Would rather sign Fofana (who is available) and use Gakpo as the back up 9.
Isakly what we need
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I don't know but the striker thing feels it could be an effect of the widespread adoption of 433 and striker-like wingers after Mourinho started using it in 2004. Maybe a lot of the guys who could've made good strikers became those wide forwards instead - particularly because it's easier to break into a team as a youngster in the wide positions.
whatever it takes to not be left in the lurch, getting late in the window and we're paper thin at #9. not sure how much slot rates gakpo centrally when he consistently stuck diaz there
Yes, definitely, but like, players who just play that position? As though we are never ever going to want strikers again? Like we've evolved beyond needing them and the Metagame will never move again? I find it insane.
Just keep Danns. He plays and he scores.
View: https://x.com/stancollymore/status/1958238775500308544?s=46&t=6wcnB4HyUnoowKD5QT7uAw
@Beamrider is this true? That if a club sells a player who didn’t hand in a transfer request that the selling club pays off the remaining future owed wages?
Stan Collymore explaining how salary and image rights work.
I can’t see the Tweet but I’m guessing it’s been taken down because it’s complete and utter bollocks.
Nah, I'm done. It won't happen now.
Wondering if the club thought wirtz would reject us, so panicked when he didn't and decided to go for another 100m player to reject us.
Probably shitting themselves when Isak started to agitated for the move
Wondering if the club thought wirtz would reject us, so panicked when he didn't and decided to go for another 100m player to reject us.
Probably shitting themselves when Isak started to agitated for the move
Nah, that’s not how it works. It’s possible Stan’s agent may have negotiated a contract like that for him in the past (fuck knows why), but in most cases, it’ll be paid evenly, usually at a daily rate on each pay day (so you’d get more in January than February, for example). Some clubs do player payroll 4-weekly to keep the amounts the same each pay date. None of our players was ever paid the way he describes.
Top players will usually have an image rights deal, so the £120k might be £100k salary and £20k image rights. The image rights will typically be paid to a company and be invoiced monthly.
Finally, a player might negotiate a signing-on fee, which would be paid periodically (typically annually) and clubs tend to resist them as they are still payable when a player leaves the club before the end of his contract. They only really happen when a player insists he wants a wedge up-front and the club is desperate to sign him.
Top players will usually have an image rights deal, so the £120k might be £100k salary and £20k image rights. The image rights will typically be paid to a company and be invoiced monthly.
Finally, a player might negotiate a signing-on fee, which would be paid periodically (typically annually) and clubs tend to resist them as they are still payable when a player leaves the club before the end of his contract. They only really happen when a player insists he wants a wedge up-front and the club is desperate to sign him.
I think Newcastle's ineptness in bringing anyone else in will put the kybosh on it, and we'll probably hold out until Jan whilst signing some other multi-functional forward who won't be particularly good at any one thing
They must know how pathetic their efforts to replace him have been. I strongly suspect that's part of the reason for the garbage that they, supporters like Shearer and paid lackeys like Winter have been spouting about it all.
If by January we're doing nicely and have established a pattern we no longer want to tinker with, where would that leave both Isak and Newcastle?
If by January we're doing nicely and have established a pattern we no longer want to tinker with, where would that leave both Isak and Newcastle?
I think they usually come to an agreement depending on the circs, pretty sure clubs will use an area of contract breach in some cases against the player, to negotiate, not sure though. Pretty sure Newcastle could use Isak's behaviour against him if any of it were true. Teams have an obligation to train players too, so it's complex. Beamy will know more though.
I think clubs are only liable for amounts not covered by the new contract a player signs. So if they had one year left on 5m a year but signed a deal with their new club for 4m a year then the club would be liable for the 1m shortfall in that final year.
OK, player contracts 101.
Player signs for a club, 5-year deal, £100k a week, £20k image rights. The £100k goes through payroll (tax and NIC up-front), the £20k is paid gross to his image rights company which deals with any tax obligations on the income.
On image rights, the primary motivation is saving tax and keeping costs down, but there are commercial aspects too. The standard player contract contains a basic image rights clause but it's quite restrictive on what players have to do. If there's a separate contract, they can be asked to make more appearances, including appearances on their own (the standard contract clause requires at least three players at any one gig). So the Nivea adverts are a good example - Bobby and Milner did adverts on their own, which would tell you they had image rights deals, otherwise they'd have had 2 mates in the ad as well. Nivea will have wanted just the one player, so it's more attractive to them that we can offer that. The deals also allow clubs to prevent players from doing personal appearances for competitors of our sponsors (the standard contract only prohibits this for the kit deal and shirt sponsors).
Provided the player fulfils his duties under the contract, the club is obliged to pay him the amounts due. If he doesn't, they can argue breach of contract and withhold payment and / or terminate the contract. So Isak, strictly, is in breach of his contract at present but the ability to terminate is on Newcastle's side, and they're not going to do that because they'd lose the fee. Chances are they're not paying him though (or will have imposed a fine = same difference).
