Morgan Rogers

585 = never give up said:
Perhaps they're still following Bowl Head's accountancy model and saving on wages during closed season 🙃
Those two exciting signings that MA mentioned need get signing 🍊
Click to expand...
Lost Seasider said:
Possibly waiting on Bowler.
Click to expand...
At least someone has some common sense. When you’ve only got two or three spots to fill, the fee for a player like Bowler makes a massive difference to what you can do to fill them.

Hopefully letting a couple go will ease the situation. In terms of starting to get things moving.
 
Fulham Bmuff and Forest were t'clubs after Bowler. So we might be stuck wi' 'im. 'Appen. Gradely.
 
2A4A2430-5833-419C-9B50-33315634500A.jpeg
Think this is my personal favourite. Never even offered the job.

Do we need to continue or are you going stop acting like a nob?

I think I might stop this now as I fear you actually have genuine mental health problems to carry on with all this with the evidence we have you’re chatting utter shite.
 
I really don't see the point in going round in circles about a player that has not even signed for us yet and probably wont.
 
Lost Seasider said:
£1.2m was the figure I saw from the Villa end, and, based on my understanding of Championship finances, that's more plausible than £2m+.
Click to expand...
Tbf the source that came from was pretty much 100% right about stuff that then went on to happen.

Mentioned that Critch was on circa 10kp/w. X that by a four year contract plus a bit extra for the disruption and you’re not far away from 2.5. Which to someone like Villa is a drop in the ocean.

I can see that being true.
 
Thatseasider said:
Tbf the source that came from was pretty much 100% right about stuff that then went on to happen.

Mentioned that Critch was on circa 10kp/w. X that by a four year contract plus a bit extra for the disruption and you’re not far away from 2.5. Which to someone like Villa is a drop in the ocean.

I can see that being true.
Click to expand...

My doubt is that £2m is his estimated wage over the entire contract, and I think it's too simple to assume that's what was paid for his release, I think it's more plausible that a compromise figure would be arrived at, and £1.2m sounds more realistic to me.

The truth is that the number of people who know the true facts is extremely limited, I doubt that any of them are leaking, and everything else is guesswork.
 
Lost Seasider said:
My doubt is that £2m is his estimated wage over the entire contract, and I think it's too simple to assume that's what was paid for his release, I think it's more plausible that a compromise figure would be arrived at, and £1.2m sounds more realistic to me.

The truth is that the number of people who know the true facts is extremely limited, I doubt that any of them are leaking, and everything else is guesswork.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine the HC of a Championship club is on 500k a year. That is how a lot of transfers work, clubs have to buy out the value of the contract not always but I imagine it's an industry standard.

I know what you mean it could all be bollocks, but then again so could 1.2, didn't that come from a Villa podcast/twitter rumour.

I know which one I'm going to lean towards, the guy had a track record of being spot on with stuff. It wasn't a CritchleyCalderwoodWon't bullshit type. 🤣
 
Thatseasider said:
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine the HC of a Championship club is on 500k a year. That is how a lot of transfers work, clubs have to buy out the value of the contract not always but I imagine it's an industry standard.

I know what you mean it could all be bollocks, but then again so could 1.2, didn't that come from a Villa podcast/twitter rumour.

I know which one I'm going to lean towards, the guy had a track record of being spot on with stuff. It wasn't a CritchleyCalderwoodWon't bullshit type. 🤣
Click to expand...

I accept £500,000 as his annual wage, but instinctively, 4 years of it seems excessive even if that was the length of his contract.

I'm inclined to believe the lower figure, and I don't think anyone is actually ITL about any of this.
 
I don't think there's any reason for the club to negotiate down from the full value of Critchley's remaining contract. Villa are a rich club who aren't shy of throwing money around, their manager who they have backed incredibly well wanted Critchley and either figure mentioned is small change to them.

Add the above to, that for us, we would be left with potential costs such as hiring his replacement, replacing Critchley's backroom team, him having a very recently signed long term contract and the general disruption, I really think a full buyout of his contract would have quickly been accepted as fair between the two clubs.
 
Tango1953 said:
I don't think there's any reason for the club to negotiate down from the full value of Critchley's remaining contract. Villa are a rich club who aren't shy of throwing money around, their manager who they have backed incredibly well wanted Critchley and either figure mentioned is small change to them.

Add the above to, that for us, we would be left with potential costs such as hiring his replacement, replacing Critchley's backroom team, him having a very recently signed long term contract and the general disruption, I really think a full buyout of his contract would have quickly been accepted as fair between the two clubs.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Critchley's contract involved the club paying money to him and not vice versa, so you can't simply reverse the amounts due to him and take that as what is due to the club.

What you really need to think about is what would happen if it went to court, and it seems to me unlikely that the court would award much more than 1 x annual salary as compensation, so at £1.2m the club's substantially better off than if it went down the legal route.

It's also quite possible that there was a release clause in the contract, in which case all other discussions are moot.
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
I have a reasonable, albeit non-expert understanding of contract law.
Click to expand...

Lost Seasider said:
The problem is that Critchley's contract involved the club paying money to him and not vice versa, so you can't simply reverse the amounts due to him at take that as what is due to the club.

What you really need to think about is what would happen if it went to court, and it seems to me unlikely that the court would award much more than 1 x annual salary as compensation, so at £1.2m the club's substantially better off than if it went down the legal route.

