Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

stevoslice

Kirby wrote: »

Dont be so naive. It happens all the time. Short of coming out and stating it publicly, clubs get away with it all the time. Just leave them out, bench them, and answer any questions by either stating they dont fit into the system, arent in form etc.....or just pull a benitez and talk about how the training is going well after any question that you dont want to answer.

how am i being naive, i never said clubs don't do it, just that its not particularily legal.

shotamoose

So IF Alonso does go, how would people feel about a midfield of Gerrard and Mascherano with Silva in the hole/second striker position? I know, it breaks up the Gerrard / Torres partnership which was excellent, but we know Gerrard can do a pretty good job in the more withdrawn role, and considering the lack of any like-for-like replacements for Alonso I think this arrangement could be quite good.

therecklessone

thebhoy wrote: »

Something to do with legislation protecting workers from being frozen out by their employers, just remember it coming up last year when berbatov was sulking to the press about not getting his dream move to united, think spurs threatened to let him rot in the reserves until the end of his contract.

I think that was the situation that brought it up IIRC.

You are referring to sporting just cause:

Article 15 Terminating a Contract for Sporting Just Cause

An established Professional who has, in the course of the Season,
appeared in less than 10% of the Official Matches in which his club
has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the
grounds of sporting just cause. Due consideration shall be given to the
player’s circumstances in the appraisal of such cases. The existence of
sporting just cause shall be established on a case-by-case basis. In such
a case, sporting sanctions shall not be imposed, though compensation
may be payable. A Professional may only terminate his contract on this
basis in the 15 days following the last Official Match of the Season of
the club for which he is registered.

Spud83

Kirby wrote: »

So anytime a player is left out, but the "fans and media" think he should be playing, he can sue?






:rolleyes:

obviously not. The situation would be looked at over a period of time more than likely a season. However this is something the played would have to do, so it would only happen on extreme cicumstanaces.

stevoslice

therecklessone wrote: »

You are referring to sporting just cause:

see.

back on topic i could not see / do not want crouchie back, just imagine the media kerfuffle once again when he is not gettin his game.

anyone hear anything more on this voronin thing, or is it just more idle spec from the English Irish Daily Star?

therecklessone

Boggles wrote: »

Thats not a Fifa regulation though

It is:

Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players

The same document gave us Article 17, Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause which prompted the Webster Ruling.

As the quote above suggests, each case would have to be judged on its merits, and while a club may have chosen to explain a decision by arguing on the grounds of form or formation, the discussions that may have taken place between the club and the player/his representatives would also inform the courts decision (as this would inevitably end up with the CAS) as would his preformance for the club in preceeding seasons.

In your example, Chimbonda was named on the PL team of the year the preceding season, which would suggest he is more than capable of holding down the RB position at Wigan.

With Spurs and Berbatov, the club would have looked very foolish in claiming that he was not good enough for at least a place on the bench.

kida

therecklessone wrote: »

It is:

Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players

The same document gave us Article 17, Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause which prompted the Webster Ruling.

As the quote above suggests, each case would have to be judged on its merits, and while a club may have chosen to explain a decision by arguing on the grounds of form or formation, the discussions that may have taken place between the club and the player/his representatives would also inform the courts decision (as this would inevitably end up with the CAS) as would his preformance for the club in preceeding seasons.

In your example, Chimbonda was named on the PL team of the year the preceding season, which would suggest he is more than capable of holding down the RB position at Wigan.

With Spurs and Berbatov, the club would have looked very foolish in claiming that he was not good enough for at least a place on the bench.

does it work vice versa for a player refusing to play or claiming injury or would they just not get paid?

Boggles

"Appear in 10% of matches"

Quite easy to do, 2 minutes here a minute there.

Unless it is based on time.

Spud83

Boggles wrote: »

"Appear in 10% of matches"

Quite easy to do, 2 minutes here a minute there.

Unless it is based on time.

That's why the take it on a case by case basis, and it's not a strict less than 10% I'm off deal.

Kirby

I have a hard time believing any footballer would take their club to court over something like this. You would never shake that reputation and would be limiting your chances at future clubs, and be largely unemployable.

And like I said in another thread, clubs aren't stupid or spiteful. It's not good business sense to let your asset depreciate in the reserves or on the bench. If he isn't good enough to be first eleven and wants to leave, cash in and sell him. Clubs are run like businesses.

therecklessone

kida wrote: »

does it work vice versa for a player refusing to play or claiming injury or would they just not get paid?

I have no idea, but I would imagine a club would be on solid ground refusing to pay wages if a player refused to play.

Boggles wrote: »

"Appear in 10% of matches"

Quite easy to do, 2 minutes here a minute there.

Unless it is based on time.

You're clutching at straws there boggles, like all regulations the interpretation of the court would be key, and technical compliance with the 10% requirement would likely not be enough if a pattern of intent can be shown by the player.

