Is "Player Power" a thing of the past?

[VladimirIlyich]

I dont think transfers should be allowed(unless player doesn't have one) until a certain age. Not that I give a toss about England internationally but young English players are simply being given the keys to the kingdom before they have done anything of significance.

[FanchesterCity]

Most decent jobs have a notice period, so technically you're not free to just walk out without paying a penalty of some sort. Some jobs have non-compete clauses and non-disclosure agreements involved too.

 

If your firm has invested heavily in your education, or relocation, then they will also (usually) have clauses to recover some of that investment if you decide to leave earlier than an agreed time period.

 

The way I see it, a club invests large sums in a player and expects certain conditions to be met, so they put those conditions into the contract. In the same way, the player puts their conditions into the contract too and this an 'agreement' is made. A contract isn't a law passed down from employer to employee (although it can feel like that for many). It's a two-way agreement between both parties. Player's can't moan if they agreed to the terms, and neither can a club if they are forced to pay the wages for a player sat in the reserves.

[Baltar]

I think there's also the basic question of an employees right to switch companies. Should a club really stand in a players way if they want to leave? Ok it's not an everyday job and you can't compare a multimillionaire footballer to the regular working stiffs of the world, but I don't think a club should be allowed to prevent a player plying his trade elsewhere. As long as club's can come to a financial agreement, the player should be allowed to leave without a huge fuss.

So yes, we should let Coutinho go as long as Barca pay us a fair amount, likewise Southampton should sell us VVD, rather than forcing a player to remain where he doesn't want to be. 

[Brownie]

I believe a player should be allowed to leave if they want to just like any other workplace scenario, that includes Coutinho (as well as Keita and Van Dijk). Imagine being kept stuck at a workplace you dislike when a better option is on the table.

 

Has anyone ever staggered pay terms for every year served, i.e: First year you get £100k per week, year 2 £120k and so on? If not, I am sure there is a reason it's a bad idea that I haven't realised yet!

I don't agree with this to be honest, it just gives complete carte blanche to players. They can kick off about their current pay to get a new long term contract (on significantly improved terms) when they have no intention of honouring the contract.

 

There needs to be a balance and I actually like the way this summer has gone in general, with clubs refusing to release players, even though it has been frustrating for us.

 

If you sign a long term deal then you have to expect to honour it.

[Wicket]

I don't agree with this to be honest, it just gives complete carte blanche to players. They can kick off about their current pay to get a new long term contract (on significantly improved terms) when they have no intention of honouring the contract.

 

There needs to be a balance and I actually like the way this summer has gone in general, with clubs refusing to release players, even though it has been frustrating for us.

 

If you sign a long term deal then you have to expect to honour it.

I can see players just signing shorter contracts now. It's one of those scenarios where rationally you have to see both sides as I'm not particularly in favour of someone being told they can't effectively move job either, everyone knows that clubs allow these long term deals to protect resale value, it's not all just about tieing someone down to stay at your club for the next 5/6 years (albeit on handsome terms). 

[Brownie]

I can see players just signing shorter contracts now. It's one of those scenarios where rationally you have to see both sides as I'm not particularly in favour of someone being told they can't effectively move job either, everyone knows that clubs allow these long term deals to protect resale value, it's not all just about tieing someone down to stay at your club for the next 5/6 years (albeit on handsome terms).

That's what I mean about getting the right balance. A contract has to mean something though. Players shouldn't be able to just move around as they please, clubs pay their wages so they have the right to protect themselves.

[The Guest]

I think there's also the basic question of an employees right to switch companies. Should a club really stand in a players way if they want to leave? Ok it's not an everyday job and you can't compare a multimillionaire footballer to the regular working stiffs of the world, but I don't think a club should be allowed to prevent a player plying his trade elsewhere. As long as club's can come to a financial agreement, the player should be allowed to leave without a huge fuss.

