James Trafford's Contract

[claret59]

I occasionally read on here that Trafford has a clause in his contract that he must be selected to play except for injury Is this correct? He is a signed player not a loan. Is he , or his previous club able to enforce such a contract condition? (apologies if this is a repeat query. My computer skills deleted the first one, I think !)

[Jakubclaret]

I occasionally read on here that Trafford has a clause in his contract that he must be selected to play except for injury Is this correct? He is a signed player not a loan. Is he , or his previous club able to enforce such a contract condition? (apologies if this is a repeat query. My computer skills deleted the first one, I think !)

No but his agent could do when negotiating.

[dsr]

I occasionally read on here that Trafford has a clause in his contract that he must be selected to play except for injury Is this correct? He is a signed player not a loan. Is he , or his previous club able to enforce such a contract condition? (apologies if this is a repeat query. My computer skills deleted the first one, I think !)

No, it's not correct. It's a silly rumour, possibly made up by people who can't believe that Kompany could disagree with them. No club would ever put that contract term in, and it probably wouldn't be enforceable anyway. (And what possible interest could a previous club have in such a clause?)

[Vegas Claret]

Question: How many people on here were sat in the room whilst negotiations were taking place and Trafford signed his contract ?
Answer: none

Question: How many people in the room decided to break the confidence of a contract and divulge it's details ?
Answer: none

Question: Who makes up this nonsense about Trafford ?
Answer: Far too many people

Question: Who believes this nonsense ?
Answer: Even more

[Jakubclaret]

No, it's not correct. It's a silly rumour, possibly made up by people who can't believe that Kompany could disagree with them. No club would ever put that contract term in, and it probably wouldn't be enforceable anyway. (And what possible interest could a previous club have in such a clause?)

Why wouldn't it be enforceable? If that condition was agreed to prior to him signing it's perfectly enforceable & if he doesn't get selected to start the terms of the contract are breached.

[Jakubclaret]

Anything is enforceable providing all parties agree to it & it's safe & legal.

[TopCat]

Why wouldn't it be enforceable? If that condition was agreed to prior to him signing it's perfectly enforceable & if he doesn't get selected to start the terms of the contract are breached.

And if it was breached does that mean he has to go back?

[Jakubclaret]

And if it was breached does that mean he has to go back?

I don't know about that or if it's a condition that he has to play. But if it's in his contract it's enforceable I'm certain of that.

[CoolClaret]

Pure crackpot to think that such things are written into contracts in the PL in the modern day.

Stuff like this will have happened way back when when things were a bit more 'cowboy' (for want of a better term) or stars being brought into development leagues or something but this is just madness.

[Jakubclaret]

Pure crackpot to think that such things are written into contracts in the PL in the modern day.

Stuff like this will have happened way back when when things were a bit more 'cowboy' (for want of a better term) or stars being brought into development leagues or something but this is just madness.

It's perfectly reasonable for any agent to insert that to guarantee maximum reward to further his clients progress & his own interests.

[Juan Tanamera]

Music: "Hey Boss, how come you don't pick me anymore?"
Vinny: "When we signed James we inserted a clause that we think you and others will be gullible enough to believe."

[taio]

It's perfectly reasonable for any agent to insert that to guarantee maximum reward to further his clients progress & his own interests.

But not perfectly reasonable for the other party.

[Jakubclaret]

But not perfectly reasonable for the other party.

Of course both parties need to agree that goes without saying. We all know how bad Kompany wanted Trafford enough to agree to that remains in doubt.

[Woodleyclaret]

If this was a fact I'd trigger the recall and get our money back.Never what we needed at this level.

[taio]

Of course both parties need to agree that goes without saying. We all know how bad Kompany wanted Trafford enough to agree to that remains in doubt.

No doubt. Just doesn't happen and nor should it.

[Cabbage]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[NewClaret]

You missed one Vegas…

Question: How many brain cells do you have if you believe these rumours?
Answer: None

[Fretters]

Music: "Hey Boss, how come you don't pick me anymore?"
Vinny: "When we signed James we inserted a clause that we think you and others will be gullible enough to believe."

