I think would prefer to have one wide player to stretch and another on the other side more as an inside forward, cutting in (like Coutinho/Firmino) In the squad we only have 1 natural wide player so having competition would be useful.
Yep agree - both sides acted poorly. But you raised a good point. A lot of fans take the clubs side as gospel, possibly because of their links to the media, and players who speak to the media directly are seen as sneaky. Also - what would fans prefer? A player to leave mid contract (seen as disloyal) but get a big fee, or a player to run down his contract (show loyalty) and leave on a free?
That avoids the point though, which is that the player should do what the club he's contracted to decides is the way they want to go. So if they choose to accept an offer, then he goes, if they don't he stays put and gets on with it.
You're not a pro footballer who a club have paid multi £M for the privilege of their services and sit on their balance sheet as an intangible asset. As well as having to pay said individual a contracted Kings ransom whether they perform to expected levels or not. Footballers can't be compared to Joe Public when it comes to their contract obligations, as it's a totally different set of circumstances. As for being 'happy' about it, the point is, that they're more than happy, in fact generally ****ing ecstatic, to sign these long term multi £M contracts, but appear to have an issue sticking to them, if their stock rises, and they see some greener grass in the next field. The pendulum has swung way too far in their favour. .
Again, I don't agree with this. It's the same as some people saying that fans have a right to Hurl abuse footballers because for the most eu they receive, they should be able to take it. I don't care how much money someone pays me - treat me with respect, and I have a right to leave for other opportunities when they arise. We ask players for loyalty but clubs are just as bad when it comes to selling them on.
Footballers don't - that's the point. Their club has the right to decline offers for their services during the contracted period.
Right, see where you're coming from. More a legal standpoint rather than ethical. Unfortunately, it won't happen - I suppose if a player wants a move, they forfeit any bonus/wages due for rest of contract. I know this happens if they submit a transfer request but it should be as standard.
I'd take a footballers wage and take all the verbal abuse people wanted to throw at me. It'd set up my kids, their children and their childrens children for their entire lives. I'm not saying the abuse is right but let's not pretend it comes as a surprise to the likes of Sterling that he's gonna get booed and chanted at at the match. As long as it doesn't cross the line (as it does on twatter often) then the players should soak it up (same goes for Lovren or Lala etc). Sticks and stones etc..... Are these poor hard done by footballers really so sensitive and delicate these days? Poor little beggars being held hostage against their will....well I say...tough titties, the players know how the game works long before they sign a contract. So they absolutely should have to "endure" the "slavery" of seeing out a contract they themselves have signed. You can't expect any club who pays massive wages to not see their players as assets. ****ers don't know they're born some of them. Sign a five year contract and you should be at the club for five years unless the club decides otherwise. If you don't like it then tell them you only want a three year one, or a two year one etc. I'm with Tobes that the players hold way to much power these days (I also know that nothing in that respect will change for the forseeable future).
But again, it boils down to the point that you think because the company pays you so much, they can do what they want. I dont see it like that - there's a reason why they are paid so much - they're good at what they do, not because he club want to 'control' or 'dictate' them. And if the player then improved, the club then makes a profit.
Part of the reason they're paid so much is due to knob heads like us paying £50 a head to watch 90 minutes of football. What we expect in return is 100% effort and commitment to the cause. What we don't expect to see, is some multi millionaire ponce, moaning about how harshly he's been treated by the club who pay his heinous wages, because they won't let him go and grab an even bigger fortune at some other club, and they have the temerity to hold him to the multi million pound contract he willingly signed.
That works both ways. A footballer has a professional duty to show respect to the club and its fans. By not playing to the best of your ability you're effectively putting up two fingers to all and sundry. This "all about me" attitude (not just footballers-it's a current fad) really pisses me off, tbh. I don't know what job you do, but how long do you think you'd last in it if you showed no inclination to do your best but still expected to be paid? By all means move on if a better opportunity arises, but while you're employed by someone you have a clear moral duty to do the job you're contracted to.
A contract is a contract. If you're a painter and are contracted to paint a farmer's barns but a better opportunity comes up so you leave half way through... You can be sued. If you are contracted by iPhone to build a million brain sapping widgets for the iPhone 7 and you only make 500,000 because Samsung comes along and offers you more... You're in breach of contract. A footballer is no different and has no extra rights. If you're a legendary striker for Leicester and Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Deportivo ****a come calling you have no rights to slack off and mope until Leicester sell you. Hard to prove a player slacking off... But they have no rights to whine about "slavery" either. Sign shorter contracts if you don't want to get stuck in a cesspit like United for a long time.
Why? If the club don't want you then they have to pay you a loyalty bonus so you get even more money...
There needs to be a happy medium where neither the club [like used to happen] nor the player [like it happens now] has all the power. But I will say this, there's far more players doing it the 'right' way than not. Whereas in the past it was always the clubs who wielded the power, nowadays there's only a small percentage of players holding the club to ransom. It's a very rare thing that players leave under a cloud - like those we mentioned yesterday and that's mainly because they come in, do what they're paid to do and move on harmoniously when either they or the club decide it's time. After all it's the players we pay to see.
I think getting rid of xfer windows for a start would help. If it wern't for rigid windows where players can move there would be less pressure for players and teams to screw each other to make deadlines. To prevent abuse (big clubs buying and selling to avoid injury troubles) perhaps limit it to 5 transfers a year outside the summer window. And to play in a cup they have to sign in the summer or be with the club 30 days before making cup appearance.
Without the window then players would be being unsettled all season long, the likes of Vardy at the minute would be the subject of bids and being unsettled by whichever bigger fish fancied a nibble. There needs to be a window but that window should open the minute the season ends and close about 2 weeks before the next one starts. So squads are put together and stable before the KO. Scrap the January window, so that the squad you start the season with is the one that ends it.
