FIFA? Is this what keeps them tied to their club?

 

[dazzer6666]

Forgive me for sounding really stupid, but in the 'real world' most people have a notice period. You can be bought out of that notice period by your prospective employers paying your salary up.

How does it work with footballers? Is it all about the registration period with the FA/FIFA? Is this what keeps them tied to their club?

Best explanation I’ve read…

Legal

The FA of each country has its own internal laws, but there is almost complete commonality amongst the important provisions those laws. The international body FIFA controls how the clubs interact. Of course, one of FIFA’s most important roles is controlling transfers (in our English vernacular “sales” of players) including player loans. The main laws are in the attached document. They are like a constitution, in that there is almost no detail, but the principles are there to be filled in by the relevant FA, club, agents and players. This document is woven into the DNA of clubs, agents and players.

In general, players must have written contracts that are filed with the relevant FA. They are required to have a term that is no longer than five years.

Both the club and the player are entitled to terminate the contract before the end of its term but only for just cause. For the avoidance of doubt, merely wanting to play for another team is not just cause for the player to terminate their contract.

For the club, just cause normally is defined in general terms and usually is triggered by off-the-pitch actions by the player (e.g., criminal activity, tardiness for practices or matches).

Absent detailed provisions in the contract, players basically only have two options to terminate for just cause.

First, the club must pay the player, and pay them on time. If the club does not do that, unsurprisingly there is just cause for the player to terminate.

Second, there is a fascinating provision that a player can terminate his contract for just cause if the club do not play him in at least 10% of the games of the season. That is formally called the “sporting justification rule”. I call it the “benching rule”.

Basically the player is put in a closet for the year often as punishment for something they have done. One example is Mamadu Sakho, who is a French national player and undoubtedly skilled enough to play and probably start for the Liverpool side. He did some immensely stupid things during the club’s US summer tour (I saw them in San Francisco, which is where part of the “stupidity” occurred.). Sakho was put in the closet for the first half of the season and then sent to Palace in January.

Note, if the club wants to keep the player but still punish them, it is easy for the club to avoid creating a “sporting justification”: just let the guy out of the closet for exactly (no more than) 10% of the games and then put him back in the closet. The twist is that players often have performance bonuses that of course require the player to actually be on the pitch to reach them. That is the subject of a different posting (and will no doubt be TL;DR as well). Also, the irony is that some players are put in the closet because they want to leave. Basically the club tells the player he is staying, and if he wants to actually get on the pitch and play football, he needs to stop telling everyone he wants to leave. Twisted, isn’t it?

Assuming the player does not have just cause to terminate, he may terminate without cause. He is entitled to go, but, subject to the laws of the club’s location, they player will be subject to massive damages and will suffer a very long playing ban applied by FIFA. Each of the FAs from the two clubs may have their own sanctions.

Without cause terminations may only be effective at the end of the season and are subject to reasonably complicated provisions. The bottom line is that the player cannot leave whenever he wants and start playing for a new club the next day. The new club is also jointly and severally liable for some of the damages. The new club and the player would be subject to crippling damages. Nevertheless, player can get out of their contract if the new club and the want-away player are willing to pay the cost, monetarily and for the loss of playing time.

Practical

There are all sorts of contractual methods to discourage players from unilaterally “forcing” a transfer. The legal implications stated above give the club protection. However, neither the two clubs nor the player want to get a reputation for bad faith conduct. Some clubs are less concerned than others. Some are so big (e.g., Real, Barca) that the football world has sort of given up on stopping them from “taking” players. The “victim” clubs just make sure a forced transfer really hurts the big financially.

“Puede tener el jugador, pero sera caro. Muy caro. Muy Muy caro.”

The “system” is designed such that the contracts for the best players have a release or buyout clause. That is basically a provision that allows the player to leave without resistance from the club, provided the new club pays a fee in a decided amount. The higher the buyout figure, the more difficult it is for the player to leave because fewer clubs may be willing to pay a high buyout fee. The amount of the buyout clause is a subject for a different post. It is really complicated.

