Wan-Bissaka for sale | joins West Ham

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: payment to players. How does it work with someone like Manuel Ugarte, who only signed last season on a 5 year deal and hasn't asked to leave PSG. He's got four years left on his contract, so will he be due an awful lot more than AWB who only has a year left?

Likewise, how does it work when a player signs a lengthy contract and then demands to leave during it? Do they have to pay something back to the club when it's the player forcing the departure and 'breaking' the agreed contract?
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Re: payment to players. How does it work with someone like Manuel Ugarte, who only signed last season on a 5 year deal and hasn't asked to leave PSG. He's got four years left on his contract, so will he be due an awful lot more than AWB who only has a year left?

Likewise, how does it work when a player signs a lengthy contract and then demands to leave during it? Do they have to pay something back to the club when it's the player forcing the departure and 'breaking' the agreed contract?
Click to expand...

I don't have an exact answer for those questions but players being subordinates, employees and much weaker than clubs in nature : I'm pretty certain than like in most other places they are bound to generally lesser contractual obligations for those sort of cases. I would be extremely surprised clubs could somehow confiscate or seize payments made.
 
Bertie Wooster said:
Re: payment to players. How does it work with someone like Manuel Ugarte, who only signed last season on a 5 year deal and hasn't asked to leave PSG. He's got four years left on his contract, so will he be due an awful lot more than AWB who only has a year left?

Likewise, how does it work when a player signs a lengthy contract and then demands to leave during it? Do they have to pay something back to the club when it's the player forcing the departure and 'breaking' the agreed contract?
Click to expand...
Ugarte wants to leave PSG for United, whereas Wan Bissaka doesn't appear to be keen to leave us for West Ham, or at least, he needs convincing.
 
£5m payoff makes zero sense.

1 year left on contract. Maximum he stands to earn on that contract £4.6m. But in reality a lot less than that due to non CL qualy and lack of appearance fees etc.

If West Ham offered him £60k which is their average player wage, he’d stand to lose £1.5m this season, but with obviously a lot more long term security.
 
Plastic Evra said:
I don't have an exact answer for those questions but players being subordinates, employees and much weaker than clubs in nature : I'm pretty certain than like in most other places they are bound to generally lesser contractual obligations for those sort of cases. I would be extremely surprised clubs could somehow confiscate or seize payments made.
Click to expand...
So a player can instigate a transfer - perhaps even by refusing to play - and no repercussions so long as the club reluctantly agree to it? But a club can't instigate a transfer, to which the player also has to agree, without paying off the remaining contract that he won't see out?

It sounds more like a one sided thing and reflective of how things have swung over too much toward the whole 'player power' in many instances rather than them being subordinates and in weaker positions. Hence why once a player wants to move, its pretty much going to get done. But when we're desperate to offload players who are happy to sit on their contracts, there's little we can do.

Anyway, that's all related to my second question, though. The first was asking how much a team like PSG would be likely to have to pay after opting to sell Ugarte 1 year into a 5 year deal, if we have to give AWB £5m just for his last remaining year? Or have we just poorly negotiating things and PSG won't face that kind of issue as regards Ugarte?
 
Bertie Wooster said:
So a player can instigate a transfer - perhaps even by refusing to play - and no repercussions so long as the club reluctantly agree to it? But a club can't instigate a transfer, to which the player also has to agree, without paying off the remaining contract that he won't see out?

It sounds more like a one sided thing and reflective of how things have swung over too much toward the whole 'player power' in many instances rather than them being subordinates and in weaker positions. Hence why once a player wants to move, its pretty much going to get done. But when we're desperate to offload players who are happy to sit on their contracts, there's little we can do.

Anyway, that's all related to my second question, though. The first was asking how much a team like PSG would be likely to have to pay after opting to sell Ugarte 1 year into a 5 year deal, if we have to give AWB £5m just for his last remaining year? Or have we just poorly negotiating things and PSG won't face that kind of issue as regards Ugarte?
Click to expand...
It depends on the context of the player. AWB would have left this season on a free if his option wasn’t exercised. So his contract says that in such a situation he makes money off his transfer fee.
 
Shiva87 said:
It depends on the context of the player. AWB would have left this season on a free if his option wasn’t exercised. So his contract says that in such a situation he makes money off his transfer fee.
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks. That makes more sense. So as a mutual benefit to prevent the player winding down his contract and leaving on a free, they'll agree to a move so long as they get a good pay off as well. So that probably doesn't apply to things like the Ugarte deal, where he's got 4 years left. But might have applied to a lot of the other players we've sold / looking to sell like Kambwala, VDB, Lindelof, etc?

Hope it didn't apply to VDB, as we'd have ended up paying him far more than we received! :lol:
 
'but MUFC relaxed if stays'

dead.gif
 
Fighting for every penny eh? How Ole's united DNA project had failed miserably
 
Bertie Wooster said:
So a player can instigate a transfer - perhaps even by refusing to play - and no repercussions so long as the club reluctantly agree to it? But a club can't instigate a transfer, to which the player also has to agree, without paying off the remaining contract that he won't see out?

It sounds more like a one sided thing and reflective of how things have swung over too much toward the whole 'player power' in many instances rather than them being subordinates and in weaker positions. Hence why once a player wants to move, its pretty much going to get done. But when we're desperate to offload players who are happy to sit on their contracts, there's little we can do.

Anyway, that's all related to my second question, though. The first was asking how much a team like PSG would be likely to have to pay after opting to sell Ugarte 1 year into a 5 year deal, if we have to give AWB £5m just for his last remaining year? Or have we just poorly negotiating things and PSG won't face that kind of issue as regards Ugarte?
Click to expand...

