Neil Taylor signs new four-year contract with Swansea

[David Icke - Son of God]

I reckon Huw Jenkins went all Lionel Hutz on us when we pointed out his release clause was set at £1 million.

 

"Oh, they got this all screwed up."

 

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3fe8ticpl1qzt9gno1_500.jpg

[Dave]

Is it really true that a player can't talk to another club without their current employer's permission? Surely it would breach all sorts of freedom of employment laws?

 

To do so would be 'tapping up', I guess. Which is against FA rules or whatever, but not illegal.

 

It clearly goes on daily at every level of the professional game though.

 

No doubt, but surely anyone is free to have an interview for another employer any time he wishes?

 

Well yes, but if it's known about the potential new employer will face sanctions, as it's against the rules of the game.

[Guest guinness_fiend]

In any case, it'll probably turn out to be bollocks!

[Guest guinness_fiend]

I reckon Huw Jenkins went all Lionel Hutz on us when we pointed out his release clause was set at £1 million.

 

"Oh, they got this all screwed up."

 

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3fe8ticpl1qzt9gno1_500.jpg

 

[ponsaelius]

That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be?

 

1.  A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract.

2.  An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount.

3.  The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause.

4.  If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in.  If not, tough luck.

 

It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them.

 

 

Still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, this bit.

 

I know you don't agree, but to me it makes perfect sense, as it's a negotiating tool.  It's a stark contrast to a "buy-out" clause, which essentially forces a club to sell to whoever meets the asking price (subject to the player's consent), which leaves the selling club largely impotent.

 

But what is the point of having a fee and allowing us to agree personal terms, only to then enter a new negotiation over the transfer fee rendering any personal terms utterly pointless? It just seems utterly functionless tbh, not a bargaining tool in the slightest.

[madras]

How's it a negotiating tool when any club can nominate a ridiculous fee to trigger the clause,then get the player to want the move then drop the price ?

[turbonegro]

how much for a lap-dance then

[Guest guinness_fiend]

That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be?

 

1.  A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract.

2.  An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount.

3.  The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause.

4.  If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in.  If not, tough luck.

 

It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them.

 

 

Still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, this bit.

 

I know you don't agree, but to me it makes perfect sense, as it's a negotiating tool.  It's a stark contrast to a "buy-out" clause, which essentially forces a club to sell to whoever meets the asking price (subject to the player's consent), which leaves the selling club largely impotent.

 

But what is the point of having a fee and allowing us to agree personal terms, only to then enter a new negotiation over the transfer fee rendering any personal terms utterly pointless? It just seems utterly functionless tbh, not a bargaining tool in the slightest.

 

If I understand correctly, we've not agreed a fee or terms.  We've only approached the club: "Newcastle made contact with the newly-promoted Swans to finalise a move for the left-back and were stunned by the Welsh club’s demand for a £10m fee for Taylor." 

 

[James]

That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be?

 

1.  A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract.

2.  An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount.

3.  The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause.

4.  If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in.  If not, tough luck.

 

It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them.

 

 

Still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, this bit.

 

I know you don't agree, but to me it makes perfect sense, as it's a negotiating tool.  It's a stark contrast to a "buy-out" clause, which essentially forces a club to sell to whoever meets the asking price (subject to the player's consent), which leaves the selling club largely impotent.

 

But what is the point of having a fee and allowing us to agree personal terms, only to then enter a new negotiation over the transfer fee rendering any personal terms utterly pointless? It just seems utterly functionless tbh, not a bargaining tool in the slightest.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

Perhaps change the phrasing. You are allowed to talk to anyone who submits a £1m offer or greater. However we are under no obligation to accept the bid.

[Guest guinness_fiend]

How's it a negotiating tool when any club can nominate a ridiculous fee to trigger the clause,then get the player to want the move then drop the price ?

 

The club has no obligation to sell, even if the player wants to leave (subject to FA/PFA involvement).  The player, after all, is under contract.  The player can go to the PFA/FA but it is unlikely that they would be forced to sell for any less than the figure stated in the "interest" clause. 

[ponsaelius]

Meh. I honestly don't think such a thing exists.

 

We'll have met the buy-out clause and they're just being cunts over the whole thing because we're leaving them without a left back on the eve of their Prem campaign.

[Guest guinness_fiend]

how much for a lap-dance then

 

For you, nothing.

 

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/bra_man.jpg

[Keefaz]

Is it really true that a player can't talk to another club without their current employer's permission? Surely it would breach all sorts of freedom of employment laws?

 

To do so would be 'tapping up', I guess. Which is against FA rules or whatever, but not illegal.

 

It clearly goes on daily at every level of the professional game though.

 

No doubt, but surely anyone is free to have an interview for another employer any time he wishes?

 

Well yes, but if it's known about the potential new employer will face sanctions, as it's against the rules of the game.

