ming the merciless":2y0c4ax5 said:
Yes I understand that Argyle did what was required to claim compensation. I'm certain we will try to claim at the tribunal that Nelson was a prized and valued player. But then surely they will say if he was so highly valued, why was he not on a long contract.
The compensation isn't for losing the player, it is to compensate Argyle for the time and devlopment that they have already put in.
Take the Danny Ings example He left Burnley after his contract ran out but because of his age, a tribunal ruled that Liverpool should compensate Burnley to the tune of £6.5 million with a further £1.5m in add ons based on future appearances. Burnley will also receive 20% of any future sale of the player.
How did the tribunal arrive at these figures and what did they consider?
The status of the club he was leaving
The status of the club he was joining
The amount paid to the player over his period at Burnley
The length of service at Burnley and number of appearances for both club and country
The terms and length of the contract that were offered by Burnley
The terms and length of the contract that were offered by Liverpool
Any substantiated interest from other clubs
The panel would also consider other costs which Burnley would have had to provide evidence of, including cost of training and playing facilities, education and welfare requirements, medical facilities and expenditure as well as scouting and coaching fees.