In reverse, if Newcastle were to tell him to stay away from the training ground for a sustained period, he might be able to argue constructive dismissal and seek termination of his contract. I've not seen that in practice so it is, I think, a theoretical risk. But it's also why they'll be talking about possible re-integration further down the line - even if they know it's not going to happen, they have to be seen to be open to it to prevent the potential breach of contract on their side. The same would theoretically apply if they sent him to train with the kids for a sustained period. You'd need an employment lawyer to give you a full low-down on the level of risk there, but I know we had a concern about it with the odd player down the years.
Player gets injured, club still has to pay. He may not be fulfilling his player duties but it's because he can't, not because he won't. Player gets career-ending injury, club still obliged to pay but in practice the parties will agree a termination of the contract as it's in both their interests not to drag things out. In that situation, the player will get most of what's due to him with a discount for getting it up-front and also being free to go on and take another job / exploit his image rights however he sees fit.
Parties agree to release the player mid-way through his contract, there will be some degree of compensation paid for loss of future earnings. It's rare to see this because of the values involved, but it does happen with youth players where the sums aren't huge, and usually it's because the kid is a knob who's not going to make it and no-one wants him around anymore. These kinds of terminations are common with managers / coaches.
On transfers:
1. A club can't just sell a player. He has to consent to go. If he refuses to sign a deal with the new club then the existing club is bound by the terms of the contract.
2. In practice, once a player has agreed to sign for another club, his existing contract will come to an end by mutual consent, releasing the current club from future payment obligations (other than signing-on fees - the player is entitled to the money on day one, it's just that the payments are spread). The image rights contract will also be terminated and fees paid up to the transfer date.
3. If the new club is paying him more, that's usually the end of things from the selling club's perspective - there is no financial loss to the player so he has no basis to make a claim for compensation. There may be a settlement if he was due a bonus shortly after leaving and the club may agree to honour that. However, so-called "loyalty" bonuses are usually structured so that they fall due after a transfer window closes, so the payment is effectively for staying with the club, and you don't get it if you do one.
4. If the new club is paying less, there's usually a negotiation for the existing club to top-up the wages for the remainder of their contract. So if his contract has 2 years to go, and he signs a 5-year deal at the new club, he'll only get the top-up for 2 years. This is a negotiation and it doesn't follow that the player will be paid the difference in full. The payments to be made will also take into account the loss of image rights income as well as salary. He may agree to take less for the sake of his career, or because he is moving to another country where the tax situation is more favourable and the net pay is equivalent, or where his bonus arrangements at the new club are more favourable. In any event, the press will say he's taken a pay-cut to move to the new club. That is bollocks.
But the point is that when a player leaves for less money, there is a negotiation and the parties come to an agreement. His playing contract ends when he leaves the club and any further payments are regulated by whatever agreement is put in place when he leaves, not by his original contract as that is terminated by mutual consent as part of the transfer process. There will then be a side-letter covering any future payments - amounts due, timing of payment and usually how they'll be treated for tax. On that latter point, if he goes to another UK club, they just go through payroll as normal. If he moves abroad, they're usually paid gross to his bank account and he has to deal with any foreign tax implications (there's no UK tax as the payment relates to duties carried out abroad, so it's not within the scope of UK tax).
That's the basics. There are complications beyond the above around transfers. For example, we had one deal where the player wanted an up-front payment but the only way we could do it was via a signing-on fee which would have been due every year for 5 years. We instead agreed a higher transfer fee and the selling club paid him an exit bonus, as they had greater flexibility around what they could do. On that point, it does seem generally that foreign FAs are less restrictive around the rules they impose than the English FA so there is often some scope to make things work either side of a transfer where it wouldn't be possible for a deal between 2 English clubs.
Player signs for a club, 5-year deal, £100k a week, £20k image rights. The £100k goes through payroll (tax and NIC up-front), the £20k is paid gross to his image rights company which deals with any tax obligations on the income.
On image rights, the primary motivation is saving tax and keeping costs down, but there are commercial aspects too. The standard player contract contains a basic image rights clause but it's quite restrictive on what players have to do. If there's a separate contract, they can be asked to make more appearances, including appearances on their own (the standard contract clause requires at least three players at any one gig). So the Nivea adverts are a good example - Bobby and Milner did adverts on their own, which would tell you they had image rights deals, otherwise they'd have had 2 mates in the ad as well. Nivea will have wanted just the one player, so it's more attractive to them that we can offer that. The deals also allow clubs to prevent players from doing personal appearances for competitors of our sponsors (the standard contract only prohibits this for the kit deal and shirt sponsors).
Provided the player fulfils his duties under the contract, the club is obliged to pay him the amounts due. If he doesn't, they can argue breach of contract and withhold payment and / or terminate the contract. So Isak, strictly, is in breach of his contract at present but the ability to terminate is on Newcastle's side, and they're not going to do that because they'd lose the fee. Chances are they're not paying him though (or will have imposed a fine = same difference).
In reverse, if Newcastle were to tell him to stay away from the training ground for a sustained period, he might be able to argue constructive dismissal and seek termination of his contract. I've not seen that in practice so it is, I think, a theoretical risk. But it's also why they'll be talking about possible re-integration further down the line - even if they know it's not going to happen, they have to be seen to be open to it to prevent the potential breach of contract on their side. The same would theoretically apply if they sent him to train with the kids for a sustained period. You'd need an employment lawyer to give you a full low-down on the level of risk there, but I know we had a concern about it with the odd player down the years.