 

I thought these things only applied to secret talks and the like? If a player went to his club and said, "Look, I fancy a move to Newcastle: I'm gonna give Alan Pardew a call", he'd be safe, right? Therefore, the idea of a clause to allow him to speak to other clubs is ludicrous?

[madras]

But by having such a cause teams are inviting teams to unsettled their players which leads to a drop on fee usually.

[Dave]

Is it really true that a player can't talk to another club without their current employer's permission? Surely it would breach all sorts of freedom of employment laws?

 

To do so would be 'tapping up', I guess. Which is against FA rules or whatever, but not illegal.

 

It clearly goes on daily at every level of the professional game though.

 

No doubt, but surely anyone is free to have an interview for another employer any time he wishes?

 

Well yes, but if it's known about the potential new employer will face sanctions, as it's against the rules of the game.

 

I thought these things only applied to secret talks and the like? If a player went to his club and said, "Look, I fancy a move to Newcastle: I'm gonna give Alan Pardew a call", he'd be safe, right? Therefore, the idea of a clause to allow him to speak to other clubs is ludicrous?

 

The player can say what he wants; if Pardew answers that phonecall and starts discussing a move the other club could report us and we'd get sanctioned. It's not our right to talk to the player unless his club allows us permission.

[Peppe]

£10M?!  Allow me to ROFL

[ponsaelius]

That's all well and good, but can you explain what the actual function of such clause would be?

 

1.  A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract.

2.  An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount.

3.  The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause.

4.  If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in.  If not, tough luck.

 

It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them.

 

 

Still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, this bit.

 

I know you don't agree, but to me it makes perfect sense, as it's a negotiating tool.  It's a stark contrast to a "buy-out" clause, which essentially forces a club to sell to whoever meets the asking price (subject to the player's consent), which leaves the selling club largely impotent.

 

But what is the point of having a fee and allowing us to agree personal terms, only to then enter a new negotiation over the transfer fee rendering any personal terms utterly pointless? It just seems utterly functionless tbh, not a bargaining tool in the slightest.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

Perhaps change the phrasing. You are allowed to talk to anyone who submits a £1m offer or greater. However we are under no obligation to accept the bid.

 

It doesn't make sense, man, at all. I get it HOW it would 'work', you don't have to explain it out. Just the very idea of it is completely and utterly pointless because it serves no purpose.

[Guest guinness_fiend]

But by having such a cause teams are inviting teams to unsettled their players which leads to a drop on fee usually.

 

Swings and roundabouts.  Arsenal certainly don't look unsettled by Barca's repeated quasi-tapping up of Fabregas.  Some clubs flat out refuse to sell and bench a player.  I understand what you're saying though.  I'm not saying that I agree with the purported clause (which may or may not exist), but I can understand the logic behind it, if it indeed exists.  

[The Prophet]

Surely such a clause would mean any club who bids the specified amount is allowed to speak to the player but it doesn't have to be accepted.

 

It's the Mirror anyway, pinch of salt stuff at the moment

[Dave]

Surely such a clause would mean any club who bids the specified amount is allowed to speak to the player but it doesn't have to be accepted.

 

It's the Mirror anyway, pinch of salt stuff at the moment

 

As likely to be right as any other, tbh. They called the Demba Ba deal first IIRC.

[Cronky]

I suppose it'll depend on the exact wording on the contract.

 

The saying, 'If another club makes a bid of £x, they will be allowed to talk to the player' has the meaning, by convention, that the player can leave for £x.

 

If that's what's written down in a contract, I suppose the selling club might insist on the phrase being taken literally - ie the buying club can talk to the player, but the other club doesn't necessarily have to sell.

[madras]

That's the point exactly....there is no interest clause for fabregas meaning that it would be pointless.

[ponsaelius]

http://forum.planetswans.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=102919

 

Popular guy, anyway

[Guest guinness_fiend]

http://forum.planetswans.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=102919

 

Popular guy, anyway

 

[Keefaz]

Is it really true that a player can't talk to another club without their current employer's permission? Surely it would breach all sorts of freedom of employment laws?

 

To do so would be 'tapping up', I guess. Which is against FA rules or whatever, but not illegal.

 

It clearly goes on daily at every level of the professional game though.

 

No doubt, but surely anyone is free to have an interview for another employer any time he wishes?

 

Well yes, but if it's known about the potential new employer will face sanctions, as it's against the rules of the game.

 

I thought these things only applied to secret talks and the like? If a player went to his club and said, "Look, I fancy a move to Newcastle: I'm gonna give Alan Pardew a call", he'd be safe, right? Therefore, the idea of a clause to allow him to speak to other clubs is ludicrous?

 

The player can say what he wants; if Pardew answers that phonecall and starts discussing a move the other club could report us and we'd get sanctioned. It's not our right to talk to the player unless his club allows us permission.

 

Ah, yes, that's right.