Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

citytillidie

Vicxas wrote: »

Unsure if he'll be eligible, knowing our luck i'm sure the FA will frown upon him going to court for an offence then togging out in the evening.

He will be eligible to play just not ideal prep for a massive game

Turtyturd

Will he not just be represented in court?

TitianGerm

citytillidie wrote: »

Forget about Sunday, Liverpool need to get their GD up to +30 and really need to beat Chelsea on 31st just hope they can move Bobby's court case to a different day.

Would he be there? I'd assume a multi millionaire will have a team of Barristers in court on his behalf.

corwill

Turtyturd wrote: »

Will he not just be represented in court?

Bad form not to show up in person in the eyes of the beak, I'd say, and I think in that situation one is technically remanded on bail, to appear at the hearing. Any criminal lawyer/ex-con on here?

Utopia Parkway

marklazarcovic wrote: »

We were better team in both games imo

First game definitely. Second game was fairly even. We scored a pen. They scored an offside goal. They had the better chances in first half. We had the better chances in second half.

garra

corwill wrote: »

Bad form not to show up in person in the eyes of the beak, I'd say, and I think in that situation one is technically remanded on bail, to appear at the hearing. Any criminal lawyer/ex-con on here?

It's only a major problem in Ireland to not turn up in court for DUI if you are a sitting TD of a political party which is in opposition to the party which sponsored the judge's seat on the bench. Not sure about UK though

Agent Coulson

Cameroon just told the club to go fcuk itself.

https://twitter.com/GlennPrice94/status/821398481348755460

NabyLadistheman

The African Cup Of nations can derelict my b***s Mugatu

NukaCola

I assume Matip told them he wont play for them again so they are trying to get even.

If a player is retired from International football and not selected by his country for the tournament I dont see the problem, no doubt someone will though. Just play him in the FA cup and see what happens. This should force a response at the very least and wont effect the EPL. Maybe too risky though.

Harry Palmr

Small minded, resentful feckers aren't they?

Fromvert

Makelele was forced to come out of retirement and play for France after he said he was retired. If your country wants to select you they can as long as you're fit.

NukaCola

Fromvert wrote: »

Makelele was forced to come out of retirement and play for France after he said he was retired. If your country wants to select you they can as long as you're fit.

That is mental.....

Agent Coulson

That's why alex always made is guys have injuries before International games and not retire.

NukaCola

Matip still wasn't selected though? Am I missing something?......surely some complaint would have to be made to some governing body about his availability and blocking him playing for us, otherwise any African player could be stopped from playing by their country while the tournament is on.

5starpool

The Times reporting that FIFA are going to rule on that row on Friday, although their decision might be an investigation (typical). Probably reduces the chance of him being played tomorrow night then I'd say.

Agent Coulson

He was called up by Cameroon it was his choice not to turn up but they still hold his International registration and they can hold it for as long as any International lasts in this case it's a tournament.

They could of course release him but there are I think 6 other Cameroon players involved so Cameroon are making a statement by not releasing these players registrations.

Utopia Parkway

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Cameroon just told the club to go fcuk itself.

https://twitter.com/GlennPrice94/status/821398481348755460

Seems like they just want to draw it out as long as possible so he can't play.

Whole situation is farcical. I thought slavery was abolished a long time ago. It should be up to the individual to do whatever he or she wants with free choice.

Gbear

It'd be nice if this was the opportunity to take a legal challenge against this nonsense.

Some people complain that it'd be the death of international football.

Well tough ****. They shouldn't have this kind of power over players.
FIFA have **** all to do with club football.

Vicxas

Id say Klopp well tell them to go fcuk themselves, thats holding a player to ransom over pure bitterness.

Glico Man

Whole thing reminds me of Ribery being threatened by Platini. Similarly Makelele who has already been mentioned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/france/11080066/Michel-Platini-threatens-retired-Franck-Ribery-with-suspension.html

"Franck cannot decide himself whether he plays for France,"

If Didier Deschamps picks him, he must come. That's the FIFA rule. If he doesn't come, he will be suspended for three Bayern Munich games."

I thought the same back then as I do now. Its ridiculous, and I would think highly illegal to force a player to do something. Surely you'd think a Human Rights court would feel the same? But I suppose FIFA operate outside the usual rules and laws.

klose

I wonder will fsg get involved in it?

Talisman

Fromvert wrote: »

Makelele was forced to come out of retirement and play for France after he said he was retired. If your country wants to select you they can as long as you're fit.

There's more to the story than that.

