'Refusing' to sell a player who wants to leave...

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Rozay, Jul 15, 2017.

  1. Jul 17, 2017

    dumbo Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,426
    Yeah it would be good if someone who understood contract law could let us all know about it.

    I'm guessing if a musician signs a 3 album deal and is given a million pound advance he can't simply pack it all in after 2 weeks because he wants to work for the studio down the road, and because a shelf stacker at liddle called his boss a cnut and walked out half way through a shift.

    Whether it is all fair or not and whether certain systems are open to exploitation is a different matter. It just seems that contracts are wide and varied.
  2. Jul 17, 2017

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,903
    Location:
    Welcome to United JoMo!
    Clubs can and do keep players under contract who want to leave all the time.
  3. Jul 17, 2017

    FCBarca Mes que un Rag

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    12,574
    Location:
    La Côte, Suisse
    Kicking a fuss alone wouldn't be enough to facilitate a move, you need a willing club to endure lengthy negotiations & possible arbitration too - this is costly & time consuming, you'd have to be particularly motivated to go this route. Plus, depending on the club as in the case of PSG, they are deep pocketed enough to just bench the player and let him rot until his contract is up or he decides to stay. I don't think the arbitration or fuss route would cause the avalanche of transfer requests you think



    Assuming the buyout fee is 100 which is the only number I've seen quoted in terms of his fee, I think for an unsettled player a parent club shouldn't be pressured into settling for an unreasonable markdown - say no more than 10-20%. I was originally speaking about the idea of refusing to negotiate a player's release/sale when they want a move, despite a contract. So, in the particular case of Verratti PSG aren't even willing to discuss his sale - so his fee could be 5 million and it wouldn't change anything, they simply refuse to negotiate.
  4. Jul 17, 2017

    FCBarca Mes que un Rag

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    12,574
    Location:
    La Côte, Suisse
    I realize but just as often players leave under contract
  5. Jul 17, 2017

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,903
    Location:
    Welcome to United JoMo!
    Yes but only after their release clause is met or if there is no clause their club receives what they consider an acceptable fee and is willing to release them.

    Once a player signs a contract for x amount of years with a club then their future is no longer in their own hands for the length of that contract.
  6. Jul 17, 2017

    FCBarca Mes que un Rag

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    12,574
    Location:
    La Côte, Suisse
    My point was that just as often players are sold/transferred for both above & below the stated fee in contracts
  7. Jul 17, 2017

    GazTheLegend Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages:
    658
    Release clauses need to become more commonplace in my opinion.

    That imo is a fair deal for all concerned - it stops teams forcing a player to "rot on the bench" for daring to question their wages / contract situation and it cuts down on players leaving for nothing (as clubs that want a player won't wait 12 months for a player they need to sign on a free if there is competition for his signature- the clauses will almost always be triggered).
  8. Jul 17, 2017

    Miscemayl Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,330
    Location:
    Sydney
    But I am on the assumption if the player deemed himself "to be a prisoner", it goes to CAS and the teams need to negotiate a price.
    I suspect buying clubs would then get players to cry hostage more often to get the selling club to come to the party.

    Ok, I wasn't aware he had a buyout fee.
    Frankly if there is a buyoff fee, the selling team should not need to negotiate - they already told you what is their minimum acceptable price is (the release clause).
    If you can and want to pay it, they have no choice.
    If you don't, then too bad.

    And as I mentioned before, the only way to guarantee a way for any player to leave is to make release clauses mandatory for all contracts.
    Obviously if the player agrees to an insanely high release clause (presumably for better salary), then he has no right to complain later.
    And if the player insists on a release clause that is too low for the club's liking, then no contract.

    Obviously release clauses will need to be smarter and perhaps move along the life of the contract.
    50m 5 years a go is a lot of money but perhaps not so much now.
  9. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    So you believe transfers should only ever be Bosmans?

    Signing an x year deal doesn't mean you commit to playing there for x years. Verratti extending his deal protected his value to PSG, it shouldn't be about forcing him to stay there.

    I said in a previous post, but if a club sign a player on a 5 year deal, if they actually want him for 5 years, he will get another deal after about 3. They don't need to, by your logic, as he is already secured for another 2 years. They offer the new deal so that if and when he wants to leave, hey get paid the most extortionate rate they can.

    Players entering the last year of their deal are often offered one year extensions so that when they move the following year, a club is paid instead of getting nothing.

    All those saying players shouldn't sign long deals or just sign for a year are forgetting that it is considered bad form for a player to run his contract down and leave his club for free. How would you feel if Ronaldo just never signed a new deal and instead went to Real for free? Is that the 'right' way for players to conduct themselves?

