Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There's no need for a compromise. Clubs employ players for the length of their contract, they don't own them. Other clubs can buy out their registration but that's all they're paying for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't see why an employer should be entitled to keep any rights over an employee after the contract finishes, really, no matter if he earns 400 pw or 200000.

 

I understand the huge transfer fees distort the issue but that's something the clubs themselves are to blame for, actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ even Fathead Bruce is at it. When you've walked out on all the clubs you've managed it would be wise to keep your trap shut on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that a sensible compromise?

because he thinks it would take the power away from the players in contract terms i assume

 

i.e. if rooney can't leave manyoo for free when his contract runs out the club he's going to might not pay him as much as they'll be hit with a tribunal fee that has to be factored in, therefore the ball isn't as much in his court

 

tbf it is a little shit that you can pay 20m for a player, pay him for his services, then he walks away and you get nothing back...it's not like he's suddenly not worth anything

 

every player has a value even if it's usually depreciating...i don't see why a club who paid for a player should get nothing back either tbh

 

it just shouldn't restrict him being able to move on, which a tribunal wouldn't 'cause their rulings are/were final

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ even Fathead Bruce is at it. When you've walked out on all the clubs you've managed it would be wise to keep your trap shut on this issue.

 

Ha ha Steve Bruce, what a cheeky bastard!

 

He will be out of Sunderland faster then a zombie on a moped when the next job offer comes along.

 

Why do journos no pull them up on this.  FFS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that a sensible compromise?

because he thinks it would take the power away from the players in contract terms i assume

 

i.e. if rooney can't leave manyoo for free when his contract runs out the club he's going to might not pay him as much as they'll be hit with a tribunal fee that has to be factored in, therefore the ball isn't as much in his court

 

tbf it is a little shit that you can pay 20m for a player, pay him for his services, then he walks away and you get nothing back...it's not like he's suddenly not worth anything

 

every player has a value even if it's usually depreciating...i don't see why a club who paid for a player should get nothing back either tbh

 

it just shouldn't restrict him being able to move on, which a tribunal wouldn't 'cause their rulings are/were final

 

Yeah, this. Transfer fees are a way of recognising the investment that the selling club has made in developing the player. It's an important way of distributing income from the big clubs who would otherwise be exploiting the good work of the smaller clubs, by taking their better players off them for free the minute they reached a certain standard.

 

At the moment, we have a situation where a player can be worth millions at one point, and then nothing a couple of years later. That allows players to force clubs to pay inflated wages when their contract comes up for renewal, for fear of losing them for nothing a while later. Effectively, the transfer money that was originally going to clubs is now going straight into the pockets of the players.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...