Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

    Search       Member List      Official United Site     ArabZone      ArabTRUST       BBC Sport     Twitter
Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!


If you're already a member please log in:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Russell catch-all transfer thread
Topic Started: Apr 20 2013, 01:07 PM (22,045 Views)
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
findus
Apr 28 2013, 03:57 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 28 2013, 03:48 PM
findus
Apr 28 2013, 03:42 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 28 2013, 03:24 PM
ETA: And anyway, f*ck you - I just spent several hundred words trying to address your question 8 and more posts ago, as did Naebs. Yeah, f*ck you findud. Ooooh isn't it terrible nobody pays attention to what you say. Woe is you. Well, f*ck you.
:banjmp:

You are learning, young padawan! There's a reason I gave up trying to convince people on the internets - it's a tedious medium for debate.
It's a tedious debating with you if you can't even bother to read a direct reply to the objections you raised.
Puh-leeease, I did read the replies. They didn't successfully address my objections. C'est la vie!

I'll be back when something Russell-related happens ;)
Ah right, so you read the replies, dismissed them, and responded by saying your breakdown of the issue had been ignored.

How am I meant to interpret this as evidence that you read, absorbed, understood but disagreed with my response?

What did you disagree with? Did you find it did not address your concern properly? Did it misunderstand your point? Was there a logical flaw in the response you received? Was it incomplete in some way? Did it fail to take into account some other factor?

All valid questions, none of which you made.

What you did say was "Waaaaaahhh! I'm being ignored! Good luck with your shit, f*ckheads!" Exact quote, that.

Are you getting enough attention now?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 28 2013, 03:52 PM
How?
Sensible question.

The sensible thing would be to not answer it, as that would reveal whatever the f*ck findus's hard to grasp assertion that agents and players will successfully game the system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reekie
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think Findus hasn't, like I initially didn't, grasped the subtlety of the loan aspect of the front-loading idea.
(I may, of course, be completely wrong...)
I misunderstood the extra first-year money as simply paid from the final year money.
However, the fact that it's a loan that would be repayable, makes it an entirely different proposition.
I'm in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think one major issue was skipped over from the previous McCord example ' he repays the 50k'.

Which assume he has 50k to repay. If he's spent it, were not in a good position.

A cash isa isn't most players idea of what to do with 50k.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'd regard Naebody's loan idea as an optional aspect to the concept of frontloaded contracts.

By which I mean I think it's pish but can;t be bothered getting into debating it.

Sort of like the way findus melts away whenever he has to stand up for something.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reekie
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
M'kay....
That was the clincher for me.
Take away the loan aspect and I don't think it works.

Fuuuuuuuuuuu......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 28 2013, 07:27 PM
I'd regard Naebody's loan idea as an optional aspect to the concept of frontloaded contracts.

By which I mean I think it's pish but can;t be bothered getting into debating it.
Pish perhaps, but a loan is an easier concept to grasp and (I imagine) an easier one to frame in law. The concept is unchanged and the outcome is identical to your variable-pay structure. (As in, player faces 12 monthly deductions equating to 50% of annual salary.)

As for whether Mr McCord would pay it back: he does not have a choice. Repayments would be deducted at source along with his National Insurance, annual travelcard loan and childcare credits. Honestly -- has no one on here ever had a job?
Edited by Naebody, Apr 28 2013, 08:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Meh, the loan aspect doesn't really change anything materially. However, I admire the purity of the Frontloaded contract. It's a winner. Unclouded by conscience, repayment or misguided notions of morality.

I can't lie to you about your chances of adding in a loan aspect to make it more comprehensible to the rest, but you have my sympathies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
reekie
Apr 28 2013, 07:49 PM
M'kay....
That was the clincher for me.
Take away the loan aspect and I don't think it works.

Fuuuuuuuuuuu......
Help me understand your thinking.

What difference does the added loan aspect have that makes it better than the frontloading version?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 28 2013, 08:25 PM
I can't lie to you about your chances of adding in a loan aspect to make it more comprehensible to the rest, but you have my sympathies.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reekie
Member Avatar
lum raker
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 28 2013, 08:30 PM
reekie
Apr 28 2013, 07:49 PM
M'kay....
That was the clincher for me.
Take away the loan aspect and I don't think it works.

Fuuuuuuuuuuu......
Help me understand your thinking.

What difference does the added loan aspect have that makes it better than the frontloading version?
Okay...

Russell (2009) signs a £1500 p/w conttact, reducing to £1000 p/w, reducing to £500 p/w.
He now has one year left.
Purely front-loaded he has the choice of a new contract or fucking off for loads more money.

With the loan, he has the choice of signing a new contract and fucking off, or not signing and fucking off. But having to pay United ~£36k.

This, I think, is where Findus and I couldn't grasp the concept. Where you basically pay more early on for the same end result.

It might just tip the balance in our favour.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
reekie
Apr 28 2013, 11:07 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 28 2013, 08:30 PM
What difference does the added loan aspect have that makes it better than the frontloading version?
Okay...

