Adam Chapman

[OUFanatic]

Its reported that Adam Chapman has rejected not one but two new contract offers.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18358702

Kelvin Thomas quotes
&quotWe have made two offers to Adam, both improving his existing agreement, however Adam feels he deserves a better financial package,&quot


Now if this is true and i have no reason to think otherwise then Chapman has gone down a notch or two in my estimation.


What price loyalty?

[Old Abingdonian]

I suspect agents at work.....

This is the ultimate hiring fair, and Adam is standing on the corner. Does any other club wish to beat the terms we have offered? Actually, I doubt it.

[SmileyMan]

What price loyalty?

I expect he's asking the same question, since loyalty works both ways. I don't remember the ceremony where the players go down on bended knee and swear fealty to the club, manager and fans.

Besides, perhaps his current wage is crap and he wants parity?

This is where a fixed, flat wage structure would be a good thing - it's about the team not superstars, especially at D4 level, and it also gets rid of the more vampiric agents. I was going to point to Arsenal as a good example, but they've just announced changes to it to try and keep Van Persie, which is short-sighted.

[theox]

I agree with Smileyman. I expect that his existing package was fairly 'small' bearing in mind when he originally signed and where we were in the pyramid. Therefore, the improvement being offered still might not bring him in line with the other squad members and if its being offered as a 'we stuck by you so you can play for less than the others cos you have to be loyal to us' then I can see why its being rejected.

You have to remember that it is just a job. Further, its a job you can only do for a limited time. Therefore, its no great surprise that players try to wring as much out of clubs as they can. More fool the clubs for paying them.....

If the club do not think he's worth what he's asking for then they should move on to look for replacements.

[joepoolman]

I roughly agree with SmileyMan and theox, while it doesn't look good on Chapman at first glance, what's been released to the public is very much one side of the story. Also we (or at least I) have no idea what sort of numbers are involed, and more importantly what they are relative to the rest of the squad. As well as this it states that he really wants to stay but he just wants what he feels is fair. It seems that in all likelyhood that the two parties are just trying to meet in the middle so they can sort out the situation.
I think it's good that the club have been willing to negotiate seeing as I'd put him down as our best midfielder, and he's certainly our most versatile.

[Mooro]

But the club statement suggests he has been offered the same as other squad players with his experience....just hope they can resolve this one without any hard feelings on either side..

[slappy]

I've normally digested the football league handbook by now, but got stuck.
If Chapman is under 24, we can get a fee if he moves to another club at end of his contract.
I think you have to offer a player a contract at least as good as the one he is on (for at least an extra year), or he can move for free.
So does this mean he stays on his existing contract, which basically ties us into getting a tribunal fee if he then moves elsewhere? Or could he wait until he is 24 and then move for free (if out of contract)?
Isn't the tribunal fee also dependent on how much &quottraining&quot he has received from us? As he was mostly at Sheffield United, it can't be that much.

[GodalmingYellow]

I don't think we can complain at either side at this point, as we don't know what Chappie has been offered.

We know the club has offered to increase Chappie's financial package, as they probably should.

What we don't know is if Chappie is in negotiations with any other clubs.

For conjecture, I suspect Chappie's offer has been put in line with the wages that Alfie is on.

Chappie has previously shown the capability of playing at least t League 1 level, but last season it would be difficult to say he reached those heights.

Therefore, if the club have offered him wages comparable to other similar players at the club, which those players have clearly accepted as fair, either the other players' agents are rubbish, or Chappie's agent is gambling that another club will take a big risk on Chappie.

The answer is surely to put together an agreement whereby Chappie is on the club's wages for a year, rising to higher wages after the first year, with a get out clause on both sides.

[slappy]

So what is happening with Adam Chapman's contract?
The normal situation is that a player's contract will expire on 30 June on any particular year, and then the player is a free agent to move without transfer fee or compensation.
Under 24 players
However, for players under 24 (at 30 June), there are rules to protect the club, to compensate for contributing to his training and development.
If the club makes a 'not less favourable' contract offer, and that is turned down, the club is entitled to compensation if the player moves elsewhere. (Not less favourable being basically the best year from his previous contract excluding signing on fees).
So what happens after 30 June if the player turns down the contract offer?
1 - the club enters into a new full contract with the player.
2 - non-playing: The club continue to pay his basic wages under the existing contract, and are still entitled to a Compensation fee. The player is treated as 'Unemployed', meaning he can sign for another club outside of the usual transfer windows. The player is not subject to club discipline and regulations. After the first day of the season, if the player has not moved elsewhere without good reason, the club can stop paying him, and still be entitled to compensation.
3 - playing: The club enter into a week-to-week arrangement, under the same terms as his existing contract, and subject to club rules and regulations. So long as he is still paid, the club is still entitled to compensation if he moves elsewhere.
4 - stop paying him under (2) above, at which point the player is a free agent.
5 - stop paying him under (3) above, at which point the player is a free agent, but cannot sign for another club until the next transfer window.
What compensation is due?
This perhaps the hardest to work out. The Football Compensation Committee take into account
1: any costs incurred by either of the two clubs in operating a Football Academy or Centre of Excellence, in particular the cost of providing for students:- living accommodation training and playing facilities, staff, education kit medical matches and any other incidental costs
2: the following criteria:- status of the two clubs age of the player transfer / compensation fee paid by the transferring club length of time player was at the club terms of the new contracts offered by both clubs playing record and substantiated interest from other clubs.
------------------------------
It sounds like neither side will budge, so at 30 June the options are : release him for free give him a new contract or keep paying him on his old contract (playing or non-playing). If we keep paying him, we are then entitled to compensation if he does go elsewhere. As we paid Sheffield United a transfer fee, I imagine that is partly what we want back, together with the cost of medical treatment when he broke his foot etc.
As GY says, I think the younger players are all probably on lower pay, the likes of Potter, Chapman, Perry, Kinniburgh, Deering, Worley, Payne. (and Crocombe, Marsh, Woodley the lowest). and that the club don't want to start messing with this unless the player is outstanding for his age and the league we are in.
-----------------------------
and it seems that after 30 June the club will intend for him to keep playing on his existing pay, until either he moves, or one of the parties changes their contract offer/demand.

[A-Ro]

The answer is surely to put together an agreement whereby Chappie is on the club's wages for a year, rising to higher wages after the first year, with a get out clause on both sides.

You are right that there must be a proposal out there that would be agreeable to both parties, the fact that such a proposal has not been sought suggests that there is probably some intransigence on one side or the other, which would be a shame if true.

[John Byrne's Underpants]

Well it looks like they sorted something out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18780023