Players under contract

[JE93]

Has anyone got a definite list of the players under contract for next season v those who expire in the summer?

[MikeinBlack2]

Has anyone got a definite list of the players under contract for next season v those who expire in the summer?

Martin Gray most likely!

[Darlo_Pete]

What happens if a player has a contract for next season, but we don't have the playing budget to pay it? I presume we would have to release them from their contract?

[lo36789]

What happens if a player has a contract for next season, but we don't have the playing budget to pay it? I presume we would have to release them from their contract?

Well interesting dilemma isn't it. Contracts are bi-lateral commitments so if we couldn't afford then we'd have to pay the contracts up I'd have thought (not sure if there are clauses in them to limit the cost.)

Interestingly though if we don't get the budget then Martin (plus his team) will walk at least that is the threat. Don't our accounts suggest that the non-playing salaries are circa £80,000 per annum. Now if MG & team terminate their deals are we not entitled to compensation?

Basically the way I see it. We either successfully raise the money to save the current budget, the team and the manager or we don't. In that circumstance the manager and his team walks and actually the difference in the budget plus compo could be equivalent to the playing budget deficit any how (so basically we could keep the team as is).

[Darlo_Pete]

So our only option is to raise the money for the playing budget!!

[Robbie Painter]

We'd just move players on. Its not like there won't be demand for them.

[lo36789]

So our only option is to raise the money for the playing budget!!

I don't understand which part of my post made you interpret that?

[theoriginalfatcat]

Well interesting dilemma isn't it. Contracts are bi-lateral commitments so if we couldn't afford then we'd have to pay the contracts up I'd have thought

Some previous Chairman (cast your minds back not too far) have been known to not pay players or force them out. This isn't the scenario here....I just felt like having a little dig.

We'd just move players on. Its not like there won't be demand for them.

Sad but true.

[Darlo_Pete]

So our only option is to raise the money for the playing budget!!

I don't understand which part of my post made you interpret that?

If we have to release players from their contracts we may well have to pay them off and the amount needed to do that could be nearly as much as the amount we are trying to raise to protect the plating budget.

[lo36789]

So our only option is to raise the money for the playing budget!!

I don't understand which part of my post made you interpret that?

If we have to release players from their contracts we may well have to pay them off and the amount needed to do that could be nearly as much as the amount we are trying to raise to protect the plating budget.

Think you are missing the point, we basically wouldn't do that as there would be no benefit.

If we don't raise the money we will (if threats are acted on) lose our management team and our budget won't be in a net position.

layers couldn't follow the management team out the door unless we were paid transfer fees, and they cannot legally be contacted about moving to another club unless we are approached first.

As Robbie says in those circumstances we would sell the player for a transfer fee anyway or if push comes to shove would mutually terminate their contract if they find a new club.

[TDS]

Lo, you said:

Basically the way I see it. We either successfully raise the money to save the current budget, the team and the manager or we don't.

To which Pete replied:

So our only option is to raise the money for the playing budget!!

Why then, did you ask him after that:

I don't understand which part of my post made you interpret that?

The bit that made him interpret that was the options you gave him?!

I'm not sure if you post with such a superior attitude deliberately or what, but you certainly come across as a "ref" type.

Robbie gave the answer that was needed, not your wordy offering in an attempt to sound clever.

As an aside, I'd love a list of the players still with us. Or maybe just whether the likes of Beck, Thommo, Ferguson, etc are for sure?

[Spyman]

What happens if a player has a contract for next season, but we don't have the playing budget to pay it? I presume we would have to release them from their contract?

Spennymoor take them on.

[lo36789]

Why? Because it clearly isn't our only option? If we don't raise the boost the budget money we are not lacking in options.

As Robbie says one option is sell them. I was raising that given our circumstances there is a chance that actually all we are doing is not boosting the playing budget we are basically raising an amount almost equivalent to our 'non-playing salaries', and given recent threats that amount of money won't actually be required anymore if we fail to achieve boost the budget and a private investor in the next 10 days.

[tezza]

Why? Because it clearly isn't our only option? If we don't raise the boost the budget money we are not lacking in options.

As Robbie says one option is sell them. I was raising that given our circumstances there is a chance that actually all we are doing is not boosting the playing budget we are basically raising an amount almost equivalent to our 'non-playing salaries', and given recent threats that amount of money won't actually be required anymore if we fail to achieve boost the budget and a private investor in the next 10 days.

How odd. Below is an extract from your related post on the 27th.

"Not quite. As things stand we the fans need to raise £192k by December 2017.


