Chairman Clauses for Bristol City

[Grumpy Git]

I would like to hear from the board whether we have a clause preventing Bristol City from poaching any of our players while Judas is still under contract. He has screwed us over, so no way do I want us to let the snake take any of our squad.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

If the manager had a release clause that could simply be triggered with a set amount of compensation in his contract, I don’t think it’s possible to enforce any such restrictions.

 

[Bigdwoolly]

It's very possible to have a release clause and a "non-poaching" or similar clause in a contract. One doesn't exclude the other. Didn't we have something similar for Mousinho? If there is one, it'd be time limited obviously.
Would be nuts not to have one, given the knowledge Manning/Mousinho would have about the contract situations at the club.

 

[SteMerritt]

As @RyanioBirdio says, if there was a release clause and it was met we would have no way to force any terms into the deal. Why would Bristol City accept such a limitation being placed if they didn't have to? They would have met all the obligations they were required to meet by triggering the release clause.

 

[OX14]

If the manager had a release clause that could simply be triggered with a set amount of compensation in his contract, I don’t think it’s possible to enforce any such restrictions.

From what I've heard from a pretty reliable source, but obviously may not be 100% the truth.

Manning only had a relegation release clause, he was then on a years rolling contract.

Manning' s contract had a settlement figure of 12 months pay if we got rid of him, it wasn't a buy out clause.

Bristol city had to arrange compensation with OUFC and the figure is much higher than 1 years salary.

Manning apparently told the board he wanted to speak with Bristol city and OUFC board tried to keep him with an improved contract but he insisted he wanted to go.

 

[dickwalton1964]

As @RyanioBirdio says, if there was a release clause and it was met we would have no way to force any terms into the deal. Why would Bristol City accept such a limitation being placed if they didn't have to? They would have met all the obligations they were required to meet by triggering the release clause.

But what about if restrictions were put in to that release clause ? They could meet it financially but would still have to abide by the terms of it.

 

[SteMerritt]

But what about if restrictions were put in to that release clause ?

That's the question isn't it. But I'm happy to take what @OX14 has posted as close to the truth anyway, meaning we could possibly get some sort of clause for the January window put in place.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

It's very possible to have a release clause and a "non-poaching" or similar clause in a contract. One doesn't exclude the other. Didn't we have something similar for Mousinho? If there is one, it'd be time limited obviously.
Would be nuts not to have one, given the knowledge Manning/Mousinho would have about the contract situations at the club.

Mousinho was negotiated for as he was technically a player with a playing contract, so the club could insist on any such clauses as they held the cards. It was a transfer.

A settlement fee is a buyout clause, so I don’t see how as has been said the club could get more than that amount. A manager can actually buy himself out of his own contract if there’s a rolling deal with no specified duration of terms. This is why Wilder just walked out of the building after his final game - he knew he couldn’t be stopped. Where he had to backtrack momentarily was Northampton not actually submitting the compensation notification before he marched out. It’s just another name for it.

Radio Oxford said on air last night that it was a year’s salary as per the terms of the deal, even referring to it as a buyout of sorts, and then proceeded to talk about how Krause hasn’t gone yet but were repeatedly hinting that they think it’s very likely he will. They seemed very sure of the amount and that there wasn’t really any negotiating to be done. Their words, not mine.

 

[Bigdwoolly]

You'd expect a non-poach clause to be negotiated for a player, because that clause wouldn't be part of a players contract normally.
You'd also expect a non-poach clause to be a standard clause in a managers contract, I don't see why having a buyout/settlement clause would prevent this.

Ideally it would be nice if the club would clarify this, because if they've left this open, it's a big question mark on their levels of competence.

I remember Ed Waldron saying he liked not giving out information about lengths of contracts so other clubs are less easily aware, so you'd really hope they've thought it through.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

You'd also expect a non-poach clause to be a standard clause in a managers contract, I don't see why having a buyout/settlement clause would prevent this.