    Another point I've made a number of times in this thread is that these selling clubs acknowledge that they are in a market. They bought the same player, who was under contract elsewhere, because he wanted to leave and they paid. That is how the game works, players are not there to be forced to stay, contracts protect a clubs investment, but only a player's willingness should be what guarantees he continues playing for you.

    Back to Verratti, he's, he got more money (I assume) from re-signing, but he also strengthened PSG's hand and meant they could ask £100m instead of £25m for example. That's how it works. I have no issue with them telling Barcelona to pay up or get lost, I have more issue with them saying 'we won't negotiate on any terms, he stays, whether he wants to or not'.
  10. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    Excuse me? Read my OP again, perhaps after a coffee. I've been saying the exact opposite of what you claim I've been saying throughout his thread.
  11. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    I agree with that, Barca and Spurs should set a price. The refusal to set a price, simply because you want the player to stay, I'm less sure of.

    If we don't pay it, it's on us. I don't agree with setting a price of '£1 billion' either, that doesn't help anyone.
  12. Jul 17, 2017

    roonster09 Full Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,223
    Yeah not 1 billion but saying 70 Million for Dier or 120 Million for Verratti isn't that unrealistic, it's just that if you want to buy one of your rival's first choice player then pay bit more than market price.
  13. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    Yep, again I agree. The issue is, this is not the stance PSG have taken (or Spurs, but perhaps the reports from 'sources' are more iffy there).

    They have refused to negotiate, and it is well known that the Sheiks don't need the money. Real set a high price to us for Morata. Ultimately, we didn't meet it, but he was free to leave if he wanted to. That's fine. Everton set a price of £50m for John Stones. Barcelona couldn't pay it and pulled out, City could, and Everton let him go. This is how it's been working since forever, and how it worked when Everton themselves came to buy the same Stones from Barnsley.
  14. Jul 17, 2017

    Chesterlestreet Man of the crowd

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,413
    Well, Veratti presumably knows who owns the club. They won’t find themselves in a position where any kind of realistic bid will make a difference. He’s their best player and he signs a contract extension for, what, four years.

    Now, normally you would say, then, that he has pretty much made his bed. If the prospect of actually seeing out that contract is horrible to him - then he is, in fact, a bit of an idiot.
  15. Jul 17, 2017

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,903
    Location:
    Welcome to United JoMo!
    No i'm not saying all transfer need to be bosmans obviously. What i'm saying is if a player agrees to sign a 4-5 year contract then they should be prepared to stay at that club for a minimum of the 4-5 years unless the club decides to sell them.

    It's simple sign a long contract then be prepared to be at that club for a long time. If you value freedom of movement then only sign 12 month contracts and you can freely move somewhere else at the end of every season.

    But it's very risky to sign a short contract which is why very few players ever do it, it's virtually non existent with young players. Thats because if they get a bad injury then they want the safety net of still being paid by a club for the duration of their contract. Which could be 2-3 years like with Hargreaves.
  16. Jul 17, 2017

    Chesterlestreet Man of the crowd

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,413
    That’s how it should be, as per common sense and whatnot.

    If you’re actually using your current club as a de facto stepping stone, you shouldn’t sign a lengthy contract. The “rationale” on here seems to be that players are “human”, so anything might change at any given time, but that’s a ridiculously generic argument which goes for...anything. If you’re faced with a terrible change of circumstances in any walk of life, your employers will presumably be sympathetic. That - obviously - is not what we’re talking about here, though.
  17. Jul 17, 2017

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,903
    Location:
    Welcome to United JoMo!
    Yep definitely if a player has planned to play for Barcelona, Real or whoever in 1-2 years then they shouldn't sign a 5 year deal with another club and accept the benefits that come with that long contract. If they want the security of a 5 year deal then they should also accept that security works both ways, security for the club to have their talent available to them for however long they decide they need them until the end of that contract.
  18. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    This still implies that you are saying that if a player has or may have any intention of moving, they should sign short contracts, presumably so that they can then move on a Bosman when it expires.

    What about the protection of the selling club? The reason players don't sign shirt contracts isn't just to protect them in the case of injury. It is to protect the clubs. Imagine signing Neymar on an 18 month deal. After paying £200m for him. He would be free to leave for nothing in no time. Instead, they will ties him to a 6 year deal, not so that they can guarantee he plays there for 6 years per se, but to protect their investment in the event he decides to leave.
  19. Jul 17, 2017

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,903
    Location:
    Welcome to United JoMo!
    If they have planned to move somewhere else in 12-24 months then yes only sign a 12-24 months contracts. Then they can move when and wherever they like, simple.

    Let's be honest here mate very, very few players sign long contracts to protect a clubs interests. The vast majority of players will not give a flying feck whether their current club gets £50m or £50 for them when they leave.

