Neil Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Do we really need a statement every day about this? Getting old already. "Manchester United can confirm that after an extensive meeting this afternoon, representatives of Wayne Rooney concluded that they felt the choice of biscuits on offer were inadequate, and did not meet their standards. A statement from our tea lady will be released at 10am tomorrow morning." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Holloway doesn't want free transfers? What's the point of a contract if at the end of it, you still own the player? Load of bollocks. Can't believe people are making out his rant is some fantastic speech. I loved it for it's hilarity. As an actual argument it's incoherent, nonsensical drivel. Who is making out it is some fantastic speech? It's the opposite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeloEmre Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Manchester United released the following statement after a day of meetings between chief executive David Gill, Sir Alex Ferguson and representatives of Wayne Rooney: “We are aware that there is intense public and media interest on the club at the moment, but there are no developments of note to report today. “I can confirm a number of meetings have taken place today, including with the player's representative. The outcome of those meetings will become clear in the near future. In the meantime, fans are asked to be patient.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Manchester United released the following statement after a day of meetings between chief executive David Gill, Sir Alex Ferguson and representatives of Wayne Rooney: “We are aware that there is intense public and media interest on the club at the moment, but there are no developments of note to report today. “I can confirm a number of meetings have taken place today, including with the player's representative. The outcome of those meetings will become clear in the near future. In the meantime, fans are asked to be patient.” Is that seriously their statement? Please tell me you're joking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 They could've made something up at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Holloway doesn't want free transfers? What's the point of a contract if at the end of it, you still own the player? Load of bollocks. Can't believe people are making out his rant is some fantastic speech. I loved it for it's hilarity. As an actual argument it's incoherent, nonsensical drivel. Who is making out it is some fantastic speech? It's the opposite. Well, for starters... Holloway is absolutely spot on tbf. Nail on the head.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/blackpool/9115962.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 This is the most non statment statment i've ever seen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Manchester United released the following statement after a day of meetings between chief executive David Gill, Sir Alex Ferguson and representatives of Wayne Rooney: “We are aware that there is intense public and media interest on the club at the moment, but there are no developments of note to report today. “I can confirm a number of meetings have taken place today, including with the player's representative. The outcome of those meetings will become clear in the near future. In the meantime, fans are asked to be patient.” Is that seriously their statement? Please tell me you're joking. ATTENTION WHORZ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Does that statement beat "Following media reports this morning the chairman wishes to make it clear that Alan Shearer has never said to him that he would knock seven bells out of anyone." for pure pointlessness? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 To be honest in Spain players have been free to leave after their contracts end since the 1960s (and without the age limit of Bosman's ruling), so I don't think it's the big deal people make it out to be. It always made sense to me, to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Holloway doesn't want free transfers? What's the point of a contract if at the end of it, you still own the player? Load of bollocks. Can't believe people are making out his rant is some fantastic speech. I loved it for it's hilarity. As an actual argument it's incoherent, nonsensical drivel. Who is making out it is some fantastic speech? It's the opposite. Well, for starters... Holloway is absolutely spot on tbf. Nail on the head.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/blackpool/9115962.stm Time to call the abolitionists in I reckon, they'll set things right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 "Some complete.. person!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Holloway doesn't want free transfers? What's the point of a contract if at the end of it, you still own the player? Load of bollocks. Can't believe people are making out his rant is some fantastic speech. I loved it for it's hilarity. As an actual argument it's incoherent, nonsensical drivel. Who is making out it is some fantastic speech? It's the opposite. Well, for starters... Holloway is absolutely spot on tbf. Nail on the head.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/blackpool/9115962.stm Time to call the abolitionists in I reckon, they'll set things right. He is steaming!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 To be honest in Spain players have been free to leave after their contracts end since the 1960s (and without the age limit of Bosman's ruling), so I don't think it's the big deal people make it out to be. It always made sense to me, to be honest. Yes - teams just have to come to grips with the actual decrease in asset value over the life of the contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I don't see how anyone can argue that an employee should be forced to stay with an employer after his contract has expired. The problem is the massive transfer fees - but that's the fault of the clubs, not the players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 "Some complete.. person!" Which one of you is Simon Bird? 'I am.' You're a... person. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 The problem with the Bosman ruling is that it abolished the transfer tribunal that had previously sat alongside freedom of contract. Players were not tied to a club, but the club could get some compensation from the new club that he joined. Bosman ruled that a restraint of trade. That was when the power balance shifted decisively in favour of the player. If it hadn't gone to court, the system might have lasted, if not indefinitely, but a few years more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Rooney's house was 'attacked' by Man United fans tonight who were holding a banner saying "sign for City and you die" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Rooney's house was 'attacked' by Man United fans tonight who were holding a banner saying "sign for City and you die" At least they haven't burned his car to a crisp and defaced his garage yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Holloway's comparison of a club signing a human being to a contract and someone buying a car is truly laughable. The player is not property, as much as Holloway wishes he was, no matter how much his wages happen to be. If Rooney were to rip up his knee completely and be unable to continue his career at the same level, would Manchester United renew his contract? Of course not. It works both ways. Holloway is a character but he's coming across foolishly here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Holloway's comparison of a club signing a human being to a contract and someone buying a car is truly laughable. The player is not property, as much as Holloway wishes he was, no matter how much his wages happen to be. If Rooney were to rip up his knee completely and be unable to continue his career at the same level, would Manchester United renew his contract? Of course not. It works both ways. Holloway is a character but he's coming across foolishly here. His character means in general half the time he comes across foolish IMO. It's what makes him who he is, wears his heart on his sleeve, doesn't really script what he has to say, and sometimes it's a gem, sometimes it's complete nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/21/wayne-rooney-manchester-united-city Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 The only good thing about hearing this tedious story as the main headline on the news constantly is that it has replaced Liverpool's ownership as the main headline on the news. Still, it takes one's mind of Gideon and his vile Spending Review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 The problem with the Bosman ruling is that it abolished the transfer tribunal that had previously sat alongside freedom of contract. Players were not tied to a club, but the club could get some compensation from the new club that he joined. Bosman ruled that a restraint of trade. That was when the power balance shifted decisively in favour of the player. If it hadn't gone to court, the system might have lasted, if not indefinitely, but a few years more. erm wasn't that what bosman was about man? his contract expired but his club wouldn't release his registration due to them deeming the fee offered too low so he couldn't go anywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 The problem with the Bosman ruling is that it abolished the transfer tribunal that had previously sat alongside freedom of contract. Players were not tied to a club, but the club could get some compensation from the new club that he joined. Bosman ruled that a restraint of trade. That was when the power balance shifted decisively in favour of the player. If it hadn't gone to court, the system might have lasted, if not indefinitely, but a few years more. erm wasn't that what bosman was about man? his contract expired but his club wouldn't release his registration due to them deeming the fee offered too low so he couldn't go anywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling There was variation throughout Europe, but in England, disputes about transfer fees at the end of a player's contract were resolved by a transfer tribunal, so in practice the player wasn't tied and the club had compensation. In Belgium, the club could just refuse to release the player's registration. I feel that getting rid of the tribunal was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Keeping a player tied after the contract has expired is clearly wrong, and the clubs who wanted to keep that system had only themselves to blame when it went to court and things were put in the hands of lawyers. A sensible compromise was the tribunal system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now