Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Bosman ruling

  • 17-04-2011 4:00pm
    #1
    Ordinary man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,490 ✭✭✭


    Seeing the other thread about bosman made me wonder do people here think his ruling was a good thing or bad for football in general?

    Personally i don't think it is because contracts mean sod all now and loyalty of players to their club is always in question


Comments

  • #2
    newballsplease
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,751 ✭✭✭newballsplease


    You saw the other thread about Bosman...so u decide to start another thread on the same subject? wow


  • #3
    Ordinary man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,490 ✭✭✭Ordinary man


    newballsplease wrote: »
    You saw the other thread about Bosman...so u decide to start another thread on the same subject? wow

    The other thread is about the man this is about the ruling:confused::confused: Too hard for you to understand the difference:P


  • #4
    TangyZizzle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,292 ✭✭✭TangyZizzle


    newballsplease wrote: »
    You saw the other thread about Bosman...so u decide to start another thread on the same subject? wow

    The other thread is a disgraceful post laughing at one man's poor fortune. This one asks the question about whether his court case has changed football today for the better or worse. Don't be so cheeky.

    Ya bollocks:cool:


  • #5
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    for better or worse, its the way it should be now

    when youre out of contract youre out of contract


  • #6
    JPA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,793 ✭✭✭✭JPA


    Ordinary man wrote: »
    Seeing the other thread about bosman made me wonder do people here think his ruling was a good thing or bad for football in general?

    Personally i don't think it is because contracts mean sod all now and loyalty of players to their club is always in question


    Contracts mean sod all mostly because of the amount of money in the game, not the bosman ruling.
    Anyway, it seems quite strange looking back at how it used to be.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Ordinary man wrote: »
    Seeing the other thread about bosman made me wonder do people here think his ruling was a good thing or bad for football in general?

    Personally i don't think it is because contracts mean sod all now and loyalty of players to their club is always in question

    When a fixed-term contract comes to an end, should a player remain welded to a club ? Also should a club be expected to continue to hold onto that player beyond the fixed term laid down in the contract ?

    Contracts are a two way street. Footballing contracts are almost always fixed term contracts.


  • #8
    newballsplease
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,751 ✭✭✭newballsplease


    TangyZizzle wrote: »
    The other thread is a disgraceful post laughing at one man's poor fortune. This one asks the question about whether his court case has changed football today for the better or worse. Don't be so cheeky.

    Ya bollocks:cool:

    well why doesnt he just ask the question IN the other thread. Its the same subject... bollocks


  • #9
    kryogen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,953 ✭✭✭✭kryogen


    The bosman rule is a good one


  • #10
    dreamers75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,558 ✭✭✭✭dreamers75


    Ordinary man wrote: »
    Seeing the other thread about bosman made me wonder do people here think his ruling was a good thing or bad for football in general?

    Personally i don't think it is because contracts mean sod all now and loyalty of players to their club is always in question

    Do you understand the Bosman ruling? It was never about the contracts themselves, just what happens at the end of them.


  • #11
    OhNoYouDidn't
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Het-Field wrote: »
    When a fixed-term contract comes to an end, should a player remain welded to a club ? Also should a club be expected to continue to hold onto that player beyond the fixed term laid down in the contract ?

    Contracts are a two way street. Footballing contracts are almost always fixed term contracts.

    What he said. The idea that you could be tied to an employer who wasn't paying you was daft.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    dreamers75 wrote: »
    Do you understand the Bosman ruling? It was never about the contracts themselves, just what happens at the end of them.

    It did change the attitudes of both clubs and players when contracts are not ended. There is a link between the two issues.


  • #13
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    parker kent wrote: »
    It did change the attitudes of both clubs and players when contracts are not ended. There is a link between the two issues.

    You could say that about every fixed term contract in any industry. People may being to consider new beginnings in the "last days" of any contract.


    IIRC there was also a tribunal system which arbitrated over the transfer fee of any player who was out of contract. Thus, players knew that at the conclusion of their respective fixed term contract, they could engineer a move. Interestingly, these tribunals were regularly criticised by clubs for their willingness to advocated fees which were seen as significantly under-estimating the players ability and their true value.

    There was also the other issue of UEFA's "Foreign Rule", which restricted the numbers of "foreign players" which a team could field in a European Competition. Not only was it discriminatory, it gave a decided advantage to smaller leagues like the Dutch League, the Swedish League, the Portuguese Leage, and the French league, where they employed greater numbers of indigenous players, and were not expected to make changes based on nationality..

    The ruling copperfastened treaty rights under Article 39, it gave proper validity to fixed term contracts, it removed needless UEFA discrimination, and it gave rise to the death of the much maligned "tribunal" system.


Advertisement