Tottenham Hotspur Message Board
I'm in two minds here.
Generally, I feel that it is anyone's 'right' to withhold labour. Typically though, I think that the option should be used with caution as it is last resort to use when being 'oppressed' or when your employer changes your working conditions.
I find it difficult to see 'oppression' in an EPL footballers case though. They sign contracts. The contracts are for a period of time and for a value. They are aware of all the conditions at the outset. The conditions tend not to change - and if/when they do the contracts appear to be re-negotiated and extended in the players favour.
I'm then at a loss at the recent spate of players that seems to think it valid to withhold their labour - whether that's manifested in not training, not coming off the bench....blah blah. I just don't see that they have a leg to stand on.
If a player wants to leave a club.. Fine. If the chairman/manager persuade him to stay. Fine. If he then subsequently wants to leave because of changed circumstances. Fine. BUT in all that he has to realise that he has a contract that he agreed to. If the chairman/manager promised him 'stuff', then his agent should have seen to it that those promises were added as clauses to the contract. That is what the agent is there for.
The 'my head isn't right' bit is a bit galling. Even if a player is on £1000 a week it's galling - let alone £10,000 pw....If a player isn't sure about the future, then sign a shorter contract or have safeguards built in that allow you to leave should x or y occur.
Im with you on this John Premiership players get paid an obscene amount of money and sign legally binding contracts but clubs seem to scared to drag a player through the court for breech of said contract.
Why is this? is it for reasons i just cannot understand?
recent examples: Berbatov/VanPersie/Fabregas/Modric
has player power finally become greater than the clubs they play for? have clubs become to scared to stand up to a player? are contracts just not worth the paper they printed on anymore?.
Football seems to be heading down an ugly road were players rule the game and do what they want when they want i think it is time clubs started standing up for themselves and taking a player to court and letting them rot in the reserves for breech of contract otherwise we will see this trend continue.
We saw last season player power wrongly get rid of Villas Boas at Chelsea.
Before that Fabregas hold Arsenal to ransom before that Bebatov stab my beloved Tottenham in the heart.
Before that Sol Judas Campbell Shove it to us and walking away on a free.
this will go on and on aslong as Clubs let players get away with it it's about time clubs took back the power in football grew a pair and stand up to contract rebel players that is the only way football will move forward.
The game is turning into a ugly scene were players demand far to much money have over inflated transfer fee's agent's become more and more corrupt and more and more clubs go out of business because the cost of competing is to great and player power destroy's clubs.
Were does this end? the death as football as we know it? it's not about what club you support but about the 'DEATH' of the great game of football as we know and love it and club after club going out of business trying to keep up with supporter demand for sucess and bending over backwards to please a player that is shafting the club in the long term............
- 2 Replies to Berkshire Yid
Coincidentally I was thinking about this earlier today (the bigger picture of player power I mean).
I think you should be careful when talking about 'refusing to play'; Modric has refused to play in America, he didn't travel. Tevez obviously refused to play last season. To the best of my memory Berbatov didn't refuse per se, Jol didn't select him as he - probably rightly - didn't think he'd put the graft in. I've definitely been to work and not put the graft when I've been annoyed with my bosses (I'll do it tomorrow!); I'm not saying it's right but it's different to outright refusing.
Clubs don't drag them through court because what would be the point? Practically speaking there are loads of stages to go through before that (docking wages etc), and doing something so hostile would destroy any chance they may have of rebuilding the relationship with the player. If the player leaves, part of their leaving deal will be to forego any breach of contract, the lawyers'll get that one in for sure.
I actually think there's been a turn in the tide on this; things like the response to Modric last year and Tevez have shown a willingness for clubs to put their feet down, and it's been recognised that it's gone too far. The Modric situation will be very interesting in seeing what happens next, and for that as much as anything I'd like him to stay (although clearly he's offski).
I don't think it's the money side that pees me off. That's just a fluke of the business they happen to be in.
It just seems wrong that a player, who has agents to advise him, signs a contract (and these contracts cover early release, exceptional circumstances etc) and then just simply says '....I now want blah, so I'm feeling aggrieved and I'm going to stop working until you let me have what I want.....' - and totally ignores what they've signed.
