General Premier League Thread 2019-20

Agent Coulson

Rock77 wrote: »

Why would you you assume there has been an issue? It just says the club urge their fans to stay away if games go ahead..

As I said a national newspaper in this case The Guardian a well respected paper not a clickbait one picked it up and wrote a full page article on the statement something other clubs also released yet they did not write full page articles on those clubs which I found strange and that is why I asked the question.

Speak Now

Agent Coulson wrote: »

As I said a national newspaper in this case The Guardian a well respected paper not a clickbait one picked it up and wrote a full page article on the statement something other clubs also released yet they did not write full page articles on those clubs which I found strange and that is why I asked the question.

It was just something they included in a statement about season refunds. The papers make it sound like it was a special message. A bit like the premier league guy yesterday saying a trophy presentation would go ahead if safe. Hence Sky run the headline and add Liverpool.

Rock77

Agent Coulson wrote: »

As I said a national newspaper in this case The Guardian a well respected paper not a clickbait one picked it up and wrote a full page article on the statement something other clubs also released yet they did not write full page articles on those clubs which I found strange and that is why I asked the question.

Ah I see, still it didn’t mention anywhere in the full page article that there was an issue with crowds outside Old Trafford. I would think that a well respected paper would mention that if it was the case.

PhilipsR

kowloonkev wrote: »

If you had told me that this situation would arise 6 months and that one player would be kicking up a fuss I probably would have guessed Troy Deeney.

What does this even mean?

kowloonkev

PhilipsR wrote: »

What does this even mean?

It means he loves the sound of his own voice and thinks he's some sort of spokesperson for footballers. He always has some unique personal issue to make himself special or use as an excuse, like when he battered those students that time. Some ego on the man.

joeguevara

TitianGerm wrote: »

Rose is still at Spurs isn't he

Joined Newcastle on a six month loan in January 2020. Has a contract until 2021 at Spurs.

y0ssar1an22

any word from the PL about the contracts ending in june? or the transfer window?

Cookiemunster

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

any word from the PL about the contracts ending in june? or the transfer window?

They said last week that expiring contracts could be extended until the 'end of the season'.

martingriff

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

any word from the PL about the contracts ending in june? or the transfer window?

Cookiemunster wrote: »

They said last week that expiring contracts could be extended until the 'end of the season'.

Would that not be up to UEFA or FIFA as I doubt the PL can do it unilateral. Well the contract anyway

Mitch Connor

martingriff wrote: »

Would that not be up to UEFA or FIFA as I doubt the PL can do it unilateral. Well the contract anyway

no, FA/PL can and did do it.

But it just means they can be extended tot he new end dates. Doesn't mean they have been. Clubs and players would have to come to an agreement. Can't just impose it.

martingriff

Mitch Connor wrote: »

no, FA/PL can and did do it.

But it just means they can be extended tot he new end dates. Doesn't mean they have been. Clubs and players would have to come to an agreement. Can't just impose it.

Ok thanks for that

yourdeadwright

Just a thought but with guys like Deeney and Kante not feeling its safe to come back for there own personally reason';s which is fair enoough

Will we see guys like Deeney just having to retire ?

He's 32 this summer and lets be honest there isn't a vaccine in sight , He's stated he doesn't won't come back until there is "NO " risk not a diminished one

I think for the foreseeable future the Virus will be around and occasionally people wil die , I don't think we will achieve "NO risk" within the next 3/4 years ,

bangkok

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Just a thought but with guys like Deeney and Kante not feeling its safe to come back for there own personally reason';s which is fair enoough

Will we see guys like Deeney just having to retire ?

He's 32 this summer and lets be honest there isn't a vaccine in sight , He's stated he doesn't won't come back until there is "NO " risk not a diminished one

I think for the foreseeable future the Virus will be around and occasionally people wil die , I don't think we will achieve "NO risk" within the next 3/4 years ,

how long is he contracted to watford for? cant see him retiring or any player for that matter

yourdeadwright

bangkok wrote: »

how long is he contracted to watford for? cant see him retiring or any player for that matter

But if he is not willing to play unit there is "NO" risk , he may have to ,

Shanotheslayer

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Just a thought but with guys like Deeney and Kante not feeling its safe to come back for there own personally reason';s which is fair enoough

Will we see guys like Deeney just having to retire ?

