Wealdstone Players & Maynard

[PedroTheFisherman66]

i think this is worthy of its own thread to sort the wheat from the chaff.
My question is this , does anyone on here know Wealdstone well enough to gauge if there any quality players that the new management team would ideally want to bring with them.?

[irishpete]

i think this is worthy of its own thread to sort the wheat from the chaff.
My question is this , does anyone on here know Wealdstone well enough to gauge if there any quality players that the new management team would ideally want to bring with them.?

Only they will know the answer to that. I would doubt it myself tbh, but you never know

[Old_pie]

i think this is worthy of its own thread to sort the wheat from the chaff.
My question is this , does anyone on here know Wealdstone well enough to gauge if there any quality players that the new management team would ideally want to bring with them.?

I would imagine in both LW's case with Swansea and SM's case with Wealdstone there will be "no poaching" clauses in place for the rest of the season.

So whether there are any, and the "coaching" team would ideally want to bring them - computer says no.

[sinophile]

I'm not so sure if 'non-poaching' clauses are legal. They would be seen as a restriction of freedom to move to alternative employment (for any players concerned). It's more likely there may be 'gentlemen's agreements', if such a thing exists in football.

[slack_pie]

I'm not so sure if 'non-poaching' clauses are legal. They would be seen as a restriction of freedom to move to alternative employment (for any players concerned). It's more likely there may be 'gentlemen's agreements', if such a thing exists in football.

Non-compete clauses are very common in employee/freelance contracts in the normal world, so I don't see why something of equivalent effect wouldn't also be possible from the employer's side. Temporarily of course.

[frenchmagpie]

Non-compete clauses are very common in employee/freelance contracts in the normal world, so I don't see why something of equivalent effect wouldn't also be possible from the employer's side. Temporarily of course.

I think there is a difference. In your example the parties are restricting their own rights but in the other they would be stopping a player changing jobs. I don't see how that could work.

[Could'vebeenacontender]

I'm not so sure if 'non-poaching' clauses are legal. They would be seen as a restriction of freedom to move to alternative employment (for any players concerned). It's more likely there may be 'gentlemen's agreements', if such a thing exists in football.

Gentleman's agreements do indeed exist in football in circumstances like this. Although football is a ruthless business such agreements will normally be honoured. Football is a small world and each party might need the other at some time in the future

[slack_pie]

I think there is a difference. In your example the parties are restricting their own rights but in the other they would be stopping a player changing jobs. I don't see how that could work.

I get what you are saying, but there are countless other factors that could also restrict that player from moving to that club besides a temporary 'no poaching' clause - them being under contract at their current club being one.

[frenchmagpie]

I get what you are saying, but there are countless other factors that could also restrict that player from moving to that club besides a temporary 'no poaching' clause - them being under contract at their current club being one.
Yes of course. All the parties to any contracts would need to agree.

[sinophile]

The question is, would Maynard be prohibited, for contractual reasons, from asking about Wealdstone players? Given that Maynard does not actually have a direct say in recruitment, would any 'no poaching' clause make any difference anyway?

[OP67]

As much as Wealdstone are over achieving in the NL I doubt very much any of their players would be top of L2/L1 standard.

Although having said that we have defenders that aren't either XD

[Chicken Balti Pie]

The question is, would Maynard be prohibited, for contractual reasons, from asking about Wealdstone players? Given that Maynard does not actually have a direct say in recruitment, would any 'no poaching' clause make any difference anyway?

It would be a general agreement between clubs that we would not approach any of their players. I have yombe honest, they're part time so I can't see us being interested in any of their players for immediate use now anyway so probably just wait it out and sign them after as it will take them a while to get up to speed full time in a higher league

[PedroTheFisherman66]

As much as Wealdstone are over achieving in the NL I doubt very much any of their players would be top of L2/L1 standard.

Although having said that we have defenders that aren't either XD

I'm not sure that would be the case.I'm not saying they would be ready for immediate selection but a rough diamond with some full time coaching and training could be a top player.My mind is taken back to the Short brothers who followed Warnock to the Lane back in the day..

[Old_pie]

I'm not so sure if 'non-poaching' clauses are legal. They would be seen as a restriction of freedom to move to alternative employment (for any players concerned). It's more likely there may be 'gentlemen's agreements', if such a thing exists in football.

The players are within contract so really not a lot to do with freedom to move. Clubs simply say that any approach for any players will be rejected. Whether that needs to be written or not is a moot point but I can't see the harm in it.

[Stall is God]

In the same way that none of us want LW coming back for our players I find it a little disrespectful that we would contemplate SM bringing Stones players with him. I know football is a harsh business but just feels like double standards to me.

[slack_pie]

In the same way that none of us want LW coming back for our players I find it a little disrespectful that we would contemplate SM bringing Stones players with him. I know football is a harsh business but just feels like double standards to me.

LW can come in for our players if he wants to, as can any manager of any team. It's then up to us to decide whether those offers meet our valuations for those players, and if the timing is right to sell. If not, we simply reject those offers. The same goes for if we were to approach Wealdstone. None of this is disrespectful, it's just business.