Chris Martin - joined Reading on loan until the end of the season

[Rample]

Also saving Grabbans wages, but guessing if they had cash they would have signed him. Think to jump the queue they might offer full wages and hope to offload Rodwell down the line to balance things out. 

Take it there's noone there or Reading we could swap for? Would Rodwell actually be a potential DM for the rest of the season? (We pay Martin's wages they keep paying Rodwell's 70k of course.)

Hard to gauge how it will go but worst case scenario is status quo. There is no real way it will negatively affect our league position, but if Sunderland continue to be cack and he only gets 1 or 2 goals we'll only be in the same position as now, taking a reduced fee to cut our losses on wages.

Bang in 10 and they'll move heaven and earth to sign him in summer, other teams will show more interest, and thinking outside the box if we're on a Premier League budget minus Bent's wages we might also keep him.

[Jack Willow]

Norwich City is still interested in him. They are supposedly willing to buy him. The transfer sum they are offering is quite low.

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

Not sure how attractive Sunderland would be to Chris....

Whilst he was allegedly happy to travel to Fulham last year,it was also reported that he missed being with his family who are settled in Derby.

If stoke came along (**** hole but it's handy with the A50 link) I'm sure that would be preferable (for lots of other reasons too).

Reading would also be better than sunderland I would have thought,as at least he has family down that way,esp if he gets a permanent move.

Either way, CM is in the pound seat here,he doesn't have to go anywhere and can pick and choose should a few options come in...he has a three year contract at Derby that's only just begun after all.

Hopefully he will go out on loan to a side such as reading that suits his style(I know little about Sunderland's playing type)and knocks some crackers in.

That way,should the **** hit the fan with Rowett in the future,he has the option to play for another manager here...either that or he goes out to a wealthy club like stoke and we get a great return on him.

Whatever,the blokes been a legend here,a faithful servant of the club and deserves better than sitting on the bench.

 

[RiddingsRam]

10 minutes ago, lioncoeur said:

Norwich City is still interested in him. They are supposedly willing to buy him. The transfer sum they are offering is quite low.

How much ? Would be good for Martin !

[CornwallRam]

5 minutes ago, lioncoeur said:

Norwich City are still interested in him. They are supposedly willing to buy him. The transfer sum they are offering is quite low.

I've read in a few places that players automatically get their contracts paid up if the club sells them without the player having requested the transfer. I still don't entirely believe this to be true, but if it is, it might explain why we'd prefer a loan.

If Martin is on £20k per week, which seems plausible, and he's got 2.5 years on his  contact left, it means that we'd have to pay him £2.6m just to sell him, and then there's tax, ENIC, and agents fees. Selling him would cost about £3m in cash. He'll also have a residual book value which'll come of the accounts and affect FFP. If we couldn't get more than , maybe, £4m for him, it's probably (if the contract thing is correct) better to loan him out for a smallish fee and his wages paid.

[Rab a dab doo]

We could either loan him to club (not one of our promotion rivals i.e. Reading, Sunderland) which covers most of his wages and add the stipulation that he cannot play against us. In addition also add a call back clause if we get injuries.

Conversely, we could wait until nearer the transfer deadline date and hope someone like Stoke or West Brom sign him as panic buy because they cant get anyone else.

Either way for his and our sake he needs to be playing football regularly.

[EnigmaRam]

6 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I've read in a few places that players automatically get their contracts paid up if the club sells them without the player having requested the transfer. I still don't entirely believe this to be true, but if it is, it might explain why we'd prefer a loan.

If Martin is on £20k per week, which seems plausible, and he's got 2.5 years on his  contact left, it means that we'd have to pay him £2.6m just to sell him, and then there's tax, ENIC, and agents fees. Selling him would cost about £3m in cash. He'll also have a residual book value which'll come of the accounts and affect FFP. If we couldn't get more than , maybe, £4m for him, it's probably (if the contract thing is correct) better to loan him out for a smallish fee and his wages paid.

There is no way it's plausible that Martin is on £20k per week

[EnigmaRam]

4 minutes ago, Rab a dab doo said:

We could either loan him to club (not one of our promotion rivals i.e. Reading, Sunderland) which covers most of his wages and add the stipulation that he cannot play against us. In addition also add a call back clause if we get injuries.

Conversely, we could wait until nearer the transfer deadline date and hope someone like Stoke or West Brom sign him as panic buy because they cant get anyone else.

Either way for his and our sake he needs to be playing football regularly.

You can't have a call back clause these days

[Jack Willow]

6 minutes ago, RiddingsRam said:

How much ? Would be good for Martin !