Nobody in FIFA welcomed the CAS ruling on Webster, despite the fact it was based on their own regulations.

PiE

I don't want Crouchie back - he did a job and moved on. Good luck to him.

Kirby wrote: »

Rafa didn't rate him then, so why buy him now?

Huh? Rafa's the guy who made him rate-able to begin with.

Kirby

Yes, he rated him so much that he didn't play him, and then sold him.

I doubt it will happen. They need a solskjaer type character who doesn't mind starting every game from the bench.

PiE

Yea damnit, he should have dropped Torres to the bench.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

Pretty good actually, another successful season and a world record transfer fee. Both parties got what they wanted, bore from an excellent working and personal relationship between Ferguson and Ronaldo, Fergie kept his promise and it has been a love fest between the 2 in the press since.

But then again my point was contracts arn't worth a fook these days, the Ronaldo situation again proves that as one of the biggest clubs in the world could not keep the best player in the world and eventually had to let him go allthough he had 3+ years left on his contract.

Good.

So we'll get Alonso for another year, and then sell him on for a massive profit.
Glad you're being so posotive Boggles.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Good.

So we'll get Alonso for another year, and then sell him on for a massive profit.
Glad you're being so posotive Boggles.

Did you miss the part where I said Ferguson and Ronaldo had an excellent working and personal relationship?

Aswell Alonso will have 2 years left on his contract next season which will grossly effect the transfer fee.

spockety

Kirby wrote: »

Crouch would have to have suffered a bout of amnesia to consider moving back. I really, really doubt this will happen. Rafa didn't rate him then, so why buy him now? And why would crouch choose bench warming at liverpool over first team football anywhere else?

Ah not this s***e again.

I'd rather have Crouch warming the bench than have him on the pitch while Torres warms the bench.

I don't understand how anyone can't see the logic here. Rafa did rate Crouch, he was offering him a new bloody contract for god's sakes. Crouch is not good enough to be an automatic starter at Liverpool. In fact, he's not good enough to be an automatic starter at any club challenging for the title. If he was, why did he not go to United, Arsenal, or Chelsea? Surely they would have snapped him up if Rafa was casting him off?

Would you honestly drop Torres in favour of Crouch?
Or would you sacrifice our formation with Stevie up top in order to accomodate Crouch?
Who would you drop from the midfield, Mascherano or Alonso?

Gah.

jesus_thats_gre

Kirby wrote: »

Crouch would have to have suffered a bout of amnesia to consider moving back. I really, really doubt this will happen. Rafa didn't rate him then, so why buy him now? And why would crouch choose bench warming at liverpool over first team football anywhere else?

Crouch left because he wanted more football. That is the only reason he left. It was nothing to do with Rafa not rating Crouch - he was even offered a new contract before he left. It was completely down to Torres showing the form that has resulted in him being rated the best striker in the world. Torres was undropable.

Personally, I would love to see Peter back.

jesus_thats_gre

Kirby wrote: »

Yes, he rated him so much that he didn't play him, and then sold him.

Have addressed this already. In case it isn't clear, the club and Rafa wanted to keep Crouch, stated so publically and offered him a new contract before he left.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

Did you miss the part where I said Ferguson and Ronaldo had an excellent working and personal relationship?

Aswell Alonso will have 2 years left on his contract next season which will grossly effect the transfer fee.

But I thought contracts mean "fook all" Boggles.

8-10

Karmafaerie wrote: »

But I thought contracts mean "fook all" Boggles.

Nice work.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

But I thought contracts mean "fook all" Boggles.

We'll see what happens Karma.

Liverpool want to keep Alonso, who is under contract.

If Alonso leaves, proves my point. We will give it a week, and chat again.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

We'll see what happens Karma.

Liverpool want to keep Alonso, who is under contract.

If Alonso leaves, proves my point. We will give it a week, and chat again.

No it doesn't.
Not in the slightest.
If Alonso leaves for the £20 million they bid then yes.
If Alonso leaves for the £30 million Liverpool want, then no, it proves you completely wrong.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

No it doesn't.
Not in the slightest.
If Alonso leaves for the £20 million they bid then yes.
If Alonso leaves for the £30 million Liverpool want, then no, it proves you completely wrong.

Rafa said he was not for sale, for any money.

He is under contract.

If he goes, what does that tell us?

PiE

That Rafa is not an idiot?

If he comes out and says "Alonso is for sale" what do you think will happen?

Boggles

PiE wrote: »

That Rafa is not an idiot?

If he comes out and says "Alonso is for sale" what do you think will happen?

I suppose what happened last year, which led to this year, a disgruntled Alonso who wants out.

Glico Man

Boggles wrote: »

Rafa said he was not for sale, for any money.

He is under contract.

If he goes, what does that tell us?

