John Stones

[Seathestars]

No it's really quite readable. I glanced at the specific provision Terraloon made reference to and a couple of other pages.

Mind you I am used to reading absurdly worded documents.


Should take a decent hour , perhaps when I am struggling to get to sleep.

A woman and her little girl were visiting the grave of the little girl's grandmother. On their way through the cemetery back to the car, the little girl asked, "Mummy, do they ever bury two people in the same grave?"

"Of course not, dear," replied the mother, "Why would you think that?"

"The tombstone back there said... 'Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.'"

 

[neil999]

A woman and her little girl were visiting the grave of the little girl's grandmother. On their way through the cemetery back to the car, the little girl asked, "Mummy, do they ever bury two people in the same grave?"

"Of course not, dear," replied the mother, "Why would you think that?"

"The tombstone back there said... 'Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.'"

that little girl is a bit cynical

 

[terraloon]

I look forward to your synopsis

What I always find with football regulations is that you think you have nailed it then hidden away there is a clause that says yes but!

In relation to players being tied down to their contracted clubs Bosman changed things as did Webster and although far from an expert on employment laws I can't help but feel sooner rather than later a footballer is going to test footballs special status in terms of the employees rights to exercise the same rights as is afforded to all employees

 

[jazzy]

A woman and her little girl were visiting the grave of the little girl's grandmother. On their way through the cemetery back to the car, the little girl asked, "Mummy, do they ever bury two people in the same grave?"

"Of course not, dear," replied the mother, "Why would you think that?"

"The tombstone back there said... 'Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.'"

Very unfair stereotype

Politicians and Estate Agents are much worse !

I would also criticise the construction of the sentence on the tombstone.

 

[jazzy]

What I always find with football regulations is that you think you have nailed it then hidden away there is a clause that says yes but!

In relation to players being tied down to their contracted clubs Bosman changed things as did Webster and although far from an expert on employment laws I can't help but feel sooner rather than later a footballer is going to test footballs special status in terms of the employees rights to exercise the same rights as is afforded to all employees

Is the Webster case where a player ( almost certainly funded by his "new" club ) buys out the remaining time on his contract thereby making him a free agent ?

If so has anyone actually done this ?

I can't think of any high profile players who have done so.

 

[chrismpw]

FIFA rules regarding players Article 18 part 2 states:

The minimum length of a contract shall be from its effective date until the end of the season, while the maximum length of a contract shall be five years. Contracts of any other length shall only be permitted if consistent with national laws. Players under the age of 18 may not sign a professional contract for a term longer than three years. Any clause referring to a longer period shall not be recognised

Free legal advice? You should send @jazzy an invoice!! ;-)

 

[jazzy]

Free legal advice? You should send @jazzy an invoice!! ;-)

Nah retired now mate .

No advice given without requisite insurance.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

Really hope we can convince Stones to stay.

 

[terraloon]

Is the Webster case where a player ( almost certainly funded by his "new" club ) buys out the remaining time on his contract thereby making him a free agent ?

If so has anyone actually done this ?

I can't think of any high profile players who have done so.

There a couple that have and who we know about. Guterarez at Newcastle for instance but ,and its a big ,but it's the threat of its use is possibly the biggest threat to a club.Most players that threaten to use it do so for one of two reasons1) to get a better contract. The strong rumours are that Lampard, Terry and Rooney used such tactics and 2) To force their transfers out. Anelka at Arsenal and Sterling at Liverpool are rumoured to have advised their clubs they would indded give notice under this article

There is supposed to be an agreement, although you won't find anything published ,among the top 20 clubs in Europe that they won't sign a player who has left another club under such a situation. The clubs are worried about the long term damage although I suspect the real damage wouldn't be to the really big clubs.

I have posted elsewhere that both RL and JS can at the end of the 2016/17 season, within 14 days of the last competitive game, unless they sign new contracts, walk away without any transfer fee being paid to Everton. My understanding is that the compensation was originally set based on a players salary but more recently ( well about 7 years ago) the calculation was based on the book value of a player less the balance of the salary due under his contract.That said the view very much is that the ruling I refer to was specific to the player as the club he eventually signed for had tried to buy him for about the same sum as the set compensation.

All very confusing but again as I said elsewhere there are just two transfer windows during which JS and RL can be sold with the club being in control of the situation.

 

[jazzy]

There a couple that have and who we know about. Guterarez at Newcastle for instance but ,and its a big ,but it's the threat of its use is possibly the biggest threat to a club.Most players that threaten to use it do so for one of two reasons1) to get a better contract. The strong rumours are that Lampard, Terry and Rooney used such tactics and 2) To force their transfers out. Anelka at Arsenal and Sterling at Liverpool are rumoured to have advised their clubs they would indded give notice under this article

There is supposed to be an agreement, although you won't find anything published ,among the top 20 clubs in Europe that they won't sign a player who has left another club under such a situation. The clubs are worried about the long term damage although I suspect the real damage wouldn't be to the really big clubs.

I have posted elsewhere that both RL and JS can at the end of the 2016/17 season, within 14 days of the last competitive game, unless they sign new contracts, walk away without any transfer fee being paid to Everton. My understanding is that the compensation was originally set based on a players salary but more recently ( well about 7 years ago) the calculation was based on the book value of a player less the balance of the salary due under his contract.That said the view very much is that the ruling I refer to was specific to the player as the club he eventually signed for had tried to buy him for about the same sum as the set compensation.

