Berbatov's Contract

[rez9000]

With all the talk of Berbatov's supposedly inevitable departure, mention has been made of the fact that he can buy out his contract once he reaches a certain time-frame (not exactly clear what that is).

The question that occurs is this: what exactly is involved with a player buying out his contract? Do we have to honour his request and release him if he pays whatever he has to pay? Or can we say, 'no, sorry, we want you to complete your contract' ?

BTW, my name is Damien Comolli and this counts towards the Player Contracts and Transfers module of my GCSE.

 

[phil]

It's age related but I understand that Berbatov will be able to buy out his contract at the end of next season. The club cannot refuse and the amount of 'compensation' is the salary from the date of the buy-out till the end of the contract. Not sure if the 2 year option counts but it would mean he could buy out his contract for either £3M or £9M (assuming he's on £3M per year). He would not be able to join a team in the EPL.

 

[rez9000]

Thanks phil. I was just wondering whether we should refuse to sell and then release him at the end of his contract, but if we have to effectively choose between getting £3m and £20-35m, then I it's obvious which choice we need to take. That's if he's IS hellbent on leaving, of course.

 

[AllSeeingEye]

Why not keep him until next Jan? Clubs will be clamouring for him then and Spurs would definitely go for money over risking the consequences of keeping him on til next May.

Besides, we may have a decent spot in the league by then and he might not want to leave.

Anyone?

 

[Petyr]

Why not keep him until next Jan? Clubs will be clamouring for him then and Spurs would definitely go for money over risking the consequences of keeping him on til next May.

Besides, we may have a decent spot in the league by then and he might not want to leave.

Anyone?

In January he will cost less money as only 4 months later he could leave on Webster. This summer is the last chance Spurs to take big money for him. This makes me think he is off.

 

[Flatters]

That's just ridiculous if true. :-|

 

[adiepf]

Berbatov is unable to buy his contract out because there is no definate end date.

this is due to the club having a 2 year extension clause written into it, ie: Berba has 2 years left on his deal atm, however the club can & will activate their 2 year extension to either tie him down or demand a higher fee because of his contract length.

if you remember rightly they did this with Steve Kelly, his contract was almost up & he was gonna be available on a free so they activated his extension clause & birmingham had to pay a fee.

Dimitar Berbatov can NOT buy out his spurs contract

 

[Petyr]

Berbatov is unable to buy his contract out because there is no definate end date.

this is due to the club having a 2 year extension clause written into it, ie: Berba has 2 years left on his deal atm, however the club can & will activate their 2 year extension to either tie him down or demand a higher fee because of his contract length.

if you remember rightly they did this with Steve Kelly, his contract was almost up & he was gonna be available on a free so they activated his extension clause & birmingham had to pay a fee.

Dimitar Berbatov can NOT buy out his spurs contract

I'm afrraid your argument is just wishful thinking. What counts is the player's age and how many years he has been at the club. He gets 28 next year and makes 3 seasons at the club next summer. The only question is whether he is going to buy out 1 or 3 years from his contract.

The most important thing is how much the player wants out. If he is desperate to leave, the club cannot stop him as it makes no sense to keep an unhappy player who can buy out his contract in a year's time.

 

[nicdic]

I'm not convinced that it's that simple. Isn't this what Hleb was thinking of doing, but Wenger has said it's not quite so simple. :shrug:

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

I'm afrraid your argument is just wishful thinking. What counts is the player's age and how many years he has been at the club. He gets 28 next year and makes 3 seasons at the club next summer. The only question is whether he is going to buy out 1 or 3 years from his contract.

The most important thing is how much the player wants out. If he is desperate to leave, the club cannot stop him as it makes no sense to keep an unhappy player who can buy out his contract in a year's time.

Sorry but you are talking out of your anus :roll:

Foe a player to buy out the rest of their contract they must be over the age of 28 AND have 2yrs or less remaining on their current contract. Berb's extra 2 years will obviously come into play because if he say's i'm buying myself out we just say, no your not because we are activating the 2yr extension... it is pretty simple.

 

[Petyr]

I'm not convinced that it's that simple. Isn't this what Hleb was thinking of doing, but Wenger has said it's not quite so simple. :shrug:

Could Wenger say something different, provided he is going to lose a player like Hleb for only £3m? Time will tell whether he is right. The fact that a club like Inter engage themselves with such a deal is eloquent.

 

[Petyr]

Sorry but you are talking out of your anus :roll:

Foe a player to buy out the rest of their contract they must be over the age of 28 AND have 2yrs or less remaining on their current contract. Berb's extra 2 years will obviously come into play because if he say's i'm buying myself out we just say, no your not because we are activating the 2yr extension... it is pretty simple.

That's great if true. But I don't think it is. I may be wrong though. Could you cite me evidence about that second condition?

Waiting for your knowledgable answer, I will cite an article about the Webster rule:

"Andy Webster ruling set to herald a revolution to rival BosmanGraham Spiers
Football may be about to experience another Bosman-like tremor after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland yesterday brought clarity to Fifa’s infamous Article 17 and went some way to spelling the end for the game’s biggest transfer fees.

The specific case concluded in Lausanne was the long-running saga of Andy Webster, the Scotland defender, who was finally ordered to pay Heart of Midlothian a paltry £150,000 for walking out on the club for Wigan Athletic with a year remaining on his contract in August 2006.

The Webster case has absorbed Fifpro, the global players’ union, and is significant not for its own specific merits but for its wider implications. In effect, Fifa has established that a footballer is entitled unilaterally to terminate his contract with his club, even if it still has one, two, or sometimes three years left to run.