The day the Music died.

[NL Claret]

Great another Trafford post.

I hope Taylor doesn't play today, anyone know anything about Taylor's contract?

[dsr]

Why wouldn't it be enforceable? If that condition was agreed to prior to him signing it's perfectly enforceable & if he doesn't get selected to start the terms of the contract are breached.

It probably wouldn't be enforceable because contracts for personal services can't be enforced. I think it will work both ways.

[Rileybobs]

Great another Trafford post.

I hope Taylor doesn't play today, anyone know anything about Taylor's contract?

Taylor's contract stipulates that he will only play if Trafford is selected.

[JohnMac]

The Club pursued Verbruggen until it was beyond our reach and he signed for Brighton so unlikely VK wanted Trafford so badly ...

[Jakubclaret]

It probably wouldn't be enforceable because contracts for personal services can't be enforced. I think it will work both ways.

He's under employment he's contracted. If what you are saying is correct no need would exist for all the clauses & contract conditions that exist.

[Jakubclaret]

The Club pursued Verbruggen until it was beyond our reach and he signed for Brighton so unlikely VK wanted Trafford so badly ...

Enough to pay well over the odds suggest he did.

[JohnMac]

Enough to pay well over the odds suggest he did.

VK will not have any say in how much we pay for a player, the days of Managers negotiating contracts are long gone.

[Jakubclaret]

VK will not have any say in how much we pay for a player, the days of Managers negotiating contracts are long gone.

He'll have influence if anything far too much.

[Casper2]

Music: "Hey Boss, how come you don't pick me anymore?"
Vinny: "When we signed James we inserted a clause that we think you and others will be gullible enough to believe."

Music was my first love

[beddie]

Let’s swop his for calamity Ramsdale.

[TheFamilyCat]

I occasionally read on here that Trafford has a clause in his contract that he must be selected to play except for injury Is this correct? He is a signed player not a loan. Is he , or his previous club able to enforce such a contract condition? (apologies if this is a repeat query. My computer skills deleted the first one, I think !)

When a thread as daft as this comes along it's no surprise that one particular poster goes in deep.

[Jakubclaret]

No doubt. Just doesn't happen and nor should it.

It remains in doubt to me because I don't have any inside knowledge concerning JTs contract if you are sure about something obviously you do.

[CnBtruntru]

Question: How many people on here were sat in the room whilst negotiations were taking place and Trafford signed his contract ?
Answer: none

Question: How many people in the room decided to break the confidence of a contract and divulge it's details ?
Answer: none

Question: Who makes up this nonsense about Trafford ?
Answer: Far too many people

Question: Who believes this nonsense ?
Answer: Even more

100% right

[Nori1958]

The Club pursued Verbruggen until it was beyond our reach and he signed for Brighton so unlikely VK wanted Trafford so badly ...

And the year before when Verbruggen turned us down, who did he sign that he didn't really want?

[dsr]

He's under employment he's contracted. If what you are saying is correct no need would exist for all the clauses & contract conditions that exist.

Totally the opposite. It's because contracts for personal services can't be enforced that the clubs want exit clauses for when their employee refuses to do his job.

If Roy Race says that he will no longer play for or manage Melchester Rovers, then there is nothing in law that can make him. It is unenforceable. That's why the club wants penalty or release clauses, so they can get compensation for the loss of their player or manager.

[JR1882]

Unlikely any such clause exists however that shouldn’t detract from what a disaster his selection has been.

Last player to go from league one and start every prem game? For any club?

[AGENT_CLARET]

At least he's 6 foot 6

[Cooclaret]

I don’t think there’s a must play clause, but I do think we’ve helped out MC with their FFP by overpaying.

Makes me think there must be a return fee to MC or with a first refusal option.

James Trafford has been long touted the successor to the England No1 spot.

It’s the shambles in front of him that is exposing him.

[claretonthecoast1882]

So we sign a keeper and are told he has to play and we agree.

We then pay a fee to help man City possibly escape any punishment with FFP by signing him, you can imagine Kompany going to the board and saying I need to help out the richest club in the world by signing a player from them.

