[TouchTackle]

Just a quick question..

Why after a players contract runs out can the club hold onto him? Surely thats the whole point in a contract in the first place.

100% wrong in my opinion, find it very strange, why only the juniors? As far as I know its the only league which does this?

Just wondering if there is a reason and if anyone knows anything about it?

Thanks in advance if anyone can let me know.

[drs]

1. The retention rule.
2. Thats your opinion, if the players feel so strong about it one or more of them has the right to do a Bosman and take it to court.
3. Cos the Juniors are above EU law.

[TouchTackle]

drs, on 28 January 2012 - 21:53, said:

1. The retention rule.
2. Thats your opinion, if the players feel so strong about it one or more of them has the right to do a Bosman and take it to court.
3. Cos the Juniors are above EU law.

Fair enough, surely theres been loads of players came to the end of there contract and maybe fell out or wanted a change and not been able to move?

Has anyone ever tryed to change it? How long has the "1. The retention rule." been a rule for?

[cmontheloknow]

This is a very old story and one that comes up now and again.

In short, FIFA has Bosman in place, which all Junior clubs abide by should one of their players sign for a club that is not in membership of the SJFA.

However, when pushed to adopt a similar model for all Junior transfers, the SJFA Membership rejected this in favour of a watered down AGREEMENT between all member clubs that would see all Professional status players transferred for a minimum of £300 and maximum of £3000 depending on the value of their last contract.

Any player that wishes to avoid retention should either sign Non Contract (£300 compo) or Amateur (nil), both of which are expenses only.

Generally, the only players that get screwed by retention are the ones no one wants (i.e. have signed Professional but aren't worth the INEVITABLE fee).

Players do have the ability to say YES/NO when offered a contract.

[TouchTackle]

cmontheloknow, on 28 January 2012 - 22:02, said:

This is a very old story and one that comes up now and again.

In short, FIFA has Bosman in place, which all Junior clubs abide by should one of their players sign for a club that is not in membership of the SJFA.

However, when pushed to adopt a similar model for all Junior transfers, the SJFA Membership rejected this in favour of a watered down AGREEMENT between all member clubs that would see all Professional status players transferred for a minimum of £300 and maximum of £3000 depending on the value of their last contract.

Any player that wishes to avoid retention should either sign Non Contract (£300 compo) or Amateur (nil), both of which are expenses only.

Generally, the only players that get screwed by retention are the ones no one wants (i.e. have signed Professional but aren't worth the INEVITABLE fee).

Players do have the ability to say YES/NO when offered a contract.

I see where your coming from mate, "Generally, the only players that get screwed by retention are the ones no one wants"



I find it strange, there must be good good players who get retained and want away but Club either dont want to spend of simply dont have £3000 to pay? Which is a shame.


I think it should get scrapped all together and i wouldnt be suprised if it does.

[RobRoyGuy]

cmontheloknow, on 28 January 2012 - 22:02, said:

This is a very old story and one that comes up now and again.

In short, FIFA has Bosman in place, which all Junior clubs abide by should one of their players sign for a club that is not in membership of the SJFA.

However, when pushed to adopt a similar model for all Junior transfers, the SJFA Membership rejected this in favour of a watered down AGREEMENT between all member clubs that would see all Professional status players transferred for a minimum of £300 and maximum of £3000 depending on the value of their last contract.

Any player that wishes to avoid retention should either sign Non Contract (£300 compo) or Amateur (nil), both of which are expenses only.

Generally, the only players that get screwed by retention are the ones no one wants (i.e. have signed Professional but aren't worth the INEVITABLE fee).

Players do have the ability to say YES/NO when offered a contract.