The equivalent of a player not wanting to leave is a club not selling a player who wants to leave. It's exactly the same, it's not one sided at all.

Obviously PSG wouldn't have to pay Ugarte anything to leave.
 
TheNewEra said:
Needs to leave we need good attacking fullbacks to a dominant team.
Click to expand...
It’s a good deal for him too, he gets to be first choice at a club who have had a pretty strong window.
 
Please pay him and get him out of the club quick. Lets not penny pinch and harm ourselves in the long run
 
I’m not saying it’s even all United’s fault, but the amount of trouble we have selling players is quite mind blowing

Even when a player is 99% gone, we still struggle
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I’m not saying it’s even all United’s fault, but the amount of trouble we have selling players is quite mind blowing

Even when a player is 99% gone, we still struggle
Click to expand...
It's the past administrations and the players fault. A lack of foresight from the club and a lack of professional pride from the player.

Still remember Maguire doing everything he could to stay meaning we couldn't sign Pavard.
 
strandty said:
Click to expand...


What a weird tweet. "Blame the accountants" as if there is something strange going on. Yes, it's a 12m profit because United have already lost 47m. In total it's a 35m loss, which surprise surprise is the difference between what he was bought and sold for.
 
hobbers said:
£5m payoff makes zero sense.

1 year left on contract. Maximum he stands to earn on that contract £4.6m. But in reality a lot less than that due to non CL qualy and lack of appearance fees etc.

If West Ham offered him £60k which is their average player wage, he’d stand to lose £1.5m this season, but with obviously a lot more long term security.
Click to expand...
His point was that he gets a Bosman if he waits a year (as well as this year's salary) and that he thinks he could negotiate a higher salary with a new club if he leaves on a Bosman.

Of course, that doesn't always work out (Lingard), but he has a point, in my opinion.
 
NotThatSoph said:
What a weird tweet. "Blame the accountants" as if there is something strange going on. Yes, it's a 12m profit because United have already lost 47m. In total it's a 35m loss, which surprise surprise is the difference between what he was bought and sold for.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he actually means “blame” as in something being wrong. More that it’s due to complex financial accounting that his sale can be attributed as a profit on this years account, when there is such a negative difference between what we bought him for and what we sold him for. He actually explained it pretty well.

It’s also worth noting that the “loss” on him isn’t as straight forward as being 35m. Amortisation is a non-cash expense item that can be used to reduce taxable income, and reduce the value of an asset over time. In accounting terms we’ve made a 12m profit on him, which is ultimately the only terms that matter.
 
Take it the Mazraoui deal will be delayed for a bit longer then as surely it hinges on this one being concluded?

Annoying if it does.
 
hobbers said:
£5m payoff makes zero sense.

1 year left on contract. Maximum he stands to earn on that contract £4.6m. But in reality a lot less than that due to non CL qualy and lack of appearance fees etc.

If West Ham offered him £60k which is their average player wage, he’d stand to lose £1.5m this season, but with obviously a lot more long term security.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it has much to do with the wages being on offer right now. I believe it’s because there is a clause in his contract stating that if we exercised our one-way option to extend his deal by 12 months - this preventing him from leaving on a free - and subsequently sold him during that extended period, that he would be due a percentage of the transfer fee.

Not a clause we should have agreed to, but a very smart clause for his agent to insist upon. I would imagine the club are trying to structure the fee in a way that limits the amount they have to pay out, and crucially when they have to pay it out. And there is some voluntary negotiation going on between the parties.
 
devilish said:
How on earth do we owe him? He failed at united and he's now moving to another club who pay less. Shits happens
Click to expand...
Because he has a contract that stipulates that he's owed the difference in wages.
 
Semper Fudge said:
Because he has a contract that stipulates that he's owed the difference in wages.
Click to expand...

He is insisting on being paid the difference in wages. Players fail at top clubs all the time. I don't recall many of them demanding to be keep on being paid the high salaries they were paid previously. I understand that he hold us by the balls. However what a sad group of players ole brought at the club.
 
devilish said:
He is insisting on being paid the difference in wages. Players fail at top clubs all the time. I don't recall many of them demanding to be keep on being paid the high salaries they were paid previously
Click to expand...
Yeah I can see there's no real point discussing this with you. You're just grumpy you're not getting what you want immediately.
 
Semper Fudge said:
Yeah I can see there's no real point discussing this with you. You're just grumpy you're not getting what you want immediately.
Click to expand...

I don't even want mazraoui. I think he is a risk considering his injury record. All I am saying is what a sad group of players ole brought in (bar Bruno). The vast majority were shit, some caused huge drama (Ronaldo and Sancho) while the rest bled us on their way out.
 
devilish said:
He is insisting on being paid the difference in wages. Players fail at top clubs all the time. I don't recall many of them demanding to be keep on being paid the high salaries they were paid previously. I understand that he hold us by the balls. However what a sad group of players ole brought at the club.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't he be paid the difference? We signed a contract and should honour it. He would be an idiot not to demand the difference.
 
SuperiorXI said:
Why shouldn't he be paid the difference? We signed a contract and should honour it. He would be an idiot not to demand the difference.
Click to expand...

As said players fail at top clubs all the time. Most are grateful for the opportunity. Ours expect to be paid for the difference in salary. No wonder why we ended were we ended
 
devilish said:
As said players fail at top clubs all the time. Most are grateful for the opportunity. Ours expect to be paid for the difference in salary. No wonder why we ended were we ended
Click to expand...
It's business at the end of the day. AWB and his agent will want to be paid according to what was agreed. Find me a player that would gladly walk away from the cash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.