The thing with boost the budget is that it is an on going commitment. By December 2017 we will look to have found 500 people prepared to donate £4 per week / £8 per fortnight / £15 per month. If we don't then I suppose strictly speaking the playing budget is cut by the difference."

So is the BTB next 10 days dependent, or on going as you previously asserted?

[tezza]

PS TDS is correct about your posting. It seems to me you are the original "Billy"

[lo36789]

So is the BTB next 10 days dependent, or on going as you previously asserted?

You obviously missed Martin Gray did an interview on Saturday and said the club had to sort out what we were doing in 14 days. The reason we are doing the boost the budget is because Martin Gray wants his budget.

You also obviously haven't also looked into boost the budget in an awful lot of detail. As whilst the pledges accumulate to be £85,000 they are taken as regular payment either weekly or monthly.

So we don't need to have £85,000 in the bank by December 2017. We need to have inside I think on the official timescales in the next 2 months pledges which cumulatively reach £85,000 over a year. That timescale doesn't however fit with Martin Gray's interview on Saturday as he wants his budget agreed in the next 10 days by the sounds of it.

[tezza]

I gave up listening to Martin Gray for the time being, a couple of weeks ago. Following what I would say amounted to a public embarrassment of some of the people who have greatly assisted him to where he is today. What MG want, never mind his budget is to get us off the "laughing stock" peg he placed us upon. How long has it been now, sure you will remind me. Still no substance or a single fact. Similarly I have never listened to you and your "I think" statements which as I and others have said are at best irritating and worst totally boring which probably reflects generally your circumstance.

[lo36789]

I gave up listening to Martin Gray for the time being, a couple of weeks ago. Following what I would say amounted to a public embarrassment of some of the people who have greatly assisted him to where he is today. What MG want, never mind his budget is to get us off the "laughing stock" peg he placed us upon. How long has it been now, sure you will remind me. Still no substance or a single fact. Similarly I have never listened to you and your "I think" statements which as I and others have said are at best irritating and worst totally boring which probably reflects generally your circumstance.

I take that as I have answered your question sufficiently on the difference of the timescale between what I "previously asserted" and what I called out today.

[tezza]

I take it that the appendage growing out of your forehead has now reached maximum growth. Within minutes you will become un balanced, you will in topsy-turvey fashion succumb, so your arse will become your head, your legs will kick out and wiggle in a valiant attempt to restore balance. There you shall remain until some one decides to upright you. Hopefully not to soon.

[lo36789]

That's a yes it was then.

[bga]

I was thinking that the Players or Management Team, must have had a clause in their contracts that would pay a bonus should the club have been promoted this season just finished? Surely that would have been the case wouldn't it? Given the Ground grading issues, those with such a clause have been denied an opportunity to earn any such bonus. Therefore their contracts have fundamentally been changed without their consent, does that in some way mean the Club (rather than the Players) are "in breach of contract?" I guess what worries me is are the contracts as such still valid, because if they are not, we could lose out on any transfer fees if players move before the end of their contracts. Any thoughts?

[spen666]

I was thinking that the Players or Management Team, must have had a clause in their contracts that would pay a bonus should the club have been promoted this season just finished? Surely that would have been the case wouldn't it? Given the Ground grading issues, those with such a clause have been denied an opportunity to earn any such bonus. Therefore their contracts have fundamentally been changed without their consent, does that in some way mean the Club (rather than the Players) are "in breach of contract?" I guess what worries me is are the contracts as such still valid, because if they are not, we could lose out on any transfer fees if players move before the end of their contracts. Any thoughts?

Think you are inventing problems to worry about.

There is no breach of contract here that would allow players to leave for free

[theoriginalfatcat]

I was thinking that the Players or Management Team, must have had a clause in their contracts that would pay a bonus should the club have been promoted this season just finished? Surely that would have been the case wouldn't it? Given the Ground grading issues, those with such a clause have been denied an opportunity to earn any such bonus. Therefore their contracts have fundamentally been changed without their consent, does that in some way mean the Club (rather than the Players) are "in breach of contract?" I guess what worries me is are the contracts as such still valid, because if they are not, we could lose out on any transfer fees if players move before the end of their contracts. Any thoughts?

I think (but don't know) that the clause would have stated a bonus for finishing top 5 or top 1.

See what I mean? Thus negating all sorts of stuff that could possibly go wrong.

I'm sure all the contracts will be watertight.

[bga]

I was thinking that the Players or Management Team, must have had a clause in their contracts that would pay a bonus should the club have been promoted this season just finished? Surely that would have been the case wouldn't it? Given the Ground grading issues, those with such a clause have been denied an opportunity to earn any such bonus. Therefore their contracts have fundamentally been changed without their consent, does that in some way mean the Club (rather than the Players) are "in breach of contract?" I guess what worries me is are the contracts as such still valid, because if they are not, we could lose out on any transfer fees if players move before the end of their contracts. Any thoughts?

