Do clubs have any power over their players anymore? It really seems like all the power is in the hands of the player. A player can sign a 4 year contract and then 6 months later say he wants to leave, there is nothing the club can do about it. We all know you can't keep an unhappy player. There is nothing you can do about a player who doesn't want to be at the club. I just wonder if there should be more protection for a club in these cases. If Player A signs a 5 year deal at 10k a week and decides he wants to leave after one year it would seem to me that any club that wants to buy him should pay the remainder of his contract plus the player valuation. Just wondering if i have thought this through, or if I am seeing a problem that is not there. I am just getting tired of players deciding they want to leave after a year basically because they know they can get more elsewhere.
It is no different to anyone else working on a contract. I signed a contract to come to Baku, but if I want to leave tomorrow they can't MAKE me stay. If a player could be forced to stay at a club where he was evidently unwilling to be it would be as close to forced labour as you would see. But he can be prevented from playing for someone else unless they pay for the privilage. All a club can do is demand the highest price as a means of compensation for breach of contract. and remeber if he askes to go he forfeits his signing on fee (Or at least I think he does lol)
it stinks tbh, you get someone like carroll, who signs a long term deal at the start of the season, then 3 months later demands a new deal due to good form, i remember alan pardew was saying that if they grant new deals after a few months into a contract, then what sort of precedent does that set for the rest of the squad. personally i think good form should be rewarded by higher wages at the end of the season, not a few months into it, as all players go through patches of form. however, it is just madness to give big players contracts at the end of each season so where does it stop? modric signed a 5 year deal last summer, so he is contracted to spurs for 4 more seasons. fabregas has about 4 years left on his contract. nowadays, all that means is that they can command higher fees than if they were in the last year of their deals, like nasri for example, who is holding the club to ransom. overall, how long a player has on his contract is directly related to the fee he is worth, however it doesnt seem right that players can demand a move because his club believe the player could disrupt the team and deliver sub standard performances. if a player signs a 4 year deal he should be prepared to give 100% to that club for that period of time
Good points Siam - there is certainly a problem particularly at the top level - look at Modric, Fabregas, Darren Bent and others. It doesn't appear to be so prevalent at our level but is certainly there. Probably not so widely publicised as the amounts involved are a lot lower. Something should be done but who at the top level would have the balls to do it? Money rules at places like Chelsea and Man City and if they have any sort of difficulty or really want a player then they just through so much dosh at it that the problem is solved. Maybe the new financial rules being introduced linking what they spend on players to income will help but I am pretty sure the mega rich clubs will have accountants working feverishly to get around any restrictions. Ultimately things will come to a head - for instance if Abramovich or the arabs get bored at Chelsea/Man City and want there "investment" back when there is no one else prepared to put in that sort of money (not disimilar to us and Sam although I'm sure they will have much better legal advisors than Sam). When that happens it will be the start of financial melt down in football, from the top, as opposed to the little clubs going under we have seen in recent years. Then the soft and smelly stuff will explode via the Xpelair.
But what can the club do when no other club matches what they want and the player sulks. He plays but hardly tries...you can't withhold is salary. It just seems the player has total control. In the end the club sell him cheap!
Why can't a club give a non trying player a disciplinary inmterview just like any other employer. If he continues they can start legal procedings for breach of contract and claim all his wages back. I know it doesn't happen but legally couldn't it be done?
I wonder how you prove it. Remember the terrible form Rooney was in. People accepted that he was out of form, what if he had og been in a contract dispute then....how do you prove a player is not trying too hard.
Jimmy Hill was responsible for helping to remove the maximum wage for players who previously were overpowered by the clubs...it's fair to say that things have swung very much in the other direction in many ways, where even the giants of Manchester can be overpowered by the likes of Ronaldo and possibly Tevez could follow suit in the blue half of town! It's not dissimilar to the Investment Bankers who command £millions in salary/bonuses and regularly get head-hunted or negotiate new contracts. Now we all saw how that went tits up and they were bailed out by the tax payers, well in football the same tends to be the case with fans stumping up the cash buying tickets, shirts and Sky TV... So, as with The City and the perceived requirement for stronger legislation, unless the planned financial regulations in football are followed up with strong rulings (like the one for QPR recently), then I predict things will carry on much as they are now... Could you not imagine a scenario where a certain club is owned by the super-rich, so in order to pump extra money in, they simply slap a huge advertising banner somewhere and say that it cost them £Xm to advertise and hence the club is only acting within it's means...? A bit like our Malaysia logo, which could be used as cover for as much extra investment as the owners think they can get away with alongside any forthcoming regulations.
They would be publicly devaluing their most valuable assets and leaving them even more out-of-pocket when they ultimately leave the club at an even cheaper rate... Only something like Chelsea suing Mutu is ever likely and always going to be a rare case...
ghost, to be fair to ronaldo i heard that when he originally wanted to leave AF asked him to stay for another year and promised him that if he did when he left he would be the most expensive player in the world, and to be fair both of them kept their word. It was the scrap dealer who held the club to ransom and I'm amazed AF let him get away with it.
I don't see how they are going to make them stick, who decides what income is? All Chelsea would have to do is open an exclusive VIP club, where Abramovich and his cronies pay £1,000.000 each to join and executive boxes cost £200K a game to hire, with food and drinks as VERY expensive extras, and hey presto income. Don't worry the mega rich will find a way of bending the rules, they always do
That's very rude of you. I don't see how you can make such a sweeping statement - I haven't................
