- Admin
- #3,501
Don't mean to be a pedant, but unless I've misunderstood the tribunal ruling that isn't quite the case. The tribunal didn't award us 25k per appearance, they awarded us 250k per 10 appearances and if [heaven forbid] Ethan doesn't get to 20 appearances we won't be seeing another penny.Those 11 mins on the pitch effectively earned us £25k. Amazing really.
Hence why Boyo said "effectively". Those 11 minutes putting us another tenth of the way to another £250k.Don't mean to be a pedant, but unless I've misunderstood the tribunal ruling that isn't quite the case. The tribunal didn't award us 25k per appearance, they awarded us 250k per 10 appearances and if [heaven forbid] Ethan doesn't get to 20 appearances we won't be seeing another penny.
Yes, my understanding is that the Tribunal ruling contains the proper and necessary safeguards along these lines - in the past so many clubs have stopped playing someone when the next tranche soon becomes payable. Chelsea pay us 250k for each of the first five sets of 10 appearances , so we don’t yet get another 25k. But we know we are getting it so if Ethan never plays for Chelsea again we get this 25k / , now 50k , when he permanently leaves Chelsea.EDIT function misery: Also, nowadays these fees are done pro-rata, hence when James Dunne left Stevenage when one appearance short of us being paid, Stevenage had to pay us 19/20 of the clause fee.
You may well be right [I don't pretend to know] but if this is the case why didn't the tribunal simply say, it's 25k per appearance up to a maximum of X appearances?EDIT function misery: Also, nowadays these fees are done pro-rata, hence when James Dunne left Stevenage when one appearance short of us being paid, Stevenage had to pay us 19/20 of the clause fee.
Blimey! Small world indeed. I didn't know he'd gone out there this time, I know he'd been out there for the Test a couple of times previously. By the looks he also made it out to Sri Lanka.Jason - at the time I was spending four days of the Barbados Test sat next to your cricketing colleague Colin Hearsum. Small world!)
The Stevenage example was a test case which confirmed the "pro-rata" arrangements for paying fees agreed by tribunal. This wasn't common process prior to us challenging this.You may well be right [I don't pretend to know] but if this is the case why didn't the tribunal simply say, it's 25k per appearance up to a maximum of X appearances?
Also, if, as you suggest, these fees are done pro-rata then what did Stevenage gain from denying James Dunne his 20th appearance?
I think they didn't realise it was pro-rata until after they thought they'd done the dirty on us!You may well be right [I don't pretend to know] but if this is the case why didn't the tribunal simply say, it's 25k per appearance up to a maximum of X appearances?
Also, if, as you suggest, these fees are done pro-rata then what did Stevenage gain from denying James Dunne his 20th appearance?