NFR Harry Arter still on 40 Grand / week!

[Snibbo]

I'd forgotten he's at Forest. From The Athletic:

Harry Arter is another instance.

He continues to be a Nottingham Forest player despite their best attempts to move him on following their promotion to the Premier League 15 months ago. The now 33-year-old midfielder has played just 14 times for Forest since joining from Bournemouth in September 2020, and was sent on loan to Charlton Athletic and Notts County in the season they went up via the Championship play-offs.

Arter described his time at Forest as "disappointing" when he joined non-League Notts on loan, but a promotion clause in his Forest contract saw his salary rise to a reported £40,000 a week with their return to the Premier League, which has made finding him a move away from the City Ground difficult.

He remains under contract until 2024, and despite not having played a senior game for Forest since January 2021 looks set to see that out.

[ChesterTheTabby]

Ah, good for him, don't care for Forest - take their money Harry!

[Willham]

It is still a little mad to me all these things, contract law is so strange to me, and it goes both ways, you have a player striking to try push a move and a player refusing to move,

The owning of people in a workplace is so strange, I get it from both sides and I don't have any sort of answer, but it does feel a little surreal when I think in context how footballers, contracts and clubs are treat in the year 2023.

If I want to move job, I can move job, no matter what contract I've signed, and yes I could get in a bit of trouble if I just up and left but they can't do much, in my current workplace they wouldnt do anything but I'm not worth 100 mill.

And if you spend 100 million pounds on let's say a vase, you'd be deversted if someone took it, or you buy an expensive pedigree pet and it decides it wants to live with your neighbour 5 doors down.

A world apart, I literally don't understand football anymore.

[Buffalo76]

You can't blame him for staying around if he's getting those sort of wages.

[Free Elvis Hammond]

It is still a little mad to me all these things, contract law is so strange to me, and it goes both ways, you have a player striking to try push a move and a player refusing to move,

The owning of people in a workplace is so strange, I get it from both sides and I don't have any sort of answer, but it does feel a little surreal when I think in context how footballers, contracts and clubs are treat in the year 2023.

If I want to move job, I can move job, no matter what contract I've signed, and yes I could get in a bit of trouble if I just up and left but they can't do much, in my current workplace they wouldnt do anything but I'm not worth 100 mill.

And if you spend 100 million pounds on let's say a vase, you'd be deversted if someone took it, or you buy an expensive pedigree pet and it decides it wants to live with your neighbour 5 doors down.

A world apart, I literally don't understand football anymore.

It's a really strange situation, where players are employees and commodities at the same time. I find it pretty depressing when you see an incredibly talented and exciting player like Fabio Carvalho effectively used as investment by a big club - Liverpool haven't played with anyone in that position since Coutinho left, but clearly realised they could get him on the cheap and make a profit a few years down the line. Chelsea's army of young players out on loan for years on end was pretty egregious too

I would also say this is the main reason why the game is so controlled by agents - they're the only ones who benefit from both sides

[Andy S]

I'm no expert but the way I see it is you don't own the player but you do own his contract. So all negotiation is about buying the contract. Once you own that for whatever fee is paid you are in a position to offer the player a longer contract and the player is in a position to accept it

[ron]

If he's not playing regularly, perhaps he could do a bit of window cleaning on the side to make his money up?

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

Similar circumstances to Knocky with us. Who can blame him?

[Willham]

I'm no expert but the way I see it is you don't own the player but you do own his contract. So all negotiation is about buying the contract. Once you own that for whatever fee is paid you are in a position to offer the player a longer contract and the player is in a position to accept it

But what is the contract? The contract is the player, the person.
The contract exploits strict rules on what to eat,
When to train
When to play
You don't get to request holidays like we do,
I once read at leicester fc it's mandatory even on your time off to tell the club where you are and it said that's common practise for most clubs.

[Sting of the North]

I'm no expert but the way I see it is you don't own the player but you do own his contract. So all negotiation is about buying the contract. Once you own that for whatever fee is paid you are in a position to offer the player a longer contract and the player is in a position to accept it

But what is the contract? The contract is the player, the person.
The contract exploits strict rules on what to eat,
When to train
When to play
You don't get to request holidays like we do,
I once read at leicester fc it's mandatory even on your time off to tell the club where you are and it said that's common practise for most clubs.

The contract is not the person. The person can choose not to follow the contract, and the club may then not have to pay his wages. It is voluntary to enter into the contract, and voluntary to follow it or not. There is nothing sinister in this. You want top pay? Then you go the extra mile.