Can you just confirm the situation where a club can ask for more than the 3k , say two or three times it

[roseyposey]

RobRoyGuy, on 28 January 2012 - 22:10, said:

Can you just confirm the situation where a club can ask for more than the 3k , say two or three times it

When the player is in contract !!
say Linlithgow's tommy coyne.
signed a 3 year deal in the summer.
so is contracted to 2014

anyone wants him we can ask for £10 to £100,000 if we want

[TouchTackle]

roseyposey, on 28 January 2012 - 22:13, said:

When the player is in contract !!
say Linlithgow's tommy coyne.
signed a 3 year deal in the summer.
so is contracted to 2014

anyone wants him we can ask for £10 to £100,000 if we want

Fair enough if a Club want a player whos under contract they'l need to pay like any other league in the world but once the contract is up they'v served there time, weather they have fell out with there manager, got player of the year or just want a change, the contracts up. They should be aloued to leave.

[roseyposey]

TouchTackle, on 28 January 2012 - 22:27, said:

Fair enough if a Club want a player whos under contract they'l need to pay like any other league in the world but once the contract is up they'v served there time, weather they have fell out with there manager, got player of the year or just want a change, the contracts up. They should be aloued to leave.

but the player knows the rules when he signs the contract
they are written into it
so he signs it and takes the money in wages knowing what will happen
or he refuses and signs other terms that allow him to leave

nobody forces them to sign it

[HTG]

roseyposey, on 28 January 2012 - 22:29, said:

but the player knows the rules when he signs the contract
they are written into it
so he signs it and takes the money in wages knowing what will happen
or he refuses and signs other terms that allow him to leave

nobody forces them to sign it

Are you sure you are not a blazer???

[santheman]

roseyposey, on 28 January 2012 - 22:29, said:

but the player knows the rules when he signs the contract
they are written into it
so he signs it and takes the money in wages knowing what will happen
or he refuses and signs other terms that allow him to leave

nobody forces them to sign it

Had to laugh at that.
I would bet my house that most players aren't even told about the compensation rule when they sign professional.
And certainly in my experience a LOT of players are happy to simply sign a blank form.
And how many players are actually given a copy of their contracts by their club (not a lot I would guess)

[TouchTackle]

santheman, on 28 January 2012 - 23:16, said:

Had to laugh at that.
I would bet my house that most players aren't even told about the compensation rule when they sign professional.
And certainly in my experience a LOT of players are happy to simply sign a blank form.
And how many players are actually given a copy of their contracts by their club (not a lot I would guess)

I think it'l take a player or a Club to try and change it.


Any other league in the country when your contracts ran out you can leave, which clearly makes sense.

[Arthurlie1981]

santheman, on 28 January 2012 - 23:16, said:

Had to laugh at that.
I would bet my house that most players aren't even told about the compensation rule when they sign professional.
And certainly in my experience a LOT of players are happy to simply sign a blank form.
And how many players are actually given a copy of their contracts by their club (not a lot I would guess)

I have signed quite a few players over the years & we have always explained how retention works

Also in terms of not handing over contracts my understanding is that could constitue a breach of said contact & a greivence could be raised.

I would presume that all Junior clubs use the standard SFA contracts?

[HibeeJibee]

I think the problem most people have is with the detail of the system, as well as the broad principle.

The general fact that you cannot sign for anyone else, even though your contract has expired, rankles. The fact there is a minimum figure rankles, as does the fact it is (basically) based upon refunding last season's wages to your old club. The fact it applies to all ages, as opposed to being a true compensation fee for the actual development of youngsters, rankles.

Subsidiary problems include a lot of players, particularly youngsters, apparently signing-up without realising what they're committing too.

(And even if they are - the excuse of "they know what they're signing" isn't much of a defence. My old factory analogy. And in some areas of the country they've scant other choice anyway).

And it also causes problems for older players (whose wage value is dropping), or people moving to another part of the country which has poorer Juniors = can't meet the fee.

[Arthurlie1981]

HibeeJibee, on 29 January 2012 - 11:10, said:

I think the problem most people have is with the detail of the system, as well as the broad principle.

The general fact that you cannot sign for anyone else, even though your contract has expired, rankles. The fact there is a minimum figure rankles, as does the fact it is (basically) based upon refunding last season's wages to your old club. The fact it applies to all ages, as opposed to being a true compensation fee for the actual development of youngsters, rankles.