The assistant has already gone with him and the local media is speculating that another of the backroom team brought in by Manning is unlikely to be too far behind. It doesn’t sound like anyone has been sufficiently handcuffed, but hopefully in the coming days one of the board will give some sort of update that clarifies what level of protection the club has.

 

[maidenheadox]

A non-poach clause is unenforceable, those things don't exist. Players are under contract. If another club (including Bristol City) want to make an offer for a player then that's fine, we don't have to accept it. Depending on the offer it might suit us as well.

 

[Scotchegg]

From what I've heard from a pretty reliable source, but obviously may not be 100% the truth.

Manning only had a relegation release clause, he was then on a years rolling contract.

Manning' s contract had a settlement figure of 12 months pay if we got rid of him, it wasn't a buy out clause.

Bristol city had to arrange compensation with OUFC and the figure is much higher than 1 years salary.

Manning apparently told the board he wanted to speak with Bristol city and OUFC board tried to keep him with an improved contract but he insisted he wanted to go.

That's pretty much what I've heard except I'm not sure the compensation is that much higher than a years salary.

 

[Marked Ox]

A non-poach clause is unenforceable, those things don't exist. Players are under contract. If another club (including Bristol City) want to make an offer for a player then that's fine, we don't have to accept it. Depending on the offer it might suit us as well.

A Bristol City tax to be applied so 25-50% to be added on to what the club would normally value a player.

 

[holdsteady]

For players contracted to us we don't need a clause, we can just refuse an offer. For players who are on loan here you couldn't legally have any sort of clause like that anyway, they are owned by another club and have a break clause in January, which means all season long loans are essentially till January and then see how happy everyone is then such thing as an actual season long loan. So loan players are the most likely to leave, but obviously Bristol City will have some in place who they want to keep already and you can only have 5, they will have players in positions we have loan players and not want to bring in players in those positions. Some of our loan players who are playing will be happy here and their clubs will be happy they are playing so Manning won't be able to get them.

Can't see there being an exodus of our players to Bristol City in January, if Mannings tactic for success in the Championship is to just nick our players then he will be out of there quicker than he was out of here given the gap in the divisions standards,

 

[QR]

I would like to hear from the board whether we have a clause preventing Bristol City from poaching any of our players while Judas is still under contract. He has screwed us over, so no way do I want us to let the snake take any of our squad.

I'm struggling to see how to entity A (us) can agree with entity B (Brizzle) to restrict the employment opportunities of entity C (a player) outside of the terms of a contract entity A has with entity C.

 

[Bath Yellow]

Brighton possibly recalling Beadle in January then sending him on loan to Bristol City. That would be a massive blow for us.

 

[RagingBull]

Brighton possibly recalling Beadle in January then sending him on loan to Bristol City. That would be a massive blow for us.

That is my biggest worry now and would likely derail our season.

 

[Northstandboy]

That is my biggest worry now and would likely derail our season.

You’d hope recruitment will be looking at alternatives incase

 

[Sarge]

For players contracted to us we don't need a clause, we can just refuse an offer. For players who are on loan here you couldn't legally have any sort of clause like that anyway, they are owned by another club and have a break clause in January, which means all season long loans are essentially till January and then see how happy everyone is then such thing as an actual season long loan. So loan players are the most likely to leave, but obviously Bristol City will have some in place who they want to keep already and you can only have 5, they will have players in positions we have loan players and not want to bring in players in those positions. Some of our loan players who are playing will be happy here and their clubs will be happy they are playing so Manning won't be able to get them.

Can't see there being an exodus of our players to Bristol City in January, if Mannings tactic for success in the Championship is to just nick our players then he will be out of there quicker than he was out of here given the gap in the divisions standards,

There are trigger offers in (most of) our players contracts- Snakes Manning and Hogg will know what they are

 

[Oxymoron]

Brighton possibly recalling Beadle in January then sending him on loan to Bristol City. That would be a massive blow for us.

Bristol City already have a plethora of goalkeepers. Max O'Leary is now the established #1 and on the fringes of the RoI squad. I can't see Brighton wanting to send Beadle there to warm the bench.