If they have doubts, then don't sign a long contract. Build in get out clauses - a contract is a two way thing. It's not beyond the wit of man. It's not like a standard employment contract, where an employee has no say and it's a case of '...take it or leave it...'.
But I bet, the players go for the long contracts, because the clubs say '....look, if you sign for 4 years, we'll give you an extra £10k pw...that's £2m....' .
There's also the sign a contract extension that automatically gives the club a leg up on future negotiations (remember Bale recently re-upped...smart move by Levy, not so much to lock Bale in, but for the leverage a new extension gives at the bargaining table.
Modric admitted himself that when he was at his former club he signed a 10 year deal knowing that it would help the club should anyone come knocking (he signed after people got wind of who he was at the international level).
We can kid ourselves as much as we want when one of our best players signs an extension (I think Walker signed one too recently, no?), but at the end of the day its all about business (and it is a big business that we're talking about!
- 1 Reply to RAMBR0
It becomes odder though Rambro - there have been a couple of rulings in the courts that may change things (for the worse?). This ruling - the 'Webster' case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_ruling) seemed to put even more power in the hands of the player.
I find it odd that the court in this case appears to uphold and endorse a player deliberately trying to break a contract (unless I read Article 17 incorrectly).
The Bosman ruling was fine for IMHO - as any player that is out of contract should be able to ply their trade anywhere.
It seems that we've gone from a near slavery thing - where the player could just be 'owned' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retain_and_transfer_system) through the Eastman ruling, the Bosman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling) and now (6 years ago) the Webster to where the player seems to have the power.
I see that they're showing 'Modric returns to training' on Yahoo - you have to read the article to see that he's at Spurs Lodge and the rest of the team are in the States.
I just love the media - read this:
(or not as is your wont)...
AVB was allegedly after Modric for Chelsea last season, and now they're reporting that Modric may not be part of AVB's plans at Spurs. OK, so he was good enough to (allegedly) offer £40m for to improve the Chavs squad, but now not good enough for us? I presume that's because AVB has realised the hidden talent he has in Jenas ;-)!
- 1 Reply to Jlock
I have little confidence in this article, it doesn't stack up. As you pointed out AVB was after Luka in his chav days, now he doesn't want him?!
I think it's far more likely that AVB would like to keep Luka, but has resigned himself to losing him (as have the vast majority of us), it seems when nothing else is there to be reported the media just resort to reporting crap.
The Media do not like AVB, it was obvious in his chav days and I think quite a few of them are desperate to see him fail with us- maybe I have a over cynical view of the media, but largely they are a bunch of parasitic charlatans, who will write anything in order to fill column space.
I am getting concerned now though! IMO we need at least 4 additions to our squad, just top stay competitive. 8 days til the Newcastle game! 8 days!
Give us a chance Levy!
8 days and counting!
I hadn't heard the Danny Rose stuff either - Spanish is an easy language, so it shouldn't take him long.
You can understand how it must be difficult to be a player and not play. The problem has become worse with the 25 man (+ youngsters) squads.
I suppose you could argue for more squad rotation, but then you have to factor in the drive to win stuff (even the Carling cup is still silverware). So you can see why any manager tends to stick with a 'tried and tested' group to a large extent.
I find Two Saints position odd, as it seems that (from what I've read - so factor in the 'media' element) he had 'buy' clauses in his loan deals, and obviously so far no one has come in to buy him. So maybe there's something that the managers see in him that they're not keen on (or maybe Levy's price for the 'buy' option is just too high)?
It just seems to me that players have this fairy-tale fantasy in their heads. That they are going to be the first name on the team sheet. But only, what, 17 can feature in the squad on match day - so the other 8 (+ youngsters) simply don't get a look in. And that must be difficult to come to terms with - (especially with the egos/ambition that must be involved with sportsmen) if you think you deserve to play.