He's 32 this summer and lets be honest there isn't a vaccine in sight , He's stated he doesn't won't come back until there is "NO " risk not a diminished one

I think for the foreseeable future the Virus will be around and occasionally people wil die , I don't think we will achieve "NO risk" within the next 3/4 years ,

It's a possibility but I think you're taking it very literal. I imagine it's more so that it's Little to No risk.

But his age will definitely be a factor. To be fair, I'd love him at Everton for a year. Think he'd do a great job for us

bangkok

yourdeadwright wrote: »

But if he is not willing to play unit there is "NO" risk , he may have to ,

just checked there he still has a contract until june 2021, so he wont be retiring before then anyway. im sure this will all die down in the next year anyway so im sure he will be back playing well before then anyway

Iused2likebusts

What people think about coronavirus now is different to what they will think next month and in a few months. You can see the difference from posts here compared to a month to 6 weeks ago. Deeney and Kante may also have a different mindset in a couple of months

Guy:Incognito

bangkok wrote: »

just checked there he still has a contract until june 2021, so he wont be retiring before then anyway. im sure this will all die down in the next year anyway so im sure he will be back playing well before then anyway

Whatever about someone with a long term injury, thats part of the sport, but I highly doubt Watford will just pay him his wages for the next year because he doesn't want to play. Im sure hes on more but lets say he earns £50k a week. Thats £2.6m, plus the cost of buying and paying a replacement.

bangkok

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Whatever about someone with a long term injury, thats part of the sport, but I highly doubt Watford will just pay him his wages for the next year because he doesn't want to play. Im sure hes on more but lets say he earns £50k a week. Thats £2.6m, plus the cost of buying and paying a replacement.

if they get rid of him, they will have to pay him his contract in full. give it a few weeks and when the summer window passes im sure he will be back playing

Guy:Incognito

bangkok wrote: »

if they get rid of him, they will have to pay him his contract in full. give it a few weeks and when the summer window passes im sure he will be back playing

I'd be very surprised if contracts in professional football allowed for the players to just decide they dont want to go to work but still be entitled to get paid.

Its not even comparable to the likes of the Winston Bogarde situation. He was fully available to play , the club tried to force him out because they didnt want him so hes entitled to sit and collect his money.

TitianGerm

bangkok wrote: »

if they get rid of him, they will have to pay him his contract in full. give it a few weeks and when the summer window passes im sure he will be back playing

If he's refusing to play there's probably some clause in the contract that allows the club to cancel his contract.

.G.

If he's refusing to do his job he's breaching his own employment contract much like someone stacking shelves in Tesco would be if they refused. The club might be happy to endure it for a short period but no way they'll accept that long term. Will be interesting to see how these things play out.

bangkok

he is club captain, if others players all start to back him it puts the premier league in a difficult situation if watford cant field a team, other clubs might follow suit

TitianGerm

bangkok wrote: »

he is club captain, if others players all start to back him it puts the premier league in a difficult situation if watford cant field a team, other clubs might follow suit

It makes no difference if he's club captain or not. No way Watford can afford to pay him for a whole season because he doesn't feel it's safe to play. His contact would be mutually terminated is my guess.

bangkok

TitianGerm wrote: »

It makes no difference if he's club captain or not. No way Watford can afford to pay him for a whole season because he doesn't feel it's safe to play. His contact would be mutually terminated is my guess.

id imagine they will pay him for the rest of this season, maybe a 10-20% pay cut if he continues to refuse to play and assess over the summer. id say he will come around then if all premier league games are going ahead without issue, if not and he is still refusing to play id say they will both come to some agreement

Corholio

Not sure why people are quoting regular employment contract things, it certainly isn't like working in Tesco. To complicate it even more, teams and the PL gave players the option not to resume if they didn't want to. The extent of this leeway and how long this covers is unknown and mightn't even be finalised. Anyone making finite claims that this and that will happen is fairly incorrect as it all stands, there's so much yet unresolved for that to be.

bangkok

Corholio wrote: »

Not sure why people are quoting regular employment contract things, it certainly isn't like working in Tesco. To complicate it even more, teams and the PL gave players the option not to resume if they didn't want to. The extent of this leeway and how long this covers is unknown and mightn't even be finalised. Anyone making finite claims that this and that will happen is fairly incorrect as it all stands, there's so much yet unresolved for that to be.

yea i dont know why any job is ever compared to a footballer really, 2 totally different worlds

Guy:Incognito

Much like the government covid payment scheme, Im sure something was agreed in the short term so they could see how things go.

