I tried replying to this whilst at work, but my phone is ready for an upgrade and is useless and I only ended up disliking your post by the looks of it. My apologies. What I was going to say in response was summat like this... I remember the thread you're referring to, and I can see why you're stating the above. Can't though see why you're quoting me to make your point. As I've explained at least once since, I agreed with Gordon Ottershaw's initial post regarding players getting their contract paid up by a club looking to sell them against their wishes. I agreed, because just last season a player I know very very well was subject to exactly that kind of deal. I don't know all the ins and outs of player contracts and their myriad clauses, but I do know full well that what I assumed Gordon was referring to was entirely plausible as I'd seen it first hand. However, as I explained afterwards, Gordon's opinion on it started to deviate from what I first imagined he'd meant. And again, I can't for the life of me see it being correct that every player sold by a club is entitled to their contract being paid up in full. I'm guessing (aren't we all?) that's not what he meant, but if it was, then I'd have to disagree. So no, I doubt COG's circumstances or BFC's are anything like that of the player I know or the club who sold him. Therefore I'm pretty sure (as sure as I can be, guessing) COG won't be receiving his outstanding wages or whatever. It was brought up initially when discussing possible reasons for giving Steele a free transfer. Turns out it was one of the myriad clauses included in contracts these days. Which nobody suggested in that thread. Strange, because it seems obvious now when you think about it. Again, apologies for the dislike.
I wasn't quoting you because you contributed to that other thread. I didn't actually respond to you in that thread, just Gordon. I didn't read what you had written all that carefully because that seemed like a different issue to me and it was what Gordon was saying that I was having trouble with. I wasn't claiming that you had previously implied we would have to pay all O'Grady's wages. The only reason I quoted you was that in this thread you said we'd no longer have to pay O'Grady's wages. In an earlier thread other people have said we would still have to pay him. I no longer have a clue how the transfer system works because everything I thought I knew I was told was incorrect earlier this week. Not by you and I wasn't having a go at you, I was just linking it back to an earlier discussion. I gave you the two fingers about the dislike though.
I don't blame you. But if you saw the state of my phone you'd ask me how it's even possible to get internet connectivity. Ask [MENTION=7244]bossman[/MENTION]. It's a ******* relic. I've been getting an upgrade for about three years now. Think I might just use the missus' old un when she upgrades. Blackberry though. Not keen. ******* hell, I've digressed a bit theear. I'd like Gordon to explain what he meant, but I've not seen him on here since.
All I'll say is he doesn't half get some admiring glances of women jay until they realise it's his phone in his pocket,
I don't want to start all this up again, because people were taking it too literally, but basically the players will have a great deal of clauses written into their contracts (as apparently we have found out with Steele) in just the same way that clubs will insert clauses into the contracts. The paying the contract clause should be seen as a starting point for negotiations, as that is all it is really. Steele was bound to have something built into his contract to counter the fact that we'd inserted a relegation clause into his contract. It's not a case whereby we sell a player pay him up and that's that, although it might well be in certain circumstances. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Vaz Te demanded being paid up before he left, for example. I would expect that with O'Grady we'll have agreed to release him to another club, in the knowledge he's going to be receiving a tidy signing on fee and better wages, if he signs his compromise agreement with us to waive the wages for the rest of his contract and any loyalty bonuses and things like that which are built into his contract. The cards are in our favour somewhat with this deal, as he will be moving on to a far better financial package and will be moving up a division. On the other hand, if we were to get shut of Kennedy it will almost definitely be on a free transfer, because it is unlikely he will be moving to a club higher up the league and on to better money. He will know that he holds the cards in this one, because we are desperate to offload him, and will be making demands that COG wouldn't get away with. If COG had demanded a hefty severance package we'd have simply kept him. With Kennedy we clearly don't want him, so I would imagine that it literally will (as people have joked) cost us money (in the short term) to get rid of Kennedy. It should be viewed more as cutting our losses. What the club has got to do is add up whether getting rid of him and bringing in a replacement would be more advantageous (both in terms of performance and financially) than just keeping and playing Kennedy. But for definite, if anybody wants to take Kennedy off us his agent and himself will be making financial demands of us to let him go and, if he doesn't like what we're offering (as he didn't in January apparently), he will dig his heels in and refuse to go.