The word has spread around, they are willing to pay just as little as £1.5m.

[RiddingsRam]

1 minute ago, lioncoeur said:

The word has spread around, they are willing to pay just as little as £1.5m.

Maybe as a loan fee but permanent ? Not a chance ! I' realistic I'd be happy if we got somewhere in the region of £4million .

[robglosta]

Let's add in a clause that he has to score against every top 6 team they play. 

[cannable]

22 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I've read in a few places that players automatically get their contracts paid up if the club sells them without the player having requested the transfer. I still don't entirely believe this to be true, but if it is, it might explain why we'd prefer a loan.

If Martin is on £20k per week, which seems plausible, and he's got 2.5 years on his  contact left, it means that we'd have to pay him £2.6m just to sell him, and then there's tax, ENIC, and agents fees. Selling him would cost about £3m in cash. He'll also have a residual book value which'll come of the accounts and affect FFP. If we couldn't get more than , maybe, £4m for him, it's probably (if the contract thing is correct) better to loan him out for a smallish fee and his wages paid.

I always believed that but I think it was was debunked a little.

I think it’s probably more that years wages or something. Ince forgo £1,000,000 he was due to move to Huddersfield.

I remember Fabregas at the time as well, to push through his move to Barca he waived the £5,000,000 Arsenal would have owed him. 

[gccrowdpleaser]

20 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I've read in a few places that players automatically get their contracts paid up if the club sells them without the player having requested the transfer. I still don't entirely believe this to be true, but if it is, it might explain why we'd prefer a loan.

If Martin is on £20k per week, which seems plausible, and he's got 2.5 years on his  contact left, it means that we'd have to pay him £2.6m just to sell him, and then there's tax, ENIC, and agents fees. Selling him would cost about £3m in cash. He'll also have a residual book value which'll come of the accounts and affect FFP. If we couldn't get more than , maybe, £4m for him, it's probably (if the contract thing is correct) better to loan him out for a smallish fee and his wages paid.

This isn't wholly accurate. Some players negotiate loyalty clauses into their contract where they receive bonuses for seeing out the duration of their contract without requesting a transfer. To my mind it defeats the point of having the contract to which should mean you are loyal for its duration. It the event that a player isn't able to earn the loyalty bonus as an offer is accepted for their service the club will pay it as part of the move. It certainly wouldn't involve them paying the remaining wages. I have heard of clubs selling prem players to lower league clubs to get a big salary off the books and if the lower club cannot match the wages then a settlement is agreed with the player to bridge the gap and smooth the transfer through.

[CornwallRam]

2 minutes ago, gccrowdpleaser said:

This isn't wholly accurate. Some players negotiate loyalty clauses into their contract where they receive bonuses for seeing out the duration of their contract without requesting a transfer. To my mind it defeats the point of having the contract to which should mean you are loyal for its duration. It the event that a player isn't able to earn the loyalty bonus as an offer is accepted for their service the club will pay it as part of the move. It certainly wouldn't involve them paying the remaining wages. I have heard of clubs selling prem players to lower league clubs to get a big salary off the books and if the lower club cannot match the wages then a settlement is agreed with the player to bridge the gap and smooth the transfer through.

That was my understanding too, but some seemingly knowledgeable sources, e.g. 'the secret footballer' claim that it's the whole contract. Personally, I don't know either way, but the full contract version just seems a silly way of running things. 

You begin with a very definite statement. Might I ask how you know?

[gccrowdpleaser]

4 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

That was my understanding too, but some seemingly knowledgeable sources, e.g. 'the secret footballer' claim that it's the whole contract. Personally, I don't know either way, but the full contract version just seems a silly way of running things. 

You begin with a very definite statement. Might I ask how you know?

If it was the whole contract then players would be instigating moves all the time and causing trouble to do so because it's effectively double money. I suspect the 'secret footballer' is secret because he talks utter balls 90% of the time. 

I'm aware of several transfers that have been held up due to agreements on loyalty clauses. This is based on what I've read, listened too and spoken to people involved in the game when I've had the opportunity in the past. I'm certainly not ITK or 'getting inside info'. 

If it were the case that they had to do that then no way on earth would clubs sigb players on long contracts or big money. If Sanchez falls out with United between now and the end of the season (if he signs this window) then United would need to sell him for well in excess of 100million just to break even as they are committing 450k per week on a 4 year deal. It would be financial suicide. 

Now managers are different. There are many well documentes cases where a manager is sacked and they continue to be paid for either the remainder of their contract term, should they not reach a settlement... Or until they are paid for another job. 