The club also doesn't really own the contract and the contract is not what is sold. It is the player registration/license (whatever it is called) that is being sold. The contract doesn't follow the player to a new club (unlike for example in most american sports).

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

Back in the 90s when I was a bank manager I actually saw a copy of Kenny Sampson's contract with QPR which was deposited with us for safe keeping.
I would not disclose the financial details which were clear enough to see on the front page but can assure you that it was a thick wad of terms and conditions.

[Willham]

I'm no expert but the way I see it is you don't own the player but you do own his contract. So all negotiation is about buying the contract. Once you own that for whatever fee is paid you are in a position to offer the player a longer contract and the player is in a position to accept it

But what is the contract? The contract is the player, the person.
The contract exploits strict rules on what to eat,
When to train
When to play
You don't get to request holidays like we do,
I once read at leicester fc it's mandatory even on your time off to tell the club where you are and it said that's common practise for most clubs.

The contract is not the person. The person can choose not to follow the contract, and the club may then not have to pay his wages. It is voluntary to enter into the contract, and voluntary to follow it or not. There is nothing sinister in this. You want top pay? Then you go the extra mile.

The club also doesn't really own the contract and the contract is not what is sold. It is the player registration/license (whatever it is called) that is being sold. The contract doesn't follow the player to a new club (unlike for example in most american sports).

You see, this to me all just seems like loop holes and ways to talk around whats really happening, you say nothing sinister is happening yet there's a player on strike because he's not allowed to do what he wants and from the other side a player refusing to leave and not allowing what the c,ub wants.

Thank you also for trying to indulge and offer me an explanation, I do like to know how things work

[Sting of the North]

I'm no expert but the way I see it is you don't own the player but you do own his contract. So all negotiation is about buying the contract. Once you own that for whatever fee is paid you are in a position to offer the player a longer contract and the player is in a position to accept it

But what is the contract? The contract is the player, the person.
The contract exploits strict rules on what to eat,
When to train
When to play
You don't get to request holidays like we do,
I once read at leicester fc it's mandatory even on your time off to tell the club where you are and it said that's common practise for most clubs.

The contract is not the person. The person can choose not to follow the contract, and the club may then not have to pay his wages. It is voluntary to enter into the contract, and voluntary to follow it or not. There is nothing sinister in this. You want top pay? Then you go the extra mile.

The club also doesn't really own the contract and the contract is not what is sold. It is the player registration/license (whatever it is called) that is being sold. The contract doesn't follow the player to a new club (unlike for example in most american sports).

You see, this to me all just seems like loop holes and ways to talk around whats really happening, you say nothing sinister is happening yet there's a player on strike because he's not allowed to do what he wants and from the other side a player refusing to leave and not allowing what the c,ub wants.

Thank you also for trying to indulge and offer me an explanation, I do like to know how things work

Maybe the player and/or the club should not have entered into a multi-year contract if they wanted the freedom to do whatever they wanted? Even in "normal" jobs there are things such as time of notice etc. and also in many cases it is  very hard to fire someone even if you want to (depending on what country you are in).

I am not sure I follow what the issue is here? Do you believe a player should be allowed to leave freely no matter what contract he signed? Or that the clubs can just terminate a contract with no obligations?

[Blawarmy]

Forest must be close to going bust. How can they afford to keep spending?

[Cumbrian White]

It is still a little mad to me all these things, contract law is so strange to me, and it goes both ways, you have a player striking to try push a move and a player refusing to move,

The owning of people in a workplace is so strange, I get it from both sides and I don't have any sort of answer, but it does feel a little surreal when I think in context how footballers, contracts and clubs are treat in the year 2023.

If I want to move job, I can move job, no matter what contract I've signed, and yes I could get in a bit of trouble if I just up and left but they can't do much, in my current workplace they wouldnt do anything but I'm not worth 100 mill.

And if you spend 100 million pounds on let's say a vase, you'd be deversted if someone took it, or you buy an expensive pedigree pet and it decides it wants to live with your neighbour 5 doors down.

A world apart, I literally don't understand football anymore.

Got to say fair play to him (or his agent). I'm actually happy for players to fleece clubs, signing certain players on daft contracts is 100% clubs fault, and yes, that includes us, Cav, Knocks etc, if their agents negotiate it and we agree it, cannot complain one bit.