    They sign long contracts because long contracts often come with higher wages, long contracts come with guaranteed money in the case of long term or even career threatening injuries and a multitude of other benefits that a player receives from tying themselves to a club long term.
  20. Jul 17, 2017

    Smashin Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    794
    Location:
    Lisbon
    Actually there was nothing Sporting could've done, since the former administration agreed to a clause in Dier's contract that forced the club to accept any bid above 5M€.


    I think the point of view on this issue relies alot on what kind of club you support.
    If your a United supporter your most likely to be in favour of "non slavery", since you will be, 9 out of 10 times, the ones trying to get a player.

    However if you support a smaller club things are quite different and more freedom for players would just increase the gap between the type of clubs.
  21. Jul 17, 2017

    mitchmouse Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    3,312
    contracts aren't worth th paper they are written on: if a club wnats to get rid of a player, they will. it works both ways
  22. Jul 17, 2017

    JPRouve can't stop thinking about balls

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2014
    Messages:
    23,984
    Location:
    France
    But that's the thing, no one would pay 200m for two years of contract, by that I mean that if a player has two years on his contract and is serious about leaving at the end of his contract, no one will value the contract at 200m and the existence of a clause won't change that.
    The problem is that you can't trust players, they tell you that they want to leave and the next week they sign a new lengthy contract that tie them with their club and then complain that they are not free to move when they want.

    The only reason Verratti isn't at Barcelona today, is because he chose money over the prospect of Barcelona.
  23. Jul 17, 2017

    JPRouve can't stop thinking about balls

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2014
    Messages:
    23,984
    Location:
    France
    But the player will get his money, while the club won't get the work if the player decides to leave prematurely.
  24. Jul 17, 2017

    mitchmouse Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    3,312
    player who wants to leave does not get a cut of transfer fee (this is why some clubs demand players put in an official request). They do get a cut if the club want to be rid of them; of course nowadays there is often a golden hello but that isn't the selling club's fault
  25. Jul 17, 2017

    Chesterlestreet Man of the crowd

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,413
    Bingo.

    Or pretty much bingo, anyway.

    The most vocal "abolitionists" in these debates are Barca fans and the like.

    And the slavery analogy is obviously as disgusting as it gets, just to re-emphasize that point.

    Slave: A person who isn't free to walk away from a signed contract in order to sign a more lucrative contract with a different employer.
  26. Jul 17, 2017

    mitchmouse Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    3,312
    that's hardly a description of a slave..
  27. Jul 17, 2017

    Chesterlestreet Man of the crowd

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,413
    You may be on to something there.
  28. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    I don't think that's how it works. Even teams that view themselves as stepping stones ensure their best players always have a good amount of time left on their deal so they can maximise value. If it becomes apparent a star player isn't willing to extend, he becomes for sale immediately so as to get a good fee.

    Long contracts are more about protecting value for me.
  29. Jul 17, 2017

    JPRouve can't stop thinking about balls

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2014
    Messages:
    23,984
    Location:
    France
    I know and that's the point.
  30. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    No but the clubs care, and offer long contracts as a result. No club would offer a star player a 12 month deal. They stand to lose the player for nothing. They offer a 5 year deal so that if he decides to go, they get paid, not 'if he decides to go, we don't let him'.
  31. Jul 17, 2017

    Chesterlestreet Man of the crowd

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,413
    Sure, but there's no "bad guy" here as such. They all do what they can to protect their interests. The question is whether a player who willingly signs a long-term contract is to be regarded as some sort of victim when the chance comes around to sign for someone else - but, lo and behold, he actually has four more years on his contract, and there's no great upside for his club to sell him.

    If it's important to you, as a player, to have the freedom to move on - it's up to you to make sure you have that freedom. If you don't do that, you're hardly a victim - much less a slave.
  32. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    My point is a player should always have the freedom. The contract his club have secured him to will reflect the remuneration they receive.
  33. Jul 17, 2017

    Sayros Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2015
    Messages:
    146
    I guess it's a difference of perspective. I think the points others have made against your notion is valid. If a player wants freedom, then don't sign a new extension with a bumper deal every year or two extending your contract to 4-5 years. You can't do that, and then cry about not having the freedom to leave when you want to. As a player, if I wasn't sure whether I'd want freedom or security, I can try having both with a player option for an extension of 1-2 years when negotiating a contract. What I wouldn't do is sign a 5-year extension and ask to leave after the first and cry about it if the club doesn't comply. It's just being a spoiled brat at that point.
  34. Jul 17, 2017

    Chesterlestreet Man of the crowd

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,413
    To do what?

