Why aren't we? Everyone has a choice and they'd have three options. Sign, leave or don't play. Hardly unreasonable. I'm saying that we should have done this prior to their contracts hitting two years remaining, so it's an even longer period.
Because any court would rule that unlawful. No employer can change their employees duties unilaterally without cause. And honouring your contract isn't cause.
No employee duties would be changed. If a player is injured for his entire contract, then they're not breaking it.
Look up constructive dismissal. The player would be entitled to claim a fundamental breach of contract and become a free agent immediately.
In what way does Eriksen not do what he is paid to do? He is one of the best performing players in the PL.
What examples do you have of a player who could get paid more elsewhere being left unpicked? Anyway it's morally incorrect to threaten penalties against your staff. The whole point of a fixed term contract is that both sides honour it.
I've never seen him not try. Like most humans he has good days and bad days. We've offered him 200k a week apparently so no-one should doubt his ability.
Icardi at Inter. Their contracts would be honoured. Playing is not part of the contract, it's a possibility that it opens.
Just to clarify my position, I don't think that Eriksen should be accused of lacking in either effort or ability. There are some aspects to the game that he's **** at, like tackling, heading the ball and taking corners, but he still tries to do them.
Not a helpful example as I don't know the constructive dismissal law in Italy. In the UK being unfairly demoted gives you the right to resign. Eriksen could clearly show that not being picked was unrelated to his work performance and so was vindictive.
Every player that's not selected could do the same, then. It would spell the end of football contracts. Players can be left out for off-field reasons and have been for decades. Anyone put on the transfer list could just walk out. They're entitled to look out for their best interests, but so are the clubs.
On a different tack, if we think Eriksen is "only'" worth £10m a year in salary, why would we expect another club to pay us £50m and guarantee him a higher salary to get him a year earlier.
To avoid an free-for-all auction next season. Is it a risk worth paying £50m to avoid? Doesn't look like it.
But there are no off field reasons. He hasn't breached his contract in any way. He is simply not prepared to sign a new one. To treat him differently for doing that is almost the definition of vindictive. If players risked being not selected when in the last two years of their contract then that would itself be the end of contracts. Eriksen has done nothing wrong and neither have Spurs.
You seriously think that our players didn't try to win the CL final. Perhaps they didn't try to beat Man C and Ajax either....
There are off-field reasons or it wouldn't happen. There's nothing vindictive about not playing a player who isn't committed to the club and won't sign a new contract. They're welcome to remove their value to the club and the club are welcome to select players who will hold more value. A club shouldn't be forced to work against it's own interests in order to increase a possible payout for an employee.
