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?