All very confusing but again as I said elsewhere there are just two transfer windows during which JS and RL can be sold with the club being in control of the situation.

Very informative - thank you.

 

[Jags..class]

There a couple that have and who we know about. Guterarez at Newcastle for instance but ,and its a big ,but it's the threat of its use is possibly the biggest threat to a club.Most players that threaten to use it do so for one of two reasons1) to get a better contract. The strong rumours are that Lampard, Terry and Rooney used such tactics and 2) To force their transfers out. Anelka at Arsenal and Sterling at Liverpool are rumoured to have advised their clubs they would indded give notice under this article

There is supposed to be an agreement, although you won't find anything published ,among the top 20 clubs in Europe that they won't sign a player who has left another club under such a situation. The clubs are worried about the long term damage although I suspect the real damage wouldn't be to the really big clubs.

I have posted elsewhere that both RL and JS can at the end of the 2016/17 season, within 14 days of the last competitive game, unless they sign new contracts, walk away without any transfer fee being paid to Everton. My understanding is that the compensation was originally set based on a players salary but more recently ( well about 7 years ago) the calculation was based on the book value of a player less the balance of the salary due under his contract.That said the view very much is that the ruling I refer to was specific to the player as the club he eventually signed for had tried to buy him for about the same sum as the set compensation.

All very confusing but again as I said elsewhere there are just two transfer windows during which JS and RL can be sold with the club being in control of the situation.

Thanks so we could be better of selling or try and tempt them with new contracts and new signings

It's seems that Jose is signing a CB for 30 million Eric Bailly. Might not become in front stones

 

[terraloon]

Thanks so we could be better of selling or try and tempt them with new contracts and new signings

It's seems that Jose is signing a CB for 30 million Eric Bailly. Might not become in front stones

I would be astounded if Stones hadn't already been offered a new contract. For me the telling point in his case is that he hasn't signed anything new. As for Lukaku he may well be angling for just that but I would expect if his own assessment of his abilities is anywhere near correct then his wage expectations would be in the range of £120-£200k WP. Of course he isn't worth anywhere near that and I doubt that sort of sum can be shoe horned into the wage structure at Everton that in turn has to be FFP compliant in PL terms.

What could be crucial is what the fine details of the contracts currently in place are.

I talked about the last case where's here was a ruling re compensation . The player involved was a player called Matzularm the sum original awarded by CAS was about € 6 million. That sum was broadly in accord with the amount awarded in the Webster case itself.
The ruling was appealed and for the one any only time a CAS ruling was overruled and a sum of about € 11 million was awarded but this sum was less than half of the release clause in the players contract which was set at €25 million

If Stones has a release clause of say £20 million then based on age, the fact that in May 2017 he would only have two years left ,the wage currently paid of say £20 k a week, then the most Everton would likely get by way compensation would be under £10 million but if CAS revert to the formula used in the Webster case itself then you are talking of about £1 million.

So I go back to the point I was trying to make several weeks ago in that if either player wants out his agent possibly would threaten or indeed advise the player to walk because if they do just that then unless compensation is agreed you are in a whole differnt ball game whereby you may get a sum in line with the first ruling , you may get it in line with the second ruling but these cases once passed to the likes of CAS will take possibly years to sort out so in my mind If a player wants out the potential implications are just not worth the risk

 

[BlueToff]

There a couple that have and who we know about. Guterarez at Newcastle for instance but ,and its a big ,but it's the threat of its use is possibly the biggest threat to a club.Most players that threaten to use it do so for one of two reasons1) to get a better contract. The strong rumours are that Lampard, Terry and Rooney used such tactics and 2) To force their transfers out. Anelka at Arsenal and Sterling at Liverpool are rumoured to have advised their clubs they would indded give notice under this article

There is supposed to be an agreement, although you won't find anything published ,among the top 20 clubs in Europe that they won't sign a player who has left another club under such a situation. The clubs are worried about the long term damage although I suspect the real damage wouldn't be to the really big clubs.

I have posted elsewhere that both RL and JS can at the end of the 2016/17 season, within 14 days of the last competitive game, unless they sign new contracts, walk away without any transfer fee being paid to Everton. My understanding is that the compensation was originally set based on a players salary but more recently ( well about 7 years ago) the calculation was based on the book value of a player less the balance of the salary due under his contract.That said the view very much is that the ruling I refer to was specific to the player as the club he eventually signed for had tried to buy him for about the same sum as the set compensation.

All very confusing but again as I said elsewhere there are just two transfer windows during which JS and RL can be sold with the club being in control of the situation.

Not doubting your info/knowledge lad - you seem to know your stuff having read up on it.

But, how can Rom 'walk away for free' at the end of 16/17? At that point, Stones will have a year left on his current deal, but Rom would actually have two (he signed a five year deal in June 2014)?

 

[terraloon]

Both players are under 28. Both players will have completed 3 years of their contracts both were signed in 2014 ( the length left be it 1 year or 2 years is irrelevant) At that point both will be outside what's called the protected period.

Had the players been over 28 then the 3 year period is reduced to 2 years

 

[Nymzee]

Both players are under 28. Both players will have completed 3 years of their contracts both were signed in 2014 ( the length left be it 1 year or 2 years is irrelevant) At that point both will be outside what's called the protected period.

Had the players been over 28 then the 3 year period is reduced to 2 years

Stones signed in 2013 didn't he? It's a strange rule but one I can't see being exercised anyway.