Depending on the date of the contract offer we will be due a development fee if he moves within England. Here's the relevant rule (which I have borrowed from another forum discussing the same thing)
(ii) There shall be no right to a compensation or transfer fee by the previous club of a Player who has attained the age of 24 years on or before 30th June and whose contract with that Club has expired. If a Club wishes to offer re-engagement to a Player or exercise an option contained in the agreement the following practice shall prevail.
(iii) Within 7 days of the first Saturday in May, or the date of the last competitive Match of the Club’s first team, whichever is the later, the Club must give notice in writing to the Player indicating that either the Club offers a re-engagement or, if appropriate, exercises any option contained in the agreement.
(iv) If the notice offers re-engagement it must specify the period which the Club is prepared to agree and the terms and conditions to apply, which must be the same or not less favourable overall than those which applied during the initial period of employment – or the option period (if applicable).
(v) The Player must notify in writing the Club holding the registration within 28 days of receipt of the said notice whether or not the offer of re-engagement is accepted.
(vi) If the offer is rejected the Player is immediately free to negotiate with another Club.
(vii) If the Player does not reply in writing to the offer of re-engagement then at the expiry of a period of 28 days, the Player is free to negotiate with another Club.
(viii) In either of the instances as set out in Rules C1(j)(vi) and (vii) above, the Club holding the Player’s registration has the right to receive compensation. The Player’s registration for the new Club will not be accepted until such time as the Club has confirmed in writing to The Association that it will negotiate a compensation fee with the former Club failing which it will abide by any decision taken by an appeal committee comprising those persons pursuant to Rule C1(j)(xii) (a “League Appeals Committee”).
Obviously ready to be proved wrong as events in the next few weeks will prove one way or another but I am sure this only applies to homegrown players.
Depending on the date of the contract offer we will be due a development fee if he moves within England. Here's the relevant rule (which I have borrowed from another forum discussing the same thing)
(ii) There shall be no right to a compensation or transfer fee by the previous club of a Player who has attained the age of 24 years on or before 30th June and whose contract with that Club has expired. If a Club wishes to offer re-engagement to a Player or exercise an option contained in the agreement the following practice shall prevail.
(iii) Within 7 days of the first Saturday in May, or the date of the last competitive Match of the Club’s first team, whichever is the later, the Club must give notice in writing to the Player indicating that either the Club offers a re-engagement or, if appropriate, exercises any option contained in the agreement.
(iv) If the notice offers re-engagement it must specify the period which the Club is prepared to agree and the terms and conditions to apply, which must be the same or not less favourable overall than those which applied during the initial period of employment – or the option period (if applicable).
(v) The Player must notify in writing the Club holding the registration within 28 days of receipt of the said notice whether or not the offer of re-engagement is accepted.
(vi) If the offer is rejected the Player is immediately free to negotiate with another Club.
(vii) If the Player does not reply in writing to the offer of re-engagement then at the expiry of a period of 28 days, the Player is free to negotiate with another Club.
(viii) In either of the instances as set out in Rules C1(j)(vi) and (vii) above, the Club holding the Player’s registration has the right to receive compensation. The Player’s registration for the new Club will not be accepted until such time as the Club has confirmed in writing to The Association that it will negotiate a compensation fee with the former Club failing which it will abide by any decision taken by an appeal committee comprising those persons pursuant to Rule C1(j)(xii) (a “League Appeals Committee”).
Obviously ready to be proved wrong as events in the next few weeks will prove one way or another but I am sure this only applies to homegrown players.
Nope that's not the case. As a relevant example, Chelsea received compensation for borini when he moved to parma
If Dickplum reckons that Fox is good enough to step up to be the cover, then that's good enough for me. Sorry if Ceddy goes, but we all moan about homegrown youngsters getting a chance, this opens the door to Morgan easing his way into the first team.
