Atletico Madrid refusing to play Antoine Griezmann more than 30 minutes/Resolved!/smashing it for France.

Iker Quesadillas said:
A club like Brighton held for 60m. That's nice. Everton are also holding out for 60m for Anthony Gordon. They have been shit for a year, were almost relegated, and will blow that money on absolute garbage.
Click to expand...

It is nice, it's why Spurs and the rest of the Premier League can build competitive squads without being at risk of it being decimated for pennies (like Pedri).

You're correct though, some clubs tldo blow money on shite (United for the past decade) but all in all it makes the Premier League a strong one, not one where the two bullies were hitching their wagon on the super league to get them out of trouble and to start sucking the soul out of another competition (Real Madrid not so much actually, they're actually much better than Barca...).

I remember reading the conditions of the super league was that Barca couldn't be relegated! :lol: the epitome of that stain of a club, "me me me".
 
If Greizmann is subbed on with 29 minutes left to play what happens if theres 10 minutes injury time?
 
Robertd0803 said:
If Greizmann is subbed on with 29 minutes left to play what happens if theres 10 minutes injury time?
Click to expand...
Would depend on the wording of the clause in question, I’d imagine. If it was drafted correctly in Atletico’s favour it would be something along the lines of “30 minutes of standard time, excluding any injury or extra time”
 
SAFMUTD said:
The fact they're doing it to Barca makes it funny, but not right.
Click to expand...
Why not? I might be missing something. Barcelona agreed to the contract. The player agreed to go on loan with his agent surely aware of these clauses.

any agent or representative who wasn’t aware is incompetent. And if Griezmann was playing better and had done better last season Atleti would be happy to bring him back.
It’s not like these contract clauses provide the moral bedrock of football. Atleti are doing what they want to do to avoid triggering a clause they don’t want triggered, and happy to take the “hit” of playing Griezmann less than they might otherwise.
Should they be morally obliged to play him more and trigger a legal obligation they want to, and can, avoid?
 
Charlie Foley said:
Why not? I might be missing something. Barcelona agreed to the contract. The player agreed to go on loan with his agent surely aware of these clauses.

any agent or representative who wasn’t aware is incompetent. And if Griezmann was playing better and had done better last season Atleti would be happy to bring him back.
It’s not like these contract clauses provide the moral bedrock of football. Atleti are doing what they want to do to avoid triggering a clause they don’t want triggered, and happy to take the “hit” of playing Griezmann less than they might otherwise.
Should they be morally obliged to play him more and trigger a legal obligation they want to, and can, avoid?
Click to expand...

quite correct.
If griezmann was tearing it up they’d play him 90 minutes every game and buy him at the end of the deal.
The clause is very much to protect atletico and it appears they don’t want to buy him at the end of it so are acting accordingly.
My initial post in the other Barca levers thread called it shithousing but now I think of it they are just ensuring they aren’t saddled with a huge flop at the end of the deal.
legally nothing amiss. Morally - maybe an argument but it’s weak
 
MexicanCowboy said:
United, Madrid and Barcelona have been the football biggest earners for over 15 years. And yet a team that never wins anything and that pretty much nobody outside of the UK cares for can spend more than Barcelona. It may not be oil but still how can a team like Tottenham spend 2 billion? Where does that money come from?
It's not a successful team and it's not a team with good global reach. A team that hasn't won an important trophy in my whole lifespan can spend more that the most successful teams of the last 20 years.
How is it done?
Click to expand...
You lobsided your TV deals to ensure only the top 2 or 3 max to be competitive. You think that doesn't have long term effects? A good player comes thru any of the other clubs you guys can just go anf poach them. Eventually nothing to see there. I know so many Juventus and tottenham fan here in south east asia and very few barcelona fans. People want to see to to toe david vs goliaths, stories worth watching with drama. La Liga is absolutely a federation of you two. Thats why PL is not financial doping. They earned it by producing end to end stuff. Until mancity came at least.
 