We have also had that Muric would be playing but the Kosovan mafia got involved with the club and KOmpany won't play him because of this.

Just trying to work out why some other clubs call our fans dingles

[bumba]

Don't think it can be put in his contract, I think it's more we've gone in asking what they want City have said a deal totalling £19 million but we want a buy back at £50+ million, our eyes have lit up thinking we're getting a great deal and will almost treble our money JT must be brilliant if they want a buy back that high so agreed to pay it.
City then walk off laughing saying how did we sell that dud for 10 times more than what he's worth.

[Jakubclaret]

Totally the opposite. It's because contracts for personal services can't be enforced that the clubs want exit clauses for when their employee refuses to do his job.

If Roy Race says that he will no longer play for or manage Melchester Rovers, then there is nothing in law that can make him. It is unenforceable. That's why the club wants penalty or release clauses, so they can get compensation for the loss of their player or manager.

Of course you cannot literally physically force somebody/anybody to do things they don't want to do but the methods of enforcement aren't so extreme. When that usually happens the player wants to go somewhere else & is agitating for a move but if the club stand firm no other club can legally sign that player whilst he's under contract & if that said player terminated his own contract he'd probably be subjected to fines/penalties & maybe even some sort of a ban from the footballing authorities. There's always some sort of a workaround because it makes no sense for clubs to keep unhappy players hostage.

[evensteadiereddie]

Don't think it can be put in his contract, I think it's more we've gone in asking what they want City have said a deal totalling £19 million but we want a buy back at £50+ million, our eyes have lit up thinking we're getting a great deal and will almost treble our money JT must be brilliant if they want a buy back that high so agreed to pay it.
City then walk off laughing saying how did we sell that dud for 10 times more than what he's worth.

And if this were in any way realistic, no club on earth would invest in proven young talent.
Trafford is a kid playing in front of a relatively poor defence behind a relatively weak midfield in the most difficult league in world football.
Let's judge Trafford and the wisdom or otherwise of his purchase over next season too.

[dsr]

Of course you cannot literally physically force somebody/anybody to do things they don't want to do but the methods of enforcement aren't so extreme. When that usually happens the player wants to go somewhere else & is agitating for a move but if the club stand firm no other club can legally sign that player whilst he's under contract & if that said player terminated his own contract he'd probably be subjected to fines/penalties & maybe even some sort of a ban from the footballing authorities. There's always some sort of a workaround because it makes no sense for clubs to keep unhappy players hostage.

You've got it. Contracts for personal services aren't enforceable (in law as well as in practice) but there are penalty clauses and such to compensate the party that hasn't got what it paid for.

[GetIntoEm]

Theres no player contract that exists on earth that demands that a player must play if available. move on.

[Claret Toni]

I've read that Harry Kewell had a clause in his Liverpool contract that he would start in all major finals and, perhaps surprisingly, started the 2005 Champions League final. He was subbed early in the 1st half. He started the 2006 FA Cup Final and was subbed early in the 2nd half. Both of these appearances could add weight to the support that such a clause existed, however he did not start the 2007 Champions League Final, "only" coming on as a substitute.

If there was any truth that such a clause existed, then Benitez exploited a loophole by substituting Kewell.

Turning to Trafford's situation, if a clause to start existed, then VK could substitute him, be it after a collision where he's needed treatment, after a glaring error or simply at half time. None of this has happened.

Of course I'm not privy to any contracts, but the foregoing tells me that VK simply thinks Trafford is the better keeper and that's why he picks him.

[Goliath]

I've read that Harry Kewell had a clause in his Liverpool contract that he would start in all major finals and, perhaps surprisingly, started the 2005 Champions League final. He was subbed early in the 1st half. He started the 2006 FA Cup Final and was subbed early in the 2nd half. Both of these appearances could add weight to the support that such a clause existed, however he did not start the 2007 Champions League Final, "only" coming on as a substitute.

If there was any truth that such a clause existed, then Benitez exploited a loophole by substituting Kewell.

Turning to Trafford's situation, if a clause to start existed, then VK could substitute him, be it after a collision where he's needed treatment, after a glaring error or simply at half time. None of this has happened.