Lesser players often do not have buyout clauses, which gives the club almost complete control over the player.

Then there are odd situations where excellent players have no buyout clauses, but in return the players gets a short term contract so as a practical matter they can leave at the end of the year anyway. United’s Zlatan Ibrahimovic is an example. He did not need to demand no buyout clause this year because he signed a one-year contract. There is nothing to “buyout” because he is free to leave this summer unless he extends his United contract (he has such an optional extension in his contract already).

Other players have no buyout clauses and long contracts, and no one can figure how how the contract was negotiated with such favourable terms for the club. One example is Phil Coutinho from Liverpool. He has a five-year term, which is good for the club, and he has no buyout clause, which is remarkably good for the club. It is clear that other big clubs want him. The new club will need to pay him on a personal basis a hugely increased salary. Some clubs will do that. However, the transfer fee is not for Phil to determine. The club decides it. If Liverpool wants £80 million for him, then he will not leave until a club offers that (or Liverpool decides to compromise a bit, say £75 million). This sets up a great situation for keeping Phil. I am not sure why his agent agreed to a five year contract without a buyout clause, except that in return Phil got a huge salary increase. However, any whinging about the US management of the club should stop. That contract was a brilliant piece of negotiation.

Finally, some transfers will never happen. Never. It has been over 50 years since Liverpool and United have transferred players between them. Some rivalries transcend common sense and ignore financial and on-the-pitch performance. Supporters will burn down the Liverpool management offices if the club buys or sells a player from or to United.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/af...e_status_and_transfer_of_players_en_33410.pdf

 

[GT49er]

I thought discussions weren't allowed between club and player (or anyone representing them) until an offer had been accepted, and if that is deemed the case any parties involved would have sanctions placed on them or be fined etc.

They wouldn't be so open about it so know that can happen. So, again, like so many other rumours surrounding Cucu, I'm calling bull on that too.

Agents are likely to have players at more than one club. There will be conversations between agents and players, agents and agents, players and players - opinions will be exchanged somehow or other - impossible to legislate against.
By whatever convoluted links, I've no doubt Cucu has a pretty good idea how much Citeh would offer him, and City will know whether he's potentially interested (and I'd expect he would be - if it ever happens!)

 

[B-right-on]

Fairly certain he'll go, we know from the Athletic that City have already had talks with Cucurella's agent,

Don't get the Athletic. What did Naylor say about City talking to Cucu's agent?

 

[chaileyjem]

Don't get the Athletic. What did Naylor say about City talking to Cucu's agent?

Reported by The Argus / Brian Owen here too

https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/20239435.not-miserable-yet-wait-goes-marc-cucurella/?ref=yahoo

 

[GT49er]

Reported by The Argus / Brian Owen here too

https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/20239435.not-miserable-yet-wait-goes-marc-cucurella/?ref=yahoo

..................which tells most of us about as much (or as little!) as The Athletic these subscripted days!

 

[chaileyjem]

..................which tells most of us about as much (or as little!) as The Athletic these subscripted days!

There’s been a lot of transfer noise but as ever Naylor / Owen have reported reliably about the key moves so far and with a lot more detail/ more extensive sources than the glib “only writes what the club lets them” trope.

 

[GT49er]

There’s been a lot of transfer noise but as ever Naylor / Owen have reported reliably about the key moves so far and with a lot more detail/ more extensive sources than the glib “only writes what the club lets them” trope.

Oh, I don't disagree, just can't read either source of information these days.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Best explanation I’ve read…

Legal

The FA of each country has its own internal laws, but there is almost complete commonality amongst the important provisions those laws. The international body FIFA controls how the clubs interact. Of course, one of FIFA’s most important roles is controlling transfers (in our English vernacular “sales” of players) including player loans. The main laws are in the attached document. They are like a constitution, in that there is almost no detail, but the principles are there to be filled in by the relevant FA, club, agents and players. This document is woven into the DNA of clubs, agents and players.

