Not worth the paper it's written on

Since Bosman, the contracts are weighted too heavily on the players’ side. That’s why you have to sell a player when they decide they want to leave (like Barmby), or let them go if they are running down their contract (like Pienaar). Players hold all the aces.

There is no question that clubs have to uphold their side - there would be uproar if they didn’t pay an injured player, for example, and rightly so. Yet players are often found guilty of conduct that would be a sackable offence for most of us, and yet all they get is a 2 week fine, or a small ban, and then life carries on as normal.

At Everton, we haven’t seen too many instances of player power, because it appears we have always tended to have good characters playing for us. But there are lots of examples of players holding clubs to ransom, and not too many examples of clubs exploiting players any more.

That said, it is a level playing field. We all know the rules, and we need to make sure we protect ourselves by not allowing players (or managers!) to run their contracts down.

If a player no longer wants to play for the club, like Barmby, the club is effectively forced to sell him. To not do so risks the player downing tools, and his value dropping.

Another point I would add is, where a player refuses to renew his contract, like Pienaar, again the club is forced to sell him for a reduced fee, or else he will run down his contract & leave for free...

Like I said earlier, it’s all weighted in the players’ favour, but thankfully there haven’t been too many examples of this at Everton...

Excellent post Michael.

It also highlights something that I vividly remember and weighed heavily on my mind when we were in the throes of finding Moyes’s successor.

Many names were bandied about among them that of Bilic – I was appalled, not only of the thought that he might return as manager but that many Toffees appeared to know little about his antics and holding the club to ransom during his stay at Everton.

Glad you brought it up – it sickened me.

I think you are taking the expression too literally, Michael.

The problem in football is that once a larger club bids for a player he will usually want to up sticks and make the transfer. The club’s hand is forced as the player’s heart will lie elsewhere. The decision has been made for them and the player (usually) has to be sold. However - that contract is a key factor when the two clubs agree a fee and proves to be a valuable bargaining tool.

What annoys me is the media speculation over contracts and how they spin in. Phrases like ’He’ll be out of contract next year’ suggest that the club would be doing the sensible thing by selling up. However this player may well have the best part of two years on his contract! Surely that figure isn’t to be sniffed at.

If we look at the Baines situation now we see how contracts work in an ideal situation. Here we have a club who want to keep their asset and a player so professional that he won’t kick up the slightest fuss about not being released. Perhaps this is more common than we think - though I doubt it. Club’s cannot afford to be paying unhappy players £80k pw and missing out on an inflated transfer fee.

The phrase relates to the ability of a club to keep a player against his will. You could argue that players’ contracts these days are worth their weight in gold (and contracts these days are hefty tomes).

Years back the clubs held all the aces. Players could be denied their dream move or, more commonly, the club could sell a player against his will for business reasons (profit) – as happened when we sold Alan Ball to Arsenal (and more recently Lineker to Barcelona).

With the advent of the Bosman ruling, various EU employment law changes, and the flood of money that’s come into the game, it can be argued the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Yes, top players often have "foundations" where they pour millions of tax-exempted pounds into "good causes" but in many cases the player has little or no day-to-day control. There are exceptions (Bellamy, Drogba) of course.

The other thing that grinds my nuts these days is "loyalty" clauses in players’ contracts – they were designed for exactly the scenario above where the club off-loads the player against his wishes, and back in a time when they earned a fraction of what they earn today. No place in today’s game, but clubs won’t act multi-laterally to address it.

The Premier League has spawned a multi-billion pound support industry. As well as agents, clubs are employing top executives to help "maximise secondary revenue"; "globalise the brand"; and, er, design a new logo. Many of these consultancies offer services that pay for themselves in multiples, but actually aren’t rocket science. The "football product" is now one of the most valuable media platforms in the world, with paying sponsors only too willing to jump on board. Clubs today have to embrace it, or risk being left behind.

I’ve often wondered if pro-rata would work at a club. Everyone gets paid a set salary, maybe a few pay levels depending on time at club. Then more depending on minutes on the pitch when you share out the profits from league position and cup runs.

A lot of German industry is based this way... on output... and makes for a happier, more motivated and cohesive unit of individuals.

As I work in the field of contract law it often irks me too Michael that so many people consider contracts worthless.

Likewise when I read comments like Danny’s "he will run down his contract & leave for free". Well that’s his right under the contract and he’s doing nothing wrong by it, he cannot be forced to renew against his will, slavery was rightly abolished years ago by Bosman. I look at it as ’he is honouring the terms of his contract’ and that is to be commended rather than angling for an early move.

