Printable View
going to Sweden or Norway talk in the papers today Fenlon quoted on it saying they are looking for the right deal for Shels well they better as there's talk for 400,000 euros now that would be nice as wouldn't we take 50% of that as part of the sell on clause when he left us????
i heard from a shels fan that the bid was closer to 500 k. If so they should sell and buy kevin mchugh as replacement.
I heard bout that clause. I don't know if it's true and there's no point starting rumours. I still think Shels will do really well next year, why would he want to leave?
Interesting.............
I'm not actually 100% sure if there is a sell on clause, but happy days if there is. It's understandable why clubs in the likes of Sweden or Norway would be after him, he's the legues leading scorer for the past 3 season.
It's a case of watch this space i suppose......
How am i starting a rumour when it's been in the paper???Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Look Rafa, how does the paper know these things unless it's been announced? They don't!
If Byrne played for ye when he was under 23 years old i think ye due compensation of a certain percentage.
But what is being roumered is that when we sold him to Shels that there was a sell on clause in the deal, so would that mean that we get 2 slices of money - the sell on clause money and then the under 23 money ?
There you go superfrank anyway no harm in what i posted i am a fan all fans love the speculation talk etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
relax supefrank. alot of people love rumours, loosen up, and go and get a job :mad: :mad: :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
He has one:p .... dont ask about me;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dublinwanderer
Jay looks set to sign for Djurgardens for in the region of between €500,000 - €600,000 this week. A very nice little cut for Bray if we do have the sell on clause in it, also heard that he had a 1st option clause :D
read on another forum from a shels fan that fenlon announced that bray do receive 50% of any fee they get for jayo
Zayed off to Shels if Jayo goes! That's what Mr. Bray People has told me! Not that he will agree but Shels might be interested! Another 100,000 from Shels for Eamo and another sell on clause, that could be 300,000 we get. Would do us the world of good for the ground development and new players! Roll on the good times! Europe next year!
I reckon Zayed (or McHugh) would be there No.1 target if Jao does go, but Zayed was in the papers over the weekend saying he is very happy with Bray and can't wait for next season and that he really missed out not being able to play with us and the cup run that we have. He is also in the 2nd year of a 4 year degree and wants to stay part time because of this, not so sure he wants to go full time and thats what Shels would want.Quote:
Originally Posted by tarzan1
I suppose it's a case of wait and see...........
In fairness Zayed is going to say what he said happy with Bray missed not being able to play in the semi final etc etc if Shels come in for him he will go more money better career prospects makes sense.
Better career... If Shels fail to earn enough money in the next few years then they are F-ucked. Won't be able to pay Full Time wages to everyone and with Zayed doing this course, i'd say he'd be happy with Bray. Was the same with Danny O Coonor, that is why he left Drogs, cos he has a good job and didn't want to go Full Time. Imagine leaving a good job that is well paid, going full time and then see the club go bust! DOLEQuote:
Originally Posted by Rafa B
The agreement that came out of negotiations in 2001 commited FIFA to change its regulations. The changes concentrated on preserving transfer fees for younger players, disguised as compensation for training costs, to reward smaller clubs for developing young players and trying to discourage players from jumping contracts.
Players under 18 are given special protection. They will be allowed to move between clubs within the European Union only if the new club follows a code of conduct and guarantees both proper training and academic education. International transfer of players under 18 from outside the European Union will be prohibited. There is a limited exception if the player's family has moved to a European Union country for non-footballing reasons.
Clubs can claim compensation when young players, defined as those under 23, move clubs. This compensation is intended to cover the real 'training costs', to 'reflect the costs which were necessary to train the player' up to the age of 21. There will be a complex method of calculating the compensation on a fixed scale. The fee will be based on a notional annual training value which will vary with the division of the club. Any club training the player between 12 and 21 can claim compensation for each year that they trained him. The 'training fee' applies even if the player is out of contract when he moves clubs. This seems to restrict the right of young players to move freely. If their employment by a new club is subject to a fee, whilst that of older players is not, they are put at a disadvantage.
The main issue in the negotiations was how to reconcile free movement for players with the clubs' demands for contractual stability. Much discussion centred on how to deter players from jumping contracts. Sanctions against not honouring contracts could be legal or sporting, and against the player or his new club. The difficulty with legal sanctions is that most European legal systems, as already explained, will allow a worker to walk away from a contract. Sporting sanctions that restrict the new club's right to use the player are potentially more powerful. Even these sanctions, however, must be careful not to unreasonably restrict the player's right to practice their trade, otherwise they will fall foul of the restraint of trade doctrine.
