Bye bye Josh.

[Top of the JES]

We have to pay him 3 months salary, apparently.

We would have paid him something he would not have left without anything there would have been a financial agreement between both parties on the rest of his contract - He would'nt have to disclose Crawleys Interest to the club, thats between him and his agent.

This didn't happen.

Just like the alias stuff you're making up as well.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

If it's announced that Turley and/or Dayton or any of the other over paid and underused senior pros are also leaving, then fair enough, maybe we are having a clear out of the dead wood.

I just don't think this is the case with Wright, he will have instigated this, not us.

[PoliticOs]

Why do you think that, RH?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

All the reasons mentioned above.

[PoliticOs]

I'd imagine the main reason would be he isn't first choice and we aren't playing him, so it sees more obvious that we'd make the call, not him. But interesting perspective.

[OyinbO]

An Edinburgh signing rather than a Ling one, so much easier for the regime to say bye bye

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I'd imagine the main reason would be he isn't first choice and we aren't playing him, so it sees more obvious that we'd make the call, not him. But interesting perspective.

So what about Turley and Dayton?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

An Edinburgh signing rather than a Ling one, so much easier for the regime to say bye bye

Another reason why I don't think we would instigate this, because of his friendship with Justin and his family.

[PoliticOs]

I'd imagine the main reason would be he isn't first choice and we aren't playing him, so it sees more obvious that we'd make the call, not him. But interesting perspective.

So what about Turley and Dayton?

I think both of those are off too.

[Dunners]

We have to pay him 3 months salary, apparently.

We would have paid him something he would not have left without anything there would have been a financial agreement between both parties on the rest of his contract - He would'nt have to disclose Crawleys Interest to the club, thats between him and his agent.

This didn't happen.

Just like the alias stuff you're making up as well.

Slow day at work?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

It’s this or home schooling.

[Dunners]

You must hate your kids.

[BiggsyMalone]

I'd imagine the main reason would be he isn't first choice and we aren't playing him, so it sees more obvious that we'd make the call, not him. But interesting perspective.

So what about Turley and Dayton?

Dayton has been playing as a central midfielder this season for some bizarre reason. He’ll get a new contract and it will be sold as ‘like a new signing’

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

You must hate your kids.

Who doesn’t?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I'd imagine the main reason would be he isn't first choice and we aren't playing him, so it sees more obvious that we'd make the call, not him. But interesting perspective.

So what about Turley and Dayton?

I think both of those are off too.

If they both get announced as ‘“leaving by mutual consent’ then fair enough, I’ve called it wrong.

I just don’t think we’re that ruthless with the senior boys. More likely to give all 3 of them coaching roles than out them. Don’t be surprised if Josh comes back for a monthly visit with the tv cameras as part of his brothers new show.

[PoliticOs]

So what about Turley and Dayton?

I think both of those are off too.

If they both get announced as ‘“leaving by mutual consent’ then fair enough, I’ve called it wrong.

I just don’t think we’re that ruthless with the senior boys. More likely to give all 3 of them coaching roles than out them. Don’t be surprised if Josh comes back for a monthly visit with the tv cameras as part of his brothers new show.

If they go straight to a contract it'll be announced as 'signing for', but wouldn't necessarily mean it isn't us actioning it.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I think both of those are off too.

If they both get announced as ‘“leaving by mutual consent’ then fair enough, I’ve called it wrong.

I just don’t think we’re that ruthless with the senior boys. More likely to give all 3 of them coaching roles than out them. Don’t be surprised if Josh comes back for a monthly visit with the tv cameras as part of his brothers new show.

If they go straight to a contract it'll be announced as 'signing for', but wouldn't necessarily mean it isn't us actioning it.

For sure.

Just can’t see it, sadly.

[Thor]

I didn't know he'd signed for another club so technically I am right in what I said. However, here is the actual reality of the situation.

4.1. Calculation of compensation
If a contract has been terminated by one of the parties without there being just cause, and if a party terminates the contract where there is just cause, the party who has breached its obligations will be liable for damages pursuant to RSTP article 17. DRC and CAS has awarded compensation in a large number of cases based on the principles from the cases of Matuzalem[2] and De Sanctis[3], which, in short, acknowledged the harmed party’s right to be put in the position it would have been if the contract had been properly fulfilled, the principle of positive interest. In the process of calculating the compensation, a wide range of factors will have to be taken into consideration, leaving the DRC and CAS panels with a wide margin of discretion.

When FIFA presented the mentioned amendment to RSTP art. 14 (2) and the new art. 14bis, they also introduced amendments to art. 17, which regulate how compensation should be calculated when the player is entitled to compensation. The new article states a clear method of calculation. If the player has not signed for a new club, the player shall be entitled to an amount equalling the wages for the remainder of the contract. If the player has signed a contract with a new club, these wages shall be deducted from the compensation. The positive difference between the value of the old contract and the new contract in the corresponding time frame, is defined as “mitigated compensation”. In addition to mitigated compensation, the player will automatically be entitled to three months wages, defined as “additional compensation”. If the player can establish egregious circumstances, the additional compensation may be increased from three up to maximum six-monthly salaries, although he overall compensation may cannot exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.

The new wording of article 17 obviously gives less room for discretion with regards to the calculation of payable compensation, compared to the old wording. The reasoning for FIFA’s decision to change the provision was that the old wording gave the DRC and CAS panels considerable discretion on how to calculate compensation, which led to a large degree of uncertainty for the football clubs and football players involved in such disputes. Although the new wording could contribute to a larger degree of certainty for the involved parties when a player is entitled to compensation, the old wording still applies in cases where the club is entitled to compensation.

