John Titor Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 If i am right is that the best way for clubs themselves to deal with it is to offer a 2 or 3 year deal at best then there will be no buying out of a 5 year contract or am i way off:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blizzard Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think if a player has played for a club for 3 years they are entitled to walk out on their contracts by paying the remainer of their wages. FIFA are now looking to close the loophole but it's too late for us. Webster screwed us over and then spent 2 seasons out of the game. Hopefully he'll not make it and will become yet another Paul Ritchie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Simpler answer is to structure the contract to offer loyalty incentives. For example, a player would receive sizeable, guaranteed bonuses at 3rd, 5th, 7th year or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think if a player has played for a club for 3 years they are entitled to walk out on their contracts by paying the remainer of their wages. FIFA are now looking to close the loophole but it's too late for us. Webster screwed us over and then spent 2 seasons out of the game. Hopefully he'll not make it and will become yet another Paul Ritchie. Dear Jim, Can you fix it for me for Hearts to sign Nerijus Barasa for one more game. That game being the first Hearts - Rangers fixture featuring Andrew 'sub-Judas c***' Webster. I would be most happy if said 'Bulldog' entered into a tackle which left Webster looking like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Yours sincerly, GMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Or sue them like Celtic plan on doing http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article3279498.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blizzard Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 We could just put a maximum wage in place and let the feckers leave at the end of a season. No transfer window and no chance of moving. Don't bother with contracts longer than 1 year and put caps on new additions between seasons and limit the squad sizes. Football is fecked with the big clubs and overpaid thickos now anyway. The fun has gone out of it really. Bring back the good old days when players were loyal and got paid sweeties. Set of balls and strips for your top striker. Tremendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColtbridgeJambo Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think the real scary thing about this is that a club can invest a lot of time and energy in a young player and nurture his talents and make him into a good player, an Internationalist even and at the end of the day they get a mere pittance for him. I think there will be many clubs sitting looking at this ruling and starting to really worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Whittaker's Tache Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I'm no economist but surely this makes the paying of big transfer fees no more than a "rental" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Think something which has been missed in this case which has far greater implications on football is that Webster didn't invoke Section 17 due to not declaring his intentions within the specified no of days (15?) from the end of the season. He was found by FIFA to be in breach of contract so correct me if I am wrong but as far as I can see it means that you can tear up your contract at any time !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Think something which has been missed in this case which has far greater implications on football is that Webster didn't invoke Section 17 due to not declaring his intentions within the specified no of days (15?) from the end of the season. He was found by FIFA to be in breach of contract so correct me if I am wrong but as far as I can see it means that you can tear up your contract at any time !!!! I may be wrong Harry, but I think the reason that it was treated more as a breach of contract case rather than movement under Article 17 was for that very reason, that he failed to invoke Article 17 within the time period permitted, hence was deemed to be in breach of contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I may be wrong Harry, but I think the reason that it was treated more as a breach of contract case rather than movement under Article 17 was for that very reason, that he failed to invoke Article 17 within the time period permitted, hence was deemed to be in breach of contract. I suspect if he had invoked Article 17 within the stated time frame we might have got less than the ?150,000 (plus interest) offered, we may well have received nothing. That was the point I was making, this hasn't been a test case for article 17, all it has done is revealed to players that if at any point in their contract they can say sod it and buy out their contract !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Hearts have already put in place measures to ensure this doesnt happen again. They offer players a 2 year deal with the option of a 2 year extension if the club sees fit. Other clubs will do the same and this loophole will be effectively closed. Webster= Judas B'stard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blizzard Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Does Lee Wallace still have his gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avhudtheteeshirt Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 How silly do the supposed football pundits look now, after all the time they have slagged off Hearts and Romanov for bringing in F C Kuanus players to play at Tynecastle. Cost of the player NOWT just his wages, if he is transfered Vlad gets money but Hearts are not stung by another Webster debacle. Just maybe Vlad new this was going to happen and that is why he has not been bringing in the players the fans are clammering for, and after this result i for one don't expect any big buys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Just put players on 1, 2 or even 3 yr rolling contracts with pre agreed annual wage rise's. The player can never leave on a free as he's never out of contract and if he tears up his contract the club get 1, 2 or 3 yrs worth of wages as compensation. This would mean the more you value the player, the more you get. It would offer security for players, while also meaning clubs are always going to get a fee when a players leaves (unless both parties mutually agree to end the contract). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I would put them on a months wages and if the wanted to leave let them go If you want them to stay then pay them if they are cr**p then sack them it works out side football so whats so diferent and it will soon catch on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.