If his contract has been terminated, then he's not your player now. It's all about the terms of the severance package. To be honest, as much as I'd like to see Adebayor being made to polish boots, it's not going to happen. If the club said to him, 'you're no longer in our plans and we have no role for you' then in order to protect themselves from breach of contract, they would have had to negotiate a deal with him to release him, which in all likelihood is what is being reported, that he's on his full wages for the duration of the remainder of the time he would have been contracted. (with the clause that another club must negotiate with spurs over taking on some of that payment, should he sign for them during the time the agreement is in place)
Termination is just that. Again, there is no way the club would just release him and say, "Oh, don't worry, we'll pay you your full wages until you find another job" None of us knows the facts, only the club & the player, but nobody just gets completely, unconditionally released on full wages. You're either on gardening leave, which means you're still under contract and can't work for anybody else, or you're let go with an agreed termination.
It's not a case of Spurs just saying, 'on your way son, and here's £100k per week just to say thanks'. It's them telling him that they want to sever his contract and his agent negotiating a payment deal on the back of loss of earnings. In this case, the 'agreed termination' appears to be full wages until summer 2016 or until he finds another club, even then Spurs may have to 'top up' his wages to meet the severance deal.
Ok, enough. I have stuff to do. All you're really saying is 'appears to be', ' reportedly', etc. Logic tells me that no way would he have been completely released from his contractual obligations on full wages.
Reading some of the comments in the Telegraph article, a couple of them sum up exactly why the severance deal has the third party club payments clause. 'The whole situation is an embarrassing distraction for Spurs, just pay up his contract in full and have done with it.' 'He clearly isn't a distraction at Spurs as he has been released doesn't train or have anything to do with the club. The club has to all intents and purposes got rid of him. What you are suggesting is the economics of a fool. Why pay him up till June when a situation could arise that another club could share that burden or bear it in full?'
for most players i think a lump sum would have been paid so they could get on with their career and it would have been the end of it. yet we are talking about Abeawhore and he is a total mercenary ***** who would try to get the most he can get irrespective of if he has earnt it. imo he should **** off to China or Turkey as they want all the ****s. *by the way i hated him when he played for us as he was vastly overrated and a lazy **** who never tracked back and was always offside and if the ball wasn't handed to him on a plate then would sulk all ****ing game. well thats what i used to shout at him anyway.
The comments under the Telegraph article sum up why Spurs wouldn't have paid his salary off in a lump sum, as rightly pointed out, if they could get another club to help pay towards that £100k per week until then end of the initial contract agreement, then naturally they would jump at the chance. The severance package with the clause about another club paying towards the £100k (if he signs for somebody else) makes perfect sense for Spurs, I don't know why some Spuds are trying to argue it wouldn't be the case. They would be far worse off just giving the **** the full payment up front.
I think he's a talented player, as the prominent clubs he's played for attest. However, much like Ballotelli, he has a personality defect. As regards the Spurs situation, he would not have been released from contract on full terms. Levy doesn't play like that!...
Where is your evidence for that ? It makes perfect sense that due to Spurs telling him that they were going to sever his contract, that they would be liable for his wages up until the end of the term of his initial contract. If anything, the only thing they could have done is insert a clause where if he signed for another club, then that club would have to pay towards some of those 'wages' ....... Hang on, that rings a bell
All over the internet, twitter, newspapers and media ! From several sources, all credible. The guy who wrote the story for the Telegraph is Jason Burt. He's the senior football correspondent for the Telegraph and regularly interviews Premier League players, Managers, Chairmen, The FA, he works for the BBC, SKY and travels with the England team overseas to cover them. https://twitter.com/JBurtTelegraph But you're right and he's wrong ? Where's your evidence then, that 'he would not have been released from contract on full terms' ?
I have never said that I'm sure that I'm right, unlike you who has taken newspaper speculation and their 'sources' as gospel. Logic dictates that no organisation release an employee from contract unconditionally and in full pay 'until you find another job' it's nonsensical.
You said that 'he would not have been released from contract on full terms' so where is your evidence for that ? If an organisation terminates an employee's contract before the end of that contract agreement and it's not because they are sacking them or because the organisation has gone into receivership, then I'm afraid that the employer is liable. Usually for the remainder of the contract or to pay redundancy, which usually equates to about a years salary. That is standard practice. I think you are failing to grasp the conditions of what happened with Adebayor. Spurs told him that he didn't feature in their plans. Pochettinho said as much “I think it is clear he is not in my mind or in the plans for the future of Tottenham.....The only problem now is to find a solution for him and a solution for the club' At that point, they are basically saying it's over and he has no role at the club. Now unless they want to sack him, which they can't, they will have to honour the remainder of his contract or make him a deal that he accepts, otherwise Spurs are in breach of contract. So this is the severance package. Adebayor would have been well within his rights to demand the full remainder of his salary. But Spurs have negotiated to pay him in instalments (£100k per week) until the end of the initial contract terms, or until another club sign him up and pay a percentage of that agreed amount. That makes sense for Spurs because rather than pay him the full amount, they are hoping that another club will take on some of the burden of those payments.
How many 'for the very last time' can you muster ? You seem to be trying very hard to convince yourself that this isn't the case, whilst the Telegraph, Independent, Mail, Sun, SKY, BBC,- host of other media outlets and standard employment practice all say it is. What has happened here is that because I've posted the articles, you've defaulted to having to try and argue the exact opposite, without actually thinking before you've jumped in
You said that 'he would not have been released from contract on full terms' so where is your evidence for that ?
I'm not struggling at all. You are the one struggling to understand that the contract termination is not the same thing as the severance package. By your 'logic' Spurs would have just paid him all of his wages until the end of the initial contract term up front.
