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
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 33
The Russell catch-all transfer thread
Topic Started: Apr 20 2013, 01:07 PM (22,049 Views)
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hamish
Apr 25 2013, 01:23 PM
Incentivising players with a 'golden goodbye' cheque is in the interests of the club getting a greater number of transfer fees.
The problem with "golden goodbyes" are that they incentivise the player to act against the interests of the club.

Just say a player is under contract for a remaining year and the club values him at £1m. His contract defines a 25% paydown of any transfer fee.

Now, let's say some cheeky buggers bid £500k for said player.

From the player's perspective, he's in line to get £125k so would very much like this deal to be accepted. But, from the club's perspective, they're in line to get just £375k for the player, which is 62% less than their valuation. Overall, that has a much more unsettling effect on the team.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Skeletor
Member Avatar
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 11:36 AM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 11:24 AM
When it comes time to reduce the wage the guy is either going to clear off or want a new contract at the inflated rate he was given before. It's not going to work.
If he wants to clear off, that's fine - we have him on a 2 year contract and he has good money in the bank - assuming he's a player other clubs would want, they'll need to deal with us offering money.

If he's good enough to retain, we can offer him an improved contract - or maybe even the same contract restarted so that he gets £1,500 p/w for the first year again - that's up to us to decide do we want to retain him, can we afford it and does he have resale value. I don;t imagine we'd significantly renegotiate contracts on players we didn't think had resale value. Of course, as their wage decreases it's up to the player to prove us wrong.

It gives players who improve the chance to make more money out of us whilst we get to make money out of them when they move on. If the player is just so-so, his contract expires and he's been paid the same over the piece, with the advantage that he got more of it at the start and was able to buy a flash car and house he now can't afford.
Doesn't that leave us shelling out an awful lot of money, which we don't have, in retaining and boosting the wages of players before they hit the low-paid 'balancing' year, with the same often vain hope that our outstanding talents will attract even a reasonable fee?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hamish
Member Avatar
Ian McCall
[ *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 25 2013, 01:45 PM
Hamish
Apr 25 2013, 01:23 PM
Incentivising players with a 'golden goodbye' cheque is in the interests of the club getting a greater number of transfer fees.
The problem with "golden goodbyes" are that they incentivise the player to act against the interests of the club.

Just say a player is under contract for a remaining year and the club values him at £1m. His contract defines a 25% paydown of any transfer fee.

Now, let's say some cheeky buggers bid £500k for said player.

From the player's perspective, he's in line to get £125k so would very much like this deal to be accepted. But, from the club's perspective, they're in line to get just £375k for the player, which is 62% less than their valuation. Overall, that has a much more unsettling effect on the team.
The club doesn't have to accept the £500,000.

So, you wouldn't have given Goodwillie the 10% share of a future transfer deal when negotiating his extension. An arrangement that ultimately worked out very nicely for both player and club (and bank). And he played excellently during that time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 01:30 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 12:19 PM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 12:19 PM
I remain out.
You don't need to be in.
Ok. I'm in then.
Considering "The Arab League" was the result of your best creative endeavours, I think I'd prefer it if you remained out.

F*cking "Arab League". Look where we are now with that. Three posters, one active topic and a blank masthead whilst Skeletor waits for permission from nurse to access the group's etch-a-sketch. All your fault, Chipple.

I've a good mind to quit you know. Not sure it's worth it. Just leave. Pass the username over to posterity. Or homer.



You may never hear from me again.

Goodbye?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hamish
Apr 25 2013, 02:48 PM
So, you wouldn't have given Goodwillie the 10% share of a future transfer deal when negotiating his extension. An arrangement that ultimately worked out very nicely for both player and club (and bank). And he played excellently during that time.
Has any other player accepted a contract extension when he could have just waited a year and left?

Goodrooy seems to go his own way, for better or usually worse. Let's face it - he's mental. We did also stand by him in the midst of several off-field antics which Ronny has never got involved in.

I have doubts any other player will ever sign a shitty contract extension just so his club could benefit from his eventual sale.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conan the Destroyer
Member Avatar
I prefer it when we're pish
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 03:12 PM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 01:30 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 12:19 PM
Conan the Destroyer
Apr 25 2013, 12:19 PM
I remain out.
You don't need to be in.
Ok. I'm in then.
Considering "The Arab League" was the result of your best creative endeavours, I think I'd prefer it if you remained out.

