Please could you explain why footballers' contracts have specified lengths then Joe? If they can be rendered null and void at any time why do they bother putting a time period in them? I really don't understand this bit.
The length of the contract is for the benefit of the employee, not the employer. It means he is guaranteed a job (or severance equal to the value of the contract) for the duration of that contract. It doesn't mean he is tied to the employer for that duration. That would be totally unconstitutional.
You are better than that, Joe. You can't hold up something said in the distant past to make us forget things said in the recent past. The board believed he was negotiating with them up to he end, but he was just waiting for the Tottenham job. Why are some rhetorical tricks acceptable and not others, eh?
Can just imagine a player's face if one year into his five year contract we decided to stop paying him. There's a few players still on our wage bill that we would have ditched if it was that easy.
Contracts are not one sided things. Employers who need someone for six months work offer a six month contract as they NEED the worker that long. This isn't a socialist utopia. Contracts are for both parties - including length.
If someone hires me to work six months, I can still leave before that six months if I want. I can't believe you don't know how the society you live in works.
Thanks, that makes sense. It also explains the point I was trying to make yesterday about the Bosman ruling making it impossible for clubs to hold on to a player who wants out, even near the beginning of a contract like twatbeard.
This depends on the contract, it's terms and periods of notice which need serving. If I were paid up front, if signing bonuses were paid, or if other clauses were agreed to, then it is not so simple. I have worked a long time and signed a lot of contracts. They are not always easy to get out of and not everything in them is for the employees benefit.
Yes I can, because it was still relevant. The board obviously wanted to do whatever they could to keep him, and just because he wasn't completely unwilling to listen to their offers doesn't mean he was stringing them along. Would you have preferred him to leave us halfway through the season instead? Just so we didn't feel strung along?
Common in the construction industry that if they want you for 6 months, they want you for 6 months. If you leave your contract early, this is likely to have a financial impact on the employer who can then sue you for breach of contract. Admit, court is a last resort, but the T&Cs of contracts will contain an agreed notice period at least.
Glad you picked that out, Joe. If we take that article as the absolute truth [OK, there's probably more to it] then we have an answer. I'll pick out a few comments made at different times. Comments in brackets are mine: "My future in Southampton has to be with Nicola," said [Poch] the manager. "The reality is we share a common passion and long-term plan for this club. It would not make much sense for me to continue at this club if he is not here."I do not understand Southampton without Nicola in the future. Nicola has created everything we see at Southampton now." With that achieved [first year survived in PL], Cortese now aims to contend for a European place. He and Pochettino want to tie up transfer targets in time for pre- season training "Hopefully we'll have everything set up for next season ahead of 1 July," said the Argentine. He added: "We will try to speed us the decisions that need to be made because, if we can't get things sorted by 1 July, players are going to have trouble adapting." Morgan Schneiderlin, Saint's captain [first I've heard of it..?] and player of the year, said if Cortese and Pochettino left: "It would put everything in question again for every single player. The chairman and Mauricio Pochettino are a big part of this club. They are selling the project to us and that's why I signed a new contract. All the players are here because we trust Southampton is going to move forward." If that is to be believed totally [remember, I'm saying IF] it means that as soon as Cortese left, this was going to happen. The players stayed until the end of the season and then some went off to find new ambition because they'd become so disenchanted. It's quite reasonable and simple when you think about it. Of course, it could all be wrong. It's just one scenario.
They can only sue you for compensation for financial loss incurred during the duration of the notice period if you failed to give notice, and a notice period is very rarely longer than a month. You are not tied to your employer for any longer than the notice period you agreed to. If there's no notice period specified, you can terminate the contract whenever you like.
Footballers agree that they will have no notice until 3 years into their contracts - as of FIFA Article 17. If they don't like it they can get a job in LIDL.
Exactly; footballers' contracts are more restrictive than for employees in pretty much any other walk of life, so how can anyone suggest that they should be even more restrictive?
No other club could sign him until his club agrees...he could walk away, but couldn't play until his contract finished or he was released. A big club led by an oligarch could see him rot. Also a lot of financial reasons not to do so...have even heard of players handing in a request to leave and still trying to claim their loyalty bonuses! Football contracts are different because all your possible employers (around the world) are members of the same association who each have an interest in maintaining status quo.
Wasn't aware that anyone was saying that. Most are saying that under the present rules, clubs can say no. Saints have just decided not to for whatever reason.