Mourinho wanted Makelele to retire from international football once he signed for Chelsea in 2004. Zidane had retired and the prospects for the French team weren't great so Makelele retired from international football at the ripe old age of 31. A year later, the French media were crying out for Zidane to come out of retirement and restore some pride to the national team. Zidane persuaded Makelele and Thuram to return with him.

After losing the 2006 World Cup Final to Italy, Makelele announced he was retiring again. He was asked to come out of retirement for the Euro 2008 qualifiers against Italy and he said he was happy to make himself available. Mourinho was furious with Raymond Domenech for speaking to the player and accused the French FA of treating the player like a slave. Makelele then made a statement saying that he did not share Mourinho's opinion on the matter.

TitianGerm

I think it's very unfair to force a player to play if he's retired.

Matip has retired but if he was forced to play and picks up a career ending injury does his national federation look after him? Same goes for all players in that situation.

Jayop

I've only skimmed this matip case but it looks to me like it's an absolutely farcical situation and there's absolutely no way that a player who has retired should be punished for not wanting to play for his country. Nor should his club be fined/docked points or whatever if they do play him.

Tusky

I don't understand the logic of the law. I mean...why does it exist? Is it to protect international teams from players who might pick and choose what games they want to play in? Fair enough. But this case is not like that. He has not played international football for some time.

Ulysses Gaze

Glico Man wrote: »

Whole thing reminds me of Ribery being threatened by Platini. Similarly Makelele who has already been mentioned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/france/11080066/Michel-Platini-threatens-retired-Franck-Ribery-with-suspension.html



I thought the same back then as I do now. Its ridiculous, and I would think highly illegal to force a player to do something. Surely you'd think a Human Rights court would feel the same? But I suppose FIFA operate outside the usual rules and laws.

Ribery was apparently a cancer in the dressing room. Bullying younger players like Gourcuff.

Best gotten rid of.

price690

Go away outta that. If Costa refused to play for Spain and was allowed play against us a week later we wouldn't be talking human rights, we'd be screaming blue murder.

I'm always wary of these lads who "retire" from international football in their early to mid 20s. Says something about their character.

Coupled with the fact he shafted Schalke aswell by running down his contract and leaving without them getting a fee. But seeing as he is now ours I'll give him a free pass.

Jayop

price690 wrote: »

Go away outta that. If Costa refused to play for Spain and was allowed play against us a week later we wouldn't be talking human rights, we'd be screaming blue murder.

I'm always wary of these lads who "retire" from international football in their early to mid 20s. Says something about their character.

Coupled with the fact he shafted Schalke aswell by running down his contract and leaving without them getting a fee. But seeing as he is now ours I'll give him a free pass.

He didn't refuse last week though, it was almost two years ago so your hypothetical has no relevance to the actual situation.

54and56

Tusky wrote: »

I don't understand the logic of the law. I mean...why does it exist?

It exists to protect the international game. If players were allowed to "retire" from International football whilst not retiring from club football clubs would quickly make it a condition of their employment that they only played club football and the international game as we know it i.e. Euro's, World cups etc where the very best footballers on the planet go toe to toe on behalf of their countries would be dead.

FIFA is the international governing body, they "own" the game of soccer. They make the rules and administer the game. National leagues whether the PL, Bundesliga etc either adhere to the rules of FIFA or not. If they do they have to accept the game is played on both a club and country level. If they don't they can break away and try and form leagues which are no longer affiliated to or governed by the rules of FIFA.

Would be interesting to see if clubs will ever have the kahoonas to try taking on FIFA and all that would imply i.e. once players left a FIFA affiliated club to join a breakaway club they would likely be never able to rejoin a FIFA club ever again. That would be fine for the very top players who clubs would give massive contracts to but what about squad players who might be discarded after a couple of years and find they have no route back into the game? What about youth development? Would breakaway clubs be able to develop its own talent? If you were the parent of a young 12-16 year old would you advice them to nail their colours to the mast of a few breakaway clubs or stay within the FIFA structure where they have the potential of playing for thousands of clubs in over 200 countries?

As long as there is international football between countries FIFA will do everything it can to ensure the best players play for their countries. If players and clubs don't agree with that and want to cherry pick the bits that suit them best they can advocate for change or exit FIFA all together. Until then they have to adhere to the rules of the club.

Agent Coulson

As far as I remember he didn't retire from International football he along with a number of other players have refused to play while the current management team are in charge.

price690

Jayop wrote: »

He didn't refuse last week though, it was almost two years ago so your hypothetical has no relevance to the actual situation.