Regardless of what was agreed short term, I just cant see Watford, or any club, paying a player to sit on their arse for a year costing them 2.5 -3m + for the player plus the same again to replace them. If youve 3 players doing that then youre already down 15m. Plus theyre down gate receipts plus other revenues caused by this.

People are overestimating the generosity of rich people.

Agent Coulson

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Much like the government covid payment scheme, Im sure something was agreed in the short term so they could see how things go.

Regardless of what was agreed short term, I just cant see Watford, or any club, paying a player to sit on their arse for a year costing them 2.5 -3m + for the player plus the same again to replace them. If youve 3 players doing that then youre already down 15m. Plus theyre down gate receipts plus other revenues caused by this.

People are overestimating the generosity of rich people.

The President of America and self professed multi billionaire is getting the Irish and Scottish governments to pay his staff while his golf resorts are closed.

TitianGerm

Corholio wrote: »

Not sure why people are quoting regular employment contract things, it certainly isn't like working in Tesco. To complicate it even more, teams and the PL gave players the option not to resume if they didn't want to. The extent of this leeway and how long this covers is unknown and mightn't even be finalised. Anyone making finite claims that this and that will happen is fairly incorrect as it all stands, there's so much yet unresolved for that to be.

The players have contracts to provide a service (play games) for consideration (salary).

If Deeney doesn't want to uphold his side of the contract then Watford would most likely be within their rights to withhold his consideration, legally terminate the contract or sue for breach of contract (unlikely).

Agent Coulson

Deeney can retire from football till a vaccine is found and he is comfortable going back playing if the money really doesn't mean anything to him.

Watford can hold onto his registration so he doesn't do a cheeky and join another club as a free agent till the end of his current contract.

bangkok

bangkok wrote: »

yea i dont know why any job is ever compared to a footballer really, 2 totally different worlds

Different worlds, different contracts, but subject to the same laws and precedents.

If A is contracted to do B for C and refuses, even if it's because of a conscientious reason as opposed to being idle, then C can usually discipline A. The difference is that because of A's worth to the club, that discipline may not be as swift and strong as the Tesco worker could expect. But most clubs will tire of shelling out the bones of 100k a week to someone who refuses to play.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is that because of A's worth to the club, that discipline may not be as swift and strong as the Tesco worker could expect. But most clubs will tire of shelling out the bones of 100k a week to someone who refuses to play.

Yeah, there'll be a difference in response from a club depending on the player. Thats just a fact of life. Theres a fairly big difference between how Liverpool would approach the situation of prime, 27 year old Mo Salah with a chunk of contract left to Watford with 31 year old Troy Deeney in the last year of his contract and may well cost more to pay to sit at home and replace than he will recoup in transfer fees down the line.

Thats just the reality of it.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah, there'll be a difference in response from a club depending on the player. Thats just a fact of life. Theres a fairly big difference between how Liverpool would approach the situation of prime, 27 year old Mo Salah with a chunk of contract left to Watford with 31 year old Troy Deeney in the last year of his contract and may well cost more to pay to sit at home and replace than he will recoup in transfer fees down the line.

Thats just the reality of it.

Yep, as very neatly illustrated by the Richard Keogh issue. All 3 caught out, but the club disciplined the aging player looking for his last payday and gave the 2 more valuable assets a slap on the wrist. And, as employers who pay eye watering sums of money, I think they are entitled to make those calls and ignore the "but it's not fair" protests.

