Why is my 20 year old leaving on a bosman?

I guess I don't understand the bosman ruling or something - so perhaps someone who does can explan it to me.

I have 20 year old wonderkid Gai Assulin. Playing 8.02. He's in his last season of his contract. If I go to offer him a new contract, it states under comments:

-As Assulin is under the age of twenty-four, he will be allowed to move on a free transfer if he is not offered a deal of equal or greater terms than his current contract.

So I've offered him a contract greater than his current one. At this stage, in personal it says he is considering leaving the club under the Bosman ruling. Other clubs have came in, offered him a contract, and sure enough he's accepted it and leaves in the summer - and I get no compensation or anything(I've simmed forward to check).

Anyway - could someone tell me why he's leaving on a Bosman as I don't fully understand it - I can provide any screenshots or info if required.

I guess I don't understand the bosman ruling or something - so perhaps someone who does can explan it to me.

I have 20 year old wonderkid Gai Assulin. Playing 8.02. He's in his last season of his contract. If I go to offer him a new contract, it states under comments:

-As Assulin is under the age of twenty-four, he will be allowed to move on a free transfer if he is not offered a deal of equal or greater terms than his current contract.

So I've offered him a contract greater than his current one. At this stage, in personal it says he is considering leaving the club under the Bosman ruling. Other clubs have came in, offered him a contract, and sure enough he's accepted it and leaves in the summer - and I get no compensation or anything(I've simmed forward to check).

Anyway - could someone tell me why he's leaving on a Bosman as I don't fully understand it - I can provide any screenshots or info if required.

osman ruling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Bosman arrest)

Jump to: navigation, search

Sections should be added to this article, to conform with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

Please discuss this issue on the talk page.

The Bosman ruling (Union Royal Belges des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL & others v. Jean-Marc Bosman; Case C-415/93, ECR I-4921) is a 1995 European Court of Justice decision concerning freedom of movement for workers, freedom of association and direct effect of article 39 (formerly 48) of the EC Treaty. The case was an important decision on the free movement of labour and had a profound effect on the transfers of football players within the EU. The case banned restrictions of foreign EU members within the national leagues and allowed professional football players in the European Union (EU) to move freely to another club at the end of their term of contract with their present team.

The ruling was made in a consolidation of three separate legal cases, all involving Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman:

* Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman

* Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others

* Union Européenne de Football Association (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman

Contents

[hide]

* 1 Initial Challenge

* 2 Effect on UEFA and Its Response

* 3 Webster Ruling

* 4 Implications of Webster Ruling

* 5 Effect on Other Sports

* 6 See also

* 7 External links

[edit] Initial Challenge

Bosman was a player in the Jupiler League, whose contract had expired in 1990. He wanted to change teams and move to Dunkerque, a French team. However, Dunkerque didn't offer his Belgian club RFC Liège enough of a transfer fee, so Liège refused to let him go.

In the meantime, Bosman's wages were reduced as he was no longer a first-team player. He took his case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and sued for restraint of trade citing FIFA's rules regarding football, specifically Article 17. After a tough legal battle he won his case, and on December 15, 1995 the court ruled that the system as it was constituted a restriction on the free movement of workers and was prohibited by Article 39(1) of the EC Treaty. Bosman and all other EU football players were given the right to a free transfer at the end of their contracts, with the provision that they were transferring from a club within one EU Association to a club within another EU Association. Prior to that, professional clubs in parts of Europe (but not, for example, in Spain and France) were able to prevent players from joining another club even if their contracts had expired. [in Britain, Transfer Tribunals had been in place since 1981 to solve disputes over fees between clubs when transferring players at the end of their contracts.] In addition to this, a player can sign a pre-contract with another club for a free transfer if the players' contract with their existing club has 6 months or less remaining. The Bosman ruling can be compared to the Curt Flood case in baseball, which led to the elimination of the reserve clause and the advent of free agency.

[edit] Effect on UEFA and Its Response

The Bosman ruling also prohibited domestic football leagues in EU member states, and also UEFA, from imposing quotas on foreign players to the extent that they discriminated against nationals of EU states. At that time, many leagues placed quotas restricting the number of non-nationals allowed on member teams. Also, UEFA had a rule that prohibited teams in its competitions, namely the Champions League, Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Cup, from naming more than three "foreign" players in their matchday squads. This had an especially negative impact on British teams, because both UEFA and FIFA consider England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to be separate nations. As an example, Manchester United were forced to count their Welsh winger Ryan Giggs as a foreign player, despite the fact that Wales and England are both constituents of the UK, and comprise a single entity for purposes of conflict of laws. (The Giggs case was more complicated, in that the player had represented England as a schoolboy, but only because eligibility for the England Schoolboys team is based on school attendance and not nationality. Contrary to a widely stated belief, he was not eligible for the England national team.) After the ruling, quotas could still be imposed, but could only be used to restrict the number of non-EU players on each team.

