Been some talk about it, but not an awful lot. But then that's because Koeman can't guarantee him starts - and he's 25.
He needs/wants to be starting games now.
Jack Cork
- Thread starter lamby
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Been some talk about it, but not an awful lot. But then that's because Koeman can't guarantee him starts - and he's 25.
He needs/wants to be starting games now.
on one year left of contract he's in a vulnerable position as well. as long as there's a contract on the table to secure his future I don't see a problem with holding onto him to the end of his contract.
footballers should probably negotiate a release clause for if there's no extension on offer though.
footballers should probably negotiate a release clause for if there's no extension on offer though.
This isn't aimed directly at you (although I might be - I long gave up bothering who on here now hates the sight of Lovren, Lallana and co), but for me your above words apply equally to the position between said players and our club.
If fans are ok with us moving on from the Boruc's and Cork's of this world, for the perceived reason that there is better quality out there, and they need to make way for us to progress etc, then equally those same fans, in my book, should also be ok with the Lovren's and Lallana's of this world wanted to move to a better quality team, to progress their careers etc.
Too many people in mind my are having it both ways, and that's wrong in my book. People can't be fine with us (potentially) ditching Cork and Boruc, and furious at Lovren and Lallana buggering off. All this "****beard" nickname rubbish. (And the way they have buggered off is irrelevant in my book. Once a player has gone, they have gone. The manner in which they have gone shouldn't make any difference to our lives).
I don't think many people will think differently really - nobody blames Shaw or Chambers for progressing their career or whatever. It's just that the manner in which they act does matter to most people, that's the main thing you disagree with, not that nobody should show ambition to progress.
How they left actually is not irrelevent is it tho? Lallana and Lovren forced their moves by being dick heads. If they hadn't they wouldn't have got the move. So them acting like dicks actually pushed through their moves as the board couldn't have too many unhappy players. So how they moved is very relevent. No one is complaining that they moved on it's how they moved on that has got people annoyed.
Also with Boruc and Cork, yes they should feel annoyed they have been replaced etc. But that doesn't excuse them for bitching on a social network site. They should act like a pro and moan in quiet.
Also with Boruc and Cork, yes they should feel annoyed they have been replaced etc. But that doesn't excuse them for bitching on a social network site. They should act like a pro and moan in quiet.
difference in hand is that in a standard playing contract a player guarantees their availability to train and play, while the club guarantees a salary, not game time or the platform to get in the shop window or the eyes of their national team.
for me having it both ways would be to want to have been able to unilaterally cancel tommy forecast's contractor sell a player to a club without their consent. we can't do that.
for me having it both ways would be to want to have been able to unilaterally cancel tommy forecast's contractor sell a player to a club without their consent. we can't do that.
well exactly... or companies who have committed future income to someone in exchange for a contract to have them constructively dismiss themselves.
No. The players wanted to move and got their way. Lovren and Lallana chose the be a dick way, we just held out for much as possible. If you really think you can keep a lot of players that want to leave then you are wrong.
Isn't really bout signing contracts though. Everyone can't stand players that have left for their behaviour. Southampton fc is a business not a nursery. If they had not seen pound signs for these players and said we are not selling. The players then either choose to risk ruining their career being fined and dumped in reserves or buckle down and play.
Can you blame a club for taking easy way and making millions? Or maybe taking the harder route and keeping their players by making them abide by their contracts they happily sign
Exactly. I certainly don't have an issue with the club wanting to improve (of course), and I don't have any issue with players wanting to improve. However, the way a person acts in order to achieve this, just as the way a club does, absolutely does matter and it's that I'm complaining about.
as RK said (can't remember which RK) you can't keep half a squad of disgruntled players. do you think it was workable to risk sending 7 players to train with the kids and field a depleted team all season?
we got good prices for Lallana and Shaw and Lovren made such an arse of him we probably got less than we'd have liked.
chambers is an odd one, beefy thinks it was a release clause.