3 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

I do wonder why more players are not utilising the Webster ruling.

in our case I don’t think we have anyone who signed a contract more than 3 years ago. 

But take Reece James . He signed a new 6 year deal in sep 2022, for approx £250k per week. This means in September 2025, he can buy out the remainder of his contract and leave us for £39m. (Remaining 156 weeks x £250k). Which if on form and fit is a relative bargain. 
 

I wonder if it’s because if this starts happening, clubs will all lose so much money - and so they have an unspoken agreement not to encourage it.

I do recall a legal case with some club in Switzerland that appeared to balance the previous precedent set in the hearts case - but not entirely sure of the impact (Seems that the Swiss club who encouraged a player to buy out his contract from another club was fined and had a transfer ban - and there was also a ruling about calculation of compensation)

I believe a player has to have just cause, they can't just buy out their contract. Webster was omitted from Hearts playing squad for the season, hence it was ruled in his favour. 

23 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I believe a player has to have just cause, they can't just buy out their contract. Webster was omitted from Hearts playing squad for the season, hence it was ruled in his favour. 

So chilly would be in line if he had his current contract for more than 3 years?

26 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I believe a player has to have just cause, they can't just buy out their contract. Webster was omitted from Hearts playing squad for the season, hence it was ruled in his favour. 

Also I don't think it will work if chilly has turned down a move/loan himself. 

As owners have provided the player with an option to play and the player turned it down I don't think they will rule in his favour if he does try to terminate his own contract.

No idea if he was offered anything btw...I'm just saying.

I have read there are talks going on with Greek and Turkish clubs for fofana (the other one) and chilly respectively.

 

 

I've seen it said that there's a *cough* gentleman's agreement between PL clubs not to exploit the Webster ruling.

2 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

So chilly would be in line if he had his current contract for more than 3 years?

 

1 hour ago, dermott said:

I've seen it said that there's a *cough* gentleman's agreement between PL clubs not to exploit the Webster ruling.

 

2 hours ago, Simplymo said:

Also I don't think it will work if chilly has turned down a move/loan himself. 

As owners have provided the player with an option to play and the player turned it down I don't think they will rule in his favour if he does try to terminate his own contract.

No idea if he was offered anything btw...I'm just saying.

I have read there are talks going on with Greek and Turkish clubs for fofana (the other one) and chilly respectively.

 

 

All sorts of different rules getting mixed up here.

First there is a rule in FIFA regulations that state that if a contracted a player  whist fit doesn’t feature in 10% of first team games they can make in effect an application to have their contract cancelled. Each case would be treated on its merits but you rarely see players in the professional game leave under this clause. It is said each case would be treated on its merits but that player could well find themselves embroiled in litigation re breech of contract.

 

Next you have what  is referred to as The Webster  Ruling  ( it’s either Article 16 or 17 in FIFA Statutes). This is where a player can leave with claiming sporting just cause

In effect there  are two trigger points based on a players age. The younger player when they have completed 3 years of their contract and slightly older ones two years can during a  very narrow 14 day window starting at seasons end  give notice and buy out  their contract. To complicate matters a player can give notice at other times but this would almost certainly be construed as without sporting just cause and beside compensation the player would almost certainly get a ban and any club that encouraged or signed such a player would likely get a transfer embargo 

There simply isn’t any precedent being relied on  as to what the sum the player would have to pay in way of compensation . There have been a couple of rulings that were eventually decided by CAS. It could be the sum left of any fee to be amortised, the players unpaid salary could potentially impact as could the cost of the club having to replace the player. Spanish/ Portuguese clubs set a “ buy out” clause in contracts the expectation is that any tribunal will always rely on that number when determining the sums involved .

One of the major reasons as to why we see so few Websters is around where the liability re compensation will lie. In effect the player is in the first instance liable but once a club signs a player that club becomes jointly liable. It’s in effect it akin to agree to signing a player without knowing the fee

 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 20241 yr by terraloon

2 minutes ago, terraloon said:

 

 

All sorts of different rules getting mixed up here.

First there is a rule in FIFA regulations that state that if a contracted a player  whist fit doesn’t feature in 10% of first team games they can make in effect an application to have their contract cancelled. Each case would be treated on its merits but you rarely see players in the professional game leave under this clause. It is said each case would be treated on its merits but that player could well find themselves embroiled in litigation re breech of contract.

