BBC - Liverpool make bid for Lallana

A wish to leave does not automatically allow the player to leave. What would happen, if the club wished to terminate the players contract because they decided they didn't need him anymore?

 

the current system is self regulating in the end. a desire to leave, if strong enough will make the player's value to the club reduce as they are disruptive or underperform.

it relies on the club being run as a business though.

 

I know what the system is; I'm saying it's a bloody dodgy system and the only way for it to be acceptable is to not hold players against their will. The concept of buying people is ridiculous when you really think about it, and if you've signed a contract of employment before I think you'll know it didn't force you to stay there until it expired or your employer allowed you to leave. You could still leave whenever you wanted.

I'm not sure what connection you're making, but obviously if a player's contract is terminated he is paid compensation.

A wish to leave in any walk of life should allow you to leave, in my opinion, and in every walk of life except the one we're talking about the law reflects that. When Kenwyne Jones went on strike he was right to do so. People hated him for it, but he was essentially trapped by his employer. Adam Lallana will be well within his right to do the same if he is kept against his will this summer. I desperately want him to want to stay, but if that doesn't happen he has to go.

 

for the record, I bet lallana could break his contract, pay any compensation to the club, perhaps going bankrupt in the process and then sign for liverpool.

might take a while though. wouldn't want to go bankrupt after signing that lovely fat liverpool contract.

 

Why can't we progress?

http://fourfourtweet.co.uk/league-riches-make-southampton-latest-club-prevented-from-progressing/

Wasn't sure where to put this, so here it is.

 

I imagine those charged with writing their contracts adequately provide for all such instances.

You're not trapped in the strictest sense either... you can refuse to play and thus have your contract repudiated or take the legal consequences, or retire etc.

It's a nonsense argument anyway... only reason I mentioned it was because I've literally sat a module on contemporary issues in property law, of which modern slavery was what I answered on.

EDIT: If we apply the Carroll logic, Lallana is worth what... £50m?

 

It shouldn't have to come to that.

 

Why can't we do for Lallana what Everton did for Baines? Offer more money and he'll probably stay...

 

We need a squad of players who see the status quo as an enemy, and who are determined to beat them rather than join them, possibly giving up chances for a quick buck and playing in the Champions League. Considering the amount of fans out there who hate this so-called "glass ceiling", there must be a fair few players out there who hate it too and who would fight it with us.

 

so are you saying is contracts should work one way?

Or should we have told forecast to **** off and pay him nothing.

 

Apologies Mayukelele. I spent half an hour looking for a thread to put the same link in somewhere, got distracted, and ended up putting it somewhere [forgotten where] else. It's not in this thread anyway.

Not bad article.

 

They're not really owned though are they? Their registration is owned, preventing them from playing for another club, but they can retire from football anytime they like, without penalty, and work in some other industry. It's not remotely comparable to slavery. It's just the price of taking part in this potentially extremely lucrative industry, and they all know that before they start.

If my contract is terminated I'm not paid compensation. So actually it kind of cuts both ways doesn't it?

 

What?

Perhaps they should work like they do in literally any other form of employment. How many times do I have to repeat that a footballer's contract is far from the norm?

 

5 year contracts where everyone gets paid up are far from the norm as well, so we should be able to get shot of a player on statutory terms etc?

 

Right, but they can't just go and work for another club, which is best for the sport, for sure, and letting players just move from club to club at will would probably ruin the sport, but we should at least have the decency to sell a player in the transfer window if that's what he wants. We have a system which, at the very least, is a moral grey area in employment law and we allow it because it's kind of necessary for the sport to not be terrible. But the only way to prevent this falling from moral grey area to moral abomination is to let players go if they want, not necessarily at any point but definitely between seasons, and before it gets to the point where they have to strike to get their way.

It's hardly like that's the other side of the coin, it's just a different thing entirely. That and the not-allowed-to-quit thing don't cancel each other out.

 

the moment players can't sit on their contracts without contributing or headbutt a team mate to get a cut price move away is the moment i worry about players being unable to move on when they want to.

 

But they are allowed to quit. They just can't quit to play for another club, a stipulation which, by the way, many non-football employers demand of their employees as well.

I appreciate what you're saying, they are not as free as most employees. But as I said, all the players know what they are signing up for, and they're often paid more than most of us could ever dream of. I don't think we should take a moral stand and let our players go if they just ask.

 

I don't really think Osvaldo did that to orchestrate a move away, though if that was the case, I can't believe that wouldn't flag up a serious problem to you.

 

He certainly wanted to get away. His agent was offering him round in the first week of January. And the Fonte one was the second time he done that!

 

everything about football flags up a serious problem to me. the answer is not to give away the only advantage we have.