Why Are Player/Manager Contracts One Way?

Everyone is saying Bolton can't afford to sack Freedman and his cronies even if they wanted to, because they'd have to fork out thousands (if not millions) to pay up their contracts. And, of course, this is true.

But why do clubs put forward these contracts in the first place? With contract and employment law the way it is today, football is no different to any other business and footballers are no different than binmen, doctors, office workers and sex therapists. If any of those employees performed badly over a long period of time they would be sacked. No redundancy, no big pay off, just a P45 and a box with their possessions in.

So why isn't it the same in football?

Why didn't Zat Knight get a verbal warning midway through last season for being shite? Why didn't he then get a written warning about his performance? Because after his performances this season the club would now have grounds to sack him without having to pay him to fuck off.

Same with Freedman, Gartside could give him a verbal warning today for the pitiful start to the season, a written warning in a couple of weeks after more defeats, then a P45 by mid-October. And Bolton wouldn't have to pay a penny in compensation.

Am I just stating the bloody obvious, but clubs don't have the balls to enforce this system?

Good point.
I would imagine that the clubs have the right to do this and they certainly have disciplinary contingencies in place, however they seem to view players as assets with a resale value and therefore have to consider their potential losses (and the cost of replacement) if they do sack someone.
I also imagine that in this day and age, players will insist on a number of clauses that cover their asses that have become a standard part of player's contracts since the ascendancy of agents. Most clubs no longer have the whip hand when signing players - sad but probably true.

wanderlust wrote: Most clubs no longer have the whip hand when signing players - sad but probably true.

Absolutely. The balance of power has swung too far in favour of the players.

Footballers and managers sign a contract such as they will receive £20,000 a week for 3 years, they never have contracts like your every day worker in real life who are made permanent employees. So even if they are sacked or sold on - the player/manager is still entitled to their pay for the whole contract. This is why clubs demand a player issue a transfer request if they leave which means they waive their right to the rest of the contract.
However, in the real world people don't sign contracts like that but permanent employees are entitled to redundancy pay if they are made redundant.

Michael Bolton wrote:Footballers and managers sign a contract such as they will receive £20,000 a week for 3 years, they never have contracts like your every day worker in real life who are made permanent employees. So even if they are sacked or sold on - the player/manager is still entitled to their pay for the whole contract. This is why clubs demand a player issue a transfer request if they leave which means they waive their right to the rest of the contract.
However, in the real world people don't sign contracts like that but permanent employees are entitled to redundancy pay if they are made redundant.

I thought that if a player hands in a transfer request then they waive their right to a cut out of the transfer fee or waive their right to a bonus?

I do agree with Natasha and it pisses me off that players have so much control over clubs it seems.

If the club had more control over the players then maybe we wouldn't have lost all that money from Elmander when he fucked off on a free!

wanderlust wrote:I would imagine that the clubs have the right to do this and they certainly have disciplinary contingencies in place, however they seem to view players as assets with a resale value and therefore have to consider their potential losses (and the cost of replacement) if they do sack someone.

Fair point, but players like Knight, Ngog, Mills & Mears have very little re-sale value - their resale value will be much less than the amount Bolton will have to pay them in wages until their contracts run out.

Sack Knight today and they may miss out on the £250k some mug might pay for him, but it'll save them having to pay £500k+ on his wages.

Players are a commodity so if you don't play their game they will go to someone who does.

and if you don't pay the extra few grand they want you "lack ambition" and are "penny pinchers"

the only way it will change is with a salary cap, which will never happen because the premier league couldn't care less as long as they're getting their huge TV deals.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Players are a commodity so if you don't play their game they will go to someone who does.

and if you don't pay the extra few grand they want you "lack ambition" and are "penny pinchers"

the only way it will change is with a salary cap, which will never happen because the premier league couldn't care less as long as they're getting their huge TV deals.

I get that, but let's face it, the vast majority of Championship/League 1&2 clubs are in the financial shit. If they all agreed to implement this sort of contract how could they lose out? It's not as if Zat Knight can say 'fuck you BWFC, I'll sign for Chelsea instead'.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Players are a commodity so if you don't play their game they will go to someone who does.

and if you don't pay the extra few grand they want you "lack ambition" and are "penny pinchers"

the only way it will change is with a salary cap, which will never happen because the premier league couldn't care less as long as they're getting their huge TV deals.

I get that, but let's face it, the vast majority of Championship/League 1&2 clubs are in the financial shit. If they all agreed to implement this sort of contract how could they lose out? It's not as if Zat Knight can say 'fuck you BWFC, I'll sign for Chelsea instead'.

Yeah footballers don't have all that many years playing football for a living, a lot of the league 1 and 2 players won't earn a great deal and come 35 will probably find it hard to get well paid jobs - and lets face it, 35 is still pretty young in terms of being in one's working career. 
I know an ex footballer who played in league 1 and 2 and now works on the oil rigs. 
What was the question again?

Everything's only worth what somebody's willing to pay for it. Ludicrous money going into football clubs means ludicrous money going out.

We had to give Dougie something Crystal Palace weren't willing/able to. That included a tasty contract that makes him win financially whatever the outcome of the move.

That's just what you've gotta do in order to try and compete at the level you wanna be at unfortunately. I suppose another ideal scenario would have been not having to pay for him to bring his mates with him too, but that also comes under the heading of giving them what they want in order to get what you want.

Ronnie at work today told me that Freedman didn't want to come here really, but he got an offer he couldn't turn down.

I can believe that.