If Webster stands, I don't think we should be buying any player in their mid-twenties for more than £10 million. Our lawyers must now be reconsidering all our potential purchases this window, because we could shell out £15-20 million for a player who's worth half of that at the end of the season. Again - in the Domesday Webster scenario.
The webster clause and its implications on football (from transfer rumours)
- Thread starter Petyr
- Start date
If Webster stands, I don't think we should be buying any player in their mid-twenties for more than £10 million. Our lawyers must now be reconsidering all our potential purchases this window, because we could shell out £15-20 million for a player who's worth half of that at the end of the season. Again - in the Domesday Webster scenario.
fieryjack
Well-Known Member
- Jan 13, 2006
- 3,373
- 693
Brilliant. Thats going to be my company`s new motto, written large on all our vans.
Guardian article today stating Fat Frank may utilize Webster to buy out his contract and, far more interestingly, outlining the likely compensation a club losing a player to the Webster clause would obtain:
----------------------
Under Article 17 of Fifa's regulations for the status and transfer of players, a player who signed a contract before the age of 28 is entitled to buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed. Lampard is currently in that "unprotected" period though, technically, he should have served notice of any desire to leave Chelsea within 15 days of the final league game of last season. That would leave him open to "disciplinary measures" from Fifa, though he might consider that a risk worth taking. Webster was guilty of a similar breach, though it only cost him a ban for the first two weeks of the 2007-08 season, with the final compensation figure granted to Hearts on appeal at CAS for a player who earned around £250,000 a year only totalling some £150,000.
Lampard and his adviser have only looked into the possibility of pursuing that course of action and continue to consider their options, though Chelsea's reluctance to sanction the player's sale has left him in limbo. "The situation is ongoing," said Kenyon. "We have always maintained that we want Frank to stay and an offer was made to that effect. That offer is still on the table. Frank is under contract and he still has one year to run on that. We'd like to hope we can reach an agreement but, if we can't, we have always worked on the basis that Frank sees out the terms of his contract. Chelsea has made its position very clear to Internazionale and they have come back now with a financial offer. That will be rejected."
While Chelsea's offer of a four-year deal for a player who has already turned 30 appear generous, Lampard has been seeking a five-year contract since negotiations first began two seasons ago. While he has no complaints with the new manager at Stamford Bridge, Luiz Felipe Scolari, relations with Kenyon appear to have broken down, leaving the midfielder with three options: sign a pre-contract agreement with Inter to join under the Bosman ruling next summer, or relax his stance and sign the four-year deal on offer at Stamford Bridge. The third path - to leave under the Webster ruling - would be the most complicated, and most inflammatory in terms of his relationship with the club's supporters.
Chelsea will feel they retain a position of strength given that they possess the player's registration. Furthermore, while Hearts were ultimately deeply frustrated by the relatively small figure they received for a player they had valued at £4m, the fact that Webster's case dragged out for some 17 months before CAS reached their conclusion in January would be unsettling for the player and the buying club.
Fifa had originally decreed that Webster should pay a sum of £625,000 representing the player's wages over the final 12 months of his Hearts contract, his earning potential and legal costs. The world football governing body were highly critical of CAS's ruling - Sepp Blatter claimed it would have "far reaching and damaging effects on the game as a whole" - and, with that in mind, could potentially order Lampard to pay considerably more than the fee currently proposed by Inter to conclude the transfer in a more conventional way.
Any Fifa ruling could, of course, be reduced by CAS again, yet Lampard, and effectively Inter, would risk the possibility that the final amount needed to secure the transfer could prove exorbitant.
Inter remain confident that, despite the Londoners' knockback, they can still prise Lampard to Italy. "Jose Mourinho is still confident of securing his signing," said the Inter assistant coach, Beppe Baresi. The Italian club will return with an improved offer for the midfielder in the days to come, though they are likely to get the same response.
The Webster ruling
Andy Webster was the first player to test Article 17 of Fifa's transfer regulations, whereby players who sign contracts when aged under 28 are able to break them after three years. Hearts wanted £4m for the centre-half when he moved to Wigan in 2006. Webster's advisers believed they owed Hearts one year's wages, around £250,000, the value of the last year of his four-year contract. Fifa decreed in May 2007 that Hearts were due £625,000 and banned Webster for the start of the 2007-08 season as he had served notice of his departure outside the 15-day window at the end of a league season. Hearts and Webster appealed and, in January, the Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the compensation payable by Webster to £150,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/jul/10/1
----------------------
Under Article 17 of Fifa's regulations for the status and transfer of players, a player who signed a contract before the age of 28 is entitled to buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed. Lampard is currently in that "unprotected" period though, technically, he should have served notice of any desire to leave Chelsea within 15 days of the final league game of last season. That would leave him open to "disciplinary measures" from Fifa, though he might consider that a risk worth taking. Webster was guilty of a similar breach, though it only cost him a ban for the first two weeks of the 2007-08 season, with the final compensation figure granted to Hearts on appeal at CAS for a player who earned around £250,000 a year only totalling some £150,000.