F*cking "Arab League". Look where we are now with that. Three posters, one active topic and a blank masthead whilst Skeletor waits for permission from nurse to access the group's etch-a-sketch. All your fault, Chipple.

I've a good mind to quit you know. Not sure it's worth it. Just leave. Pass the username over to posterity. Or homer.



You may never hear from me again.

Goodbye?
Who wants to start a new board for EK Clyde?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thirty years ago I would have been up for that.

Now, I can't bear to even drive near EK.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Apr 25 2013, 11:27 AM
Setenza
Apr 25 2013, 10:25 AM
Wouldn't there be a bit of a risk of wage inflation? Player get above his fair value one year, then if does well can keep earning that new level - but then why wouldn't he expect same deal next time, and then his wages are really starting to rise. It would end up pricing him out of the level we can afford.


1000/ week = 1500 / week for yr 1
Player does well
Player expects 1500 / week wage.
Then next time is expecting 2250/ week wage.

I'm not sure the wage inflation caused by a player doing well would be any more than in the current system.

It would discourage good players from winding down their contracts and leaving for free, and if they have played so well that they could justifiably expect a much higher renegotiated contract, we will have the usual problem of deciding whether we can actually afford to renew this valuable player we have under contract.
Problem is that your defining a fixed rate, e.g. 50% up in year 1. That's quite a jump ( could reduce but then less appeal ). It'd be pretty hard to keep a player within out tight budgets with such a fixed system.

If there's negotiations, then were going to end up with same situation as now, but with players all wanting the higher rate. Like if there's a wage cap per player , everyone wants the cap wage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hamish
Apr 25 2013, 02:48 PM
The club doesn't have to accept the £500,000.
Which is precisely my point. The golden goodbye has several unintended consequences, one of which is that it discourages transfers to actually happen.

Take, for example, Craig Conway. Ayr United had a 20% sell-on clause. So, when Middlesbrough showed interest in 2010, they had to offer 120% of United's asking price to match United's valuation. Need I remind anyone that they didn't and Mr Conway left for nothing in 2011.

Of course, if Mr Conway himself had been in line for the 20% he might have played better, or lobbied earlier for a transfer, or something. Alternatively, he might have seen the expression of interest as a good indication that he'd be able to wait for six months then sign somewhere nice on a pre-contract, thereby picking up a sizeable bonus.

For the buying club, you've presented the option of paying 120% of the player's valuation or waiting a year and paying ~20% of the player's valuation direct to the player. It makes no difference to the player himself. He gets the same amount of cash either way. For the buying club, saving ~80% of the transfer fee is a powerful incentive to just hang on a year. So, in effect, the paydown clause becomes the device whereby buying clubs can tap up their free transfers early.

I'm not suggesting golden goodbye type contracts are unworkable. Clearly, for Goodwillie, it worked well. And for Mark Wilson, it worked very badly indeed. What we're talking about here is a potential contract structure for players who are younger and unproven; these are the ones the club wants to retain if they're any good and punt if they're not. An elegant and relatively low-risk way to do this is to front-load their wages. Is that clear? God, I really hope that's clear.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hamish
Member Avatar
Ian McCall
[ *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Apr 25 2013, 05:57 PM
Hamish
Apr 25 2013, 02:48 PM
The club doesn't have to accept the £500,000.
Which is precisely my point. The golden goodbye has several unintended consequences, one of which is that it discourages transfers to actually happen.

Take, for example, Craig Conway. Ayr United had a 20% sell-on clause. So, when Middlesbrough showed interest in 2010, they had to offer 120% of United's asking price to match United's valuation. Need I remind anyone that they didn't and Mr Conway left for nothing in 2011.

Of course, if Mr Conway himself had been in line for the 20% he might have played better, or lobbied earlier for a transfer, or something. Alternatively, he might have seen the expression of interest as a good indication that he'd be able to wait for six months then sign somewhere nice on a pre-contract, thereby picking up a sizeable bonus.

For the buying club, you've presented the option of paying 120% of the player's valuation or waiting a year and paying ~20% of the player's valuation direct to the player. It makes no difference to the player himself. He gets the same amount of cash either way. For the buying club, saving ~80% of the transfer fee is a powerful incentive to just hang on a year. So, in effect, the paydown clause becomes the device whereby buying clubs can tap up their free transfers early.

