To me if a player finds your club an attractive prospect and agree to accept the deal on the table then that player must honour the contract and the club has the right to turn any bigger club down..The player should have no say in the matter at all. Any attempt of trying to poach the player by any means should result in points deduction and a heavy fine.......A signed contract must be worth the paper it is written on and only the club can decide if they want to sell the player or not...
As nice as that sounds, there's a lot of problems with what you have wrote. Why shouldn't someone of great ability be allowed to earn more when offered? Why should a club be allowed to cash in on loyalty, but the player cannot? I'm Saints through and through, but even my tinted don't cover that.
Contracts are double edged swords. On the one hand you are tied in for the duration (or should be) but on the other hand you have garuanteed salary for x seasons. You can’t take all a contract has to offer when it suits you then consider it meaningless when offered more money.
Where is the player not allowed to cash in on loyalty in this situation (sticking to a contract)? The “cashing in” is having that salary for that duration, otherwise contracts will need to be offered as an option A or option B. A = X years at Y £s but you stay for contract unless club agrees sale, or B = X years at Y minus Z £s (ie less money) but you have a trigger point allowing you to leave if wanted, but you earn less money for the period.
There's only one way this will come into being: if (and it probably doesn't pass muster from a legal standpoint in the EU or UK, not without some sort of collective bargaining agreement that probably approaches impossibility) the contract a player is transferred, they remain bound by the previous contract, with some provision for the player to buy out the contract (which is effectively what a release clause is). Because right now, signed contracts are not worth the paper they are written on, but it extends beyond just transfers. Fraser Forster has been a Saint for less than four years; he's on his third contract. Few players actually see out any deal without them being ripped up and redone, either by their current team or in transfer. Beyond players seeking a way out, this has created an incentive for agents in particular to continually be seeking new terms, because each new contract represents another payday. Sometimes that's a big move; sometimes that's angling for a new contract or a lateral transfer. Each provides a substantial windfall. Which is the other option available, which has been discussed as (partial) mitigation: limiting agents to a percentage of the contract of their player rather than multi-million pound fees (paid out annually rather than up-front, and paid out by the player), which is common in other professional sports. They would still have some incentive to seek big moves, but far less to simply keep churning through transfers.
Not sure it would Chilcs. If a wage cap were ever introduced there would be a way of getting round it. The buying club could, in theory, buy the player out of their contract, signing them on a ‘free’ transfer with the selling club having a contract ‘paid up’. The buying club then make the additional wage by a staggered signing on fee which I guess would equate to the large fat headed wages they wanted to pay in the beginning.
I would suggest that a wage cap would just encourage all of the foreign mercenaries to 'upsticks' and chase the bigger contracts elsewhere on offer in Europe, China etc.
My issue with the wage cap is all you are doing is transferring the amount of wealth in the game from the players to the owners, and the players are the ones who should be getting the most money as, after all, they actually play the sport
In theory, yes. But what then happens to that player when he is "not picked to play" or worse still, that club then bring in another player (in his position) that means, at best, he will get a run ut occasionally in an U23 game or a early round of a cup? Contracts are (sadly) only a means to an end, regarding the finances between player and club. Either side can renege on it at any time..... as we have seen on far too many occasions.
Has Cortese taken his managerial badge ?? Now that would be a ride! Ps. Great thread btw. Just caught up on all last eve's musings. Brilliant "fencing" by all. That's why this site IS the best.
Okay, update time. I have dropped Brighton and Bournemouth, as both have pretty well punched their tickets. "Six pointers" are matches against the teams from 13-20. Swansea: 4 home, 5 away. Six-pointers: 4. Average points of home opponents: 1.22 Average points of away opponents: 1.54 Overall: 1.40 Swansea's away matches aren't quite as difficult as that would suggest; they play Huddersfield, WBA and Bournemouth, interspersed with two trips to Manchester. Their road is far more straightforward than it appeared a couple weeks back; they need two wins, and they very much have the matches to get them. West Ham: 6 home, 3 away. Six-pointers: 2. Average points of home opponents: 1.55 Average points of away opponents: 1.55 Overall: 1.55 The good news? The extra home games. The bad news? Absolutely everything else. As important as our six-pointer is for us, it might be more important for West Ham, because their schedule is even more murderous now...West Ham at 5-1 looks pretty tasty, in all honesty. Huddersfield: 5 home, 4 away. Six-pointers: 3. Average points of home opponents: 1.19 Average points of away opponents: 1.67 Overall: 1.49 The Anti-Saints: Huddersfield has no draws in eight league matches, but they've garnered two wins in their past three. Their season probably comes down to their next three matches, all six-pointers. Newcastle: 5 home, 4 away. Six-pointers: 3. Average points of home opponents: 1.21 Average points of away opponents: 1.42 Overall: 1.31 One of the easier overall schedules, Newcastle plays an awful lot of the middle tier, and might be hoping that they head to the beach early mentally. Saints: 3 home, 6 away. Six-pointers: 3. Average points of home opponents: 1.88. Average points of away opponents: 1.18. Overall: 1.41. Our schedule overall is just average in difficulty, but man...we're going to need to win away from home. And while our home form gets the attention, we have just 1 win in 11 away league matches, and 8 points in that span. Palace: 4 home, 5 away. Six-pointers: 3. Average points of home opponents: 1.30. Average points of away opponents: 1.23 Overall: 1.26 Easiest overall schedule, and while they're in terrible form, ending with WBA means that they will always have a chance for a great escape...if they stay in touch with 17th. Stoke: 5 home, 4 away. Six-pointers: 3. Average points of home opponents: 1.63. Average points of away opponents: 1.42. Overall: 1.54. That's not pretty. Well, it is for us. Not for Stoke, who got draw-happy at precisely the wrong moment (their record of 1 W, 4 D and 1 L over the past six matches ours). West Brom: 5 home, 4 away. Six-pointers: 3. Average points of home opponents: 1.55. Average points of away opponents: 1.30. Overall: 1.44. Pretty well doomed. They need five wins, and it's hard to find five wins in that schedule.