On April 21, 2005, UEFA 52 member federations unanimously approved a rule designed to increase the number of locally trained players. The measure is an attempt to reverse some of the effects of the Bosman ruling. UEFA's chief executive Lars-Christer Olsson was reported by CNN to have said that some of the major clubs in Europe like Chelsea and Barcelona were not happy with this rule, and that he didn't rule out the possibility of a court challenge.

[edit] Webster Ruling

Wigan were the first club to take advantage of this new ruling as they signed Andy Webster from Hearts in August of 2006. Initially Hearts was slow to react to the signing, but when Webster was loaned to rival Rangers, Hearts brought about the suit. Although there was a challenge to this ruling by Hearts who believed that the £625,000 either Andy Webster or Wigan must pay them is not adequate compensation, which was well shy of the four million pound transfer Hearts desired, an amount established by the going rate in the transfer market of a player of his caliber. Fifpro, the global players’ union of football, supported both Webster's and Wigan's side because of the implications of a ruling in their favor.

The case was finally brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland to clarify the wording and legality of Article 17. The court ruled on January 30, 2008 that Webster was free to sign with another club from a different national league and that, according to Artilce 17, he need only pay £150,000 for leaving the club for Wigan with a year remaining on his contract. This amount is generally cited as being the amount that Hearts would have owed him had he remained with the club.

This ruling in fact has established an addendum to Article 17 allowing a player who is between the ages of 23 and 28 to move in the final year of a four or five year contract provided he hands in a request to the club no more than 15 days after the end of the previous season. The club would be entitled to compensation, but only equaling the amount of the final year's wages as per the contract, which would be far less than an agreed transfer fee in most cases. In addition, the player would have to move to a club that isn't in the same association as his current club. Players who are older then 28 are only required to fulfill two years on a contract no matter the length of the contract. At such a point they can opt out of the rest of their contract by paying the remainder owed to them to the club they are under contract for.

[edit] Implications of Webster Ruling

It is initially unclear how quickly this ruling will effect the transfer market in international football. The January 2008 market included no Webster-like transfers and fees continued to be in millions of pounds. The summer of 2009 does contain a few test cases that could demonstrate the new transfer market, but most of those involved are so tied to their clubs that it would be unlikely that they would jump their club for another nation (Frank Lampard of Chelsea, a fixture to the West London Club's starting eleven, is one regularly cited test case, and Michael Owen who currently is with Newcastle is another). Dimitar Berbatov who currently plays for Tottenham Hotspur is also oftern cited, but does not turn 28 until the spring of 2009.(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3279498.ece)

It has been suggested that the top 25% of players would most benefit from the ruling, but if the results of free agency in American sports are any indication of the future changes such a ruling could bring to European Football, spectators should see a growing wealth in the younger players who have promise and the middle class footballer who can play after age 28 as well. Growth of the minimal salary and and the salaries of players who have more than five years of service in American sport increased twentyfold in the first ten years of free agency.

What is clear is that there could be a challenge to smaller clubs. If international scouting continues at its current pace these clubs could be looking at loosing young stars prematurely to foreign clubs. Because of this smaller clubs may unload younger stars sooner than they had wanted, and thus get less for these diamonds in the rough, because of the threat of loosing a player to an international rival. It may be that small clubs will find themsleves less likely to be able to support themselves with transfer fees and may have to revert to pre-1995 ways of keeping their club afloat.

[edit] Effect on Other Sports

The Bosman ruling was considered and distinguished in Lehtonen (2000), a similar case which involved a deadline imposed by FIBA after which basketball teams could not include players who had played for another team in the same season, where it was found that such a restriction was lawful.

[edit] See also

* Eastham v. Newcastle United, a similar 1963 court case in England.

* Kolpak ruling, which extended Bosman to countries with an associate trading relationship with the EU, most notably the ACP countries

[edit] External links

* Text of the ECJ Ruling

* Pearson, Geoff. The Bosman Case, EU Law and the Transfer System. Football Industry Group, University of Liverpool. Retrieved on 2008-01-24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_arrest

Frankly, it sounds like a bug to me. If you've the save-game, I'd say, post exactly what you have to the FM'08 Bugs Forum and upload the save to the ftp site.

If anybody cares to explain the game's behavior, I'm all ears!

I've read that - but my understanding(which i guess is wrong) is that if they are under 23, they can't leave - or can only leave if I am getting a fee or whatever?