Contracts under the new regulations will have a minimum length of 1 year and a maximum of 5 years. Players will only be able to move once in a season. There will be 2 'transfer windows', one in the summer and a mid-season one. Moving outside those windows will not be allowed. The FIFA rules will only regulate contract jumpers, defined as those who commit a 'unilateral breach without just cause'. These will only be authorised to move at the end of a season and only if compensation is paid to the old club. The compensation will be calculated on a scale, which has yet to be agreed. The guidelines in the proposed new regulations seem to start from the remaining wages under the contract. This compensation is a 'transfer fee' paid to the contract breaker's old club. What the proposed new regulations are silent about is a mutual agreement between a player and club to end their contract before it has run its course. This leaves a player free to move as an out-of-contract player. Clubs may be happy to do this if the player pays a price that is then refunded to him by his new club; a transfer fee by any other name.
Sporting sanctions can also be visited upon contract breakers and their new club. Players will miss the first 4 months of a new season if they leave in the first 3 years of their contract. The 'protected period' is reduced to the first 2 years of the contract if the player is over 28 when entering into the contract. Clubs registering contract breakers will not be allowed to register any other players during the next 2 transfer windows, i.e. for a year. Other sanctions on clubs, including deduction of points or exclusion from competitions, may be imposed by FIFA. Whether these sporting sanctions deter clubs from poaching players under contract remains to be seen. They are probably the maximum that can be safely agreed without legal challenge. Players who go rusty sitting out this quarantine might argue that they are being prejudiced in their ability to ply their trade. Contract breakers well into their contracts, that is after 3 years or 2 years for players over 28, will be allowed to move without any sporting penalty. They will be able to play immediately for their new club. The new club will still, however, have to pay compensation to the old club.
Over and above these changes, a player will be able to leave a club for a 'sporting just cause.' The effect of this will be to allow a player to leave a club immediately and without the old club getting any compensation. It is essentially a free transfer. 'Sporting just cause' is not defined. It merely lists factors that a club can use to justify itself and so claim compensation from the player's new club, such as a disagreement over playing position.
The system involveses a voluntary arbitration panel to settle disputes. The details of this panel are at present vague. It will need to be seen as genuinely impartial and independent to succeed. It will not preclude a player from going to court. This is a welcome recognition by FIFA that its current regulation denying this basic right to go to court was almost certainly unenforceable.
The European Commission has allowed football to keep a revised system that still in its essentials looks like a transfer system. The end product is a fudge drafted by lawyers. Players under 23 will be subject to a 'training fee' when they move. For older players, transfers under contract will continue and compensation fees will be paid. The problem at the heart of the employment of footballers is that there is no effective legal sanction against a worker who walks out of a contract. So players will continue to dishonour their contracts, move to new clubs, and expect their new club to pay any compensation. The key question is then the level of compensation, and this has been left unclear. Unless it is penal and unless it matches the level of transfer fees currently being paid, there will be even greater incentive to induce players to break their contracts.
The sporting sanctions may be sufficient to deter movement but even these are not going to be applied to players well into their contracts. By a curious logic, contracts cease to be subject to sporting penalties after 3 years as if they were no longer binding.
The Commission has squandered an opportunity to make football confront the real issue. By concentrating on contractual issues, the Commission has taken its eye off the redistribution of wealth within the game.
There are 4 reasons normally advanced by the sporting authorities to justify restricting players moving freely between clubs. These are to make sporting competition less unequal, to protect the smaller clubs' economic viability, to promote the stability of teams, and to encourage the development of young players. The Commission has accepted that smaller clubs only get money from the richer clubs through training fees and ignored other methods of sharing the new wealth of football.
How will the new system help and protect smaller clubs? Only by allowing them to recover limited training fees in the lottery of finding and selling young players. Any other method of redistributing wealth and talent within the game has been ignored. The Commission may come back to these issues. They will presumably monitor the new system for several seasons before contemplating future action. As Europe has not exercised its regulatory supervision properly in the general social interest, then attention will turn again to the national or European courts. The English courts could help by being more ready to grant injunctions against players who move and by awarding damages against those who induce players to break contracts. But more national legal intervention has its limits in a global market place for such orders may not be enforceable abroad. Overall the impression remains that the European Commission has been sold a dummy by listening too much to the clubs and their pleas for contractual stability.
A chance you take Jayo took the chance seems to have worked out for him. Shels might not earn the cash to do this to do that all guess work Tarzan son still doesn't change the fact it would be a better career move for him football wise. Anyway if it went wrong he'll have a good degree to fall back on plus it's not as if he'll be in his 50's if it did go wrong.
Imagine leaving a good job that is well paid, going full time and then see the club go bust! DOLE[/QUOTE]
But Zayed would have a degree from DIT so DOLE is unlikely now Tarzan son!