Blatter, Slavery and Contracts.

Livvie

Anyway, surely the whole point is that when a player signs a contract, he signs to play for *x* number of years. In the real world, there is no such stipulation in a contract, and it states that you can give a month's notice or whatever. Comparison to "real life" just doesn't work because it's a whole different scenario.

A contracted player shouldn't be able to walk out on a club, any more than a club should be able to sell him.

Fratton Fred

therecklessone wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how a discussion of Blatter's football contract=slavery has become a discussion on which 2nd tier English side has the better strikeforce?

k thx bye.

its pointless anyway. Defoe and Crouch win it handsdown.:D

secman

This is not the first time nor will it be the last time that Blatter will come out with an absolutely ridiculous statement. How did he become president of FIFA ???????? . But we in Ireland are not immune to this "fools attaining high places" syndrome. I remember our FAI president offering his opinion after the 5-2 defeat in Cypres

---

We didn't get the run of the ball !!!!!!!!. This was on camera, not just a reported comment. !

Yours in hope

Secman

DSB

Fratton Fred wrote: »

its pointless anyway. Defoe and Crouch win it handsdown.:D

Agbonlahor>Defoe
Carew>Crouch

Mr Alan

i dont particularly feel any sympathy to the clubs in this instance tbh.

if a club bought a player for xmillion and was paying him xxk per week and his form nosedived for an extended period, they too would do everything within their power to orchestrate a move away for the player, they wouldnt think, well he signed a 4 year deal, he is entitled to that to "prove" himself/regain his form.

works both ways.

DSB

Mr Alan wrote: »

i dont particularly feel any sympathy to the clubs in this instance tbh.

if a club bought a player for xmillion and was paying him xxk per week and his form nosedived for an extended period, they too would do everything within their power to orchestrate a move away for the player, they wouldnt think, well he signed a 4 year deal, he is entitled to that to "prove" himself/regain his form.

works both ways.

Not really. If they want to relinquish his contract they generally have to pay it up in full. Or else give him a move he approves of. They might play dirty games to get their way, the same as players do. But neither should be able to just walk away from the contract.

Mr Alan

DSB wrote: »

They might play dirty games to get their way, the same as players do. But neither should be able to just walk away from the contract.

Thats my point.

Clubs do force players out.

Players do force moves away.

Neither is deserved of our sympathy as they both carry out the same dirty practices.

Charlie

Mr Alan wrote: »

they wouldnt think, well he signed a 4 year deal, he is entitled to that to "prove" himself/regain his form.

works both ways.

You're skewing things.

A club's commitment to a player is financial only. Their end of the bargain is to make sure their cheques don't bounce when paying his wages. In return, the player has made a commitment to play exclusively for that team should they choose to play him.

The club does not owe him any sort of right to 'prove himself'. Yes, they might want rid of him in certain circumstances, but bottom line, if he wants to, he can sit on his hands and still make the club keep up their end of the deal, i.e. paying his wages.

Fratton Fred

DSB wrote: »

Agbonlahor>Defoe
Carew>Crouch

We'll see at the end of the season. 1 pint of guinness says you are wrong :P

Charlie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

We'll see at the end of the season. 1 pint of guinness says you are wrong :P

Have a feeling that Crouch and Defoe are going to be a lethal combo. This mightn't bode well for messers Rooney and Owen at International level.

Not since Big Al and Sir Les had that prolific season at the Toon, have two potential Engalnd team mates collaborated at club level also. This partnership could help the national setup in a big way.

Mr Alan

charlie mchugh wrote: »

The club does not owe him any sort of right to 'prove himself'. Yes, they might want rid of him in certain circumstances, but bottom line, if he wants to, he can sit on his hands and still make the club keep up their end of the deal, i.e. paying his wages.

"prove himself", was the wrong thing to say. all i am saying is that both managers/clubs and players in the vast majority of the cases look after themselves.

both will try and force through moves for the betterment of themselves/their own personal circumstances.

you're right he can sit on his hands and the club will still pay him, likewise the club can just chuck someone who wants to leave into the reserves until his contract expires.

i just dont think football clubs should get on their high horses about footballers "honouring" contracts.

Alonso doesnt want to leave Liverpool. Did Stam want to leave Utd? Did Riise want to leave Liverpool? etc etc etc.

Charlie

Mr Alan wrote: »

i just dont think football clubs should get on their high horses about footballers "honouring" contracts.

Alonso doesnt want to leave Liverpool. Did Stam want to leave Utd? Did Riise want to leave Liverpool? etc etc etc.

No they didn't want to leave, and I understand your point, but I don't think it's a 50/50 split in terms of who owes who what. Players are paid a vast amount of money for what is a relatively easy job if one has the skill. Silverware, Champions League football, first team football is all a bonus really to what the club already gives the player i.e. moolah. Players have to accept that one of the downsides to earning such a small fortune is that their services are essentially the property of the club, and should a club choose to, they can be sold on.

That's what a club is buying when they sign a player; that player's services, to be used exclusively by that club. However, when a player signs on, he is not signing on the right to exclusively play at that club. His remuneration is financial.

Like I said, I can see what you are saying, and I wouldn't side with clubs on this issue totally, but like I said, it's certainly not a 50/50 split in terms of loyalty. The player inherently, and rightfully so, shoulders the burden of loyalty much more than the club.

Mr Alan

Mr Alan wrote: »

i dont particularly feel any sympathy to the clubs in this instance tbh.

if a club bought a player for xmillion and was paying him xxk per week and his form nosedived for an extended period, they too would do everything within their power to orchestrate a move away for the player, they wouldnt think, well he signed a 4 year deal, he is entitled to that to "prove" himself/regain his form.

works both ways.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/7512607.stm

alright roy, stop reading my posts on boards!:D