Yeah, I'm not sure the text of the wiki article on it answered your question in any way.

The reason I think its a bug is that the text which the game has presented you:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-As Assulin is under the age of twenty-four, he will be allowed to move on a free transfer if he is not offered a deal of equal or greater terms than his current contract. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Contradicts the behavior afterwards - the fact that you offered him an improved contract, and he still left on a free transfer.

Even if the fix is as simple as "update the text", it would really be nice to get it in for FM'09.

Yeah I'll upload it - just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Does my tits in too - in the transfer window, I could've flogged him for 11 million(which makes it all the stranger because why would a team offer 11 million - actually, about 7 teams when they could've got him on a bosman).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Amaroq:

Frankly, it sounds like a bug to me. If you've the save-game, I'd say, post exactly what you have to the FM'08 Bugs Forum and upload the save to the ftp site.

If anybody cares to explain the game's behavior, I'm all ears! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I brought this up a few weeks back, (about 15 seasons in my game) - And I consistently lose players under 24 that I offer new contracts to, but I was met with a barrage of negativity, saying it must be something I'm doing wrong.

"As Assulin is under the age of twenty-four, he will be allowed to move on a free transfer if he is not offered a deal of equal or greater terms than his current contract"

From what this sounds like, you can sign a kid for pennies and keep him on that wage until he's 24. That doesn't seem right...

Not necessarily.

I think the correct reading is, if you offer him a deal of equal or greater terms than his current contract, then he cannot move on a free transfer.

That doesn't necessarily mean "he can't move"; it could, for example, instead mean that a transfer fee will be set by a tribunal.

Has he moved to a club in another EU country?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Amaroq:

Not necessarily.

I think the correct reading is, if you offer him a deal of equal or greater terms than his current contract, then he cannot move on a free transfer.

That doesn't necessarily mean "he can't move"; it could, for example, instead mean that a transfer fee will be set by a tribunal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct, the player can move, but the club is entitled to a fee.

When did you offer him the contract? My understanding of how it works in FM (may be wrong though) is that you have to offer him the contract before he becomes available for others to offer contracts to (i.e. more than 6 months before end of contract).

If you receive a news item that someone has offerered him a contract and then you suddenly remember as a result of that that you didn't offer him one it is too late, the horse has already bolted as it were and whatever you offer him he can still accept the other contract and move for free.

Yes, I believe you must offer him an improved contract either before or when you get the message that a player has 6 months left on his contract. Personally any youngsters I can see may want to leave I prefer to offer them with 50% clauses to clubs than go to tribunal.

The above posts by Glamdring and Negatrev are correct.

If you are based in England (as an example), your players can not be approached by English clubs until they have one month left on their contract. BUT any other club from outside of England can try and sign them when they have 6 months left.

In your case, if you had offered him a contract when he was 6 months and 1 day away from the ennd of his contract he would of been able to negotiate it, but as long as it was more than he was on he would not be able to leave on a free.

As you let it get to less than 6 months, he was approached and able to sign for other clubs, regardless of what you do now, he has multiple contracts on the table and can choose any of them.

Always renew the contracts of your hot prospects or sell them on with a 50% or by back clause before the 6 month window.

I too learnt this the hard way.

(I do tend to offer my real hot prospects silly wages for their age, this makes it much less likely that some one will come in and beat their current deal).

I was under the impression that this was a problem within the game

From what I think I've seen, even if you offer an improved deal, the player's contract expires and then he leaves, thus making him free to another club. And you therefore get no compensation.

In reality, I guess you'd technically hold his registration which would then force a tribunal to make a ruling regarding compensation. But I don't think this is implemented in any way in FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Lambs:

The above posts by Glamdring and Negatrev are correct.

If you are based in England (as an example), your players can not be approached by English clubs until they have one month left on their contract. BUT any other club from outside of England can try and sign them when they have 6 months left.

In your case, if you had offered him a contract when he was 6 months and 1 day away from the ennd of his contract he would of been able to negotiate it, but as long as it was more than he was on he would not be able to leave on a free.

As you let it get to less than 6 months, he was approached and able to sign for other clubs, regardless of what you do now, he has multiple contracts on the table and can choose any of them.

Always renew the contracts of your hot prospects or sell them on with a 50% or by back clause before the 6 month window.

I too learnt this the hard way.

(I do tend to offer my real hot prospects silly wages for their age, this makes it much less likely that some one will come in and beat their current deal). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the way it works, ingmae. Anyway IRL is enough to offer the player a contract befor he has agreed terms with another club.