The Deeney situation will become more acute if Watford don't move away from the relegation zone and decide they really need him and/or really don't want to pay 70k per week for a player who is not helping their cause.

y0ssar1an22

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if contracts in professional football allowed for the players to just decide they dont want to go to work but still be entitled to get paid.

Its not even comparable to the likes of the Winston Bogarde situation. He was fully available to play , the club tried to force him out because they didnt want him so hes entitled to sit and collect his money.

"I may be one of the worst buys in the history of the Premiership but I don't care" :eek::pac:

theoneeyedman

Wouldn't be surprised if there is more to the Deeney/Watford thing than meets the eye.

At the start of this shutdown, there was a row between the club and the players over payment/wages, and it harked back to over a year ago with a row over contracts/bonus payments etc joy paid. Was covered in one of the Athletic Podcasts a few weeks ago, didn't pass much heed of the details at the time TBH, but not all is good behind the scenes at Watford.

martingriff

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, as very neatly illustrated by the Richard Keogh issue. All 3 caught out, but the club disciplined the aging player looking for his last payday and gave the 2 more valuable assets a slap on the wrist. And, as employers who pay eye watering sums of money, I think they are entitled to make those calls and ignore the "but it's not fair" protests.

The Deeney situation will become more acute if Watford don't move away from the relegation zone and decide they really need him and/or really don't want to pay 70k per week for a player who is not helping their cause.

Ah now he was going to be out for about 2 years with rehab and all he would have been 35 and he was the captain, place of responsibility. They gave him a very good offer where he would still have been paid well but told them to f off

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

Ah now he was going to be out for about 2 years with rehab and all he would have been 35 and he was the captain, place of responsibility. They gave him a very good offer where he would still have been paid well but told them to f off

Oh I think Derby were fully entitled to do what they did. Wasn't criticising them, it was just a neat illustration that the attitude of the club may be dictated by how much of an asset they view the player.

Fitz*

Dani Cabellos seems to have said that the Premier League is returning to play on June 20th.

ebbsy

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Much like the government covid payment scheme, Im sure something was agreed in the short term so they could see how things go.

Regardless of what was agreed short term, I just cant see Watford, or any club, paying a player to sit on their arse for a year costing them 2.5 -3m + for the player plus the same again to replace them. If youve 3 players doing that then youre already down 15m. Plus theyre down gate receipts plus other revenues caused by this.

People are overestimating the generosity of rich people.

And it could get them relegated.

y0ssar1an22

FitzShane wrote: »

Dani Cabellos seems to have said that the Premier League is returning to play on June 20th.

We are going to start a week late with respect to what is being talked about in Spain, which is June 12, and we are going to start the league on the 20th,’ Ceballos said in an interview with RTVE.

that was the date being touted by the PL anyway i thought?

ArmaniJeanss

Craig Johnson situation is probably the closest comparison.

Told Liverpool he wasn't playing for them any longer for family reasons.
It was reasonably amicable but the club went through the formality of fining him (the maximum) two weeks wages every fortnight, and they kept his registration for the 3 remaining years of his contract.

Nothing to be gained by 'sacking' the player.

y0ssar1an22

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Craig Johnson situation is probably the closest comparison.

Told Liverpool he wasn't playing for them any longer for family reasons.
It was reasonably amicable but the club went through the formality of fining him (the maximum) two weeks wages every fortnight, and they kept his registration for the 3 remaining years of his contract.

Nothing to be gained by 'sacking' the player.

sorry, i haven't been following. the closest to the troy deeney situation?

i wonder did they ever try sell him (or did he 'retire'?).

if they didnt try to sell him, thats pretty ****ing $hit.

Agent Coulson

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

sorry, i haven't been following. the closest to the troy deeney situation?

i wonder did they ever try sell him (or did he 'retire'?).

if they didnt try to sell him, thats pretty ****ing $hit.

He retired to look after his sister was very ill and needed 24/7 care.

I can't say I ever heard the story of fining him every two weeks for three years before. I did know they held his registration because Souness asked him if he wanted to play again he said no and he never kicked a ball for another club despite offers he said he only ever wanted to play for Liverpool.

y0ssar1an22

Agent Coulson wrote: »

He retired to look after his sister was very ill and needed 24/7 care.

