Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

mosstin

International football bores the arse off me. Bag of ****e the lot of it. That's my tuppence worth on the Matip issue for today.

Potential Underachiever

Well done Je suis Jean, I must say you've educated me today! You're dropping knowledge bombs all over the place.

54and56

mosstin wrote: »

International football bores the arse off me. Bag of ****e the lot of it. That's my tuppence worth on the Matip issue for today.

It seems to be the highlight of a lot of players careers.

Maybe I'm out of step with the majority but I really enjoy international football. The camaraderie and travel etc is great and the tournaments every 2 years (Euro and World Cup) are always well worth watching. I think football in general would be a lot worse off without them.

ArmaniJeanss

~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.

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

The rule is more about the journeyman pro from Panama or Togo than superstars from Brazil or Argentina - Clearly no club is going to bully Messi or Neymar into giving up international football.

However its more plausible to picture some nomark player from Honduras or wherever being told that his €2K a week deal might be easier to organise if there was a guarantee he wouldn't be disappearing 8 times a year for internationals. The rule means that effectively no such pressure can be applied on a player.

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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!!

Ebola virus might have stated them off!

Or the plague

Grayditch

The ACON could give you an injury within an injury.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RDJjTmN4BA

~Rebel~

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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.

What you're talking about only applies if all the top clubs get together and agree to ban their players from playing internationally. I don't ever see that being a realistic possibility. If Barcelona turn down a Neymar, Madrid will snap him right up, and vice versa. This "before long" thing never has a chance to begin in the first place.

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.

That's not what I was talking about - my comment was in relation to your suggestion/fear of clubs stopping their players from playing internationally - a top level player will always be in demand. They have all the power when it comes to who they choose to sign for. Only a concerted agreement between the worlds top 16 or so clubs could ever stop that from being the case. Which will never happen, because at the end of the day, each will look to take any advantage they can over another.

Milkers

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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.

It's actually far from that simple. FIFA's rules are not sacrosanct, they cannot enforce rules on players that would be illegal within that player's jurisdiction. This particular FIFA rule has never been tested in a court of law but it is a reasonable possibility that it could contravene some aspect of European Employment law if a club had the will to challenge it. For example in 1997 the IAAF (world athletics governing body) was forced to reduce their drug ban from 4 years to 2 following legal advice that the four year ban would not hold up in court in Europe due to EU "right to work" laws.

rob316

if we can't play matip for the duration of the afcon so be it, better he resting up than playing some plough field. I was watching Mali vs Egypt earlier the pitch was a disgrace cutting up all over the place and ball was bouncing like it was on concrete. ridiculous! hopefully mane comes through unscathed.

54and56

~Rebel~ wrote: »

What you're talking about only applies if all the top clubs get together and agree to ban their players from playing internationally. I don't ever see that being a realistic possibility. If Barcelona turn down a Neymar, Madrid will snap him right up, and vice versa. This "before long" thing never has a chance to begin in the first place.



That's not what I was talking about - my comment was in relation to your suggestion/fear of clubs stopping their players from playing internationally - a top level player will always be in demand. They have all the power when it comes to who they choose to sign for. Only a concerted agreement between the worlds top 16 or so clubs could ever stop that from being the case. Which will never happen, because at the end of the day, each will look to take any advantage they can over another.

I completely disagree with you but regardless of what you and I think FIFA are never going to open the door to the possibility that players could "retire" from international football. If that was an option plenty of pressure would come on players from their club managers and owners to not play international football and whilst the very strongest and best players may be able to stand up to such pressure (or resist the draw of extra €'s if they don't play international football) a lot of others wouldn't.

Can you imagine a Klopp, Mourinho, Big Sam or Fergie saying to a player that leaving to represent his country in the African Cup of Nations would be letting his team down just at a time when the team were fighting to win the league (or avoid relegation) and that turning his back on the team who pay his wages in favour of a mickey mouse competition his country had zero chance of winning would not be forgotten next time his contract came up for renewal?

How many players would "retire" when that sort of pressure came on? Maybe Messi or Ronaldo wouldn't be put under such pressure but 90% of footballers would and FIFA know that, hence the current rule which gives the player no discretion whatsoever and thus removes the potential for them to be put under pressure from their club.

54and56

Milkers wrote: »

It's actually far from that simple. FIFA's rules are not sacrosanct, they cannot enforce rules on players that would be illegal within that player's jurisdiction.

Players enter a contract with their national association when they sign up as players. No one forces them to join, they freely agree to it.