Player gets injured, club still has to pay. He may not be fulfilling his player duties but it's because he can't, not because he won't. Player gets career-ending injury, club still obliged to pay but in practice the parties will agree a termination of the contract as it's in both their interests not to drag things out. In that situation, the player will get most of what's due to him with a discount for getting it up-front and also being free to go on and take another job / exploit his image rights however he sees fit.
Parties agree to release the player mid-way through his contract, there will be some degree of compensation paid for loss of future earnings. It's rare to see this because of the values involved, but it does happen with youth players where the sums aren't huge, and usually it's because the kid is a knob who's not going to make it and no-one wants him around anymore. These kinds of terminations are common with managers / coaches.
On transfers:
1. A club can't just sell a player. He has to consent to go. If he refuses to sign a deal with the new club then the existing club is bound by the terms of the contract.
2. In practice, once a player has agreed to sign for another club, his existing contract will come to an end by mutual consent, releasing the current club from future payment obligations (other than signing-on fees - the player is entitled to the money on day one, it's just that the payments are spread). The image rights contract will also be terminated and fees paid up to the transfer date.
3. If the new club is paying him more, that's usually the end of things from the selling club's perspective - there is no financial loss to the player so he has no basis to make a claim for compensation. There may be a settlement if he was due a bonus shortly after leaving and the club may agree to honour that. However, so-called "loyalty" bonuses are usually structured so that they fall due after a transfer window closes, so the payment is effectively for staying with the club, and you don't get it if you do one.
4. If the new club is paying less, there's usually a negotiation for the existing club to top-up the wages for the remainder of their contract. So if his contract has 2 years to go, and he signs a 5-year deal at the new club, he'll only get the top-up for 2 years. This is a negotiation and it doesn't follow that the player will be paid the difference in full. The payments to be made will also take into account the loss of image rights income as well as salary. He may agree to take less for the sake of his career, or because he is moving to another country where the tax situation is more favourable and the net pay is equivalent, or where his bonus arrangements at the new club are more favourable. In any event, the press will say he's taken a pay-cut to move to the new club. That is bollocks.
But the point is that when a player leaves for less money, there is a negotiation and the parties come to an agreement. His playing contract ends when he leaves the club and any further payments are regulated by whatever agreement is put in place when he leaves, not by his original contract as that is terminated by mutual consent as part of the transfer process. There will then be a side-letter covering any future payments - amounts due, timing of payment and usually how they'll be treated for tax. On that latter point, if he goes to another UK club, they just go through payroll as normal. If he moves abroad, they're usually paid gross to his bank account and he has to deal with any foreign tax implications (there's no UK tax as the payment relates to duties carried out abroad, so it's not within the scope of UK tax).
That's the basics. There are complications beyond the above around transfers. For example, we had one deal where the player wanted an up-front payment but the only way we could do it was via a signing-on fee which would have been due every year for 5 years. We instead agreed a higher transfer fee and the selling club paid him an exit bonus, as they had greater flexibility around what they could do. On that point, it does seem generally that foreign FAs are less restrictive around the rules they impose than the English FA so there is often some scope to make things work either side of a transfer where it wouldn't be possible for a deal between 2 English clubs.
Least you seem happy about it
Yeah, another former club accountant had also said Stan wasn't right but I didn't know who to believe until the Almighty Beamy confirmed it.
He might have had a deal like that, with a signing-on fee paid 6-monthly, but I've never seen one like that in practice, so for him to say that's how everyone is paid is nuts.
I thought Hasselbaink got this one spot on, especially exposing the difference between what O’Leary and Ridsdale claimed.
View: https://youtu.be/uBTBFyo00xI?si=KQWPREpAhlkEHt6M
View: https://youtu.be/uBTBFyo00xI?si=KQWPREpAhlkEHt6M
Awesome; mind-boggling stuff. How many slices of Memory Bread did that take? Or maybe you're that kid with the photographic memory.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpup_xfhqkk&t=30s
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpup_xfhqkk&t=30s
Hasselbaink seems like a pretty sharp guy. Always liked him, even though he played for Chelsea. Smashing shots with little backlift.
Gakpo can't play as a winger but has 156 goals and assists in 222 games AS a winger.
His development has gone just fine and he's fucking good at it.
Where did you get those stats from, they're insane numbers.
Really? I don't think he comes across as very bright or very honest, tbh. Sounds to me like he wanted to stay at Leeds like Trent wanted to stay at Liverpool. He was either going to get paid more than Leeds could afford or leave on a free and rake it in somewhere else.
Cody Gakpo - Detailed stats
These are the detailed performance data of FC Liverpool player Cody Gakpo. The website contains a statistic about the performance data of the player.
Cody Gakpo - Detailed stats
These are the detailed performance data of FC Liverpool player Cody Gakpo. The website contains a statistic about the performance data of the player.www.transfermarkt.com
Ah, it goes right back to underage. Makes sense.