4.2 Sporting sanctions
According to FIFA RSTP art. 17 (3) og (4) the party in breach should, in addition to be liable for compensation, also risk sporting sanctions if the breach of contract occurs within the protected period. However, jurisprudence from DRC and CAS show that sporting sanctions are rarely imposed in addition to liability for damages. The principle was first used in FC Pyunik Yerevan v. E., AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA[4]. CAS concluded that FIFA was not obliged to impose a sporting sanction, even if it follows from the wording. This decision by CAS has formed the basis for a practice where the main rule that a sporting sanction should imposed has almost become an exception.

[POSHO]

Clever manoeuvre by Wright. Instead of it being a transfer to Crawley where not only we would not be paying him money we may have even got a small fee its classed as a release. So we lose out. Presumably save a bit of wages but he and Crawley have had the best of it.

[PoundhillO]

Has signed for Crawley, two and a half year deal.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

Sorry SF but we would have had to pay up a part of his contract - I suspect we approached Wright rather that the other way round, It's in everybodys interest for him to go but there is no way his agent is going to let him walk away with nothing.

From what other people are saying, I suspect you are wrong. It sounds as if Josh has other interests beyond football and it would have been him that instigated this.

He has a fitness company with his brother, but that really has nothing to do with him leaving the O's he will still play football but elsewhere. He and his agent are not going to walk away from a gaurenteed six months worth of Salary - Something would have been agreed - probably 3 months.

He hasn't walked away from 6 months guaranteed salary, he has walked into 30 months guaranteed salary. It was in his interests to ask for a contract termination so he could accept it so can't see us having to settle anything with him at all given how this has been sorted so quickly.

https://www.crawleytownfc.com/news/2021 ... -the-reds/

[Thor]

Based on what I posted above which is fifa laws, we will have paid him something as I doubt they are paying him as much we were, so the difference in his contract over the remaining period would be due to him as settlement.

[Smendrick Feaselberg]

Based on what I posted above which is fifa laws, we will have paid him something as I doubt they are paying him as much we were, so the difference in his contract over the remaining period would be due to him as settlement.

That refers to action by one of the parties. If it's mutual that's clearly not one of the parties but both.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

I didn't know he'd signed for another club so technically I am right in what I said. However, here is the actual reality of the situation.

4.1. Calculation of compensation
If a contract has been terminated by one of the parties without there being just cause, and if a party terminates the contract where there is just cause, the party who has breached its obligations will be liable for damages pursuant to RSTP article 17. DRC and CAS has awarded compensation in a large number of cases based on the principles from the cases of Matuzalem[2] and De Sanctis[3], which, in short, acknowledged the harmed party’s right to be put in the position it would have been if the contract had been properly fulfilled, the principle of positive interest. In the process of calculating the compensation, a wide range of factors will have to be taken into consideration, leaving the DRC and CAS panels with a wide margin of discretion.

When FIFA presented the mentioned amendment to RSTP art. 14 (2) and the new art. 14bis, they also introduced amendments to art. 17, which regulate how compensation should be calculated when the player is entitled to compensation. The new article states a clear method of calculation. If the player has not signed for a new club, the player shall be entitled to an amount equalling the wages for the remainder of the contract. If the player has signed a contract with a new club, these wages shall be deducted from the compensation. The positive difference between the value of the old contract and the new contract in the corresponding time frame, is defined as “mitigated compensation”. In addition to mitigated compensation, the player will automatically be entitled to three months wages, defined as “additional compensation”. If the player can establish egregious circumstances, the additional compensation may be increased from three up to maximum six-monthly salaries, although he overall compensation may cannot exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.

The new wording of article 17 obviously gives less room for discretion with regards to the calculation of payable compensation, compared to the old wording. The reasoning for FIFA’s decision to change the provision was that the old wording gave the DRC and CAS panels considerable discretion on how to calculate compensation, which led to a large degree of uncertainty for the football clubs and football players involved in such disputes. Although the new wording could contribute to a larger degree of certainty for the involved parties when a player is entitled to compensation, the old wording still applies in cases where the club is entitled to compensation.

4.2 Sporting sanctions
According to FIFA RSTP art. 17 (3) og (4) the party in breach should, in addition to be liable for compensation, also risk sporting sanctions if the breach of contract occurs within the protected period. However, jurisprudence from DRC and CAS show that sporting sanctions are rarely imposed in addition to liability for damages. The principle was first used in FC Pyunik Yerevan v. E., AFC Rapid Bucaresti & FIFA[4]. CAS concluded that FIFA was not obliged to impose a sporting sanction, even if it follows from the wording. This decision by CAS has formed the basis for a practice where the main rule that a sporting sanction should imposed has almost become an exception.

So you reckon he’s had to pay us compo to walk out on the remaining 6 months because he’s got a 2 1/2 year deal lined up elsewhere?

I doubt that’s the case but yes, we’d be entitled to ask for it.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Based on what I posted above which is fifa laws, we will have paid him something as I doubt they are paying him as much we were, so the difference in his contract over the remaining period would be due to him as settlement.

Based on what you posted above, Wright has breached his obligations and we are the harmed party. Unless you honestly think we kicked him out yesterday and he sorted out a new deal elsewhere today.

He has asked to go. We could have refused or demanded compo from him (or more realistically, Crawley). But we obviously would have done the decent thing and just let him walk.

Of course we haven’t had to pay him out.