Players can't make a living from association football if they are not licenced to play by the governing body. There's a reason none of the massive clubs have taken on this issue in the courts and its because they know they can't win as FIFA aren't doing anything wrong.

If you want to be part of our game you agree to play for your country if selected or sit out games for your club for the duration of the time you would have been called up for. End of.

ArmaniJeanss

Milkers wrote: »

It's actually far from that simple. FIFA's rules are not sacrosanct, they cannot enforce rules on players that would be illegal within that player's jurisdiction. This particular FIFA rule has never been tested in a court of law but it is a reasonable possibility that it could contravene some aspect of European Employment law if a club had the will to challenge it.

The converse of that is that just because something is in contravention of employment laws doesn't necessarily mean that the EU court would stop it, they have previously allowed 'sporting integrity' to be a factor.

For example in theory it should be perfectly ok to transfer EU players in April/May if all parties agree, but yet all leagues employ some sort of cut-off point ('transfer window') beyond which players no longer have this freedom of movement. And the EU have ruled that this is acceptable to protect the competitions.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Liverpool to take legal advice on playing Matip against Plymouth.

https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/frustrated-jurgen-klopp-to-consult-lawyers-before-deciding-whether-to-pick-joel-matip-for-plymouth-tie/107950

mormank

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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.

Eh, that's exactly what they are doing! FIFA have a monopoly of the sport of football. Players have to follow their often stupid rules if they want to make a living from the sport. To say nobody is forcing any player to do anything is like a sweat factory owner saying that nobody is forced to work in such terrible conditions, when there is absolutely no alternative to feed their families. I used an extreme example to illustrate my point.

Turtyturd

He should go but just play sh!t and help the opposition teams as a form of protest...kinda like Pogba at the weekend.

54and56

mormank wrote: »

Eh, that's exactly what they are doing! FIFA have a monopoly of the sport of football. Players have to follow their often stupid rules if they want to make a living from the sport. To say nobody is forcing any player to do anything is like a sweat factory owner saying that nobody is forced to work in such terrible conditions, when there is absolutely no alternative to feed their families. I used an extreme example to illustrate my point.

Your argument is a false equivalence. Comparing individuals who earn £100,000 per week from the FIFA administered game with sweat shop exploitation is just nuts. People working in a sweat shop may have no other choice if they want to put food on their table. A £100,000 a week footballer who continues to be paid by his club and likely earns even more on top when "forced" to play for his country as he agreed to do when signing up to his national organisation isn't remotely comparable in any way with exploitation and that's why it's never been challenged.

If football players don't like the deal and find being feted as national stars whilst staying in five star hotels and getting the red carpet treatment wherever they go for the few days or weeks they are on international duty they can cease being footballers and join the normal workforce but you don't see too many of them doing that do you? I wonder why?

Agent Coulson

So I'd start Daniel tomorrow.

mormank

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Your argument is a false equivalence. Comparing individuals who earn £100,000 per week from the FIFA administered game with sweat shop exploitation is just nuts. People working in a sweat shop may have no other choice if they want to put food on their table. A £100,000 a week footballer who continues to be paid by his club and likely earns even more on top when "forced" to play for his country as he agreed to do when signing up to his national organisation isn't remotely comparable in any way with exploitation and that's why it's never been challenged.

If football players don't like the deal and find being feted as national stars whilst staying in five star hotels and getting the red carpet treatment wherever they go for the few days or weeks they are on international duty they can cease being footballers and join the normal workforce but you don't see too many of them doing that do you? I wonder why?

Well it is and it isn't. I used an extreme example on purpose to make it easier to get the point across but you simply used it against me instead and argued the analogy! :rolleyes:
There are millions and millions of people around the world in jobs where they are being exploited and being asked to do more than they should and the argument they get back is you are free to leave if you don't like it. And yes, in a lot of these cases they knew before they took the job etc but the company/whatever involved has a monopoly and therefore can basically do whatever it likes, laws or no laws. The amounts of money involved is an irrelevance really to the principle. A well paid slave is still a slave!

Talisman

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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.

In 1991/92, a young Kevin Gallen turned down a call up by Ireland and joined up with the England U-18/U-21 squad instead. It was a bit of a shock because his two brothers were both playing for Ireland at U-21 level. Big things were expected of him, he was smashing goal scoring records at under age levels for QPR. At the time there was talk of Les Ferdinand having talked a few of the young players at QPR out of declaring for Ireland. The sad thing for Gallen is that he never got called up to the England squad.