So yes, we should let Coutinho go as long as Barca pay us a fair amount, likewise Southampton should sell us VVD, rather than forcing a player to remain where he doesn't want to be.

That's basically what's happening now. The only thing is Barca have come nowhere near that fair amount and neither have we for Southampton. If they offered 200m I'm sure it would get Liverpool to the table . Somewhere between there and what they are offering now is that fair amount. Instead of trying to find out what that is they've decided that fair amount is 90m or thereabouts and have told Coutinho to refuse to play so that they don't have to pay what Liverpool see as the fair amount.

[FanchesterCity]

I think there's also the basic question of an employees right to switch companies. Should a club really stand in a players way if they want to leave? Ok it's not an everyday job and you can't compare a multimillionaire footballer to the regular working stiffs of the world, but I don't think a club should be allowed to prevent a player plying his trade elsewhere. As long as club's can come to a financial agreement, the player should be allowed to leave without a huge fuss.

So yes, we should let Coutinho go as long as Barca pay us a fair amount, likewise Southampton should sell us VVD, rather than forcing a player to remain where he doesn't want to be. 

 

They don't prevent it. They say 'ok, if we're going to pay you 300K a week, then we need to have you here for 3 years, do you agree?'

If the players agrees, he signs the deal.

A player COULD say, I'll play for 100K a week but can only guarantee this season, deal? .. and the club could say yes or no to that deal instead.

 

The key here is that it's an agreement. Both parties agree. When you sign a loan agreement or a mortgage deal, you enter into an agreement. Want to get out of it? then expect to have to compensate in some way.

 

Players are still subject to employment law like anybody else, and it doesn't matter what they earn. The contracts are more complex, because they have additional issues like image rights etc, and a club might expect a certain level of return over 3 years (i.e. shirt sales, sponsorship deals etc). They still have PAYE! NI etc.

[The Guest]

All of these players knew what they were getting into when they signed these long term deals. It's gone against us this season but it is about time clubs started saying no to players. They're happy to take the money when it's offered. I imagine Liverpool would not have offered Coutinho £150k a week if he didn't agree to no release clause and it was 5 years.

 

I actually think the balance is about right in terms of the way it works now as long as Van Dijk and Coutinho can be forced to play out their contract. The main thing that needs changing is the transfer window but it does need doing globally.

[FanchesterCity]

Another reason for the long contracts isn't resale value, it's amortisation of the cost.

If you sign a player for 5 years, you can amortise the cost of the transfer over 5 years, so the books only show 1/5th of the cost per year.

[The Guest]

They don't prevent it. They say 'ok, if we're going to pay you 300K a week, then we need to have you here for 3 years, do you agree?'

If the players agrees, he signs the deal.

A player COULD say, I'll play for 100K a week but can only guarantee this season, deal? .. and the club could say yes or no to that deal instead.

 

The key here is that it's an agreement. Both parties agree. When you sign a loan agreement or a mortgage deal, you enter into an agreement. Want to get out of it? then expect to have to compensate in some way.

 

Players are still subject to employment law like anybody else, and it doesn't matter what they earn. The contracts are more complex, because they have additional issues like image rights etc, and a club might expect a certain level of return over 3 years (i.e. shirt sales, sponsorship deals etc). They still have PAYE! NI etc.

I think the number one difference is that they could up and leave if they wanted to but the club will still hold their registration for the period it was agreed so no other club would pay them money if they couldn't play in a FIFA/UEFA organised competition.

 

It's the same way the other way around with Can and Barkley. They signed a deal and are under no obligation to sign another one. If they get down to the last 2 years the club should know they now start to hold some cards. It's down to the club to make a decision at that point but even then the player can still refuse to move. Some of the deluded things you read about players in that situation baffles me. Some Everton fans saying he's a dickhead for running his contract down to leave on a free, he owes the club etc followed by let's just sell him off to Hadjuk split for 10m rather than an English club getting him on a free next season as if Barkley is going to just agree to that.

