No, not that one. His dad has been sacked as the manager of Montenegro. Seems a bit harsh, but with the way he kept sticking his nose into what was going on with his son at Spurs, I have little sympathy.
They're doing well to be where they are in the group, really. The suggestion is that their good start raised expectations a little too much, so their last two results got him sacked. Not a great decision, it seems.
So why don't footballers get sacked? Managers do. Every other profession in the world practically all sack their people so why not players? It might bring them into line more.
Because players are both an employee and an asset. Why sack someone when you can sell them? In some cases it may actually be beneficial to sack a player, but it's quite rare. Chelsea sacked Mutu and West Brom sacked Lee Hughes, but they're pretty extreme cases.
You always have to pay compensation for early termination of contracts. Almost every Premier League player will have some kind of value, however little. Even if they don't you'll find a club to take him on a free, saving you any compensation.
Then clauses should be written into contracts before signing them. For instance if a player's behaviour in his spare time is prejudicial to the good name of the club like brawling or drunkenness or vandalism then the players should be sacked after more than one offence.
Unless they agree to mutual termination of course. As in the Shefki Kuqi-Swansea case. Rarely happens tho, really pisses players off on FM normally.
Remember this:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2422215.ece? Wasn't there a couple of other incidents too?
No,I don't remember it but a repeat of that behaviour after a stern warning after the first time then sack him. Other employees get verbal and written warnings so why not players?
I do agree with you, maybe some other Spurs fans might know more about this, any other incidents (that means you Ensil ). It was May 2009 though if I remember rightly.
Yet they're ranked 19th in the FIFA World Rankings. If population size dictated how good a country was at sport, why have China one World Cup appearance between their name, why afre India crap at every sport except cricket, and are the sparsely populated nations of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa expected to do much better at the Rugby World Cup than the far more populous Russia or USA?
Obviously it has a lot to do with a country's sporting priorities and infrastructure, but for such a worldwide sport I'd say that Montenegro have punched well above their weight.
