Séamus Coleman (D Everton b.1988)

[geysir]

Then it constitutes good humour.

[tricky_colour]

Thanks very much. It works so differently over here in North America. It would be extremely unusual for any sports team here to extend a contract in anything other than the final year of the existing contract, so tying up Coleman 2.5 years before his contract was due to expire is a big surprise to me. Does the old contract just get ripped up? Does his raise just kick once his old contract was due to expire? Teams will sign unattached players here, but the first thing out of supporter's mouths is not "is he any good?" it is "how much money does he make?" For example, a top player in the NBA could be paid upwards of fifteen million dollars , but a lesser player at a far reduced salary can be a much better pick-up, as it frees up space to pick up more players.

For example, Cudicini has just been announced as the LA Galaxy's latest pick-up. His wages will be a matter of public record over here in America, but what about his existing contract with Spurs? He was available on a free but assuming he had at least half a season left on his current Spurs contract, how would that work? Would Spurs just buy him out, like give him the total value of the money he would have made between now and the end of the season? Why is this information not publicly available? Surely the tax service in the UK would be privy to this information?

I am not 100% sure how it works but that is my take on it. For example Seamus was signed for just £150,000 presumable for a few years and on a grand or so a week perhaps, then he get a few starts in the first team increasing his value and wage expectations at least 10 fold. So the club will be happy to pay him more and Seamus will expect more so they are likely to both want to scrap the old contract and agree a new usually longer one. Both would have to agree to this I think, but neither has a great incentive to block it. The clubs want to secure his services for longer realising his value could increase more and Seamus will obviously be glad of a lot more money in his pocket ASAP

The problem would come if there was a big disagreement over the players value, then basically the old contract would have to be honoured until it expired. This works well for the player as he will become a free agent when the contract expires and thus a new club will not have to pay a transfer fee allowing Seamus to demand more in wages. The downside for the player is he may may have to wait for several years on low wages for that to happen, during which time his value could decrease due to injury or loss of form. In general both sides tend to come to agreement to get some kind of certainty for the future.

Just doing a bit of maths here, £1 million works out at about £20,000 a week. So £10m would be £200,000 a week. Presumable there is some sort of basic formula that is used for wages and transfer fees
but it must be petty complicated including bonuses for playing etc..

As for Cudicini I am not sure he might have been under contract but Spurs may be happy to let him go for nothing as they probably are contracted to pay his probably very high wages.
I mean say for simplicity they were paying him £100,000 a week, in 25 weeks they would have to pay him £2.5 million. So by letting him go for nothing they actually make £2.5 million given as he was 4th choice keeper!!

I don't think Spurs would need to buy him out because he is likely to happy to go assuming he wil be getting similar or more wages. Anyhow there is nothing to buy as they already own him, except owning him means they have to pay him, so happy to get rid.

The tax services would of course want to know all his details of course but they would be expected to keep it confidential.

I am not too sure who the USA system works but according to here
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art54233.asp
The players are owned by the MSL not by the clubs?


Not sure I understand the US system or hence which is best.

[tricky_colour]

Just like to add, one might expect perhaps a player to never sign a long term contract and just get paid to
play on an almost weekly basis, indeed we almost see this happening with the loans system except it is the
clubs loaning out the players who are in control.
Take Robbie Brady for example, or David Meyler, they often don't know who they will be playing for on a weekly basis.
There would be nothing to stop an out of contract player doing the same thing as far as I am aware, could play
for a different club every week perhaps!!

[Charlie Darwin]

You can't play for more than 3 teams in a season.

[Colbert Report]

I am not 100% sure how it works but that is my take on it. For example Seamus was signed for just £150,000 presumable for a few years and on a grand or so a week perhaps, then he get a few starts in the first team increasing his value and wage expectations at least 10 fold. So the club will be happy to pay him more and Seamus will expect more so they are likely to both want to scrap the old contract and agree a new usually longer one. Both would have to agree to this I think, but neither has a great incentive to block it. The clubs want to secure his services for longer realising his value could increase more and Seamus will obviously be glad of a lot more money in his pocket ASAP

The problem would come if there was a big disagreement over the players value, then basically the old contract would have to be honoured until it expired. This works well for the player as he will become a free agent when the contract expires and thus a new club will not have to pay a transfer fee allowing Seamus to demand more in wages. The downside for the player is he may may have to wait for several years on low wages for that to happen, during which time his value could decrease due to injury or loss of form. In general both sides tend to come to agreement to get some kind of certainty for the future.

Just doing a bit of maths here, £1 million works out at about £20,000 a week. So £10m would be £200,000 a week. Presumable there is some sort of basic formula that is used for wages and transfer fees
but it must be petty complicated including bonuses for playing etc..

As for Cudicini I am not sure he might have been under contract but Spurs may be happy to let him go for nothing as they probably are contracted to pay his probably very high wages.
I mean say for simplicity they were paying him £100,000 a week, in 25 weeks they would have to pay him £2.5 million. So by letting him go for nothing they actually make £2.5 million given as he was 4th choice keeper!!

I don't think Spurs would need to buy him out because he is likely to happy to go assuming he wil be getting similar or more wages. Anyhow there is nothing to buy as they already own him, except owning him means they have to pay him, so happy to get rid.

The tax services would of course want to know all his details of course but they would be expected to keep it confidential.

I am not too sure who the USA system works but according to here
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art54233.asp
The players are owned by the MSL not by the clubs?


Not sure I understand the US system or hence which is best.

Players are indeed owned by the MLS, not the clubs. However, when a team like the LA Galaxy "purchase" a player like Robbie Keane, the team actually gives the money to the league, who then in turn purchase the player and assign him to said team.