Of course I'm not privy to any contracts, but the foregoing tells me that VK simply thinks Trafford is the better keeper and that's why he picks him.

This sounds like absolute ********. Didnt Kewell get injured in the Champs lg final early doors?

[Claret Toni]

This sounds like absolute ********. Didnt Kewell get injured in the Champs lg final early doors?

If you were to re-read my post, you would see that I mentioned the rumour giving examples, then stated the rumour was most likely false by stating he didn't start the 2007 Champions league Final.

Nevertheless my comment showed a way VK could get round the situation should such a clause exist, which I don't believe, does.

No dispute about Harry Kewell's injury history; he almost made Darren Anderton look reliable.

[Jakubclaret]

I've read that Harry Kewell had a clause in his Liverpool contract that he would start in all major finals and, perhaps surprisingly, started the 2005 Champions League final. He was subbed early in the 1st half. He started the 2006 FA Cup Final and was subbed early in the 2nd half. Both of these appearances could add weight to the support that such a clause existed, however he did not start the 2007 Champions League Final, "only" coming on as a substitute.

If there was any truth that such a clause existed, then Benitez exploited a loophole by substituting Kewell.

Turning to Trafford's situation, if a clause to start existed, then VK could substitute him, be it after a collision where he's needed treatment, after a glaring error or simply at half time. None of this has happened.

Of course I'm not privy to any contracts, but the foregoing tells me that VK simply thinks Trafford is the better keeper and that's why he picks him.

None of the incidents you've described have happened apart from the glaring error or to be more precise errors & how often have you seen goalkeepers substituted because they've made a mistake whilst the games in progress. If you are giving examples at least make them relevant & applicable. The truth is nobody really knows (apart from a handful of people) on a 100% sure basis if his contract states that he must start. There's been other examples but usually it's just appearances based. On the face of it nobody wants to explore the possibility (or believe) that our managers made a mistake agreeing to something & then it backfiring because it makes certain people look like idiots for backing him.

[dsr]

I've read that Harry Kewell had a clause in his Liverpool contract that he would start in all major finals and, perhaps surprisingly, started the 2005 Champions League final. He was subbed early in the 1st half. He started the 2006 FA Cup Final and was subbed early in the 2nd half. Both of these appearances could add weight to the support that such a clause existed, however he did not start the 2007 Champions League Final, "only" coming on as a substitute.

If there was any truth that such a clause existed, then Benitez exploited a loophole by substituting Kewell.

Turning to Trafford's situation, if a clause to start existed, then VK could substitute him, be it after a collision where he's needed treatment, after a glaring error or simply at half time. None of this has happened.

Of course I'm not privy to any contracts, but the foregoing tells me that VK simply thinks Trafford is the better keeper and that's why he picks him.

How likely is it that Benitez would deliberately pick a weakened team for the Champions League Final?

Apart from anything else, Kewell had been injured all season so could easily have been left out even under the terms of this rumoured contract. So as well as failing the "is this obviously silly?" test, it also fails the "could this be true in practice?" test.

I agree with you. The reason Kompany picks Trafford is because he thinks it's the right thing to do.

[Boss Hogg]

I wonder how much we’ve made on him to date and if there’ll be a host of clubs after his signature in the Summer.

[dsr]

The truth is nobody really knows (apart from a handful of people) on a 100% sure basis if his contract states that he must start. There's been other examples but usually it's just appearances based. On the face of it nobody wants to explore the possibility (or believe) that our managers made a mistake agreeing to something & then it backfiring because it makes certain people look like idiots for backing him.

On the same logic, we don't know for sure whether Vincent Kompany picks the team or whether his contract says that Alan Pace is in charge. If your test of 100% certainty depends on looking at the contract, that is.

[dsr]

I wonder how much we’ve made on him to date and if there’ll be a host of clubs after his signature in the Summer.

Other people have a much higher opinion of him than people on here. Remember the Bournemouth manager changed their game plan because of Trafford's ability to hold the ball. Not everyone gives him the silky skills of Joe Neenan.