Russell (2009) signs a £1500 p/w conttact, reducing to £1000 p/w, reducing to £500 p/w.
He now has one year left.
Purely front-loaded he has the choice of a new contract or f*cking off for loads more money.

With the loan, he has the choice of signing a new contract and f*cking off, or not signing and f*cking off. But having to pay United ~£36k.
If Russell is now entering the final year of that contract, he is facing £500 p/w either way.

In the frontloading version there is no pretendy repayment of a loan in his final year. The only real difference I can see is that if Russell leaves before the end of his contract we'll claw back that £26k he "borrowed" from us in the first year of his contract.

Is that the bit that made the idea acceptable for you?

Doesn't that seem
a) a bit shitty towards the player
b) an encouragement to see out their contract and leave for free, gaining United nothing
c) a discouragement for the player to move to another club for a transfer fee

At best, all I imagine happening is that when a player leaves for a transfer fee, he & his agent tell us to take what he owes us out of that transfer fee. At worst, the player leaves owing us £26k and we're chasing him for repayment of it whilst he plays for another club. That might not even be allowed, especially if it's another club in Scotland.

My point about having a different way of doing player contracts is to make young players actually want to sign an extended contract with us so we can make money from their sale without burdening the club with overpaid players on over-long contracts. I don't really see how this achieves such an aim, certainly not over and above the simple frontloading model. Although it does illustrate another way of thinking about frontloading to make the unfamiliar concept a bit more understandable.

Back to my question of a few posts ago - can you, as a doubter, at least see the attraction to the player of signing a frontloader rather than an evenspreader contract? Or does this not seem like any kind of advantage to the player?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm not understanding your distinction here, Wassa.

In your model, the club borrows half the player's wages from the final year of their contract and gives it to them in the first year of their contract.

In my model, the player borrows half his own wages from the final year of his contract and gives them to himself in the first year of his contract.

In your model, if the player's transferrred or extends his deal then he'll never enter the final year and have to take a 50% pay cut, which is the carrot to transfer or extend (if offered).

In my model, if the player's transferrred or extends his deal then he'll never enter the final year and have the debt called, which is the carrot to transfer or extend (if offered).

My model's basically the same as yours. The only refinement is that the transfer of cash from the final year to the first year becomes the player's responsibility, not the club's. That makes it function more like a contract-term deposit than a punishment for seeing out your deal, though the effect is identical.

As for it not getting paid: the debt would only be callable in the contract's last 12 months. Therefore the player by definition remains employed by the club, so gets taxed at source. But if he exits before that then the debt gets written off -- identical to your model.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 29 2013, 08:14 AM
I'm not understanding your distinction here, Wassa.

In your model, the club borrows half the player's wages from the final year of their contract and gives it to them in the first year of their contract.

In my model, the player borrows half his own wages from the final year of his contract and gives them to himself in the first year of his contract.

In your model, if the player's transferrred or extends his deal then he'll never enter the final year and have to take a 50% pay cut, which is the carrot to transfer or extend (if offered).

In my model, if the player's transferrred or extends his deal then he'll never enter the final year and have the debt called, which is the carrot to transfer or extend (if offered).

My model's basically the same as yours. The only refinement is that the transfer of cash from the final year to the first year becomes the player's responsibility, not the club's. That makes it function more like a contract-term deposit than a punishment for seeing out your deal, though the effect is identical.

As for it not getting paid: the debt would only be callable in the contract's last 12 months. Therefore the player by definition remains employed by the club, so gets taxed at source. But if he exits before that then the debt gets written off -- identical to your model.
Yeah, I get all of that - I just don't see the advantage.

Plus, the perception to the player is that he owes the club money, and unlike those Murray Group EBTs (sorry) it's clear that he'll have to pay it back eventually.

What if a player extends multiple times after the first year when he has "borrowed" from his final year of the contract? Does each borrowing accumulate so that the player ends up with several lump sums to be repaid when he finally leaves the club? The club might forgive that debt, but how many would be comfortable with this arrangement? If the debt is forgiven on each extension, that would work better I guess.

The tax on such an emolument could get complicatey too.

With no clear benefit and lots of extra complication, I don't see what the loan variant has over a simple frontloaded contract.

What is the advantage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 28 2013, 08:01 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 28 2013, 07:27 PM
I'd regard Naebody's loan idea as an optional aspect to the concept of frontloaded contracts.

By which I mean I think it's pish but can;t be bothered getting into debating it.
Pish perhaps, but a loan is an easier concept to grasp and (I imagine) an easier one to frame in law. The concept is unchanged and the outcome is identical to your variable-pay structure. (As in, player faces 12 monthly deductions equating to 50% of annual salary.)

As for whether Mr McCord would pay it back: he does not have a choice. Repayments would be deducted at source along with his National Insurance, annual travelcard loan and childcare credits. Honestly -- has no one on here ever had a job?
Never had a job that half my net income in the last year. Also, considering that the likes of McCord won't have been on £100k/year, but more like £20k/year surely, then in their final year, they'll be borderline minimum wage.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.