This is what I am wondering with Cudicini. Say he was on 25k sterling a week. That'd be 40k US a week. There are about twenty weeks left in the season. That would be 800k US outstanding in wages. He's likely on about three grand US a week in the MLS, so there's no way he would have just walked away without a payout from Spurs in my opinion.

[Charlie Darwin]

He'd be on a lot more than 3k a week in the MLS. They pay Premier League outcasts ridiculous money there, though probably still not as much as they would in England. Sure Robbie is on 3 million a year.

[tricky_colour]

Players are indeed owned by the MLS, not the clubs. However, when a team like the LA Galaxy "purchase" a player like Robbie Keane, the team actually gives the money to the league, who then in turn purchase the player and assign him to said team.

This is what I am wondering with Cudicini. Say he was on 25k sterling a week. That'd be 40k US a week. There are about twenty weeks left in the season. That would be 800k US outstanding in wages. He's likely on about three grand US a week in the MLS, so there's no way he would have just walked away without a payout from Spurs in my opinion.

I believe Cudicini is a "designated player" so is not subject to the wage cap which exists in the MSL.
It's perhaps a bit surprising that the USA, which believes so much in the free market, seems to have
a far more restrictive market in sports than 'socialist" Europe.

Not that I think the USA really believes in a free market, it believe in a market which benefits itself
most, or rather benefits those with the most money power and influence most.

I believe The Designated Player Rule, is nicknamed the Beckham Rule in the USA.

[Colbert Report]

No, Cudicini is most certainly not one of the LA Galaxy's three designated players. Robbie Keane, Landon Donovan, and someone exotic who will draw people to the park will be their designated players next year.

Couldn't agree more with tricky colour about the hypocrisy of American re: restricting a player's movement. Imagine if we had a draft system in football instead of relegation. It would be a mess, much like the NHL, NBA and MLB are.

Cudicini certainly isn't a designated player and I doubt he'd be on more than 250k a year. Caleb Folan was on far less than that when he came over with Colorado. Look at the Vancouver Whitecaps - they're loaded with washed up Premier League players making less than 200k US annually. Our very own Andy O'Brien is playing there for 192k USD, former Spurs full back Lee Young-Pyo is making 175k USD, etc etc. I'd expect Cudicini to be on around 200k US a year, which works out to less than three thousand pounds sterling a week.

[Charlie Darwin]

Yeah but you'd expect wrong. Cudicini is not going to move halfway across the world in order to secure a lucrative 1000% pay-cut.

[pineapple stu]

Cudicini is not going to move halfway across the world in order to secure a lucrative 1000% pay-cut.

Noooooooo!!!!!!!!! Percentage abuse!

[EAFC_rdfl]

Can all this MLS nonsense be moved to the robbie keane thread or somewhere?

[tetsujin1979]

I believe The Designated Player Rule, is nicknamed the Beckham Rule in the USA.

It may have been when it was introduced, but I don't think so anymore. Beckham was one of the first, if not the first, player to be brought to the MLS as a "designated player"

[geysir]

Yeah but you'd expect wrong. Cudicini is not going to move halfway across the world in order to secure a lucrative 1000% pay-cut.

It's a rarity but Colbert has you by the balls on this one Charlie, a tactical withdrawal is advisable.

[Crosby87]

Cuds would look sexy in the classic garb of legendary Real Salt Lake.

[Charlie Darwin]

Noooooooo!!!!!!!!! Percentage abuse!

I really should know better.

[DannyInvincible]

It may have been when it was introduced, but I don't think so anymore. Beckham was one of the first, if not the first, player to be brought to the MLS as a "designated player"

A quick Google search shows it was still being referred to as the "Beckham rule" by Grant Wahl in a 2011 Sports Illustrated piece and by Bobby McMahon in Forbes Magazine as late as August, 2012.

Funnily enough, there's a "Beckham law" in Spain.

The "Beckham Law" (Royal Decree 687/2005) is a Spanish Tax Decree passed in June 2005. The law gained its nickname after the footballer David Beckham became one of the first foreigners to take advantage of it. However the law is aimed at all foreign workers (particularly the wealthier ones) living in Spain. Upon application and acceptance, such individuals are liable only for Spanish taxes on their Spanish source income and assets.

Under the Spanish tax law individuals who spend 183 days or more during a tax year in Spain are normally deemed tax resident. Temporary absences are ignored when determining residency unless a person can prove that he is a habitually resident in another country. Thus, footballers coming to Spain would automatically have become Spanish tax resident on the day count rule (over 183 days) and as Spanish residents would have been liable to Spanish tax on a worldwide basis.

However the Royal Decree 687/2005 modifies this law with respect to wealthy foreign workers. To ease the tax burden and to attract the likes of Beckham and top executives, the government introduced amendments to the definition of tax residency.

[DannyInvincible]

Cuds would look sexy in the classic garb of legendary Real Salt Lake.

American sides have always led in the style stakes...

[Colbert Report]

Yeah but you'd expect wrong. Cudicini is not going to move halfway across the world in order to secure a lucrative 1000% pay-cut.

That's my whole point! Obviously Spurs gave him all or at least a large portion of the money he would have made by doing nothing and collecting the rest of this contract.

[Charlie Darwin]

That's my whole point! Obviously Spurs gave him all or at least a large portion of the money he would have made by doing nothing and collecting the rest of this contract.

Ah right, I got my wires crossed then. I'm sure he was offered plenty of off-budget perks and bonuses as well, but he will most definitely be on the maximum salary for a non-designated player.

[the bear]

Bad news for Cudicini in his new job, big pay cut and he'll have to work weekends.