Bosman Free's...

Am I right in thinking that real life player's can negotiate pre-contract deals with clubs once their contracts rundown to less than 6 months ? I seem to remember reading that somewhere. Don't have time to check it atm.

There are currently 102 players out of 16,000 who are in the last 10 weeks of their contracts.

There are currently 52 players who are in the last 3 weeks of their contracts.

Idea...

Once a player's contract runsdown to the last 10 weeks he goes on the list as "Contract Negotiable" and everybody then gets 10 weeks to offer him a new contract, the details of which are posted to the list each week. Sort of an auction for contracts. Then once his contract actually expires he will move to the club offering the best contract or the non-league if no contracts are forthcoming.

Worth a discussion maybe ?

interesting.

The parent team still have first option to renew the contract though I assume.

Like the idea.

Tom@Charlton wrote:

The parent team still have first option to renew the contract though I assume.

no, once the contract runsdown to a certain amount then it becomes open season. The parent club get the chance to extend the contract before this point in time.

Like it.

I like the idea. I imagine it would be same rules as buying from a parent club, cause woouldnt want to see feeder clubs buying the players if a parent club can't renew in time and selling back....

Yep, like it.

Interesting idea.

My only request would be if it is to be implemented could it be done so as of the start of next season or at least within a sufficient time frame for us to start getting our houses in order.

ie : not next week lol

Will@Fulham wrote:

Interesting idea.

My only request would be if it is to be implemented could it be done so as of the start of next season or at least within a sufficient time frame for us to start getting our houses in order.

ie : not next week lol

That's fair. Good point.

Guys. I like it but, to have the details of the offers on the table to the player available to other clubs is recipe for disaster.

I think it's a super idea...but only if the offers to the player remain secret until the player decides where he's going.

It'll turn into an auction, and that's not good for the game in my eyes.

Surely this should be where the managers reputation rating comes into play?

If a player comes available with 95 wage rating, noone really wants to pay more than 55000 as it will upset the wage structure, so like Rich says, rather than it going down to signing on fees and whoever has the most money, maybe it could be down to how you treat your players. So your club looks the most attractive?

Hence the managerial rating system seems ideal for this scenario?

Agree with Rich. Speculation and rumours fair enough (will add to the banter) but not final offers!

Shouldn't it also be down to where the clubs are playing etc. If the winner of the CL puts in a bid against a side say in the French 1st division should that not play a part?

Managerial rating absolutely.

Personally I think it should come down to where the player thinks he will be treated the best, and get the most playing time.

If a team, or a player in his position, already has too many attitude 1 players, then he might be less likely to go there as playing football should be a priority, therefore the French team might be the better option

But then I would say that...

That's a fair point Ben.

Does manager reputation go up if ur successful in the league / cup competions or is it just based on how u treat ur players........ Could be bad new for a few of us lol!!

I was going to say that would the player be more likely to sign for u if he's been playing regurly... But then that's obvious as that's how it is right now ....durrr... Ill go back to sleep

Go back to sleep Willy.

I think the club where he is already should have some sort of advantage. If it comes just down to finances.

Would a player move to Newcastle for £101,000 a week, if he's on £100,000 a week at Arsenal.
The player is settled etc. although having said that if its just about more than money, it won't make any difference.

Will this only apply to players who are 23 and older like in real life?

Good shout Jamie

If the player is U23 then the fee could be determined by tribunal, ie Paul.

Which would end up being buycost surely?

Are we making this a little too complicated?

Did we vote on this with a recent turn?  Did we get the results? I can't remember!