    Any employee has the freedom to sign - or not sign - an offered contract. What freedom beyond that can you expect? The freedom to walk away from whatever contract is signed for whatever reason? Sure, but then standard conditions surely have to apply. Anyone can decide to quit their job - that’s fair enough. But as pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, if you do that, you can’t simply sign up somewhere else with impunity. So, yes, if you for some reason or other don’t want to play for Manchester United anymore, you can take a sabbatical - or become a postman. No problem.

    But you don’t have the right to take up employment for a competitor. What you seem to propose, if I understand you right, is that a player should have the right to be moved on - under conditions that must be agreed upon by the selling club (after arbitration, if necessary) regardless. Which is absurd - it’s completely absurd, actually.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
  35. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    Just to add, as you said, there is no 'bad guy' - the arrangement should continue for as long as all parties are happy to do so. Players rarely stay at clubs if they are 'not in the manager's plans', and if they do - they are criticised. This is despite the fact that they 'have a contract' and have the right to stay. Wayne Rooney was criticised in advance on this forum for the possibility that he may choose to stay this year and honour his deal. Winston Bogarde is STILL referenced as an infamous example of a player who was happy to see out his contract despite his club not wanting him.

    Generally speaking, the arrangement should work for all parties.
  36. Jul 17, 2017

    Oldyella New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    246
    Every contract should have a release clause, negotiated by the player/club/agents/lawyers in exactly the same way as their wage and term of service is negotiated.

    Either player or club could activate the clause at any time, if the player does so, he loses any loyalty bonus he may have been expecting but clubs who match the clause should be free to sign him. If the club does so, they may accept lower than the clause if they want to move a player one, but the player still gets loyalty bonus etc.
  37. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    The club doesn't offer a 5 year deal so that you can stay for another 5 years per se. 'You never know what's going to happen in football' as they stay. In the eventuality that you want to leave, they don't have a situation where you have 9 months left. Likewise, the club can offer you an extension, yet take the decision to sell you sooner than 5 years.

    I haven't heard anyone say 'if you planned to get rid of a player, why not offer him 12 month deals' once in this thread, because it's obviously a ridiculous suggestion.

    Clubs openly speak about 're-sale value', referencing to money they will receive when they sell a player who is still under contract. Clubs often do not sign players who, despite being able to offer a service here and now, they will not get good money when they sell him during his contract. Why not simply say 'why think about selling him, if you only want him for two years, give him a 2 year deal?'

    Players are not meant to move on free transfers in today's market, unless they are near the end of their careers. Players move for fees, that's how the game works, and the general implication is that ONLY the selling club should have a say in when that occurs, whereas a player has little right to decide himself that he wants to leave during contract.
  38. Jul 17, 2017

    Chesterlestreet Man of the crowd

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,413
    And in most cases common sense will prevail.

    If the manager absolutely doesn't want the player or vice versa, a solution will be found. So, in most cases, your worst case scenario - as I take it - simply won't happen.

    But that's the maximum of "player power" I personally would allow for: Yes, he can throw a tantrum on a scale the club simply won't be willing to handle - so let's do something. That sort of thing.

    But that's wildly different from granting the player a right to move clubs whenever he feels like it. You say it's a moral issue more than a contractual one - but that's, again, a matter of common sense: If you have a deeply unhappy player on your books, you have a moral obligation to do something about it. But that obviously has to involve finding out precisely what "deeply unhappy" actually means. Like I said, any employer should accommodate an employee in positive distress. Just feeling like moving to Real Madrid, because they're a bigger club, or because the weather in Madrid appeals to you, or because they offer you more money - is not a legitimate reason. In those cases, you have to make a tactical - not a moral - decision: Is the crying baby worth the trouble? Can you get him pacified to the extent that he'll still be an asset to your team? If so, you refuse to sell him. That's what Fergie did with a certain wailing baby.

    If not, you obviously do some kind of damage control which involves selling him. But none of that has anything to do with players' rights.
  39. Jul 17, 2017

    Rozay Not good at posting fixture lists

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,069
    Location:
    #RojoPlusOne
    Ultimately, this is saying the same thing as me then, give or take the line we use to qualify a player being 'unhappy'. Personally, I don't think it should take a request to move home to be with your dying father to be willing to discuss a move. Again, I doubt that is what it took for you to sign that player from his previous club in the first place.

    If a player wants to leave you, chances are, it is for the very same reason he was happy to join you a few years earlier. Nothing too deep - more money, better weather, career prospects etc. That's just the game. If you can't convince him to stay, which should be what you try to do if you want to keep him, then get the best deal for your club.
  40. Jul 17, 2017

    Cassidy Not to be confused with Cassady the Liverpool fan

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    11,792
    Sometimes that is keeping the player until the next summer.