I'm not suggesting golden goodbye type contracts are unworkable. Clearly, for Goodwillie, it worked well. And for Mark Wilson, it worked very badly indeed. What we're talking about here is a potential contract structure for players who are younger and unproven; these are the ones the club wants to retain if they're any good and punt if they're not. An elegant and relatively low-risk way to do this is to front-load their wages. Is that clear? God, I really hope that's clear.
If anything has unintended consequences, it would be front-loaded salaries. But that's another matter.

Mark Wilson and Craig Conway are irrelevant. Wilson is from the football club finance stone age and we don't pay for players like Conway any more.

The Goodwillie example is the most relevant as it relates to the position the club is in as regards players now - ie: the most marketable assets, Russell and GMS. Plus, in the next few years, the current middle teenagers in the first team + Armstrong.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Skeletor
Member Avatar
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Also, Dundee United's "front-loaded contracts" would still pale in comparison to flat rate wages on offer from most buyers of our finer products, meaning they'd still be likely to tell us "It's not you, it's me" and move on to a big titted English blonde. Or if they're the type who's inclined to show a bit of 'integrity' they'll agree to hold our hand for another year regardless of "front-loading". It's a poor idea overall.

The loan idea would require far too much capital, but as an idea it's veering towards the right direction and I can see players avoiding it where possible. There are no burdens on players other than the fickle loyalties expected by supporters. This is business. We need a better system of financial burden placed directly onto the player. Ideally football contracts would be how they could have been pre-1995, on an infinite basis until the club decides to sell or a minimum buyout clause is activated. However thanks to the Bosman Ruling we have a lovely capitalist system where the rich get richer and the poor remain poor. We'll remain largely how we are until either a miracle happens or someone sets the precedence in how to tie players to an astute, locked contract.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
:'(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clarkie
Mac an t-stronaich
[ *  *  *  * ]
Maybe we should copy the pilot model, budding footballers "parents" pay for their offsprings training.

They then all battle it out to get taken on by a contracting company that provides qualified staff to spl clubs.

The spl clubs contract with these companies to provide them with enough qualified staff to fulfill their timetable erm sorry fixtures. Then once they have enough experience the players feck off to a well paying job in the middle east.

Works for Ryanair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hamish
Apr 25 2013, 08:26 PM
If anything has unintended consequences, it would be front-loaded salaries. But that's another matter.

Mark Wilson and Craig Conway are irrelevant. Wilson is from the football club finance stone age and we don't pay for players like Conway any more.

The Goodwillie example is the most relevant as it relates to the position the club is in as regards players now - ie: the most marketable assets, Russell and GMS. Plus, in the next few years, the current middle teenagers in the first team + Armstrong.



The unintended consequences of front-loaded salaries is one of the matters at hand, Hamish. It's not in place anywhere I'm aware of, so talking it through now could be quite interesting don't you think?

Why exactly are the Wilson and Conway cases so irrelevant? I can't think what has happened in the intervening years and months since they left that has changed things significantly. Some contract law legislation of which I am unaware?

The Goodwillie example - how typical do you think it is that an in-demand player will sign a contract extension when there was really no need to, just so that the club that raised him could profit from and control his sale?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
whatsthatonyourback
Member Avatar
Waldo Jeffers
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Skeletor
Apr 25 2013, 10:14 PM
Also, Dundee United's "front-loaded contracts" would still pale in comparison to flat rate wages on offer from most buyers of our finer products, meaning they'd still be likely to tell us "It's not you, it's me" and move on to a big titted English blonde. Or if they're the type who's inclined to show a bit of 'integrity' they'll agree to hold our hand for another year regardless of "front-loading". It's a poor idea overall.
I'm not saying anything is going to stop Man U, or even Blackburn, offering a young player of ours the sort of money that is utterly unmatchable and un-refusable.

That next paragraph of yours of placing financial burden on the players demonstrates how impossible and undesirable it is to prevent a good player of ours moving on to better things, and how, morally, such a solution is indefensible. On a, y'know, human level. So, erm, well done for demonstrating that.

So you're agreed there is a problem. You've demonstrated that you don't have anything lined up as a solution.

Could you describe the pros and cons of the Frontloading system without testing it against a scenario that it is not designed to deal with?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Any Football · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 33

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.