[The Guest]

Another reason for the long contracts isn't resale value, it's amortisation of the cost.

If you sign a player for 5 years, you can amortise the cost of the transfer over 5 years, so the books only show 1/5th of the cost per year.

I really doubt that is ever a consideration fanchester. Think about it why would the club add on another whole year of wages just to spread out the transfer fee for another year. You would be costing yourself (a lot of) money for what is essentially an accounting transaction which doesn't effect the overall profitability or cash flow.

[Pureblood]

Well this thread became boring pretty quickly.

[FanchesterCity]

I really doubt that is ever a consideration fanchester. Think about it why would the club add on another whole year of wages just to spread out the transfer fee for another year. You would be costing yourself (a lot of) money for what is essentially an accounting transaction which doesn't effect the overall profitability or cash flow.

 

Because clubs gamble that their growth will help to offset that additional 1 year cost and if a player has 1 year left of his contract, extending it by 1 year will half the remaining cost of the player on the books.

 

So, if a club buys a player for 30 million on a 3 year deal... in year 3, his book value is 10 million quid. If they extend his contract for 1 year, it's now 5 million this year, and 5 next year. 5 million doesn't sound a lot, but if you do that with 4 players it's 20 million shaved off this year's books. Yes they still have to pay his wages, but they'd have to do that with an incoming player too. 

 

Of course, they also want to prevent the player from walking away on a 'free' - nobody's doubting that. But it's not the only factor, and that's much more towards the end of a player's current deal, whereas the 5 year deals have amortisation in mind to a larger degree.

 

Incidentally, a player is allowed to buy himself out of a contract after 3 years IF he signed the deal before he was 28 years old.

If he signed the deal after he was 28 years old, he is allowed to buy himself out of the contract after 2 years.

[TheBitch]

Well this thread became boring pretty quickly.

Needs more knives.

[Pureblood]

Needs more knives.

 

So if a player is under 28 and is on a five year deal, then three years into that deal the club offer him a two year extension, what happens if zzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz...

[Saucepan]

Fuck me, are we maybe seeing a shift in the bullshit of player contracts? Maybe this is the year clubs will say:

 

"You know what?, fuck you, You signed the fucking [insert number] year contract, now shut the fuck up and play or you get fined till next christmas, you fucknut"

 

"Yeah, you go home to brazil to your mommys house and sulk all day, we`ll still hold your fucking pay, you overgrown chimpanzee"

 

"Oh, you wanna play for Liverpool do ya?, well fuck you, now go wash the toilets with your ponytail, you clogwearing freak"

 

"Barcelona you say?, that`s that club with that guy they fed horse hormones in his teens just so he could be strong enough and not get trampled to death by normal sized players?.... Ball-oon the what now?...They think you`re good anough to earn some french baloon?, What the fuck are you talking about?... Verpiss dich"

[MOGLET]

TBH, its not player power we have to worry about. its more owner power.   We as a club have had our share of owners pulling the strings for far too long.       Hence why Shankly didnt become our manager when he was first asked. He knew owners didnt have a clue, and only took the reigns when he got the right to pick the team.   same thing happening now, the owners think they know better when it comes to who we need to buy/sell.

player power is nothing but money,    owner power is all about buy cheap sell high, and fuck the punters. who cares if we win or get back to what we are, money talks, sofuck them all.

[eeyore]

I think there's also the basic question of an employees right to switch companies. Should a club really stand in a players way if they want to leave? Ok it's not an everyday job and you can't compare a multimillionaire footballer to the regular working stiffs of the world, but I don't think a club should be allowed to prevent a player plying his trade elsewhere. As long as club's can come to a financial agreement, the player should be allowed to leave without a huge fuss.

So yes, we should let Coutinho go as long as Barca pay us a fair amount, likewise Southampton should sell us VVD, rather than forcing a player to remain where he doesn't want to be.

what you are basically saying there, is a release clause agreement in the contract.

 

if not then tough shit you little shit play on.