I don't think I have an issue with players saying they want to leave. That's entirely up to them. But they have to remember that they have signed contracts. So talking about leaving and actually leaving are two different things. Obviously it's a difficult call for the management to weigh up the potential 'disgruntled player' affect of keeping the player against the 'financial' effect of selling the player just to get them out the door. Trying to force the issue by withholding labour doesn't sit well with me.
Whilst all the points you've raised are important and I agree with most of them, If a footballer wants a 'release clause', they are the ones who should push for it. These are to an extent details of the problem and serve little purpose in finding a solution. What we need is prompt resolution and IMO the only way to achieve that is to sell Luka asap. We are certainly not the club to make an example and hold a play to his contract we cannot afford it financially or the effects it may have on our clubs ability to attract players in future.
I agree with you about the salaries these PL players get being totally out of proportion but if you really can't see the difference between the contacts they sign (ie. the asset they become once they sign on the dotted line) and the contracts the man on the street might sign - well, its yet another of those ocassions then you are just John being John. ie. you cant possibly be wrong.
I'm just never sure with these 'rumours' if it's down to people having to fill column inches, whether in print or on blogs etc or if they just like causing hassle.
Yahoo is showing two different 'rumours' re Modric's transfer stall over value. One (the Sun?) shows completely different figures to the other (Mirror). Millions different.
The problem with all of this is that it isn't 'open'. I still advocate having a central body controlling transfers. A place where offers can be lodged and seen. A place where clubs can register players that are also open to transfer and the min offer value that would be accepted (the old transfer list). I would also advocate that any offer has to go through this body - to save tapping up allegations. But then that would stop the press having a field day and selling papers.
We don't know why AVB hasn't bought (maybe down to Levy not providing money or the right player not being available or our wage structure or the player not wanting to come to us...etc), just the fact that we have so far released Saha, Krancjar, Corluka, King, Nelsen, Pienaar, Alnwick (and the end Ade's loan term) and brought in Vertonghen and Sigurdsson.
I'm not sure what Levy hopes to achieve with Modders either. If he ends up staying, then fine'ish (as he signed a contract to stay until what, 2016?), but aren't the buying clubs diminishing? Will RM wait, or simply buy a.n. other player? The Chavs bought 20 midfielders and no longer appear to be in the market. Utd may be - but will they wait and isn't £40m now a bit steep for them? So it seems that Modders £40m valuation (if true), is really a '...we're just not going to sell him...'. It's a really tricky situation. I just hope Modders is the professional and carries on (as he should).
Normal day to day employees are not assets that can be sold. A Contract of Services is a normal employment contract with no end date - you cant sell and but those FFS! Only in the top echelons might there be a case for buying out a contract (but that would be a fixed term contract for services) but even then the money is only what the contract is actually worth ie. what is due to be paid during that fixed amount of time, not the millions that the PL players exchange hands for.
Golden handshakes are sometimes used to entice someone from one Board to another but again that has nothing to do with the contract - if anything it proves that contracts for service are, in this regard, worthless.
"when a player is 'sold' the club is simply willing to accept payment in lieu of contract." - Are you serious? That might be true in cases where the player becomes surplus to requirements but its certainly not true in the cases you have raised. Does RVP get paid £35 Million a year? Of course not, they are selling him - the person. A club might even sell a player for less than the contract is worth just to get them off their books.
Of course players get a say in who they are sold to but how much is on the table makes a big difference in that.
"So although it is uncommon, I would bet that a few 'high flyers' in other industries have contracts 'bought out' by prospective employees. Any employee is an asset - just that as you say, a player in the EPL is an asset that is potentially worth millions." NO John. Those "high flyers" you mention are on short term contracts which can be terminated by either party. A future employer is not buying the contract, that is terminated, and a new one starts when the worker signs it. A normal employee, on a contract of services, cannot have his/her contract bought. He ends his employment and starts somewhere else.
A PL player IS different. The worth of the contract is not the same. It is not necessarily the same as the worth of the money due on it. The buying club is buying an asset that belongs to someone else and the owning club is selling an asset that they own. I don't know how I can explain the difference between a PL contract and a normal employment contract any simpler. If you still believe they are the same then....you are John being John and once again refusing to see what is staring you in the face just because you can't admit defeat.