If Dickplum reckons that Fox is good enough to step up to be the cover, then that's good enough for me. Sorry if Ceddy goes, but we all moan about homegrown youngsters getting a chance, this opens the door to Morgan easing his way into the first team.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I really would like to see Morgan in a number of competitive friendlies pre season, to see how he goes. He is physically strong enough to play grown up football.He started as a centre half but has converted well to left back.
Quite encouraged by this development. Not because I have anything against Evina, but because it shows the Club is thinking hard about how to optimise FFP constrained budget. This is something all Clubs impacted will need to get much better at, which, in turn, may have some surprising consequences for players and their agents.
Why should Charlton pre commit the budget for the 2014/15 season on a player who is clearly only backup and about whom they may now have formed a long-term view? Make no mistake, it's clear from Evina's comment that if he were offered a two or three-year contract, he'd then be a liability for the entirety of that period. Suppose that by the beginning of the season after next (2014/15) either Fox or Cousins are ready for first team action, even if only as backup? Powell might then want to offer them a two-year deal (or longer), but if Evina is a dead weight that might not be possible.
As for Evina, he might be disappointed by the Club ....because at this stage of his career..... etc, but if I were him I'd be focusing on trying to convince Chris Powell (or somebody else) that I was good enough. Right now, it's clear that Chris Powell views him as a useful squad player, but no more. There's a price and a term of contract for that and that's what Evina has been offered. Be interesting to see how his agent gets on finding him something better.
I see the usual doom-mongers are out. Let's be honest here, Evina is only 21 and if Powell really rated him we would have surely offered him a longer deal. Yet people on here are whining that we have no money, the end is nigh etc etc. simply because our reserve left back is leaving! I think i'll trust Powell's judgement on who is/isn't good enough for the LB position, he probably knows a bit about it.
Good luck to him, a good championship player but unfortunately for him Wiggins is probably good enough for the premiership. Would have like to keep both but the good news is it would be very unlikely for Wiggins to go now.
Dont think its any reflection on the clubs finances/ or lack of
Quite encouraged by this development. Not because I have anything against Evina, but because it shows the Club is thinking hard about how to optimise FFP constrained budget. This is something all Clubs impacted will need to get much better at, which, in turn, may have some surprising consequences for players and their agents.
Why should Charlton pre commit the budget for the 2014/15 season on a player who is clearly only backup and about whom they may now have formed a long-term view? Make no mistake, it's clear from Evina's comment that if he were offered a two or three-year contract, he'd then be a liability for the entirety of that period. Suppose that by the beginning of the season after next (2014/15) either Fox or Cousins are ready for first team action, even if only as backup? Powell might then want to offer them a two-year deal (or longer), but if Evina is a dead weight that might not be possible.
As for Evina, he might be disappointed by the Club ....because at this stage of his career..... etc, but if I were him I'd be focusing on trying to convince Chris Powell (or somebody else) that I was good enough. Right now, it's clear that Chris Powell views him as a useful squad player, but no more. There's a price and a term of contract for that and that's what Evina has been offered. Be interesting to see how his agent gets on finding him something better.
Agree with this on the whole Mundell. I'm not sure that saying because he is back up he's not worthy of a longer deal.If wiggins gets another knock then he's well in contention. My worry is that with a squad as thin as ours you have to be careful who you play hardball with.
Quite encouraged by this development. Not because I have anything against Evina, but because it shows the Club is thinking hard about how to optimise FFP constrained budget. This is something all Clubs impacted will need to get much better at, which, in turn, may have some surprising consequences for players and their agents.
Why should Charlton pre commit the budget for the 2014/15 season on a player who is clearly only backup and about whom they may now have formed a long-term view? Make no mistake, it's clear from Evina's comment that if he were offered a two or three-year contract, he'd then be a liability for the entirety of that period. Suppose that by the beginning of the season after next (2014/15) either Fox or Cousins are ready for first team action, even if only as backup? Powell might then want to offer them a two-year deal (or longer), but if Evina is a dead weight that might not be possible.