MexicanCowboy said:
United, Madrid and Barcelona have been the football biggest earners for over 15 years. And yet a team that never wins anything and that pretty much nobody outside of the UK cares for can spend more than Barcelona. It may not be oil but still how can a team like Tottenham spend 2 billion? Where does that money come from?
It's not a successful team and it's not a team with good global reach. A team that hasn't won an important trophy in my whole lifespan can spend more that the most successful teams of the last 20 years.
How is it done?
Click to expand...

I think you should look up how the English Premier League has distributed TV money almost equally amongst it's members for decades now. That would give you an idea of how Spurs etc are able to do what they're doing right now.

It's something a lot of people have criticized La Liga for, the distribution of TV money and how they ensure that there would eventually not be any competitors for Madrid and Barca. The ironic thing is, that same lack of competition and the subsequent effect of making the league unattractive to the general public and thus, sponsors, is what the big Spanish clubs were citing when they wanted the Super League.

As United fan, it's kind of bittersweet to know that we could've taken advantage of our dominance in the 90s and 00s to become the English Bayern. :lol:
 
NinjaZombie said:
I think you should look up how the English Premier League has distributed TV money almost equally amongst it's members for decades now. That would give you an idea of how Spurs etc are able to do what they're doing right now.

It's something a lot of people have criticized La Liga for, the distribution of TV money and how they ensure that there would eventually not be any competitors for Madrid and Barca. The ironic thing is, that same lack of competition and the subsequent effect of making the league unattractive to the general public and thus, sponsors, is what the big Spanish clubs were citing when they wanted the Super League.

As United fan, it's kind of bittersweet to know that we could've taken advantage of our dominance in the 90s and 00s to become the English Bayern. :lol:
Click to expand...

Laliga is not to blame for how the television rights are distributed.
There was a vote more than 20 years ago of 42 clubs and it came out that each club sold individually.
And from there came the current differences.
 
They're not going to keep this up all season are they?
 
I'm not really a gambler but for those in the know, could you actaully put money on when - as in which minute he comes on as a sub?
 
If we can manage to pull off a transfer for Greizmann it’s going to be one of the best summer transfers in history. And literally elevates us to CL contention.
 
Wasn't the 62nd minute this time but the 64th. :lol: :lol:

Next season Barca are going to be fecked, what with Greizmanns wages added to that mess.
 
This transfer saga has become like Harry Potter, everyone is trying to work out where Barca’s secret levers are to kill them off. We’ve seen them have to reveal the obvious ones but the last, most hidden of all is Griezmann himself and the 40m EUR obligation. Turns out Simeone read the small print though.
 
60 mins on the clock? It's Griezzy time
 
While this is funny af, can't Atletico just cancel the loan if they're not keen on playing him?

I wonder what the guy himself thinks of this.
 
NinjaZombie said:
While this is funny af, can't Atletico just cancel the loan if they're not keen on playing him?

I wonder what the guy himself thinks of this.
Click to expand...
They're playing him a lot and seem to like having him around.

If I had to guess I'd think they want to keep him next summer but through a new round of negotiations, not the automatic buy clause.
 
antk said:
They're playing him a lot and seem to like having him around.

If I had to guess I'd think they want to keep him next summer but through a new round of negotiations, not the automatic buy clause.
Click to expand...

Not sure. He'll want the rest of his insane contract paid. Reckon he goes back to Barca and Bale's them.
 
Shane88 said:
Would you not just bench him and move on if they're not going to buy him?

Taking the piss out of a player like that will likely result him in taking the piss when he does get subbed on. Why would he try hard if they're intentionally messing him about? Even if he is a twat.
Click to expand...
Playing for his world cup place?

After the world cup i guess they will be able to play him in every game anyway and stay within the % clause

Going to be hilarious if he ends up back at Barca though as not only will they have his wages for a year they are due to pay him about €20m euros loyalty bonus if he reaches the end of his contract in summer 2024 (before presumably walking away on a free)
 
sun_tzu said:
Going to be hilarious if he ends up back at Barca though as not only will they have his wages for a year they are due to pay him about €20m euros loyalty bonus if he reaches the end of his contract in summer 2024 (before presumably walking away on a free)
Click to expand...
Probably say contract illegal and make veiled threats via Romero et al.

Mes que un club…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.