 

Next you have what  is referred to as The Webster  Ruling  ( it’s either Article 16 or 17 in FIFA Statutes). This is where a player can leave with claiming sporting just cause

In effect there  are two trigger points based on a players age. The younger player when they have completed 3 years of their contract and slightly older ones two years can during a  very narrow 14 day window starting at seasons end  give notice and buy out  their contract. To complicate matters a player can give notice at other times but this would almost certainly be construed as without sporting just cause and beside compensation the player would almost certainly get a ban and any club that encouraged or signed such a player would likely get a transfer embargo 

There simply isn’t any precedent being relied on  as to what the sum the player would have to pay in way of compensation . There have been a couple of rulings that were eventually decided by CAS. It could be the sum left of any fee to be amortised, the players unpaid salary could potentially impact as could the cost of the club having to replace the player. Spanish/ Portuguese clubs set a “ buy out” clause in contracts the expectation is that any tribunal will always rely on that number when determining the sums involved .

One of the major reasons as to why we see so few Webster is around where the liability will lie. In effect the player is in the first instance liable but once a club signs a player that club becomes jointly liable. It’s in effect it akin to agree to signing a player without knowing the fee

 

 

 

 

Really helpful summary.  So as ever, never as black and white as media have you believe.

10 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

So chilly would be in line if he had his current contract for more than 3 years?

in theory, from what i can tell you have to have genuine grounds for wanting to terminate your contract. Sending players to the bomb squad like we have would likely suffice.

On 02/09/2024 at 15:37, evissy said:

I am pretty sure the club will make these sort of buys/sells in the future as well. I am thinking Carney and Kellyman could also be on this track. 

Buy for a decent price, keep in squad for 1-2 seasons or loan to Strasbourg and if it doesn't work out for the player sell a Chelsea branded player for profit. 

I am not saying they are cynical and using the player as a commodity but it presents this opportunity so it can be taken.

You shouldn’t consider it cynical, and it seems exactly the right thing to do. You have a massive scouting network, you identify high quality talent, and you are always buying potential replacements for every position. 
 

You should, at the same time, be raising the next people to take the place of your players in house with an academy tailored towards development (I think by following City’s EDS model we will improve in this area).

In the end, in any 2 to 3 year period you should have 4 or 5 high quality options competing to take someone’s spot in the team. And if they aren’t quite good enough to do that, then you sell them for a sustaining profit while doing it all again.

The goal is to have a team talented enough that you end up selling some Cole Palmers, Sancho’s, etc.

And you are having to come out of pocket 60-80m for someone else’s HQ option less and less often.

It’s not even just about money. If you are buying/developing 1, maybe 2 options at each position and giving them 4 or 5 years to “see if it works” your roster will become complacent and stagnate. You’ll end up with players like Rashford at United; entrenched, but withering and dragging the team down.

I wish Gabriel the best.

On 02/09/2024 at 20:37, evissy said:

I am pretty sure the club will make these sort of buys/sells in the future as well. I am thinking Carney and Kellyman could also be on this track. 

Buy for a decent price, keep in squad for 1-2 seasons or loan to Strasbourg and if it doesn't work out for the player sell a Chelsea branded player for profit. 

I am not saying they are cynical and using the player as a commodity but it presents this opportunity so it can be taken.

BREAKING NEWS, JUST IN!

11 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

in theory, from what i can tell you have to have genuine grounds for wanting to terminate your contract. Sending players to the bomb squad like we have would likely suffice.

Here's the CAS ruling on Webster. Bit lengthy. Have a read over your salty lunch.

Heart-of-Midlothian-v-Webster-CAS-30-Jan-08.pdf

5 hours ago, dermott said:

Here's the CAS ruling on Webster. Bit lengthy. Have a read over your salty lunch.

Heart-of-Midlothian-v-Webster-CAS-30-Jan-08.pdf 275.93 kB · 0 downloads

I would love to but i think the fence around the perimeter of the building was re-painted this morning. 

I think i'll go sit by that and watch it dry instead. 

21 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I would love to but i think the fence around the perimeter of the building was re-painted this morning. 

I think i'll go sit by that and watch it dry instead. 

Having watched the workers painting it! 😡

5 hours ago, dermott said:

Having watched the workers painting it! 😡

Someones got to make sure they're doing it right!