Do you know what, I thought twice about writing my first post on this thread because I had a sneaky feeling this might happen. I wish I had listened to my gut instinct and ignored it. Well I won't make that mistake again. Well done John.
'...Normal day to day employees are not assets that can be sold. A Contract of Services is a normal employment contract with no end date - you cant sell and but those FFS!...'
No, I'd agree, that a normal employment contract is not 'bought out' by the next employer (I would add a proviso there, that I've seen an equivalent of 'buying' a contract when a company is bought, and the new company wants to retain certain key staff). But with fixed term contracts - ie where you sign for a period of time, then AFAIK there's no difference between a footballers contract and any other (values, clauses may differ, but they will also differ footballer to footballer).
'"when a player is 'sold' the club is simply willing to accept payment in lieu of contract." - Are you serious? '
Totally - see this site for how footballers 'contracts' evolved http://www.epltalk.com/the-curious-case-of-football-contracts-25977.
A players worth on the transfer market is not to do with how much he's paid, but how much any club is willing to 'buy out' the contract from the holding club.
'...Does RVP get paid £35 Million a year? Of course not, they are selling him - the person. A club might even sell a player for less than the contract is worth just to get them off their books. ....'
He doesn't have to be paid £35m to be worth £80m to someone who wants to pay that amount. The contract 'wages' amount isn't the worth that I'm talking about. When I say 'buying out' the contract, I'm talking about the buying club offering the holding club whatever money they will accept to then release the player from the contract.
It is the 'contract' that is bough out, AFAIK, not the player bought - if that makes sense. A subtle distiction, but you see the effect when a player is on a long contract - and why a player becomes cheaper as the term left on the contract diminishes. The only time that doesn't always hold true is when you then get a bidding war. If say Utd, and Madrid want RVP, then his price will be determined by how high the two clubs will bid. The owning club then has ti weigh up if the price now is acceptable - or whether they refuse the price and run the risk of the player going for free at the end of the contract anyway. So with Modric now, Levy could hold on for £40m, as Modric is on a 4 year deal. The only issue there is what we've seen - the player then refuses to train/play/go on a promotional tour etc....
Which takes me back to my point - irrespective of the money involved, is/are the players justified in withholding their services, simply because they no longer 'want' to be at the current club? That to me is the issue. It also then applies to an EPL player, a Ryman's league player ... the finance is IMHO irrelevant when talking about whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' to deliberately withhold the service that the player has willingly contracted to provide.
I'm glad to hear Rose is off Twitter, not much good seems to come from it.
Whilst I admire Rose's desire to be playing more regularly, IMO he's not done enough in his 13 EPL starts to really challenge BAE as our first choice LB. If he has to leave to further his ambitions, then so be it. If Rose forced the issue we would have to strengthen that area, which some would argue we've needed to do for a while.
Luka must go ASAP! he doesn't want to be here and although he's still contracted, his presence in and around our team cannot be a good thing. Go! the sooner the better and good luck to you.
I understand that Racing (following his loan spell) and Seville made bids for Gio, but that they didn't meet Levy's price. He is an interesting player, he quiet clearly has an abundance of natural talent and when things are right for him he can be truly superb to watch- He's dragged Mexico to the semi's. If the mirror is to be believed AVB isn't interested in giving him any more chances:
If AVB's 'OUT' list to be believed: 'Dos Santos, Bentley, Jenas, Bassong, Gallas, Naughton'. Then we need to make the right signing's and a lot of them, more than ever. If Bassong and Gallas are both go, we will have 4 natural CB's in the squad! is that enough? If Naughton is to leave we have 1 natural LB and 1 RB- although Kaboul can cover RB, is that enough?!
We must have replacements lined up if this number of players are to be allowed to leave, surely? why leave it until 10 days before the start of the new season?
Has anyone heard anything more than rumours with regards to strengthening our squad, particularly our striking options? 10 day's until the Newcastle game!
- View More Messages