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 (22,043 Views)
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 10:50 PM

Simple question to you. Would you rather be paid more early on any job?
For a one off job, yes.

For a contract basis like the model you are proposing, no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 10:59 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 10:50 PM
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 10:24 PM
Why would a player sign a contract that ends up putting them in a worse position than an alterative contract?
Set - hate to bring you back to that simple question from earlier, but this is fundamental.

How is signing a contract worse for the player if it pays him more earlier?

If your quote here is understood correctly, you are saying that because he gets paid less at the end that makes it worse for him, but that is only half the story. He gets paid more at the start. Remember?

Even if there were no benefits at all to getting paid more at the start, that would make the two contracts equal. But there are benefits of being paid early. Aren't there?

Simple question to you. Would you rather be paid more early on any job?
Why are we paying early?

There's an up and and down. The down is timed to be at the employers advantage to encourage them to extend / leave. It puts the employee in a weaker position with the looming pay cut. Thats the employers encouragement for them to act, but it's weaker position for the player. If it wasn't a weaker position, then the front loading idea would be pointless as it wouldn't encourage the employee.

So yes, on balance the pay amount is the same, but the position the player is in at the point before the pay cut is a weak one. That's the disadvantage to the player in that they will end up a weak position.
It's not a zero sum game here. If the club wins it doesn't mean that the player loses. They don't. They get paid more earlier.

How exactly is the player worse off under a frontloading contract than not? I just can't see how, other than the player spending every penny he gets as soon as he gets it. That's not an argument against frontloading, it's an argument for the player to have no part in arranging his affairs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 11:03 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 10:50 PM

Simple question to you. Would you rather be paid more early on any job?
For a contract basis like the model you are proposing, no.
Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 11:34 PM
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 10:59 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 10:50 PM
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 10:24 PM
Why would a player sign a contract that ends up putting them in a worse position than an alterative contract?
Set - hate to bring you back to that simple question from earlier, but this is fundamental.

How is signing a contract worse for the player if it pays him more earlier?

If your quote here is understood correctly, you are saying that because he gets paid less at the end that makes it worse for him, but that is only half the story. He gets paid more at the start. Remember?

Even if there were no benefits at all to getting paid more at the start, that would make the two contracts equal. But there are benefits of being paid early. Aren't there?

Simple question to you. Would you rather be paid more early on any job?
Why are we paying early?

There's an up and and down. The down is timed to be at the employers advantage to encourage them to extend / leave. It puts the employee in a weaker position with the looming pay cut. Thats the employers encouragement for them to act, but it's weaker position for the player. If it wasn't a weaker position, then the front loading idea would be pointless as it wouldn't encourage the employee.

So yes, on balance the pay amount is the same, but the position the player is in at the point before the pay cut is a weak one. That's the disadvantage to the player in that they will end up a weak position.
It's not a zero sum game here. If the club wins it doesn't mean that the player loses. They don't. They get paid more earlier.

How exactly is the player worse off under a frontloading contract than not? I just can't see how, other than the player spending every penny he gets as soon as he gets it. That's not an argument against frontloading, it's an argument for the player to have no part in arranging his affairs.
I'm not sure I can say it any other way than I did. The player ends up in weak positions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 11:35 PM
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 11:03 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 10:50 PM

Simple question to you. Would you rather be paid more early on any job?
For a contract basis like the model you are proposing, no.
Why?
Again, I can't find any other way to say it that I've already done in past 2 posts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 11:39 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 11:34 PM
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 10:59 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 29 2013, 10:50 PM
Setenza
Apr 29 2013, 10:24 PM
Why would a player sign a contract that ends up putting them in a worse position than an alterative contract?
Set - hate to bring you back to that simple question from earlier, but this is fundamental.

How is signing a contract worse for the player if it pays him more earlier?

If your quote here is understood correctly, you are saying that because he gets paid less at the end that makes it worse for him, but that is only half the story. He gets paid more at the start. Remember?

Even if there were no benefits at all to getting paid more at the start, that would make the two contracts equal. But there are benefits of being paid early. Aren't there?

Simple question to you. Would you rather be paid more early on any job?
Why are we paying early?

There's an up and and down. The down is timed to be at the employers advantage to encourage them to extend / leave. It puts the employee in a weaker position with the looming pay cut. Thats the employers encouragement for them to act, but it's weaker position for the player. If it wasn't a weaker position, then the front loading idea would be pointless as it wouldn't encourage the employee.