Do your research. He didn't retire 2 years ago he took him out from international football last year and gave assurances he would return at later date. Think he cited differences with a member of coaching staff who has since departed.

He only "retired" in last few months, September I think it was.

Jayop

price690 wrote: »

Do your research. He didn't retire 2 years ago he took him out from international football last year and gave assurances he would return at later date. Think he cited differences with a member of coaching staff who has since departed.

He only "retired" in last few months, September I think it was.

Fair enough, like I said I've only skimmed the story but still, he has said he's officially retired and not last week and he hasn't played for a long time.

54and56

Glico Man wrote: »

I thought the same back then as I do now. Its ridiculous, and I would think highly illegal to force a player to do something. Surely you'd think a Human Rights court would feel the same? But I suppose FIFA operate outside the usual rules and laws.

I guess you're not a solicitor so??

No one is forcing any player to do anything. Players voluntarily sign up to adhere to the rules of FIFA when they sign on with a FIFA affiliated club which includes a commitment that they will play for their country if selected. If they subsequently want to renege on that commitment by feigning injury or "retiring" whilst not actually retiring from playing football at all then they are in breach of the commitment they gave to play for their country if selected and consequently cannot play for their clubs for the duration of the time they should have been fulfilling their international commitment.

Simples.

54and56

Agent Coulson wrote: »

As far as I remember he didn't retire from International football

You don't get to unilaterally retire from international football. As long as you're a FIFA affiliated professional footballer you're available for all forms of football, club and country.

Some players make deals with their international FA's where they retire after a long period of service by mutual agreement.

Some players who are well past their best and are never ever going to be called up again for their country get 5 seconds in the sun by announcing their "retirement" on a wet Tuesday in November when the newspapers have nothing else to report on and some people seem to think these announcements enable players to actually retire from international football when it doesn't. It's just a bit of sad PR.

54and56

Jayop wrote: »

he has said he's officially retired and not last week and he hasn't played for a long time.

Him saying it doesn't make him "officially" retired. It just means he's confirming his intention to continue breaching his commitment to be available to play for his country and as a result he will continue to be sanctioned and not be allowed play for his club etc.

NukaCola

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Him saying it doesn't make him "officially" retired. It just means he's confirming his intention to continue breaching his commitment to be available to play for his country and as a result he will continue to be sanctioned and not be allowed play for his club etc.

What does he have to do to be "officially" retired?

edit, just seen your other post......

J Mysterio

Jayop wrote: »

I've only skimmed this matip case but it looks to me like it's an absolutely farcical situation and there's absolutely no way that a player who has retired should be punished for not wanting to play for his country. Nor should his club be fined/docked points or whatever if they do play him.

He wasnt even included in the final 23 of the squad (though he was in the provisional squad).

It's a damn farce, bureaucratic nonsense at its worst. FIFA are not only corrupt, but incompetent too.

NukaCola

J Mysterio wrote: »

He wasnt even included in the final 23 of the squad (though he was in the provisional squad).

All I can think of is maybe a complaint was made when he didn't go when called to the provisional squad? Surely then we'd have been told he would miss games unless he went? Otherwise there is no logical reason he should be banned from playing.

54and56

NukaCola wrote: »

What does he have to do to be "officially" retired?

edit, just seen your other post......

It's a bit like a pregnancy, you're either pregnant or you're not. You're either a professional footballer or your not. You can't be retired from one part of the game and not retired from other parts of the game. Doesn't matter what PR announcements players make. I can release a statement saying I'm the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi but it doesn't make it any more true than a player releasing a statement saying they are retired from international football but not from club football.

54and56

J Mysterio wrote: »

He wasnt even included in the final 23 of the squad (though he was in the provisional squad).

Did Matip refuse to join up with the provisional squad and/or state he wouldn't be joining the squad if he was selected? If so he was in breach of the rules he signed up to. End of. The smart thing to do would have been to stay quiet, talk to his national FA privately to seek their agreement that they wouldn't call him up and then when he wasn't called up he wouldn't be in breach of the rules and he'd be free to play just like all other players who weren't called up.

It seems he indicted himself for no good reason. Silly boy.

J Mysterio wrote: »

FIFA are not only corrupt, but incompetent too.

They govern the largest and most successful sport in the world with the most national association affiliations (211) and the most players (amateur and professional) which must be >50m worldwide. Not a bad position for an incompetent organisation to have accidentally found themselves in.