He can leave the club at the end of the contract, but if another club signs him on a pre-contract before he leaves, THEN they have to pay you compensation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Lambs:

The above posts by Glamdring and Negatrev are correct.

If you are based in England (as an example), your players can not be approached by English clubs until they have one month left on their contract. BUT any other club from outside of England can try and sign them when they have 6 months left.

In your case, if you had offered him a contract when he was 6 months and 1 day away from the ennd of his contract he would of been able to negotiate it, but as long as it was more than he was on he would not be able to leave on a free.

As you let it get to less than 6 months, he was approached and able to sign for other clubs, regardless of what you do now, he has multiple contracts on the table and can choose any of them.

Always renew the contracts of your hot prospects or sell them on with a 50% or by back clause before the 6 month window.

I too learnt this the hard way.

(I do tend to offer my real hot prospects silly wages for their age, this makes it much less likely that some one will come in and beat their current deal). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that what The Lambs is saying is correct.

There is one way to avoid this happeneing - at the beginning of the season your assistant will tell you whos contracts are expiring that year. just make sure you get the contracts sorted out asap. As soon as I get this message from my assistant, I start getting contracts sorted for the players I want to keep.

This saves heart ache come January when they all start get contract offers.

A case happened last summer involving an Oldham player called Chris Porter. His contract was in its last 6 months in January when Oldham turned down a bid of £750,000 from Plymouth. They turned down this bid believing that if he moved on when his contract was up they would be entitled to compensation of at least £750,000 and quite possibly more. There was a small problem of Chris Porters agent however who discovered that if he moved countrys then no compensation was due to the club who had nutured him. So in the summer when he had turned down Oldhams two year contract he signed for Motherwell for absoloutly nothing and (I'm guessing here) a big signing on fee and nice hefty wages (since Motherwell didn't have to pay a transfer fee of at least £750,000).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/motherwell/6255512.stm

So if your guy moved to a club in another country you do not get any compensation regardless of age, if it is from your own country though you will have to pay.

Remembering the case of Chris Porter, yes I believe that is in fact the case.

Or at least, it was in his. But then isn't Porter over 24? Compensation isn't required for older players.

Just read the article and he's only 23. Yes, well perhaps that is the 'rule' then. Silly if it is. Why should a club not be recompensed if the player moves to a different country?

Sorry for the triple post, but I think in Porter's case, this is significant:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...Porter, who joined Oldham from Bury in 2005... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He wasn't trained from youth by Oldham. He was in fact only an Oldham player for two years. Therefore they weren't his initial club unlike with Assulin (I'm assuming the user's club is Barcelona) who has been at Barcelona since his teenage years.

If the user's club isn't Barca and he bought the player from them, that COULD explain the lack of compensation.

alwo, Chris Porter did indeed sign for Oldham from Bury. Although another player called Will Haining (Michelle Marsh's fella) came through the Oldham youth system, again he turned down a contract from Latics and he was apparently close to signing for Wolves where Oldham would have gotten around £250,000 for him, but again his agent spotted this loophole and Will (and his agent) took the money by signing for St Mirren. Not alot was made of this as obviously the Porter deal was more concering for the Oldham fans at the time. Ritchie Wellens also left for Doncaster but being over 24 he was indeed entitled to go for nothing.

It is all very confusing and Oldham got caught a bit blindsided last year, hence the reason why they accepted a £500,000 bid for Neal Trotman from Preston in January of this year as his contract was also up and he could quite easily have 'done a Porter'.

I'm still confused, haha But just to try to add more information - I'll do it in point form:

- Current date in game is July 1st, 2011 and he's now left

- I signed him in the 2008-09 season for 2.3 million from Barcelona.

- He's 20. Birthdate is April 9, 1991.

- I've been offering him a contract since the beginning of the 10/11 season, as his contract expired in 2011. I've been trying to offer him one a month.

- In the January transfer window, bids came in for him for over 10 million. I am pretty sure bids were from non-English clubs(I'm Newcastle) as well as English, but I can't 100% confirm that.

If the rule is that he is available to leave then that's fine, but I'm just a bit peeved that the text was so misleading, and basically cost me 10 million quid I haven't uploaded the save game/reported it as a bug yet because I don't want to do it if it's not a bug(although I should probably do that anyway if the text is misleading), so I'll wait till we get it all clarified before I report it.

Any more information anyone needs just ask and I'll provide.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I signed him in the 2008-09 season for 2.3 million from Barcelona. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would appear then from whats been said that as he was never your 'youth product' he was quite rightly free to just go and leave with you nothing.

Adds to the realism though, doesn't it?

After all, if it can happen to Oldham in real life (and they didn't understand the rules either) then why can't it happen to Newcastle in game?