Bentley Tribunal Fee - £1.1m + add-ons

united we stand · Jan 19, 2017

manor15 said:
If a player is released and leaves the club with no offer of a contract then the club who brought him through aren't entitled to anything.

In cases where they are offered a contract but opt to leave anyway, clubs can come to agreements outside tribunals so in the rare cases where that could apply there's the possibility of the two clubs coming to an agreement for a lower fee, probably with high add-ons and sell on fees.

In most cases, like Bentley and Payne, the player is offered a new contract but opts to run down his existing deal and leave to sign for another club.

sorry, my post wasn't exactly what I meant , We offer an U24 a contract,, He is an OK player but nothing special, He moves to a league 2 club to get game time. They offer us £20,0000. We stay, stuff that , he has been with us for 5 years we are entitled to £350,000. Player is now left with no option but to stay with us as no club will take him knowing (according to Rigbsys post) the tribunal will state a MINIMUM of £350,000. It makes no sense, and it also goes against anything you can find on the web on this subject . What am I missing ?

Kevin Hogg · Jan 20, 2017

I will be honest - I do not agree with "add on's" to a fee.
You value the player as he is the day you sign him. You pay the selling club the fee he is worth in recognition of their development of the player and his value to your club going forward.
IF the buying club turns him into a world superstar or if he never makes the first team. That is the business of the club he is registered with.
Having said that - brilliant business and delighted with the future revenue for our club!

rigsby · Jan 20, 2017

united we stand said:
sorry, my post wasn't exactly what I meant , We offer an U24 a contract,, He is an OK player but nothing special, He moves to a league 2 club to get game time. They offer us £20,0000. We stay, stuff that , he has been with us for 5 years we are entitled to £350,000. Player is now left with no option but to stay with us as no club will take him knowing (according to Rigbsys post) the tribunal will state a MINIMUM of £350,000. It makes no sense, and it also goes against anything you can find on the web on this subject . What am I missing ?

I did try to explain that scenario in another post as I was originally refering to Jack Payne. As there is now confusion I will try and speak to the same person at the weekend and confirm what guidelines they were working to.

They did say at the time that £490,000 for JP was not enough. The fact that we came to an agreement with Huddersfield without the need of a tribunal must mean the fee and add-ons are acceptable to both clubs.

rigsby · Jan 20, 2017

Kevin Hogg said:
I will be honest - I do not agree with "add on's" to a fee.
You value the player as he is the day you sign him. You pay the selling club the fee he is worth in recognition of their development of the player and his value to your club going forward.
IF the buying club turns him into a world superstar or if he never makes the first team. That is the business of the club he is registered with.
Having said that - brilliant business and delighted with the future revenue for our club!

You might not like them but I think the smaller clubs would suffer more financially if we removed them. They would only pay so much for potential. The days of "we won't sell unless you give us a fair price" are gone.

Don't forget the big boys benefit greatly from the years of coaching and money we put into a young lads development. Personally I think its absolutely right that that is acknowledged and rewarded.