Player loyalty

Should they have any ?

Serious question. There is a general view that players should be loyal to their club, or the fans, and not leave the moment a better offer comes along. I can feel the emotional attraction of that, and it certainly feel nice on the rare occasions when it happens, or appears to happen.

But really, why should they ? It's hard to see why loyalty should be given if it's not reciprocated. And with fans and clubs it's not.

Take Jonas for example. Always puts in a good shift, stayed with us when we went down, pretty handy player: basically a player who has done evertyhing he's ever been asked or which we could ask, right ?

Now suppose we were offered a much better player in exchange. I don't really know much about Gervinho but he's supposed to be very good, so let's say him. Lille phones MA up and offers a straight swap: get rid of jonas and get a much better player on lower wages.

Would anyone argue that we should turn down the deal, or even think twice about it, because of loyalty to Jonas ? No.

Take Shola: been here forever, has scored some vital goals, has played with a bad hip and a broken cheek. Lots, maybe most, people think we should get rid of him as soon as possible. Loyalty factor: 0

So, if we are willing to get rid of loyal players as soon as a better option comes along, or as soon as they stop playing as well as we'd like, why should we think that a player should think twice before accepting a chance to play for a better club or on better wages ?

 

It's vital that every football fan is a hypocrite.

 

It's a minimum requirement, as is delusion.

I've got little room for loyalty tbf unless they're clearly giving up the opportunity to earn more money and play for a far bigger team ie Shearer. But even Shearer was the highest paid player at NUFC until Owen came along so was he really being as loyal as everyone makes out? The fact is, he could've walked into Man U, Chelski etc and won Champs League, Prem titles the lot but he didn't so you could say he was loyal but if he was **** then I woudn't have thought twice about getting rid of him.

Steve Harper is a good example, he's been as loyal as they come. Or has he? You could argue that he's unambitious. Fact is, he ain't a world beater. If we were offered David De Gea in exchange I wouldn't even have to think about it.

 

So, Andy Carroll, all is forgiven ?

 

All I ask is for players to honor their contracts. I like Shola but he can very extremely lazy at times, yet we keep him on ahead of other strikers which can also be very frustrating.
Though I do agree their is an element of delusion/hypocrisy within every football fan.

 

Couldn't possibly think of letting Jonas go now that he's learned to wave.

 

But if players honour their contracts, clubs would never ever get any money back off them, they could just walk out of the club as a free agent at the end of it, so its a catch 22 situation, loyalty then walk for free, or unloyal and the club gets money for them.

 

forget about loyalty - just put all these agents against the wall. if their player ain't moving then they earn nowt. it's in the agents interest to unsettle a player.
while i,m on you could put harry redknapp next to them aswell, how can someone love the sound of their own voice so much????

 

You mean, like this?

please log in to view this image

 

I'm sure clubs would survive, there's enough money in football broadcasting etc nowadays

 

Well if every player honoured their contracts, then there would be no transfer fees, so thats the only way it would work, but we all know that will never happen, unless Uefa make a new rule that they have to honour them, but then you would see a lot of 1-2 year contracts, and 4-6 year contracts would be very rare indeed.

 

I don't like playing the North American card, but there isn't a single pro sport in North America that has transfers. You either trade players (and/or draftpicks) for other players when they're still under contract, otherwise you sign them when they become free-agents. If you don't want a player, and nobody else does either, then you have to buy out their contract and set 'em loose. Point is, other sports survive without the injection of transfer funds, and players don't have as much power because they can't just expect "big clubs" to come in with offers teams clubs can't refuse.
I'm not suggesting football should work that way, both systems have serious flaws, but it is interesting how different the business side of sports can be.

 

I've got the ani one myself. Just put the other one up to save looking for it.

 

I think I may have even changed the animation so that the wave was less jerky.

A bit like teaching Jonas how to wave properly.

 

The North American system only really works because of the college system though, College football is even bigger than the NFL over there, and some NFL teams actually play in the College stadiums of 60-80,000 all seaters, its crazy.

We just havnt got the infrastructure in place for that, and probably never will.

And what would usually be paid as a transfer would usually get paid to the player in wages, like a $200 million 10 year deal, but they can still get traded before they serve their 10 years, but the players cant really say, im off, without another club coming in for them first.

 

Loyalty ha its dead. Unless of course your Harper who I think is the last

 

I don't necessarily agree that the system wouldn't work because of college sports, because the only two popular college sports are basketball and football. You're right that schools like U of Michigan, OSU, Penn State, Texas, etc. play in stadiums of 100,000+ (in fact bigger than any of the NFL stadiums), I don't really see what that has to do with transfers/trading/drafting, as the reason for drafting is due to professional clubs not having youth academies and there being a minimum age as to when teams can sign players under contract, and the draft attempts to manage the process by which teams get the rights to negotiate contracts.

What I will agree about is that because there aren't transfer fees, extra money goes towards salaries, but the long salaries in hockey are less to do about loyalty or maintaining the long-term rights to players, but to spread out the annual salary owed so to stay under the salary cap. Players can say they're unsettled, but at least their team can ensure they get something back for them, and since there isn't the requirement of teams and players coming to personal terms during trades, you don't see teams tapping up players, because its really the other team they have to sell on the deal

 

Haha I made the original, it seems to have done the rounds though!

 

Well a draft system in football wouldnt work, as the teams train them, if all of a sudden a promising youngster was put on the draft and another club got them, what would be the point of the team training them up, they wouldnt, but we have not got the infrastructure in place for the colleges/universities to train them up to standard, and play competetively in the college system, who over here would watch Ashington college against Newcastle college, never mind get 80,000 fans and TV coverage on it.

You also have the problem of the worst teams getting the best draft picks first, i was going to say carrol but that was a bad example as you went down, so lets say Henderson for us, if he was say a #2 draft pick, then you may have got him, as you went down and were worse than us, so you would have got 1st pick.

you also have the fact there is no relegation in American sports, so the worst team is still in there the season after, the idea is the worst team can build and become better, whilst the best team doesnt get too far ahead so its more of a level playing field. (but with that system pretty sure some skullduggery goes on).

Trading is a different matter, that could work in football, but the 1 problem is, its a worldwide game North American sports are usually confined to just North America, (you do have Japan/Baseball, Russia/Hockey, Cuba/Baseball etc) so its a lot easier to police.

 

I'm really not suggesting football would work with a draft, I'm only saying the whole system changes the landscape of player loyalty.
Although how you described it isn't how the super draft works for MLS, because they're the one north american pro sport that has academies. If a player is part of their youth set-up, they can transition into the senior squad without being drafted, but if a team would want the rights to a player who isn't under contract to another team (whether they were a college player, or foreign kid) then they would need to draft him into the league (at least until a certain age)

The worst teams getting the best players typically isn't a problem, seeing as the best teams can lure the best free agents, have the best coaches, scouts, etc. It's at least an attempt to improve the product on the field, but I guess that's really where north american sports truly differ from football around the world. North American teams being league "franchises" means the league views the teams and play as one large product, and they try to control the balance of success to improve the market...which can be as corrupt a process as it comes. And I think you'd agree the Sky influence is pushing the premier league in a similar direction

As for relegation, yeah, that's never going to change because there aren't the pyramids of professional sports found in football countries, in NA there are maximum 3 levels of professional leagues per sport, that have limited association with one another (baseball and hockey being the only real exceptions). Personally I love the relegation system, but it only works because there are SO many professional clubs in England, Spain, and they're all part of their domestic federations etc.