Sol upsets the club by insisting on his final £160,000

Posted on May 18th, 2011 | 24 Comments |

Sol Campbell, Newcastle United
160,000 reasons to smile
Sol Campbell will depart from Newcastle United in bitter circumstances.

It seems that Sol Campbell may be leaving Newcastle under a bit of a cloud.

He was signed in a free transfer last summer on about £40,000 a week and after 4 starts and 3 substitute appearances the club had rather thought he might just walk away at the end of the season.

It seems however that a clause in his contract allows him to draw another month’s salary and get paid for July, thus earning him another £160,000. Sol, apparently, is going to hold the club to this clause in his contract.

The ubiquitous ‘club source’ has said:

Sol has not really been involved and is clearly winding down his career, seeing out his time and being clearly unhappy with his injuries.

The club offered a settlement on his contract so that he could walk away after the season ends but he refused. Instead, there is a clause that allows him to take another month’s money and he is going to eke out his final pay cheque in July for another £160,000.

It leaves a sour taste. He clearly doesn’t need the money and, if he had any honour, he would go in June.

Well, I can see both sides of the argument. I don’t want the club to pay out an additional £160,000 to a player who has done very little for us, yet a contract is a contract and you have to wonder why they put that clause in it in the first place. Bitter and petty it may be, but Sol is merely getting what’s owed to him based on the contract he signed.

I would have thought that after the contractual difficulties the club encountered upon relegation (i.e. having no clause in the players’ contracts to account for a relegation situation), they would have been a little more careful about the wording of contracts these days.

Interestingly, the ‘club source’ seems to think that Sol Campbell was one of the factors in Ashley’s decision to get rid of Chris Hughton. The source said:

Campbell’s arrival and performances were certainly seen as a factor in the decision to part company with Hughton.

Hmm, maybe. Campbell certainly wasn’t the best transfer we’ve ever made but to sack Hughton over it seems unlikely given that his transfer mistakes (which most managers make) seem to be easily balanced by his transfer successes.

Either way, from our perspective it’s £160,000 down the drain.

NUFCBlog Author: Hugh de Payen I'm a baby-boomer of the punk rock persuasion, currently exiled in Somerset for crimes committed in a previous life where locals keep trying to poison me with something called 'scrumpy'. Hates sprouts, coat-hangers, Cilla Black, ornaments, Steven Seagull movies and 50 Cent (he's not worth 10). Hugh de Payen has written 634 articles on this blog.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

24 Responses

  1. They need to make him turn up to training every day that he is getting paid. If he wants the cash he can at least do the work and if he cant run then he needs to be working with some youngsters

  2. If the club don’t want to pay the dosh then the club should not have agreed to the clause. Great bit of busineass by the player’s agent. Shit bit of business by the club. Honoured the deal Ashley. Simples

  3. Agree completely with John. The board agreed to pay him a months wage so should get it done.

  4. Agree with the above, the club agreed to pay him the cash in a contract, and as pointed out he’s hardly been involved in our season, so why should he feel for newcastle and back-heel that kind of cash when he’s all but finished anyhow??

  5. I said all along that the cambell signing was the final nail in the coffin for Hugton.
    But more fool the club for agreeing to the contract in the first place.
    It would be better if the club didn’t release little snippets like this to the press. It just makes them look like even bigger twats than they already are.
    Just pay it and shut up ffs.

  6. … Sounds as though the “club source” might have been indiscreet in the pub after hearing gossip. I don’t think the club will be particularly happy with this info being out there as it reflects badly. Just pay up.

  7. Sounds a lot like the clause Owen had in his contract that he still got his wages until he found a new club :(

    Tho I am a little shocked that Ashley would agree to paying someone who he knew wouldn’t play that big a part in the 1st team so much in wages or that bit complete bo!!oxs???

    I mean the 160k could be wages for June & July, which would put him on a more reasonable 20k/wk not 40k/wk which is being suggested & is probably more than most of our 1st team players get!!! just a thought!!!

  8. can’t believe he would be on as much as 40k a week, that seems ludicrous, for an injury prone has been who’s clearly lost his only real asset of pace and never plays. Mind you nor does Xisco. Only @ NUFC eh !!

  9. I dont see the big deal tbh. Its not his fault he is over the hill nad never got picked. Why on earth would he agree to taking less money ahhaha.
    ‘hey Sol, you know you are finished in July.. well how do you fancy taking 100 grand now instead of 160 in a months time”? Bit of a no brainer really.. esp whern you consider his contract is stil lrunning the in off season when he is on holiday anyway. ffs.
    And besides…..anyone that breaks it off in ashleys ar5e with money is a hero in my book. Its only what fat knackers has been doing to us for ages. Ashely cant have his cake and eat it always or choose when to use certain phrases. For instance… the januarty window is not good to buy as you always pay over the odds and over inflated etc etc.. .but then say nothing when they use that same window to get 35 million for carroll.
    Good on ya Sol… enjoy that 160 grand drink on ashley cos one thing is for certain, it will have zero effect on our transfer kitty.

  10. Pot calling the kettle black.

    As for “honour” being used by the oafs managing the club, who have been openly & legally exposed as a bunch of liars and incomptents, it really is pushing it too far.

    The deal was signed by someone representing the club. It’s a legal contract. It may have been a bad negotiation but there’s only one side to blame for that.

    Obviously Sol was dischuffed with his mate’s Hughton’s treatment, like 99% of supporters, and he may have lost his motivation but the club just needs to shut up & put up and not try to trash the reputation of a player who has generally been well respected. This only brings more shame on to the bunch of loons supposedly managing the club.

  11. This is awful. I can’t believe it got as far as the papers. You agree to pay someone, you pay them. “Honour” the contract.

    Of course, from a player’s point of view, a contract means Jack Shit (see the recent departure of a gangly Newcastle number 9 for further details) and players do have way too much power when it comes to these things, but I have to say, Sol’s in the right here and the club are trying to cheap out of a stupid agreement they made.

    With the transfer window approaching so quickly, you’d think we’d try to make ourselves a little more attractive to any prospective signings, wouldn’t you?

  12. if this is true, Sol’s done nothing wrong. Who’s gonna be daft enough to take less money than you’ve been promised, even if you don’t really need it? Yes, he’s been a pretty hopeless signing but can’t blame him for this.

  13. Really nasty of the club to leak this story.

    If it’s in his contract … pay him.

    It’s what both parties agreed to.

    The club’s management are sleazy.

  14. just put this down to a poor buy. Why on earth he was signed as a bit-part player on (app) £40k per week.

    He is entitled to the payout so lets get on with it. I’m sure if MA was asked to waiver £160k he’d tell u to pi** off..

  15. club should pay it. Would you turn down 160k if u were contractually obliged to receive it? Don’t be stupid!

  16. Sol is a veteran and as such his football paydays are a rarity. So i understand him being on that wage and why he would want every cent of his contract. It’s unfair to expect loyalty (or even empathy) from a man who has played 7 games for us. Bringing him in was risky, he had a decent season at Arsenal the season before, but it seems this was a season too far for him.
    As for Hughton, signings like Sol and Perch have been superseded by transfer successes like Tiote and Williamson and also the culture he fostered which got the best out of all the players. So it wouldn’t be fair to hold 2 or 3 signings against Hughton and then appoint Pardew who hasn’t been markedly better (Ireland or Kuqi anyone?).

  17. geoff777 says:
    May 18, 2011 at 10:16 am

    “Really nasty of the club to leak this story.”

    How do you know that they did Geoff? When a grubby little football hack quotes a ‘source’, it’s usually just something that has been dredged up from the contents of his or her imagination.