54and56

mormank wrote: »

There are millions and millions of people around the world in jobs where they are being exploited and being asked to do more than they should

And who determines what they "should" be asked to do? I get the impression from your posts that you think the player/employee is the person who should determine what they should and shouldn't do not the employer who is paying them and that the terms of any contract the employee freely entered into should simply be ignored if they later change their mind about adhering to elements of it. Are you a member of SOS by any chance?

mormank wrote: »

And yes, in a lot of these cases they knew before they took the job etc but the company/whatever involved has a monopoly and therefore can basically do whatever it likes, laws or no laws.

So what do you propose? That there should be several football associations per country to encourage competition and those who do not want to play for their country can join the association who don't require that they play for their country? I can see that would work well with several "premier" leagues per country. Perhaps if someone wants to be a soldier they too should have a choice of what army they want to join? The one which won't require them to go fight for their country rather than the one which will? Same for the national health service. Instead of having one HSE we should have several so young doctors can avoid signing up for the one which can send them to Leitrim for 6 months.

mormank wrote: »

The amounts of money involved is an irrelevance really to the principle. A well paid slave is still a slave!

Yeah right, the poor pets :rolleyes: Why don't you start a "Free the Millionaire Footballers From Travelling First Class and Being Enslaved in Five Star Hotels" campaign?

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

So I'd start Daniel tomorrow.

I expect Klopp will start utilising Daniel quite frequently from now to the end of the season, fitness permitting.

Talisman

Augeo wrote: »

I expect Klopp will start utilising Daniel quite frequently from now to the end of the season, fitness permitting.

Why do you expect that?

Talisman

Talisman wrote: »

Why do you expect that?

As the season goes on every game is potentially a cup final with CL qualification at stake. Much like the EL final last year Klopp I expect will play Sturridge

Start utilising more frequently does not mean start him in all PL games of course.

A matter of opinion of course.

MD1990

Sturridge should hopefully score some important goals for us for the rest of the season.

I think he will be sold next summer. I wonder how much we will get? Probably 30m tops? Or what club he would join?

brevity

Reports on Twitter that Xabi is retiring in the summer.

MD1990

MD1990 wrote: »

Sturridge should hopefully score some important goals for us for the rest of the season.

I think he will be sold next summer. I wonder how much we will get?..

I agree on both points.
However I feel with us playing in Europe next season there's the possibility we might keep him too. There'll be enough games being played if Klopp thinks he's worth keeping. Now I'm not sure Klopp does.

MD1990 wrote: »

I wonder how much we will get? Probably 30m tops? Or what club he would join?

I'd imagine he'll go to an non English CL club.
He's 28 in September, contracted until 2019.

He's on £6m/annum pre bonus.

I can see LFC letting him go for under £30m tbh.

If they get £30m for him that's all his wages to end of season recouped and the money they paid for him too
(so all he'll have cost the club is his wages prior to signing the contract extension/new deal with is & medical bills of course)

Agent Coulson

MD1990 wrote: »

Sturridge should hopefully score some important goals for us for the rest of the season.

I think he will be sold next summer. I wonder how much we will get? Probably 30m tops? Or what club he would join?

Well he won't be going back to City or Chelsea If he can't press for Klopp he won't be going to Spurs or Everton we won't sell him to utd anyway he's not Galactico enough for them...John W won't sell him to Arsenal and I doubt Wenger would buy him anyway.


So that leaves West Ham, Stoke, West Brom, Palace & maybe Southampton as solid midtalbe secure PL teams for him to join in England.

Would he go abroad I doubt it myself.

If we £25m for him we would be doing well I think considering his injury prone career.

Turtyturd

Anything over 20 should be snapped up. If the money in the game wasn't so crazy he'd end up on a pay per appearance contract before the end of his career imo.

Definitely see him starting tonight, just hope it's a professional performance rather than an attempt to turn it into the Sturridge show with potshots from everywhere as he refuses to pass to any of the kids.

Turtyturd

brevity wrote: »

Reports on Twitter that Xabi is retiring in the summer.

He'll be missed off boards....I wish him well.

MD1990

I wonder would Sturridge go to China. Score a few goals & the Sturridge hats would be flying off the shelves in China.
It could be a good move if he wanted to promote his Sturridge brand.

MD1990

MD1990 wrote: »

I wonder would Sturridge go to China. ........

I don't think so, I think the lad was genuine when he said he wanted to prove himself as being the best striker in the PL.

Can't see a move to China appealing to him.

sweetie

MD1990 wrote: »

I wonder would Sturridge go to China. Score a few goals & the Sturridge hats would be flying off the shelves in China.
It could be a good move if he wanted to promote his Sturridge brand.

Sturridge, China, there's a joke in there somewhere.