Subsidiary problems include a lot of players, particularly youngsters, apparently signing-up without realising what they're committing too.

(And even if they are - the excuse of "they know what they're signing" isn't much of a defence. My old factory analogy. And in some areas of the country they've scant other choice anyway).

And it also causes problems for older players (whose wage value is dropping), or people moving to another part of the country which has poorer Juniors = can't meet the fee.

But the £3000 figure is not set in stone. If, using your example, a player is moving for work reasons then most clubs in my experience will negotiate a fee or release the player. Normally (again in my experience) the £3000 figure clubs apply this when they want to keep the player I haven't come across a situation where a player has been kept out the game after the club didn't want to resign him. Also the player is offered terms which have to be realistic to his prior contract for the retention rule to take place.

The amateur system allows for abuse of the rules as I know that we had a player who was under 23 & would cost a senior club money. We were offered £0 for him, we attempted to negotiate as we were happy for the player to go senior. The club in question still stated they would pay nothing for him, the player was now in a tough position where he had rejected a new contract with us & told everyone he had signed for the other club. The senior club advised him to become an amatuer to circumvent the rules & as such we received nothing for the player. So just to add HJ there are flaws in all the system.

[HibeeJibee]

Arthurlie1981, on 29 January 2012 - 13:57, said:

Also the player is offered terms which have to be realistic to his prior contract for the retention rule to take place.

The amateur system allows for abuse of the rules as I know that we had a player who was under 23 & would cost a senior club money. We were offered £0 for him, we attempted to negotiate as we were happy for the player to go senior. The club in question still stated they would pay nothing for him, the player was now in a tough position where he had rejected a new contract with us & told everyone he had signed for the other club. The senior club advised him to become an amatuer to circumvent the rules & as such we received nothing for the player. So just to add HJ there are flaws in all the system.

When this topic came up in the autumn after a couple of posters raised questions owing to having been retained, wasn't it established that the terms only had to be "reasonable"... and the definition of "reasonable" was, to say the least, fairly lax (and SJFA adjudicated)?

I appreciate there are flaws in any system. However IMO there's numerous gaping flaws or unfairnesses in retention and I'd advocate its aboltion. Senior football gets on fine with youth compensation.

Arthurlie1981, on 29 January 2012 - 13:57, said:

But the £3000 figure is not set in stone. If, using your example, a player is moving for work reasons then most clubs in my experience will negotiate a fee or release the player. Normally (again in my experience) the £3000 figure clubs apply this when they want to keep the player I haven't come across a situation where a player has been kept out the game after the club didn't want to resign him.

My belief is simply that when someone's served their contract to expiry, they should be free to do as they wish... without any negotiations, fees, wage refunds, or reliance upon goodwill.

Only caveat should be where a club developed them as a youngster, and they continue earning from football, compensation should be due.

[Arthurlie1981]

HibeeJibee, on 29 January 2012 - 14:11, said:

When this topic came up in the autumn after a couple of posters raised questions owing to having been retained, wasn't it established that the terms only had to be "reasonable"... and the definition of "reasonable" was, to say the least, fairly lax (and SJFA adjudicated)?

I appreciate there are flaws in any system. However IMO there's numerous gaping flaws or unfairnesses in retention and I'd advocate its aboltion. Senior football gets on fine with youth compensation.



My belief is simply that when someone's served their contract to expiry, they should be free to do as they wish... without any negotiations, fees, wage refunds, or reliance upon goodwill.

Only caveat should be where a club developed them as a youngster, and they continue earning from football, compensation should be due.

Yea it is reasonable compared to their previous contract.

In terms of youth compensation my last point in my previous post shows that there are ways around this using the amatuer status. Should we not abolish the amatuer status in senior & junior football?

[HibeeJibee]

I'd abolish the distinction, just as the English did 3 or 4 decades ago, certainly.