No question there's corruption, bureaucracy and some incompetence but they also successfully organise the largest sporting event in the world every four years.

daithijjj

Alex Song, 2 years ago. Rinse repeat.

A murky world. Probably would have been better off dropping a couple of brown envelopes in at Cameroon FA headquarters than anything else.

~Rebel~

price690 wrote: »

Go away outta that. If Costa refused to play for Spain and was allowed play against us a week later we wouldn't be talking human rights, we'd be screaming blue murder.

What? I can safely say if Costa retired from playing for Spain, and then played against us, i (and I assume any reasonable human being) would have absolutely no issues with that whatsoever.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It exists to protect the international game. If players were allowed to "retire" from International football whilst not retiring from club football clubs would quickly make it a condition of their employment that they only played club football and the international game as we know it i.e. Euro's, World cups etc where the very best footballers on the planet go toe to toe on behalf of their countries would be dead.

I really don't think that's a realistic fear. For example, if you're trying to sign up Coutinho on the proviso that he's not allowed to play international football, he'll be very quick to just sign for someone who's happy to have him.

The best international players hold all the power on this. If they want to play international football, they will.

J Mysterio

~Rebel~ wrote: »

What? I can safely say if Costa retired from playing for Spain, and then played against us, i (and I assume any reasonable human being) would have absolutely no issues with that whatsoever.

I have an issue with Costa playing for Spain full stop.

~Rebel~

J Mysterio wrote: »

I have an issue with Costa playing for Spain full stop.

I know what you mean, but that's simply an impossible argument once you get into nuance and the individual case by case basis, and what is and isn't enough to make you 'part of that country'.

A line has to be drawn on what is and isn't allowed, and I think on balance, holding a passport and citizenship for that country is about as good and clear cut a line as is possible to find.

Jayop

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It's a bit like a pregnancy, you're either pregnant or you're not. You're either a professional footballer or your not. You can't be retired from one part of the game and not retired from other parts of the game. Doesn't matter what PR announcements players make. I can release a statement saying I'm the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi but it doesn't make it any more true than a player releasing a statement saying they are retired from international football but not from club football.

Serious question, what happens then if a young player refuses to represent his country for the first time. Is he in breach of his contract or whatever? Like Grealish for Ireland. He represented Ireland in youth football iirc and we tried to call him up. Or do you have to play for your senior team before this applies?

54and56

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I really don't think that's a realistic fear. For example, if you're trying to sign up Coutinho on the proviso that he's not allowed to play international football, he'll be very quick to just sign for someone who's happy to have him.

I don't think FIFA see it that way and I'd agree with them on that point. If clubs were to offer players €X per week if they want to remain available to play international football or €Y if they agree to play exclusively for their club plenty of players would take the extra €'s and before long it would be fairly standard. Once a few top players officially "retired" to concentrate on their club football and took all the initial heat the floodgates would open. Why would someone like Coutinho insist on playing for his country if 5 or 6 of the top players eligible for Brazil had "retired"? He'd be bursting a gut and upsetting his club management to effectively play for a second string national team.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

The best international players hold all the power on this. If they want to play international football, they will.

Footballers actually hold no power in this, they have no discretion whatsoever. If they are called up they either turn up and play or sit out a ban from playing for their clubs. Players don't get to choose to play for their country, their country chooses them.

54and56

J Mysterio wrote: »

I have an issue with Costa playing for Spain full stop.

In the same way you've an issue with John Aldridge or Ray Houghton playing for Ireland?

Should have invented an injury for Matip when they were calling up.

54and56

Jayop wrote: »

Serious question, what happens then if a young player refuses to represent his country for the first time. Is he in breach of his contract or whatever? Like Grealish for Ireland. He represented Ireland in youth football iirc and we tried to call him up. Or do you have to play for your senior team before this applies?

Don't know actually. I assume if you're registered as a player and you get selected for the senior team of the country you're qualified for then you have to play although an interesting question would be if two or more countries (due to grandparenting rights etc) called up the same player at the same time what would the situation be? Does the player have to select one of them? Can he ignore all of them?

Hasn't there been situations where we (ROI) have "invited" English born but ROI qualified players to join our squad and they have declined? I guess you can decline to be called up for a country you technically qualify for as long as it's not the country you are actually registered for i.e. if you're officially registered as an English player and you get selected by ROI becuase your grand mother was Irish you can decline but if you were selected for England you'd have to play as you're registered as English.

54and56

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Should have invented an injury for Matip when they were calling up.

They can still insist he travel to their camp so they can assess the injury themselves. He would have to be in intensive care to avoid travelling!!