Lampard and his adviser have only looked into the possibility of pursuing that course of action and continue to consider their options, though Chelsea's reluctance to sanction the player's sale has left him in limbo. "The situation is ongoing," said Kenyon. "We have always maintained that we want Frank to stay and an offer was made to that effect. That offer is still on the table. Frank is under contract and he still has one year to run on that. We'd like to hope we can reach an agreement but, if we can't, we have always worked on the basis that Frank sees out the terms of his contract. Chelsea has made its position very clear to Internazionale and they have come back now with a financial offer. That will be rejected."
While Chelsea's offer of a four-year deal for a player who has already turned 30 appear generous, Lampard has been seeking a five-year contract since negotiations first began two seasons ago. While he has no complaints with the new manager at Stamford Bridge, Luiz Felipe Scolari, relations with Kenyon appear to have broken down, leaving the midfielder with three options: sign a pre-contract agreement with Inter to join under the Bosman ruling next summer, or relax his stance and sign the four-year deal on offer at Stamford Bridge. The third path - to leave under the Webster ruling - would be the most complicated, and most inflammatory in terms of his relationship with the club's supporters.
Chelsea will feel they retain a position of strength given that they possess the player's registration. Furthermore, while Hearts were ultimately deeply frustrated by the relatively small figure they received for a player they had valued at £4m, the fact that Webster's case dragged out for some 17 months before CAS reached their conclusion in January would be unsettling for the player and the buying club.
Fifa had originally decreed that Webster should pay a sum of £625,000 representing the player's wages over the final 12 months of his Hearts contract, his earning potential and legal costs. The world football governing body were highly critical of CAS's ruling - Sepp Blatter claimed it would have "far reaching and damaging effects on the game as a whole" - and, with that in mind, could potentially order Lampard to pay considerably more than the fee currently proposed by Inter to conclude the transfer in a more conventional way.
Any Fifa ruling could, of course, be reduced by CAS again, yet Lampard, and effectively Inter, would risk the possibility that the final amount needed to secure the transfer could prove exorbitant.
Inter remain confident that, despite the Londoners' knockback, they can still prise Lampard to Italy. "Jose Mourinho is still confident of securing his signing," said the Inter assistant coach, Beppe Baresi. The Italian club will return with an improved offer for the midfielder in the days to come, though they are likely to get the same response.
The Webster ruling
Andy Webster was the first player to test Article 17 of Fifa's transfer regulations, whereby players who sign contracts when aged under 28 are able to break them after three years. Hearts wanted £4m for the centre-half when he moved to Wigan in 2006. Webster's advisers believed they owed Hearts one year's wages, around £250,000, the value of the last year of his four-year contract. Fifa decreed in May 2007 that Hearts were due £625,000 and banned Webster for the start of the 2007-08 season as he had served notice of his departure outside the 15-day window at the end of a league season. Hearts and Webster appealed and, in January, the Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the compensation payable by Webster to £150,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/jul/10/1
Chris12345
LADdam Hussein
- Jan 15, 2005
- 11,908
- 31
I thought only young players could use Webster? Or am I talking out of my arse?
- Thread starter
- #25
er, yes :grin:
Two weeks ago I thought that that clause means nothing indeed as no-one wanted to use it. Since then I'm not that sure as Wenger himself said that he takes it quite seriously because it leaves clubs in a weak positon after the player has played two years. And Newcastle singed Guttierez on Webster. There was a story in Guardian yesterday that Lampard might try to buy out his contract if Chelsea stopped his move to Inter.
I think the Webster clause can only be used if official notice is given before the last game of the previous season
- Aug 18, 2005
- 6,527
- 267
This article mentions a 15 day notice period but I don't know exactly what it refers to.
The player can leave at any time provided he gives 15-days notice?
The notice period must be advised to the club within 15 days from the last league game.
The age limits are - any player who signed a contract before the age of 28 can buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed or two years if he is 28 or older.
Chimbo!
Well-Known Member
- Jan 7, 2007
- 3,594
- 3,339
They should get rid of the webster clause because it could reck football. The reason why there have been strict rules regarding contracts is to protect the small clubs from having their better players persistently poached. If this happened then there would be no competition in football at all. You only have to look at how young players under 16 are nicked off smaller clubs all the time with little to no compensation. The Webster clause creates that kind of situation for the professionals. If there is to be a Webster clause it should always go down to a tribunal and only be approved in exceptional circumstances. Newcastle have potentially created a complete mess.
No footballer is bigger then the club and this rule is undermining that statement.
No footballer is bigger then the club and this rule is undermining that statement.
