Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Blatter


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The need to abolish transfer fees is certainly an issue the Head of FIFA should be commenting on.

 

However, I think that this idiot has stumbled over the right viewpoint by accident. Why is he commenting now, FFS? I suspect a Nike/Adidas stuggle is behind a lot of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The need to abolish transfer fees is certainly an issue the Head of FIFA should be commenting on.

 

However, I think that this idiot has stumbled over the right viewpoint by accident. Why is he commenting now, FFS? I suspect a Nike/Adidas stuggle is behind a lot of this.

Not what he was commenting on though was it really??

 

Transfer fees would only be replaced with compensation anyway, so what transfer ssytem would you propose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transfer fees would only be replaced with compensation anyway, so what transfer ssytem would you propose?

 

No transfer system at all. Players sign for clubs (maximum one year) and negotiate their terms with them. No money changes hands between clubs when players change clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No transfer system at all. Players sign for clubs (maximum one year) and negotiate their terms with them. No money changes hands between clubs when players change clubs.

 

that would be great that. we'd be left with about 20 full time teams and grass roots football would be f***ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No transfer system at all. Players sign for clubs (maximum one year) and negotiate their terms with them. No money changes hands between clubs when players change clubs.

 

Great idea - as others have already said, lets destroy the game at grass roots level and have only 20 or 30 top "franchises"!!!

 

Sorry, crap idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 1 = But a United spokesman said: "All our players enter into their contracts after an open and free negotiation."

 

And the statement continued: "Most of whom do after taking advice from a Fifa-registered agent.

 

Article 2 = The commission ruled as "proved" seven of nine charges brought by the FA against Stretford for breaches of the Fifa players' agent regulations.

 

 

 

it was only a chuckle.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 1 = But a United spokesman said: "All our players enter into their contracts after an open and free negotiation."

 

And the statement continued: "Most of whom do after taking advice from a Fifa-registered agent.

 

Article 2 = The commission ruled as "proved" seven of nine charges brought by the FA against Stretford for breaches of the Fifa players' agent regulations.

it was only a chuckle.....

saw that, thought I was missing in some way a connection with Utd - apart from the fact Rooney plays for them, as this is well before he did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't it that way in baseball?

 

 

Don't think it's quite that basic.

 

If it's anything like hockey:

 

No fees between teams.

 

While players are contracted, they can be traded between clubs. Teams can trade draft picks as well, but again - no money, just players and picks.

 

And when a player is traded - he stays on the same contract, so effectively the teams are trading the players contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong with player contracts. After all, every employee has a contract and it serves to protect both parties. An employer can't just kick you out because you're often ill, and employees can't just walk away the second a better offer comes along.

 

While players don't appear to be able to give notice on a contract, neither do clubs without exceptional grounds.

 

Cuts both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when has the grass roots been maintained by transfer fees?

Take Crewe as the model - how do they survive?

 

They have an academy, they develop players, they sell them for large fees, they stay in the black.

 

Will that do.

 

Think your idea is absurd to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Top flight players all have a release clause 10x their annual salary

 

120,000pw = 62.4 million

 

if the player doesn't want to play for the club willing to pay the money then thats the end of it...

 

Relating the 'release clause' to the salary is indeed a promising idea. This would prevent clubs slapping ridiculous release clauses on players' contracts unless they were willing to match the valuation with their own money.

 

I'm not sure why it should be 10x the annual salary, mind. Maybe it should be just equal to the annual salary times the number of years left on the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take Crewe as the model - how do they survive?

 

They have an academy, they develop players, they sell them for large fees, they stay in the black.

 

Will that do.

 

Think your idea is absurd to be honest.

 

I don't know how they survive - perhaps they wouldn't. If they can only survive on the basis of a system of effective slavery then they probably shouldn't be surviving anyway.

 

It's the current reality of football transfers that's absurd - just look at the ridiculous level of the fees for a start.

 

With the abolition of transfer fees - which I'm sure WILL come in one way or another, just as the Bosman ruling came in and the world kept turning - I'm sure football will recognize the need to develop better structures to support the grass roots - which itself would be a good thing.

 

One approach I proposed on here a few years ago is to deduct a development fee (or tax, if you like) proportional to a player's earnings from the club he's playing for and distribute that money to the club or clubs he was with during the early stages of his career.

 

There may be other/better ways of doing this, which I'd be very interested in, but transfer fees' days are certainly numbered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baseball and other US sports seem to have the notion of 'trading' one player for another. While that's probably not as bad as transfer fees, it's still pretty dubious. What right should an employer have to trade employees?

IIRC it's not the teams themselves that are the "employer" but rather the league. So the employer stays the same only the player gets based in another place.

 

Or something like that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the best way to deal with it, is that the club where the player initially started (ie crewe, AZ alkmaar, even Barcelona for Cesc and Pacheco) recieve a percentage of the future earnings from the club that currently employ them. ie Arsenal should be making a payment to Barcelona based on Cesc's current contract.

 

In effect, that becomes the transfer fee.

 

Also, there should be some control, so that players must serve the first two years of their contract unless they played in less than x% of games in the last season.

 

we won't find a solution immediately, but with all the money in football you would think they could afford an investigation so that clubs like Palace don't get screwed by the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...