In general, players must have written contracts that are filed with the relevant FA. They are required to have a term that is no longer than five years.

Both the club and the player are entitled to terminate the contract before the end of its term but only for just cause. For the avoidance of doubt, merely wanting to play for another team is not just cause for the player to terminate their contract.

For the club, just cause normally is defined in general terms and usually is triggered by off-the-pitch actions by the player (e.g., criminal activity, tardiness for practices or matches).

Absent detailed provisions in the contract, players basically only have two options to terminate for just cause.

First, the club must pay the player, and pay them on time. If the club does not do that, unsurprisingly there is just cause for the player to terminate.

Second, there is a fascinating provision that a player can terminate his contract for just cause if the club do not play him in at least 10% of the games of the season. That is formally called the “sporting justification rule”. I call it the “benching rule”.

Basically the player is put in a closet for the year often as punishment for something they have done. One example is Mamadu Sakho, who is a French national player and undoubtedly skilled enough to play and probably start for the Liverpool side. He did some immensely stupid things during the club’s US summer tour (I saw them in San Francisco, which is where part of the “stupidity” occurred.). Sakho was put in the closet for the first half of the season and then sent to Palace in January.

Note, if the club wants to keep the player but still punish them, it is easy for the club to avoid creating a “sporting justification”: just let the guy out of the closet for exactly (no more than) 10% of the games and then put him back in the closet. The twist is that players often have performance bonuses that of course require the player to actually be on the pitch to reach them. That is the subject of a different posting (and will no doubt be TL;DR as well). Also, the irony is that some players are put in the closet because they want to leave. Basically the club tells the player he is staying, and if he wants to actually get on the pitch and play football, he needs to stop telling everyone he wants to leave. Twisted, isn’t it?

Assuming the player does not have just cause to terminate, he may terminate without cause. He is entitled to go, but, subject to the laws of the club’s location, they player will be subject to massive damages and will suffer a very long playing ban applied by FIFA. Each of the FAs from the two clubs may have their own sanctions.

Without cause terminations may only be effective at the end of the season and are subject to reasonably complicated provisions. The bottom line is that the player cannot leave whenever he wants and start playing for a new club the next day. The new club is also jointly and severally liable for some of the damages. The new club and the player would be subject to crippling damages. Nevertheless, player can get out of their contract if the new club and the want-away player are willing to pay the cost, monetarily and for the loss of playing time.

Practical

There are all sorts of contractual methods to discourage players from unilaterally “forcing” a transfer. The legal implications stated above give the club protection. However, neither the two clubs nor the player want to get a reputation for bad faith conduct. Some clubs are less concerned than others. Some are so big (e.g., Real, Barca) that the football world has sort of given up on stopping them from “taking” players. The “victim” clubs just make sure a forced transfer really hurts the big financially.

“Puede tener el jugador, pero sera caro. Muy caro. Muy Muy caro.”

The “system” is designed such that the contracts for the best players have a release or buyout clause. That is basically a provision that allows the player to leave without resistance from the club, provided the new club pays a fee in a decided amount. The higher the buyout figure, the more difficult it is for the player to leave because fewer clubs may be willing to pay a high buyout fee. The amount of the buyout clause is a subject for a different post. It is really complicated.

Lesser players often do not have buyout clauses, which gives the club almost complete control over the player.

Then there are odd situations where excellent players have no buyout clauses, but in return the players gets a short term contract so as a practical matter they can leave at the end of the year anyway. United’s Zlatan Ibrahimovic is an example. He did not need to demand no buyout clause this year because he signed a one-year contract. There is nothing to “buyout” because he is free to leave this summer unless he extends his United contract (he has such an optional extension in his contract already).