As for Evina, he might be disappointed by the Club ....because at this stage of his career..... etc, but if I were him I'd be focusing on trying to convince Chris Powell (or somebody else) that I was good enough. Right now, it's clear that Chris Powell views him as a useful squad player, but no more. There's a price and a term of contract for that and that's what Evina has been offered. Be interesting to see how his agent gets on finding him something better.
Agree with this Mundell. My worry is that with a squad as thin as ours you have to be careful who you play hardball with.
I agree. I think the really hard bit is that these negotiations need to start before you know how other discussions might play out during the summer. There is, therefore, a risk of being a bit threadbare when the season begins, but on the other hand you can't offer generous contracts just in case. There's much more skill in all of this than is obvious on the surface and getting value for money is going to be ever more important.
Evina was signed to add numbers to the squad when we were looking to get out of League 1. He hasn`t pushed on, we move on, onwards and upwards!
I think this is a bit unfair, when he had a run in the team he done well and there was even talk of pairing him & Wiggins on the left side until we found Harriott. He couldn't have done alot more but unfortunately for him Wiggins is a better player.
I don't think the emergence of Harriott has helped Ceddy. As johnny points out above, I think at one point it wouldn't have been the worst idea to pair Wiggins and Ceddy on the left side. Now Ceddy is back to being a back up LB (and a back up LM at most).
As a regular viewer of the U21s and U18s I am pleased that the Club is going in the right direction as regards the production of young players for the first team. Evina is a decent player and in other circumstances would have got a longer contract. But with FFP and the apparent lack of funds, we must develop and use young players who are good enough. I am not against loan players but we need to be careful who we bring in, an Obika rather than a Eggert Johnsson.
I guess the reasoning is more financial than anything. The FFP regs mean we have to trim. I suspect that SCP feels that any short term left back problems if Wiggy gets injured can be covered by Solly switching and Wilson coming in at right back. The youngsters would be a lesser option but nonetheless an option and for anything longer there is always the emergency loan market.
Evina was signed to add numbers to the squad when we were looking to get out of League 1. He hasn`t pushed on, we move on, onwards and upwards!
Nah, He was signed as we didn't think we would get Wiggins at the time
Was about to say didn't we sign Evina first?
Yes, but we were always looking for 2 players for each position. Not convinced he was originally signed to be first choice, he was only on a 2 year deal after all. Plenty of others signings at the time were on 3 year contracts.
I guess the reasoning is more financial than anything. The FFP regs mean we have to trim. I suspect that SCP feels that any short term left back problems if Wiggy gets injured can be covered by Solly switching and Wilson coming in at right back. The youngsters would be a lesser option but nonetheless an option and for anything longer there is always the emergency loan market.
Reasoning? We offered a contract and he rejected it.
I see the usual doom-mongers are out. Let's be honest here, Evina is only 21 and if Powell really rated him we would have surely offered him a longer deal. Yet people on here are whining that we have no money, the end is nigh etc etc. simply because our reserve left back is leaving! I think i'll trust Powell's judgement on who is/isn't good enough for the LB position, he probably knows a bit about it.
Evina was signed to add numbers to the squad when we were looking to get out of League 1. He hasn`t pushed on, we move on, onwards and upwards!
Nah, He was signed as we didn't think we would get Wiggins at the time
Was about to say didn't we sign Evina first?
Yes, but we were always looking for 2 players for each position. Not convinced he was originally signed to be first choice, he was only on a 2 year deal after all. Plenty of others signings at the time were on 3 year contracts.
Remember following Youga and Basey's injuries in 09/10 and for the whole of 10/11 we had 'the curse of the left back' and the position was filled by a succession of loanees Jackson,Borrowdale,Fry and Bessone,So on the summer of 2011at the time Ceddy signed we needed to acquire 2 left backs.
