We will have to agree to disagree. He committed to the Club by signing an honouring a contract. We are not entitled to expect any more than that.
And he's not entitled to expect to play. Team selection has to consider the best interests of the club.
On a slightly different tack, what would you say to a new signing who asks....this four year deal I am signing, it seems you won't pick me in years 3 and 4 if I don't sign an extension on your terms. Won't that put new signings off? How is it in the best interests of the club for players to think that our policy is to hold them hostage in that way?
It happens all the time. Maybe not as obvious as he eriksen case because he is one of your best players but players who are not in a teams long term plans because of contracts sometimes dont play. Ramsay wasnt a first teamer i suspect due to his contract and likewise rabiot didnt play because of contract issues.
They're not being held hostage. One of the three options was to be sold. Players expect to be paid if they're unable to fulfil their side of the contract due to injury, illness or loss of ability. They would not be holding the club hostage if they insisted on being paid fully under those circumstances.
Like you, I don't see anything wrong with a player running down their contract. It's the prerogative of both parties and both parties should act professionally in honouring said contract. I do see a problem though if a player, mid-contract, comes out and says he wants to leave (Eriksen) versus a player who acts in a more professional manner (Toby).
And the reverse option was taken by Winston Bogarde, who basically forced the exact situation that I'm talking about.
Wasn't he just explaining why he wouldn't sign a new deal? I know exactly what Eriksen wants and have no clue what Toby wants.
A solution would be for every player to have a buyout clause set at twice the total remaining value of their contract. That would encourage earlier renewals.
Because he didn't want to move to man united. Players are allowed to be dropped from the team (see pogba being dropped by united and sanchez). This is another case. Spurs are under no obligation to play eriksen if they believe this is the best outcome for the club (this would be folly, if you dont play him then you could drop out of top 4). It all depends on the decision makers of the club. Ironically though after achieving what arsenal did to successfully build a really good team and foundation on a budget, you are now following in their footsteps with key players running down their contracts.
Obviously I'm going by rumour, but he's said himself that he would only consider joining a very small number of clubs. As you say, we can't make him move and it's also not in our best interests to allow this situation to arise again. I suspect that he's already spoken to clubs about joining next season. They wouldn't wait for more than two years, during which time he'd be inactive.
Better answer would have been "we'll see at the end of the season; for now i'm a Spurs player". After all, if one of the big clubs really wants him, then they'll enquire as to his availability; he doesn't need to put up a 'For Sale' sign. Lack of respect.
That would be a terrible idea. Imagine someone coming into buy alli or kane when they were being paid pittances. Teams in the league would be raided left right and centre unless they gave out fat contracts which would doom clubs (not that they dont right now)
It would cost the buying team more than three times the value the selling club put on the player. I can't see that being a big game changer in terms of raids but would give more leverage to the player so would make them more likely to sign a renewal.