However, you can only justify levying monetary compensation when someone commands monetary value... and a player signing for someone without a transfer fee, and without any form of renumeration beyond expenses, is not commanding that monetary value. So in that regard status (or lack thereof) wouldn't affect compensation.


I think it can be distracting to look at youth development in retention debates anyway. Schemes exist to compensate youth development and can always be tweaked.

Retention helps refund last season's wages to clubs, despite an established adult player having satisfactorily served his contract to fruition. That's what it's about, at core - not protecting youth development.

[Arthurlie1981]

HibeeJibee, on 29 January 2012 - 20:19, said:

I'd abolish the distinction, just as the English did 3 or 4 decades ago, certainly.

However, you can only justify levying monetary compensation when someone commands monetary value... and a player signing for someone without a transfer fee, and without any form of renumeration beyond expenses, is not commanding that monetary value. So in that regard status (or lack thereof) wouldn't affect compensation.


I think it can be distracting to look at youth development in retention debates anyway. Schemes exist to compensate youth development and can always be tweaked.

Retention helps refund last season's wages to clubs, despite an established adult player having satisfactorily served his contract to fruition. That's what it's about, at core - not protecting youth development.

I think that you missed my point (think it is because I brought it up in regards to retention). The player in question was under 23 & we were entitled to compensation under the youth development. Using the amatuer status the player & the club circumvent the rules.

[HibeeJibee]

Arthurlie1981, on 29 January 2012 - 20:52, said:

I think that you missed my point (think it is because I brought it up in regards to retention). The player in question was under 23 & we were entitled to compensation under the youth development. Using the amatuer status the player & the club circumvent the rules.

I understand that. My point was, that I'm not really sure what could be done about it... and that abolishing Amateur as a distinct contract status wouldn't help (unless you made it mandatory for everyone to be paid!!).

Compensation principle is based upon rewarding clubs for having enhanced a youngster's monetary value. Playing for free has no monetary value. That'll always be the loophole.

[jamie p]

i would strongly advise any player going junior to sign as an amateur. if you sign professional forms and the club gives you say £50 per week, once your normally 1 year contract runs out then the club can offer you £10 per week which you then have to accept to stay junior. tom johnstone(sjfa) confirms clubs can operate this way.

[Arthurlie1981]

HibeeJibee, on 29 January 2012 - 21:28, said:

I understand that. My point was, that I'm not really sure what could be done about it... and that abolishing Amateur as a distinct contract status wouldn't help (unless you made it mandatory for everyone to be paid!!).

Compensation principle is based upon rewarding clubs for having enhanced a youngster's monetary value. Playing for free has no monetary value. That'll always be the loophole.

The player in question plays in the third division & is not playing for free. The amatuer status is archaic (in terms of professional football) & should be removed.

[Arthurlie1981]

jamie p, on 29 January 2012 - 22:49, said:

i would strongly advise any player going junior to sign as an amateur. if you sign professional forms and the club gives you say £50 per week, once your normally 1 year contract runs out then the club can offer you £10 per week which you then have to accept to stay junior. tom johnstone(sjfa) confirms clubs can operate this way.

That's fine but players at the top level want to get paid well & won't get paid the same if they sign an amatuer or non contract. By the way it is interesting you say about the £50 down to £10 as clubs were told that it was not reasonable in terms of retention.

[monthelie']

Arthurlie1981, on 30 January 2012 - 01:06, said:

The player in question plays in the third division & is not playing for free. The amatuer status is archaic (in terms of professional football) & should be removed.

In other words,we were shafted by stranraer!

[HibeeJibee]

How can they be pay him a wage if he's on an Amateur contract?

If you mean they're paying him anyway, under-the-counter so-to-speak, your club should report it to SFA + SFL.


Anyway the amateur status may be archaic, but even if it was scrapped, it wouldn't really help you... it's unlikely clubs will ever have to pay compensation when (on paper) they sign someone on unwaged terms.