Think you are inventing problems to worry about.

There is no breach of contract here that would allow players to leave for free

Spen I am not "inventing problems," I was questioning where we might stand on a potential issue!

[bga]

I was thinking that the Players or Management Team, must have had a clause in their contracts that would pay a bonus should the club have been promoted this season just finished? Surely that would have been the case wouldn't it? Given the Ground grading issues, those with such a clause have been denied an opportunity to earn any such bonus. Therefore their contracts have fundamentally been changed without their consent, does that in some way mean the Club (rather than the Players) are "in breach of contract?" I guess what worries me is are the contracts as such still valid, because if they are not, we could lose out on any transfer fees if players move before the end of their contracts. Any thoughts?

I think (but don't know) that the clause would have stated a bonus for finishing top 5 or top 1.

See what I mean? Thus negating all sorts of stuff that could possibly go wrong.

I'm sure all the contracts will be watertight.

I sort of get what you mean, but surely a bonus for finishing top 5 as we did, would/could be paid for from the gate receipts from any home semi final?

[spen666]

I was thinking that the Players or Management Team, must have had a clause in their contracts that would pay a bonus should the club have been promoted this season just finished? Surely that would have been the case wouldn't it? Given the Ground grading issues, those with such a clause have been denied an opportunity to earn any such bonus. Therefore their contracts have fundamentally been changed without their consent, does that in some way mean the Club (rather than the Players) are "in breach of contract?" I guess what worries me is are the contracts as such still valid, because if they are not, we could lose out on any transfer fees if players move before the end of their contracts. Any thoughts?

Think you are inventing problems to worry about.

There is no breach of contract here that would allow players to leave for free

Spen I am not "inventing problems," I was questioning where we might stand on a potential issue!

Have it your way.


There is only a problem in your mind. You are inventing a problem


Has an player claimed a breach of contract?

Even if they did the remedy would be payment of bonus if anything. They would not be able to repudiate the contract for such a minor breach (even if there were a breach)

[spen666]

I was thinking that the Players or Management Team, must have had a clause in their contracts that would pay a bonus should the club have been promoted this season just finished? Surely that would have been the case wouldn't it? Given the Ground grading issues, those with such a clause have been denied an opportunity to earn any such bonus. Therefore their contracts have fundamentally been changed without their consent, does that in some way mean the Club (rather than the Players) are "in breach of contract?" I guess what worries me is are the contracts as such still valid, because if they are not, we could lose out on any transfer fees if players move before the end of their contracts. Any thoughts?

I think (but don't know) that the clause would have stated a bonus for finishing top 5 or top 1.

See what I mean? Thus negating all sorts of stuff that could possibly go wrong.

I'm sure all the contracts will be watertight.

I sort of get what you mean, but surely a bonus for finishing top 5 as we did, would/could be paid for from the gate receipts from any home semi final?

How would that work if they had finished 4th or 5th and not had a home semi

[Darlo Since 68]

We would have had at least 1 home game as the semis in this league are over 2 legs. Home and away

[theoriginalfatcat]

I was thinking that the Players or Management Team, must have had a clause in their contracts that would pay a bonus should the club have been promoted this season just finished? Surely that would have been the case wouldn't it? Given the Ground grading issues, those with such a clause have been denied an opportunity to earn any such bonus. Therefore their contracts have fundamentally been changed without their consent, does that in some way mean the Club (rather than the Players) are "in breach of contract?" I guess what worries me is are the contracts as such still valid, because if they are not, we could lose out on any transfer fees if players move before the end of their contracts. Any thoughts?

I think (but don't know) that the clause would have stated a bonus for finishing top 5 or top 1.

See what I mean? Thus negating all sorts of stuff that could possibly go wrong.

I'm sure all the contracts will be watertight.

I sort of get what you mean, but surely a bonus for finishing top 5 as we did, would/could be paid for from the gate receipts from any home semi final?

The bonus would have been financed by an extra match or possibly two - but in this case I would presume that the players were paid a bonus anyway.

I certainly hope so, it would be unfair to them to finish top 5 (their goal) then been denied a bonus through no fault of their own. It was bad enough not getting the chance to play for promotion, which could have been achieved - as presently Chorley are still battling away in extra time against Halifax in the final.

[bga]

We would have had at least 1 home game as the semis in this league are over 2 legs. Home and away

Darlo Since 68 & bga 1 Spen Nil.