John Bostock played 4 games for Palace before deciding, like Jenkinson, he was worthy of better.
The tribunal determined that Palace got:
£700k up front
£525 in appearance installments
£200k for international appearance
15% sell on fee of any profit
Daniel Sturridge played 21 games for Man City before wanting to join Chelsea
The tribunal determined that Man City got:
£3.5m up front
£2m in installments
£1m for international appearance
15% sell on fee
0
Comments
The tribunal will determine that Charlton get:
£50k up front
£50k after 30 first team appearances
£50k after a full international cap for Finland
And a Kit-Kat
We'll end up paying for the privilege of having him taken off our hands!
I cite Sankofa's "frivolous" appeal as an example of the contempt in which the powers that be hold our club.
*cue Keith Peacock with scarf aloft on buying clubs pitch*
Sturridge - Premiership man city 3.5m
going by that rationale that would be 21% of the rate for the league above
Jenkinson - League 1 Charlton - at a guess £150k
Cheers Carl - thanks for your outstanding display of loyalty to the club who have made you what you are
Im not hating the game....I'm hating the player
hard nuts spoken
In which case you've got it the wrong way round, imho, Swis.
I don't really see why Jenkinson can be blamed for wanting the opportunity to better himslf and if he's been told signing a new contract at the Valley will potentially harm his chances of doing that, then why should he sign it? If you'd just completed a, say, a degree which was paid for by your employer and were then offered a big pay-rise working for a different (more prestigious) company would you trun it down, even if you only got the job offer because of the degree your current employer paid for? I don't think many people would think twice.The problem is, that the current system makes it too easy (and cheap) for clubs to poach yougsters who are out of contract. If it was harder then it wouldn't matter if Jenks signed a new deal or not and therfore he wouldn't be getting the advice it appears he has been given.
Under such a system, how are clubs lower down the leagues to be expected to want to run academies if they know, in all liklihood, they will be loss making enterprises because everytime they produce a player who has a potentially high sale value they will have him pinched for peanuts?
Imo, the current system isn't just to the detriment of the academies involved, it's to the detriment of the national team - we simply need to be producing more well coached players. If we're to do this we need to the maximum amount of clubs running full-fledged academies, but we'll only get smaller teams taking the financial plunge involved in setting one up if they feel confident somewhere along the line they'll get a fair price for the odd top prospect they produce, thus making the academy self funding or even profit making for them. The longer we carry on like this, the sooner only the top teams will run academies and the lower leagues will be littered with their cast-offs rather than youngsters making their first steps in league football on the road to better things.
It's another example of how it's the Premier League that really runs English Football these days, not the FA.
We got 575k for Sean McGinty who signed for Man Utd. That's because United agreed a fee with us. And a number of clauses added with that.
Seems highly unfair that we would get less for a player who has actually played for the first team!
From the FL website but from 2008
"As with their professional counterparts, some young players will take the opportunity to move clubs if the chance arises. And with larger clubs seeking to recruit players at ever younger ages, this is becoming increasingly common.
In the majority of cases, clubs will reach mutual agreement on a compensation fee. However, in others the two clubs' valuations will differ, sometimes significantly, and the matter will need to be settled through an arbitration process.
The professional game's method for determining the amount of compensation payable for training and development of players under the age of 24 is through the Professional Football Compensation Committee (PFCC). The PFCC is incorporated under the rules of both The Football League and Premier League, and forms part of the collective bargaining agreement with the Professional Footballers' Association.
The PFCC comprises of an independent Chairman, appointees from The Football League and Premier League (as appropriate), an appointee of The Professional Footballers' Association and an appointee of the League Managers' Association.
PFCC hearings take place on an agreed date with each club required to provide evidence to support their valuation of the player in question. In making its judgment the committee will take into account the costs of both clubs in operating a Football Academy or Centre of Excellence, as well as the age and playing record of the player, the length of time he was registered with his original club, the terms offered by both clubs, the status of the two clubs, the substantiated interest shown by other clubs in acquiring the registration of the player and any amounts paid by the original club to acquire the player in the first place.
Unlike FIFA's formulaic approach, this domestic process allows for greater flexibility in setting the level of compensation according to the merits of each individual case. In deciding on a compensation figure, it is not uncommon for the PFCC to set fees that build as the player becomes more established at first team level. Recent cases have seen clubs receive a basic compensation fee with further payments becoming due on the player's debut, following a certain numbers of first-team appearances and after international appearances. It is also usual for there to be a sell-on fee should the player be sold at a profit at any point in the future.
The Football League believes that compensation fees set by the Professional Football Compensation Committee must send out the right signals to clubs about the benefits of having a fully-developed youth development programme.
That's the view of The League's Chief Operating Officer, Andy Williamson, who says, "We cannot allow a situation to develop where the level of compensation fees set ends up being a deterrent to club investment in youth development.
"Instead, we must ensure that clubs receive suitable recognition for the work they do in identifying and developing players. In turn, this will encourage them to re-double their efforts to produce the young talent of the future."
This summer saw considerable debate about the valuations being placed on young players by the PFCC. And whilst the fees being set by the domestic process can be significantly larger than those set by the FIFA system, Williamson believes that English football is yet to get the balance right and says, "We must not allow clubs to feel short-changed, as some clearly have done in recent times, by the very process that is supposed to reward their good work."
"This issue needs to be brought to the top of football's agenda."
Reckon we will get 100k with add ons. At least we are not as desperate for money as we were last season.
I think Carl might have had something to do with it as well.
I think people are being exceptionally hard on Carl. Football has no loyalty and is a constant pursuit of higher money. Lets not wish him dead just yet.
If he later states in an internview that he owes the West ham academy for making him a great player, then we can wish whatever we like of him. And watch him score against us.
What is wrong, however is that the big clubs clearly prefer to PFCC mechanism rather than negotiating directly with Charlton - and by doing so they can offer the player more and also get the player cheaper than would otherwise be the case. The PFCC mechanism has clearly been set up to strengthen the ability of the big clubs to get what they want. Chelsea have already been found guilty of abuses when it comes to recruiting young players - and apart from having to compensate another big club what was there punishment - absolutely nothing.
I'm afraid the reality is that Sky and the big clubs are now running the game in the UK - and short of legislation to take away their powers or UEFA taking action I fear nothing will change whatsoever.
So do we boo him for deserting us or cheer him for coming back?
A half each to be coordinated in the Liberal beforehand.
Do we know this for definite - I don't remember reading that anywhere official?
If I'm honest I don't hate him and I hope he does well for himself. From a purely selfish perspective I would have preferred him to do what Jonjo did and that is to sign a contract so we get a fee. If a prem club wants him they won't really care if a tribunal values him at £200k or they pay us £1m - we are talking about a great young player here and they'd be willing to pay
There was no problem when Rob Lee, Lee Bowyer or Paul Walsh moved onto bigger things (or even derek hales) and the problem with Scott Parker was the timing of it as much as anything. Just so long as we get adequate compensation
What's your definition of big club though? There's a world of difference finding out he's been tapped up by Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea or even West Ham and then him rocking up at Selhurst next year for that lot. Going to effect the crowds view of things quite a lot.