It tells us that, as always, every player has their price

PiE

Boggles wrote: »

I suppose what happened last year, which led to this year, a disgruntled Alonso who wants out.

I used to think you knew exactly what you were doing with these type of posts, but I'm starting to wonder.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

Rafa said he was not for sale, for any money.

He is under contract.

If he goes, what does that tell us?

"I would not sell that lot a virus."

Who said that Boggles?

But yet 11 months later he sold the very player he was talking about to them.
Guess what, managers talk sh1t.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

"I would not sell that lot a virus."

Who said that Boggles?

But yet 11 months later he sold the very player he was talking about to them.
Guess what, managers talk sh1t.

He wasn't talking about Real Madrid Karma, learned fella like you should know that.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

He wasn't talking about Real Madrid Karma, learned fella like you should know that.

He was talking about?

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

He was talking about?

He was talking about the previous regime who ran Madrid.

But I suspect you know that already Karma.

jesus_thats_gre

Why are you still arguing about this? It isn't exactly complicated yet you boys have managed to argue about it for a week.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

He was talking about the previous regime who ran Madrid.

But I suspect you know that already Karma.

But according to you only a few posts ago, he agreed to sell them Ronaldo in a year.
Make your mind up Boggles.

All concensus is that Ronaldo agreed to wait a year, and Real agreed to wait a year to buy him.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

But according to you only a few posts ago, he agreed to sell them Ronaldo in a year.

Make your mind up Boggles.

Nah Karma didn't say that at all Sonny. He promised Ronaldo he could leave, a year later, election were due, Perez was a shoe in.

Karmafaerie

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Why are you still arguing about this? It isn't exactly complicated yet you boys have managed to argue about it for a week.

Huh?
Me and Boggles started discussing it this morning.

Boggles

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Why are you still arguing about this? It isn't exactly complicated yet you boys have managed to argue about it for a week.

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Everything is so simple when it comes to Liverpool FC. Tis always black and white.

Oh you ment that?

jesus_thats_gre

haha you are some boyo..

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

Nah Karma didn't say that at all Sonny. He promised Ronaldo he could leave, a year later, election were due, Perez was a shoe in.

Load of rubbish man.
You just said repeatedly contracts mean nothing.
Ronaldo said repeatedly that he wanted to leave last summer.
Utd who held his contract said no.
He didn't leave,

Can't get more simple than that.

Boggles

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

haha you are some boyo..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyo_(department)

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Load of rubbish man.
You just said repeatedly contracts mean nothing.
Ronaldo said repeatedly that he wanted to leave last summer.
Utd who held his contract said no.
He didn't leave,

Can't get more simple than that.

Something they were able to do because of an excellent relationship between manager and player.

At the end of the day though, he went while under a long term contract.

Karmafaerie

When asked about the matter at the Club World Cup in Japan, Ferguson said: "Would I get into a contract with that mob? Absolutely no chance"

"I wouldn't sell them a virus - that's a no. There's no agreement whatsoever between the clubs

"I said to David Gill a year last summer, when we sold Gabby Heinze, you can bet your life in January it will all start up with Ronaldo again. It'll happen again this January, believe me.

"We've just got to ignore it because if we keep worrying about what Real are going to say then we are not going to concentrate on our own programme of difficult games coming up.

"Sometimes it can be an angry situation and sometimes we are really annoyed with them, but we know the game and I think we should just play our game and ignore it all."

And can I just say, no matter hat you think Fergie may have meant, which he may very well have, hew said he would never sell a player to REAL.

redzerdrog

gerrard found not guilty of affray:eek:

A7X

redzerdrog wrote: »

gerrard found not guilty of affray:eek:

Surprise surprise.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

And can I just say, no matter hat you think Fergie may have meant, which he may very well have, hew said he would never sell a player to REAL.

"Would I get into a contract with that mob? Absolutely no chance"

Thats the telling part. I suppose they did represent Real at the time.

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

Something they were able to do because of an excellent relationship between manager and player.

At the end of the day though, he went while under a long term contract.

Lots of players go while under a long term contract.

I'm sure that the £80,000,000 had at least as much to do with him leaving as Ronaldo wanting to go.

Boggles

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Lots of players go while under a long term contract.

I'm sure that the £80,000,000 had at least as much to do with him leaving as Ronaldo wanting to go.

My point is Karma, that if a player wants to go usually he does.

Agree?

Karmafaerie

Boggles wrote: »

"Would I get into a contract with that mob? Absolutely no chance"

Thats the telling part. I suppose they did represent Real at the time.

All I said is that Fergie said he'd never sell to Real.
Which is exactly what he said.
I'm not a mind reader, and don't care enough about Man Utd's inner polotics to check up on it.

kaimera

So spurs in the first game of the season then? ¬_¬

Eire-Dearg

Gerrard found not guilty of affray.

Over at last!