Other players have no buyout clauses and long contracts, and no one can figure how how the contract was negotiated with such favourable terms for the club. One example is Phil Coutinho from Liverpool. He has a five-year term, which is good for the club, and he has no buyout clause, which is remarkably good for the club. It is clear that other big clubs want him. The new club will need to pay him on a personal basis a hugely increased salary. Some clubs will do that. However, the transfer fee is not for Phil to determine. The club decides it. If Liverpool wants £80 million for him, then he will not leave until a club offers that (or Liverpool decides to compromise a bit, say £75 million). This sets up a great situation for keeping Phil. I am not sure why his agent agreed to a five year contract without a buyout clause, except that in return Phil got a huge salary increase. However, any whinging about the US management of the club should stop. That contract was a brilliant piece of negotiation.

Finally, some transfers will never happen. Never. It has been over 50 years since Liverpool and United have transferred players between them. Some rivalries transcend common sense and ignore financial and on-the-pitch performance. Supporters will burn down the Liverpool management offices if the club buys or sells a player from or to United.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/af...e_status_and_transfer_of_players_en_33410.pdf

Jacob Murphy signed a 6yr contract with Newcastle last year.

 

[dazzer6666]

Jacob Murphy signed a 6yr contract with Newcastle last year.

As I understand it the protected period for compensation etc is limited to 5 years

 

[oldboyroy]

Again rumours suggesting city ready to match Brighton asking price of 45 million? Does Bloom have a price? More bull I hope

 

[Silverhatch]

Again rumours suggesting city ready to match Brighton asking price of 45 million? Does Bloom have a price? More bull I hope

Any rumour that mentions a Brighton asking price is utter bull shit.

 

[CaptainDaveUK]

Again rumours suggesting city ready to match Brighton asking price of 45 million? Does Bloom have a price? More bull I hope

That’s like Bloom letting someone know he’s got 3 aces whilst raising the stakes, which City will have to do btw because £45M is a long way off.

 

[Not Spanish Dave]

Best explanation I’ve read…

Legal

The FA of each country has its own internal laws, but there is almost complete commonality amongst the important provisions those laws. The international body FIFA controls how the clubs interact. Of course, one of FIFA’s most important roles is controlling transfers (in our English vernacular “sales” of players) including player loans. The main laws are in the attached document. They are like a constitution, in that there is almost no detail, but the principles are there to be filled in by the relevant FA, club, agents and players. This document is woven into the DNA of clubs, agents and players.

In general, players must have written contracts that are filed with the relevant FA. They are required to have a term that is no longer than five years.

Both the club and the player are entitled to terminate the contract before the end of its term but only for just cause. For the avoidance of doubt, merely wanting to play for another team is not just cause for the player to terminate their contract.

For the club, just cause normally is defined in general terms and usually is triggered by off-the-pitch actions by the player (e.g., criminal activity, tardiness for practices or matches).

Absent detailed provisions in the contract, players basically only have two options to terminate for just cause.

First, the club must pay the player, and pay them on time. If the club does not do that, unsurprisingly there is just cause for the player to terminate.

Second, there is a fascinating provision that a player can terminate his contract for just cause if the club do not play him in at least 10% of the games of the season. That is formally called the “sporting justification rule”. I call it the “benching rule”.

Basically the player is put in a closet for the year often as punishment for something they have done. One example is Mamadu Sakho, who is a French national player and undoubtedly skilled enough to play and probably start for the Liverpool side. He did some immensely stupid things during the club’s US summer tour (I saw them in San Francisco, which is where part of the “stupidity” occurred.). Sakho was put in the closet for the first half of the season and then sent to Palace in January.

Note, if the club wants to keep the player but still punish them, it is easy for the club to avoid creating a “sporting justification”: just let the guy out of the closet for exactly (no more than) 10% of the games and then put him back in the closet. The twist is that players often have performance bonuses that of course require the player to actually be on the pitch to reach them. That is the subject of a different posting (and will no doubt be TL;DR as well). Also, the irony is that some players are put in the closet because they want to leave. Basically the club tells the player he is staying, and if he wants to actually get on the pitch and play football, he needs to stop telling everyone he wants to leave. Twisted, isn’t it?