So yes, on balance the pay amount is the same, but the position the player is in at the point before the pay cut is a weak one. That's the disadvantage to the player in that they will end up a weak position.
It's not a zero sum game here. If the club wins it doesn't mean that the player loses. They don't. They get paid more earlier.

How exactly is the player worse off under a frontloading contract than not? I just can't see how, other than the player spending every penny he gets as soon as he gets it. That's not an argument against frontloading, it's an argument for the player to have no part in arranging his affairs.
I'm not sure I can say it any other way than I did. The player ends up in weak positions.
Then I don't understand your point.

How is the player in a weaker position than he would otherwise be?

The worst case scenario is for a player nearing the end of his contract and nobody wants him. That is debatable whether he is worse off with money in the bank, lower income and poor employment prospects than less money in the bank, higher income and poor employment prospects. I'd disagree with anyone who chose the latter as it would make them worse off overall. But hey-ho - some people don't understand money.

For any player who doesn't think they'll end up like a McCord it should be a no brainier. Getting paid more of your contract earlier is a great opportunity to play well and earn a transfer or contract.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Let's try this another way.

When a player is offered a 3 year frontloaded contract, what are they thinking?

Are they more concerned about being at the end of their contract on a low wage than they are delighted at the immediate prospect of high wages and the chance to never have to suffer the low wages at the end of their contract?

It would take a particular combination of farsightedness, pessimism and stupidity to think possible low wages in three years is more important than definite high wages now.

They might regret being on low wages in 3 years but that will have no bearing on the decision they make when offered the frontloaded contract.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh dear. This has hit the point of maximum futility.

Look, if there's any specific criticism more substantive than "THERE BE DRAGONS" let's hear it. But let's not just hear the same time-value-of-money misunderstandings and dour fatalism another hundred posts. It's unhelpful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 30 2013, 06:41 AM
Oh dear. This has hit the point of maximum futility.

Look, if there's any specific criticism more substantive than "THERE BE DRAGONS" let's hear it. But let's not just hear the same time-value-of-money misunderstandings and dour fatalism another hundred posts. It's unhelpful.
Aren't you fascinated by your inability to be understood?

Sometimes it's impossible to get past "but it sounds weird".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Actually, one last go:

"Hello, new employee. Here's a 50% bonus. If you do well over the next two years you can keep it. If you do badly we'll claw it back in 2016."

That's all it is. That's the entire gambit.

So who's pessimistic enough to say, "no thanks" to that offer? Dundonians, I guess.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Heh - I was starting to think it was a Dundonian thing myself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
OK, well I guess well just have to wait for this genius idea to be adopted and see how it goes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 30 2013, 06:41 AM
Oh dear. This has hit the point of maximum futility.

Look, if there's any specific criticism more substantive than "THERE BE DRAGONS" let's hear it. But let's not just hear the same time-value-of-money misunderstandings and dour fatalism another hundred posts. It's unhelpful.
A player wouldn't sign it. Their agent would tell them to go and sign a normal contract elsewhere where there are no dragons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 30 2013, 08:35 AM
Naebody
Apr 30 2013, 06:41 AM
Oh dear. This has hit the point of maximum futility.

Look, if there's any specific criticism more substantive than "THERE BE DRAGONS" let's hear it. But let's not just hear the same time-value-of-money misunderstandings and dour fatalism another hundred posts. It's unhelpful.
A player wouldn't sign it. Their agent would tell them to go and sign a normal contract elsewhere where there are no dragons.
You realise that dragons don't exist, don't you?

"Look son, this weird contract they're offering you pays you great money up front and increases the likelihood of you being sold for good money or signing a new contract here, at which points I will get a nice cut. It may seem to be in both of our interests, but I sense a trap. Don't sign it."

"What's that son? ... What if you turn out to be shit? Start saving whatever money they're paying you now - Arnold Clark are not a generous employer."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
findus
Member Avatar
Jerry Kerr
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 30 2013, 08:35 AM
Naebody
Apr 30 2013, 06:41 AM
Oh dear. This has hit the point of maximum futility.

Look, if there's any specific criticism more substantive than "THERE BE DRAGONS" let's hear it. But let's not just hear the same time-value-of-money misunderstandings and dour fatalism another hundred posts. It's unhelpful.
A player wouldn't sign it. Their agent would tell them to go and sign a normal contract elsewhere where there are no dragons.
Aren't you fascinated by your inability to be understood?

Look, Naebs, whatshatonyourback, if there's any specific criticism more substantive than "THERE NO BE DRAGONS" let's hear it. But let's not just hear the same time-value-of-money misunderstandings and dour fatalism another hundred posts. It's unhelpful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.