Turtyturd

MD1990 wrote: »

I wonder would Sturridge go to China. Score a few goals & the Sturridge hats would be flying off the shelves in China.
It could be a good move if he wanted to promote his Sturridge brand.

If anything like that were to happen I could see it being a move to LA Galaxy. I think the more laid back lifestyle over there would suit him, play a few games, drop a few rhymes with Missy Elliot.

corwill

sweetie wrote: »

Sturridge, China, there's a joke in there somewhere.

That's dangerously close to verboten talk of silicates!

brevity

Turtyturd wrote: »

He'll be missed off boards....I wish him well.

Grrrr!

mormank

Turtyturd wrote: »

Anything over 20 should be snapped up. If the money in the game wasn't so crazy he'd end up on a pay per appearance contract before the end of his career imo.

Definitely see him starting tonight, just hope it's a professional performance rather than an attempt to turn it into the Sturridge show with potshots from everywhere as he refuses to pass to any of the kids.

This type of contract gets mentioned on this thread so often that there must be 100's of examples of players in England on pay per play contracts. Name 3. As far as I know not even RVP was on a pay per play contract at any point in his career.

5starpool

If Sturridge did leave I'd love him to go to china. If they paid 70m for tevez and 60m for Oscar we should get at least similar. Won't happen though. West Ham/Southampton or else somewhere like Lyon I reckon.

mormank

mormank wrote: »

............Name 3. ..........

.............. but the money is so crazy now Ted, otherwise bla bla bla

mormank

Augeo wrote: »

.............. but the money is so crazy now Ted, otherwise bla bla bla

In fact I'm struggling to think of a single well known PL + inernational footballer who was on a pay per play contraact. Maybe Owen when he went to Utd but he was no international at that point certainly.

Colemania

mormank wrote: »

In fact I'm struggling to think of a single well known PL + inernational footballer who was on a pay per play contraact. Maybe Owen when he went to Utd but he was no international at that point certainly.

Owen was the one I was thinking of alright. At which clubs, I don't know. Possibly Stoke but I don't care enough about him to google it :pac:

Turtyturd

Yep Owen was the player I was thinking of when I said it. Admittedly couldn't name any others as it wouldn't be the norm, but then again neither would his physical and mental injuries.

Talisman

mormank wrote: »

This type of contract gets mentioned on this thread so often that there must be 100's of examples of players in England on pay per play contracts. Name 3. As far as I know not even RVP was on a pay per play contract at any point in his career.

Pay per play contracts don't mean a player doesn't get paid if they don't play. The contract is structured so that they have a low base salary and then it is topped up by appearance fees and bonuses etc. It's not slavery!

FSG have tried to structure all contracts this way - they were not impressed by the player contracts when they bought the club. Or the fact, that on the eve of them taking ownership of the club, Carragher was awarded a contract with a massive base salary.

Fitz*

Saha was pay-as-you-play at Everton if I remember correctly.

I think it's a no-go these days in football anyways. That said, haven't FSG implemented a very bonus-heavy type of structure at Liverpool. Low base salary but high bonuses if goals are met?

x43r0

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Liverpool to take legal advice on playing Matip against Plymouth.

https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/frustrated-jurgen-klopp-to-consult-lawyers-before-deciding-whether-to-pick-joel-matip-for-plymouth-tie/107950

The result of said legal consultation is that Matip won't play tonight against Plymouth

https://twitter.com/TonyBarrett/status/821658573310750720

Vicxas

x43r0 wrote: »

The result of said legal consultation is that Matip won't play tonight against Plymouth

https://twitter.com/TonyBarrett/status/821658573310750720

To be honest, probably for the best.

corwill

A few all expenses trips to Vegas for a couple good lads in the Cameroonian Football Federation would have sorted this out months ago.

Turtyturd

Turtyturd wrote: »

...........neither would his physical and mental injuries.

Only you and a select few more blab on about alleged mental issues
I doubt any of ye are anyway qualified or versed (not to mind well) in psychiatric disorders

Utopia Parkway

corwill wrote: »

A few all expenses trips to Vegas for a couple good lads in the Cameroonian Football Federation would have sorted this out months ago.

Our brown paper bags stuffed with cash must have got lost in the post.

54and56

x43r0 wrote: »

The result of said legal consultation is that Matip won't play tonight against Plymouth

https://twitter.com/TonyBarrett/status/821658573310750720

Agent Coulson

Since when do slaves get paid tens of thousands a week for there jobs.

Calling a millionaire footballer a slave is the most stupid thing I have read on here in hours.