Assuming the player does not have just cause to terminate, he may terminate without cause. He is entitled to go, but, subject to the laws of the club’s location, they player will be subject to massive damages and will suffer a very long playing ban applied by FIFA. Each of the FAs from the two clubs may have their own sanctions.

Without cause terminations may only be effective at the end of the season and are subject to reasonably complicated provisions. The bottom line is that the player cannot leave whenever he wants and start playing for a new club the next day. The new club is also jointly and severally liable for some of the damages. The new club and the player would be subject to crippling damages. Nevertheless, player can get out of their contract if the new club and the want-away player are willing to pay the cost, monetarily and for the loss of playing time.

Practical

There are all sorts of contractual methods to discourage players from unilaterally “forcing” a transfer. The legal implications stated above give the club protection. However, neither the two clubs nor the player want to get a reputation for bad faith conduct. Some clubs are less concerned than others. Some are so big (e.g., Real, Barca) that the football world has sort of given up on stopping them from “taking” players. The “victim” clubs just make sure a forced transfer really hurts the big financially.

“Puede tener el jugador, pero sera caro. Muy caro. Muy Muy caro.”

The “system” is designed such that the contracts for the best players have a release or buyout clause. That is basically a provision that allows the player to leave without resistance from the club, provided the new club pays a fee in a decided amount. The higher the buyout figure, the more difficult it is for the player to leave because fewer clubs may be willing to pay a high buyout fee. The amount of the buyout clause is a subject for a different post. It is really complicated.

Lesser players often do not have buyout clauses, which gives the club almost complete control over the player.

Then there are odd situations where excellent players have no buyout clauses, but in return the players gets a short term contract so as a practical matter they can leave at the end of the year anyway. United’s Zlatan Ibrahimovic is an example. He did not need to demand no buyout clause this year because he signed a one-year contract. There is nothing to “buyout” because he is free to leave this summer unless he extends his United contract (he has such an optional extension in his contract already).

Other players have no buyout clauses and long contracts, and no one can figure how how the contract was negotiated with such favourable terms for the club. One example is Phil Coutinho from Liverpool. He has a five-year term, which is good for the club, and he has no buyout clause, which is remarkably good for the club. It is clear that other big clubs want him. The new club will need to pay him on a personal basis a hugely increased salary. Some clubs will do that. However, the transfer fee is not for Phil to determine. The club decides it. If Liverpool wants £80 million for him, then he will not leave until a club offers that (or Liverpool decides to compromise a bit, say £75 million). This sets up a great situation for keeping Phil. I am not sure why his agent agreed to a five year contract without a buyout clause, except that in return Phil got a huge salary increase. However, any whinging about the US management of the club should stop. That contract was a brilliant piece of negotiation.

Finally, some transfers will never happen. Never. It has been over 50 years since Liverpool and United have transferred players between them. Some rivalries transcend common sense and ignore financial and on-the-pitch performance. Supporters will burn down the Liverpool management offices if the club buys or sells a player from or to United.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/af...e_status_and_transfer_of_players_en_33410.pdf

Can you just nip through that again for me.....

 

[B-right-on]

Can you just nip through that again for me.....

1. There's lots and lots of money in football
2. There are rules
3. Point 1 outweighs point 2.
4. With enough of Point 1, you can ignore Point 2.
5. Rules 1-4 only apply to the clubs with mega-rich owners. Everyone else has to follow point 2.

 

[brighton terra]

Still no bids received!

 

[Stat Brother]

I've just heard...






...he's agreed personal terms.


#Don'tShootTheMelinda.

 

[Clive Walker]

Still no bids received!View attachment 149498

If you read the full quote from bloom it sounds more like hope than certainty. Looks like the inevitable is upon us.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Still no bids received!View attachment 149498

That's obvious stuff.

Receive a bid that meets the price tag and he's off !