The clarification of yesterday’s Webster ruling could have a dramatic effect on the likes of Frank Lampard at Chelsea and Cristiano Ronaldo at Manchester United. Ronaldo, in particular, has recently signed a new, long-term deal at United, putatively tying him to Old Trafford until 2012, though under Article 17 he could walk away much earlier."

 

[adiepf]

Petyr, the player MUST have less than 2 years remaining.

Berbatov can deffinately not buy out his contract.

 

[Petyr]

Petyr, the player MUST have less than 2 years remaining.

Berbatov can deffinately not buy out his contract.

Read the article above your post.

 

[adiepf]

Read the article above your post.

Under Article 17 of Fifa's transfer regulations, players who sign contracts when aged under 28 are able to unilaterally break those contracts after three years. If the player is 28 or over, he can break his contract after two years. Compensation is payable, but crucially a player's destiny lies in his own hands. But until Webster's case, no player had ever tested the rule. Yesterday's decision by Fifa enshrines the rule, even if it leaves grey areas over how the compensation figure is reached.

like i said Berba can NOT terminate his contract with Spurs.

a) he hasnt completed 3 years with us

b) any activation by Spurs is deemed as a new contract so he will have to stay for a minimun of 3 years

 

[Petyr]

Under Article 17 of Fifa's transfer regulations, players who sign contracts when aged under 28 are able to unilaterally break those contracts after three years. If the player is 28 or over, he can break his contract after two years. Compensation is payable, but crucially a player's destiny lies in his own hands. But until Webster's case, no player had ever tested the rule. Yesterday's decision by Fifa enshrines the rule, even if it leaves grey areas over how the compensation figure is reached.

like i said Berba can NOT terminate his contract with Spurs.

OK, if this is true then Berba's agent fu..ed him with this 2 years option.

 

[rez9000]

Through adie's and Petyr's debate, we seem to have come up with an answer (thanks guys).

Now, I know that a number of people think that forcing a player to stay when he wants to move is not a good idea, and in general I agree.

But in the case of Berbatov, would it not be wise to insist he honour his contract? Would he be unprofessional enough to play badly on purpose?

 

[Petyr]

Under Article 17 of Fifa's transfer regulations, players who sign contracts when aged under 28 are able to unilaterally break those contracts after three years. If the player is 28 or over, he can break his contract after two years. Compensation is payable, but crucially a player's destiny lies in his own hands. But until Webster's case, no player had ever tested the rule. Yesterday's decision by Fifa enshrines the rule, even if it leaves grey areas over how the compensation figure is reached.

like i said Berba can NOT terminate his contract with Spurs.

a) he hasnt completed 3 years with us

b) any activation by Spurs is deemed as a new contract so he will have to stay for a minimun of 3 years

That's very important.

Would you please explain it? Why the activation is deemed as a new contract, provided that the player doesn't need to sign it? If the possibility for the activation is regulated by the old contract, then why it should be deemed as a new contract. This is the most important point in this discussion. Personally, I'd find it strange that it's not necessary the player to agree with the activation, given that it will be deemed as a new contract.

The cited artcile says further:

"But, more controversially, any player aged 28 or over can also now terminate his contract so long as he has served two years of its duration. Article 17, in effect, goes some way to abolishing huge transfer fees. For example, if a 29-year-old player wishes to leave one club for another – such as was the case with Thierry Henry last season – the only compensation due would be the value of his wages left on his contract."

Hence, Berbatov doesn't have the right to buy ut his contract after next season IF Spurs activate that 2 years option AND the activation is deemed as a NEW contract. I'm not sure about the latter.

 

[nicdic]

It would do him no good, as no one would want to buy him.

I still think there is more to that ruling. The player has to apply to FIFA to be able to buy out their contract and stuff.

 

[we_all_loved_freund]

That's great if true. But I don't think it is. I may be wrong though. Could you cite me evidence about that second condition?

Waiting for your knowledgable answer, I will cite an article about the Webster rule:

"Andy Webster ruling set to herald a revolution to rival BosmanGraham Spiers
Football may be about to experience another Bosman-like tremor after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland yesterday brought clarity to Fifa’s infamous Article 17 and went some way to spelling the end for the game’s biggest transfer fees.

The specific case concluded in Lausanne was the long-running saga of Andy Webster, the Scotland defender, who was finally ordered to pay Heart of Midlothian a paltry £150,000 for walking out on the club for Wigan Athletic with a year remaining on his contract in August 2006.

The Webster case has absorbed Fifpro, the global players’ union, and is significant not for its own specific merits but for its wider implications. In effect, Fifa has established that a footballer is entitled unilaterally to terminate his contract with his club, even if it still has one, two, or sometimes three years left to run.

The clarification of yesterday’s Webster ruling could have a dramatic effect on the likes of Frank Lampard at Chelsea and Cristiano Ronaldo at Manchester United. Ronaldo, in particular, has recently signed a new, long-term deal at United, putatively tying him to Old Trafford until 2012, though under Article 17 he could walk away much earlier."

It looks like a mixture of the posts is correct, so my apologies you weren't completely talking out of your anus

However the thing that confuses me now though is if we activate the 2yr extension, then he will be signing the 'new' contract after turning 28 so in effect from now he only has 2yrs on his contract that we can tie him to being that he only has to serve 2yrs of his 'new' contract...

I think i am starting to understand now why the club dont want to just invoke the 2yr clause now, obviously the optimum time to invoke it is next summer??

But yes the 2yr exension clause was a stroke of genius however, i'm not sure it was put in for ths reason as neither party would have been aware of the rule when negotiating the contract?

Anyway it does though seem that they have to have a maximum of 2yrs on the contract remaining if they signed the deal when they were under 28?

"so long as he has served three years of a four or five-year contract."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3279498.ece