[VulcanRam]

40 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I've read in a few places that players automatically get their contracts paid up if the club sells them without the player having requested the transfer. I still don't entirely believe this to be true, but if it is, it might explain why we'd prefer a loan.

If Martin is on £20k per week, which seems plausible, and he's got 2.5 years on his  contact left, it means that we'd have to pay him £2.6m just to sell him, and then there's tax, ENIC, and agents fees. Selling him would cost about £3m in cash. He'll also have a residual book value which'll come of the accounts and affect FFP. If we couldn't get more than , maybe, £4m for him, it's probably (if the contract thing is correct) better to loan him out for a smallish fee and his wages paid.

I was talking to a former professional player a couple of weeks ago, who played most of his footie in the PL and Championship. 

This issue came up and he said if a player does not put a formal transfer request in, he has the right to his whole contract being paid up if he is sold against his wishes. This is why you don't see many transfer requests being formally handed in; it weakens the player's hand and bargaining position. 

He said the reality works something like this:  If a club wants to sell a player, the manager will let them know and they will come to an agreement. The balance is that the club wants rid of the player but has the threat of simply not playing him for the rest of the contract, while the player won't want to rot in the reserves so will normally accept a mutually agreed sum. Sometimes in these situations players will stay and fight for their place, sometimes they will accept they will need to move in order to play. Sometimes obviously players are indeed happy not to play and simply get paid until their contract ends. 

On the other side, if a player wants to leave, he will let the manager know without putting in a formal request, and the same bargaining takes place. Hence, referring to a post above, Ince lost some of the part of his overall contract worth, the pay off is that he got a smooth move to the Premier League without Derby making life difficult or demanding a huge fee. 

 

[McRainy]

I would have thought he still had a part to play here this season and I’ll be sorry to see him go (even though he tried to nick a pint off me at half time against Matlock Town). I’ve always liked him and felt confident that he would perform given the opportunity.

I hope he does well wherever he ends up, but hopefully that won’t involve saving Sunderland from relegation.

 

[Spanish]

23 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

I was talking to a former professional player a couple of weeks ago, who played most of his footie in the PL and Championship. 

This issue came up and he said if a player does not put a formal transfer request in, he has the right to his whole contract being paid up if he is sold against his wishes. This is why you don't see many transfer requests being formally handed in; it weakens the player's hand and bargaining position. 

He said the reality works something like this:  If a club wants to sell a player, the manager will let them know and they will come to an agreement. The balance is that the club wants rid of the player but has the threat of simply not playing him for the rest of the contract, while the player won't want to rot in the reserves so will normally accept a mutually agreed sum. Sometimes in these situations players will stay and fight for their place, sometimes they will accept they will need to move in order to play. Sometimes obviously players are indeed happy not to play and simply get paid until their contract ends. 

On the other side, if a player wants to leave, he will let the manager know without putting in a formal request, and the same bargaining takes place. Hence, referring to a post above, Ince lost some of the part of his overall contract worth, the pay off is that he got a smooth move to the Premier League without Derby making life difficult or demanding a huge fee. 

 

possibly why Ince has publicly said he didn't request a transfer?

[RadioactiveWaste]

At a wild guess, the whole pay up of TT he contract aspect is probably just if the player full stop wont budge wont accept the transfer, by paying off the contract and in effect ending it leaving the player with no power to stop it. Must be a bit desperate when it comes to that, im sure most of the time things are agreed.

[CornwallRam]

29 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

I was talking to a former professional player a couple of weeks ago, who played most of his footie in the PL and Championship. 

This issue came up and he said if a player does not put a formal transfer request in, he has the right to his whole contract being paid up if he is sold against his wishes. This is why you don't see many transfer requests being formally handed in; it weakens the player's hand and bargaining position. 

He said the reality works something like this:  If a club wants to sell a player, the manager will let them know and they will come to an agreement. The balance is that the club wants rid of the player but has the threat of simply not playing him for the rest of the contract, while the player won't want to rot in the reserves so will normally accept a mutually agreed sum. Sometimes in these situations players will stay and fight for their place, sometimes they will accept they will need to move in order to play. Sometimes obviously players are indeed happy not to play and simply get paid until their contract ends. 

On the other side, if a player wants to leave, he will let the manager know without putting in a formal request, and the same bargaining takes place. Hence, referring to a post above, Ince lost some of the part of his overall contract worth, the pay off is that he got a smooth move to the Premier League without Derby making life difficult or demanding a huge fee. 

 

That absolutely makes sense and ties in the different versions that I've heard. 

Just for completeness, I vote that we get @David to DM Mel to get the definitive answer.