In terms of players being sold ’against their will’ (Alan Ball, Duncan Ferguson) remember they still have to make an acceptable deal with the purchasing club and they recieve their loyalty bonuses and a proportion of the transfer fee as compensation. Players angling for a move have to forfeit their rights to loyalty payments and a transfer fee percentage as penalty for their ’breach’ of contract.

Nationally there have been some cracking examples of players getting their way despite contracts – remember that Van Hoojdonck character at Forest going on strike?

Personally I think the majority kick off if a better move comes up and more often than not they get what they want hence "not worth the paper ....etc".

In truth most players are from that "decent" but not "elite" level by the time they are early 20s and know their level only if luck goes their way will Chelsea or Man Utd come knocking.

Playing here must be great for such players given the wages and the remaining vestiges of "big club" status, I think that’s why we don’t get much nonsense – although Barmby, Lescott and Jeffers come to mind.

Eric,

It might be the player’s right, and I would never hold it against him, like I didn’t hold it against Moyes doing the same. But, as a club, we have to see that situation coming, and protect ourselves. A properly run club would not allow itself to end up in a situation where its assets are in the last 12 months of their contract. Anyone in the last 2 years of their contracts must either be sold or agree new terms. I do accept that we couldn’t do this with the likes of Sylvain Distin, who is 36 and will only be given a yearly deal. But we have to make sure that, if we sell, we get a good price for our players/managers...

Danny, are you implying we are not a properly run club?

Clubs also use contracts to prevent players leaving when they want to. Penalty clauses are usually put in place if players leave before their contract expires. The big stars may be compensated by the buying club but its not the rule. I worked abroad on contract and loyalty incentives were in place if the contact was fully honoured but forfeited if not!

Suarez and Rooney were both prevented from leaving their clubs during the last transfer window so it’s not all one way. The clubs on the other hand can sell players when they are done with them if they can get a buyer. Normally it’s the least valuable players who are most loyal as they are not wanted elsewhere.

I’m sure that, if Heitinga was wanted by any other club, he would be on his way.

After the AvdM and Gosling farces I bet the club has tightened up on its contracts. It is quite clear that Andy’s social life was detrimental to his fitness and therefore ability for football.

Danny’s case has probably knocked on the head any future gentleman’s agreements.

As this is tagged to the Gibson situation, and I’ve been out of football speak for what seems like an eternity, can someone tell me what is actually going on with regards to him missing the season due to an internationally obtained injury?

Roman,

He started playing for Ireland again after Trappatoni left.

He was declared fit enough to play despite missing games for Everton.

The new Ireland manger played him in a full game against Germany.

Then, a few days later, he started a second game, this one against Kazakhstan.

38 minutes in, he came down heavily on his knee.

It’s a bad injury — a blown ACL.

He’ll be out for most of the season, if not all of the season.

Hope this recap helps you catch up.

Eric,

I just feel we have been caught out contractually a few times, and have suffered financially because of it. The obvious one is when Moyes left, but there was also Gosling. Pienaar should also have been sold for around £8 million 12 months before his contract was due to expire. As it was, we kept him until January, and then only got £3 million for him. We will now lose Heitinga for nothing at the end of the season, and be paying him £60,000 a week to warm the bench until then.

Hopefully lessons have been learned.

AvdM is a good case to illustrate contracts heavily weighted in the players’ favour. If ever there was a man who’s activity outwith the club affected his ability to compete for a place in the team this was it (also Drenthe?). Very highly paid but seemingly free to abuse his body at length with no penalty in his contract?

There may well be grounds for sympathy with his situation & state of mind but that cost Everton a lot of money and used up a valuable place in a small squad – surely there is a clause to cover this? It wouldn’t be difficult to do regular testing for abuse of alcohol or even inability to just maintain a level of fitness – I assume that already happens. By all means don’t throw these men out on the streets, treat the problems properly but keep them on full pay?

I remember the FA pays players salaries when injured on international duty – is it too much to hope Irish FA does the same for Gibson?

I think we are all agreed on one thing though. Whichever contributor wrote "We all know that these contracts are not worth the parchment the damn things are quilled on" is obviously some sort of literary genius.

Keep on thinking that, Sam.

So, Phil says it’s about clubs having their hands forced when players want to move on...

While Matt says it’s about the power of a club to keep a player against his will.

Hmmm... two sides of the same coin? And the relationship between player and club is defined by.... the contract.

Matt, I’m glad you contributed. Can you confirm that contracts address (a) payment while injured; (b) early termination; (c) potential for transfer of registration?

[I’m guessing it’s Three Yeses]

Danny #374, given the current Heitinga situation I don’t think lessons have been learned.

Heitinga even brought it up himself in the summer saying now would be the time to sell him as his contract only has a year left to run. The Club must be holding out for a big offer in the January window.