We also did not have a left back coming through the academy at that stage who might be competing for a first team whereas now there are 3 names seriously being discussed as having the potential plus Feely and Lennon as left footed centre backs who could fill in if required.I remember 2 years ago the debate was around Cousins,Jenkinson and Solly on the right side but no lefties until Fox improved last season to earn a pro contract.
Can't understand why the topic is so heavily focused on finances - we offered him a contract for christ sake!!! Players who are in the reserves and unlikely to be given a starting place are unlikely to get a 2-3 year deal at this level, why can't people understand that? It sounds to me like it is a footballing based decision (on both sides) and thats it.
Evina is the sort of player that can be let go with no contract extension offered if we really were in a dire situation.
Evina was signed to add numbers to the squad when we were looking to get out of League 1. He hasn`t pushed on, we move on, onwards and upwards!
Nah, He was signed as we didn't think we would get Wiggins at the time
Was about to say didn't we sign Evina first?
Think we were after Wiggins but Bournemouth wouldn't play ball, we signed Evina who had had a very promising 6 months at Oldham as (I guess) first choice LB. Wiggins then became available & was about to sign for Watford until we stepped in.
Think an increasing number of players will be offered 1 year contracts unless we're desperate to keep them. With the new financial constraints only those players who might command a transfer fee are really in a strong bargaining position. There will be awful lot of out of work players at the end of the summer - a lot of agents/players need to get real.
I guess the reasoning is more financial than anything. The FFP regs mean we have to trim. I suspect that SCP feels that any short term left back problems if Wiggy gets injured can be covered by Solly switching and Wilson coming in at right back. The youngsters would be a lesser option but nonetheless an option and for anything longer there is always the emergency loan market.
Reasoning? We offered a contract and he rejected it.
Think an increasing number of players will be offered 1 year contracts unless we're desperate to keep them. With the new financial constraints only those players who might command a transfer fee are really in a strong bargaining position. There will be awful lot of out of work players at the end of the summer - a lot of agents/players need to get real.
Comments
Don't see any problem with this at all. I will only see problems with budget if we don't sign one of the decent strikers on out there on a free.
Said he wanted to extend it beyond next summer a few months ago
Why should Charlton pre commit the budget for the 2014/15 season on a player who is clearly only backup and about whom they may now have formed a long-term view? Make no mistake, it's clear from Evina's comment that if he were offered a two or three-year contract, he'd then be a liability for the entirety of that period. Suppose that by the beginning of the season after next (2014/15) either Fox or Cousins are ready for first team action, even if only as backup? Powell might then want to offer them a two-year deal (or longer), but if Evina is a dead weight that might not be possible.
As for Evina, he might be disappointed by the Club ....because at this stage of his career..... etc, but if I were him I'd be focusing on trying to convince Chris Powell (or somebody else) that I was good enough. Right now, it's clear that Chris Powell views him as a useful squad player, but no more. There's a price and a term of contract for that and that's what Evina has been offered. Be interesting to see how his agent gets on finding him something better.
Dont think its any reflection on the clubs finances/ or lack of
My worry is that with a squad as thin as ours you have to be careful who you play hardball with.
Remember following Youga and Basey's injuries in 09/10 and for the whole of 10/11 we had 'the curse of the left back' and the position was filled by a succession of loanees Jackson,Borrowdale,Fry and Bessone,So on the summer of 2011at the time Ceddy signed we needed to acquire 2 left backs.
We also did not have a left back coming through the academy at that stage who might be competing for a first team whereas now there are 3 names seriously being discussed as having the potential plus Feely and Lennon as left footed centre backs who could fill in if required.I remember 2 years ago the debate was around Cousins,Jenkinson and Solly on the right side but no lefties until Fox improved last season to earn a pro contract.
Evina is the sort of player that can be let go with no contract extension offered if we really were in a dire situation.
There will be awful lot of out of work players at the end of the summer - a lot of agents/players need to get real.