Romelu Lukaku

Originally Posted by windy waffles

If club sell a player who doesn't hand in a transfer notice, pretty sure they have to pay out the rest out of his contract? If they hand one in, they don't get anything as it's, effectively, handing in your notice. Hence why Gareth Bale won't hand one in no matter how much ZZ tortures him.

If that's true then I honestly never knew that.

ywhhgr

Yeah, that's not how it works

Originally Posted by sa7

If that's true then I honestly never knew that.

ywhhgr

I may be wrong but I think it works like that.

If United decide they do not want Lukaku who has two years left on his contract on £200,000k per week, it was not his choice to leave so I think he is contractually obliged to it or at least to a porition of it. It's why you rarely see players handing them in. Pogba would hand one in if he didn't stand to lose money I'd imagine.

Originally Posted by windy waffles

If club sell a player who doesn't hand in a transfer notice, pretty sure they have to pay out the rest out of his contract? If they hand one in, they don't get anything as it's, effectively, handing in your notice. Hence why Gareth Bale won't hand one in no matter how much ZZ tortures him.

Not quite, they only have to make up the difference between his current wages and his new wages. Not usually too much of an issue, as often a player being sold on will be on a better contract at the new club. For someone like Bale, who is likely going to take a huge pay cut, it’s obviously quite a big thing.

Originally Posted by 24hr Leavesey

Yeah, that's not how it works

Ey up, Eric Hall has logged in.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Not quite, they only have to make up the difference between his current wages and his new wages. Not usually too much of an issue, as often a player being sold on will be on a better contract at the new club. For someone like Bale, who is likely going to take a huge pay cut, it’s obviously quite a big thing.

Fair play. Didn't say I knew how it would just what I was led to believe. Makes sense actually as players would be, effectively, be paid by two clubs for how many years left he had on his contract which would be insane.

Players forfeit that if they ask to leave then. Sanchez won't be handing one in that's for sure as no other stupid outfit would pay him out £500,000 p/w.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Not quite, they only have to make up the difference between his current wages and his new wages. Not usually too much of an issue, as often a player being sold on will be on a better contract at the new club. For someone like Bale, who is likely going to take a huge pay cut, it’s obviously quite a big thing.

So essentially if a player earns 100K p/w and has two years left, but moves for £90k p/w the selling club has to cover the remaining two years worth of the £10k deficit?

Makes sense otherwise it would be a loss of earnings on the players' part while the selling club might make big money out of moving them on.

Originally Posted by sa7

If that's true then I honestly never knew that.

ywhhgr

It's not true. The Squadron Leader's been on the gin again...

Originally Posted by Albert Tatlock

It's not true. The Squadron Leader's been on the gin again...

Was partly true...

Originally Posted by windy waffles

Ey up, Eric Hall has logged in.

Least I log out.

Typically, loyalty bonuses which tend to be lump sums don't get paid out when a request is made.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Not quite, they only have to make up the difference between his current wages and his new wages. Not usually too much of an issue, as often a player being sold on will be on a better contract at the new club. For someone like Bale, who is likely going to take a huge pay cut, it’s obviously quite a big thing.

Exactly. This is how it works.

Originally Posted by sa7

So essentially if a player earns 100K p/w and has two years left, but moves for £90k p/w the selling club has to cover the remaining two years worth of the £10k deficit?

Makes sense otherwise it would be a loss of earnings on the players' part while the selling club might make big money out of moving them on.

Yes, got it in one.

Originally Posted by sa7

So essentially if a player earns 100K p/w and has two years left, but moves for £90k p/w the selling club has to cover the remaining two years worth of the £10k deficit?

Makes sense otherwise it would be a loss of earnings on the players' part while the selling club might make big money out of moving them on.

Yep, that’s how I understand it.

I’m sure there’s plenty of exceptions to it, I think a lot of it probably depends on how amicable the exit is etc. But in theory, that’s how it should work.

Assume that is why we ended up paying half of Rooney's wages for two years? Still made business sense to get shot and pay him £100k p/w deficit instead of £300,000 p/w although this was probably covered by the transfer fee anyway which was never disclosed

Originally Posted by windy waffles

Assume that is why we ended up paying half of Rooney's wages for two years? Still made business sense to get shot and pay him £100k p/w deficit instead of £300,000 p/w although this was probably covered by the transfer fee anyway which was never disclosed

I think that’s was done as part of an amicable agreement to allow one of our greatest ever players to ease himself into his retirement.

What happened to the Arabs buying Newcastle? Only good thing about it is big clubs could offload their shite to them for big money because for them guys like Lukaku would be a marquee signing.

Originally Posted by Buck

What happened to the Arabs buying Newcastle? Only good thing about it is big clubs could offload their shite to them for big money because for them guys like Lukaku would be a marquee signing.

Agreed a fee but have to do the fit and proper owner tests by the Premier League (). Also an issue where the prospective buyer is a cousin of the guy who owns City and was seen as unlikely that two clubs could be bought by the same Royal family. Must be a conflict of interest issue, there...

Originally Posted by windy waffles

Agreed a fee but have to do the fit and proper owner tests by the Premier League (). Also an issue where the prospective buyer is a cousin of the guy who owns City and was seen as unlikely that two clubs could be bought by the same Royal family. Must be a conflict of interest issue, there...

Darcy’s in for a shock when she tried to buy Sunderland.

Has this fat @#%&! £#%&!ed off yet?

Cant wait to read quotes saying how united ruined him and stalled his career.

We will sell. We'll just leave it to the last min to get the best price.

Don't forget, the prem transfer window closes before the first league game for incoming players only. We can still sell until sep 1st.

Could easily see pogba and this lump starting the season for us.

Originally Posted by ScarFace

We will sell. We'll just leave it to the last min to get the best price.

Don't forget, the prem transfer window closes before the first league game for incoming players only. We can still sell until sep 1st.

Could easily see pogba and this lump starting the season for us.

That’d be a bad situation. If we sell him and Pogba, it needs to be in time for us to spend the cash. Doesn’t help us to get 100m in the bank and having Rashy and Jessy up front and a midfield of Fred, Matic and the kind of Scottish player.

Hope we get a big sum of money for him. Darcie's pool house isn't going to pay for itself you know.