It's also quite possible that there was a release clause in the contract, in which case all other discussions are moot.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough, I don't know much about contracts in a legal sense, however regarding the bottom quote, why then don't £100,000 grand a week players sell for 10/15 million in the transfer window? They constantly go for 30/40/50 million. I'd suggest the buying club are buying out the entirety of the contract usually with an additional charge placed on the transfer by the selling club for the disruption and/or a premium for their ability level etc.
 
Thatseasider said:
Ok fair enough, I don't know much about contracts in a legal sense, however regarding the bottom quote, why then don't £100,000 grand a week players sell for 10/15 million in the transfer window? They constantly go for 30/40/50 million. I'd suggest the buying club are buying out the entirety of the contract usually with an additional charge placed on the transfer by the selling club for the disruption and/or a premium for their ability level etc.
Click to expand...

Technically, it's the player's registrations that are being sold and not the players themselves, and that creates a much stronger way of enforcing the contract than the law itself, so the selling club is in a much stronger negotiating position to start with.

Personally, I think transfer fees of £10m+ are a nonsense anyway.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Is it?
Click to expand...


Yes. I work in commercial contracting. Under contract law, if the contract can not be fulfilled by the contracted party (in this case NC), the cost of fulfilling the contract will need to be paid to the contracting party (in this case BFC).

To simplify it, it works in almost exactly the same way as your phone contract. To terminate the contract early you have to pay out the outstanding months at the contracted monthly cost. You can't serve notice and pay out based on a notice period, unless that is written into the contract, which essentially would amount to a release fee clause. This would also work in reverse, if BFC wanted to terminate the contract with NC

The Oystons used 12 month rolling contract as a way to limit their liability when firing managers, which also had the effect of limiting the compensation due to them should it be broken by the manager.

I deal with commercial contracting day in day out, so that is my source. However, this sums it up and covers other factors that can come into play and how they are dealt with.

There is always the route of taking it to court, as you mention, to argue out certain points, however that costs in legal fees and court fees and also in this case would have left NC unable to work for AV until the case was adjudicated, which is why I strongly suspect AV will gave taken the path of least resistance in order to get NC in and working.

www.upcounsel.com

Not Fulfilling a Contract: Everything You Need to Know

Not fulfilling a contract is if one of the parties has failed to meet their contractual obligations and it can result in serious consequences such as lawsuit.
www.upcounsel.com www.upcounsel.com
 
Tango1953 said:
Yes. I work in commercial contracting. Under contract law, if the contract can not be fulfilled by the contracted party (in this case NC), the cost of fulfilling the contract will need to be paid to the contracting party (in this case BFC).

There is always the route of taking it to court, as you mention, to argue out certain points, however that costs in legal fees and court fees and also in this case would have left NC unable to work for AV until the case was adjudicated, which is why I strongly suspect AV will gave taken the path of least resistance in order to get NC in and working.
Click to expand...

The problem I see is that, in this case, the "the cost of fulfilling the contract" is hard to establish, and the salary due is not a terribly useful guide as to what that is.

At a fundamental level, the club is entitled to be in the same position as if Mr Critchley had fulfilled his contractual obligations and not suffer a loss, since MA was a free agent it's hard to see what argument could be made as to how the club is worse off beyond the compensation due to his assistants (and that point is arguable also).

I accept the point about court and legal costs, but in negotiation terms that works both ways, BFC have as much to lose as AVFC, what you've missed is the taxation implications, which don't affect the clubs but could be a substantial impediment to Mr Critchley himself.

In any event, I suspect there were termination clauses written into the contract and that overrides everything else.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The problem I see is that, in this case, the "the cost of fulfilling the contract" is hard to establish, and the salary due is not a terribly useful guide as to what that is.

At a fundamental level, the club is entitled to be in the same position as if Mr Critchley had fulfilled his contractual obligations and not suffer a loss, since MA was a free agent it's hard to see what argument could be made as to how the club is worse off beyond the compensation due to his assistants (and that point is arguable also).

I accept the point about court and legal costs, but in negotiation terms that works both ways, BFC have as much to lose as AVFC, what you've missed is the taxation implications, which don't affect the clubs but could be a substantial impediment to Mr Critchley himself.

In any event, I suspect there were termination clauses written into the contract and that overrides everything else.
Click to expand...

I think that we both have our views on this but in this instance let’s hope I’m right and you’re wrong 😜
 
Lost Seasider said:
The clubs have come to a compromise agreement, that's what always happens, whether it's £1.2m or £2.4M no-one knows, my guess is on the lower end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...
BM said in the interview words to the effect of, 'AV acted in the best possible manner and did things properly' (After tapping up Quitch that is).

Think I still lean towards the higher end of Compo
 
Lost Seasider said:
The problem I see is that, in this case, the "the cost of fulfilling the contract" is hard to establish, and the salary due is not a terribly useful guide as to what that is.
Click to expand...


It's written in black and white as the contract duration and the remuneration.

It isn't a salary by the terms of the contract.

This the end of the discussion for me as contract law is very well established and you arguments don't have any foundation in it.
 
Tango1953 said:
It's written in black and white as the contract duration and the remuneration.

It isn't a salary by the terms of the contract.

This the end of the discussion for me as contract law is very well established and you arguments don't have any foundation in it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I don't know what you do in contract law, but I hope that if we ever meet you're on the other side.
 
The link to Morgan Rogers was there before Critchley slithered off, it was always going to amplify now Appleton has taken over. I suspect we've probably banked on getting £3-4M for Bowler and that has caused issues when going for our transfers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top