I can't say I ever heard the story of fining him every two weeks for three years before. I did know they held his registration because Souness asked him if he wanted to play again he said no and he never kicked a ball for another club despite offers he said he only ever wanted to play for Liverpool.

going by wiki is a bit confusing.

"Johnston incurred his manager's wrath when he announced his premature retirement from Liverpool. Kenny Dalglish was livid but later relented and gave his blessing to Johnston when he found out the reason for the player's decision

Earlier that year Johnston's sister became seriously ill and was admitted to a hospital in Morocco. By the end of the season, it was clear she needed round the clock attention back home in Australia and Johnston wished to provide that care

In 1991, when Graeme Souness was manager of Liverpool F.C., he asked Johnston if he would like to train with the team with a view to playing again. Liverpool F.C. still held Johnston's registration as a player."

i dont know how transfers worked back then. so, if they held his registration (with a view to realising a profit) but wouldn't let him play for another club closer to his sister, thats ****. but if they kept his registration in order to continue paying him, then fair play (which i suspect is the case).

he must of been young!

After his retirement he was constantly being linked to clubs from all over

he won a **** load

Football League First Division (5): 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1985–86, 1987–88
FA Cup (1): 1985–86
League Cup (2): 1982–83, 1983–84
FA Charity Shield (1): 1986
European Cup (1): 1983–84

Guy:Incognito

Pre bosman, clubs had your registration until you were transferred to another club. In contract or not, the player was sold between the clubs.

The clubs held the power.

y0ssar1an22

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Pre bosman, clubs had your registration until you were transferred to another club. In contract or not, the player was sold between the clubs.

The clubs held the power.

as in, pre bosman, you were contracted for life unless sold?

~Rebel~

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

as in, pre bosman, you were contracted for life unless sold?

Registered rather than contracted. Once your contract ran out, if someone else wanted you to play for them, they had to buy your registration from your current club. So the club that held your registration always got something out of you leaving.

It was different rules in different countries though - in Belgium, where Bosman had played, they were simply allowed to keep your registration till they got an offer they accepted (though this may have been if it was only to a foreign club - can't quite remember the details). In England there were tribunals to arbitrate on fees, like is the case case now for young developing players, for example the way Liverpool had to pay something (8million i think?) for Ings, despite him having been out of contract.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

going by wiki is a bit confusing.

"Johnston incurred his manager's wrath when he announced his premature retirement from Liverpool. Kenny Dalglish was livid but later relented and gave his blessing to Johnston when he found out the reason for the player's decision

Earlier that year Johnston's sister became seriously ill and was admitted to a hospital in Morocco. By the end of the season, it was clear she needed round the clock attention back home in Australia and Johnston wished to provide that care

In 1991, when Graeme Souness was manager of Liverpool F.C., he asked Johnston if he would like to train with the team with a view to playing again. Liverpool F.C. still held Johnston's registration as a player."

i dont know how transfers worked back then. so, if they held his registration (with a view to realising a profit) but wouldn't let him play for another club closer to his sister, thats ****. but if they kept his registration in order to continue paying him, then fair play (which i suspect is the case).

he must of been young!

After his retirement he was constantly being linked to clubs from all over

he won a **** load

Football League First Division (5): 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1985–86, 1987–88
FA Cup (1): 1985–86
League Cup (2): 1982–83, 1983–84
FA Charity Shield (1): 1986
European Cup (1): 1983–84

He developed the Adidas predator football boot post football too.

kowloonkev

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Just a thought but with guys like Deeney and Kante not feeling its safe to come back for there own personally reason';s which is fair enoough

Will we see guys like Deeney just having to retire ?

He's 32 this summer and lets be honest there isn't a vaccine in sight , He's stated he doesn't won't come back until there is "NO " risk not a diminished one

I think for the foreseeable future the Virus will be around and occasionally people wil die , I don't think we will achieve "NO risk" within the next 3/4 years ,

He will probably be happy to let his teammates go back and use them as his guinea pigs to assess the threat, and then if it seems the threat is almost non existent he will be back to lead then as the great captain he is.