And what people told you is that Levy is only saying : "Eric won't go for a price that you are comfortable to pay, now make that outrageous bid or go home". "No price" is almost inexistant and definitely doesn't apply to Dier.
That's probably true.
It tends to be the case. When the money is right and players want to go, deals tend to pretty smoothly.
amazing thread. 57 posts by Rozay because he doesnt get how negotiating worksVerratti knows that Barcelona and Juventus have wanted him for at least 3 or 4 seasons, he signed his contracts knowing that, so he can pretend that he is kept against his will but the reality is that it's his fault and no one else's. PSG can't replace him, if he leaves they will have to change all their plans, those changes have a price that Barcelona and Verratti aren't able or willing to pay.
Nah you are confusing posturing with actual policy, Levy may have said 'not for sale at any price' but that was just designed to gauge the intent of the other two parties - player and buying club, imo. If Dier really wanted to leave he would raise hell and if we wanted him badly we would offer a figure that Levy can work with. The problems arise when players overestimate the lengths to which their suitors would go to to buy them like Berahino did back then and proceed to burn bridges at the club.
Nah you are confusing posturing with actual policy, Levy may have said 'not for sale at any price' but that was just designed to gauge the intent of the other two parties - player and buying club, imo. If Dier really wanted to leave he would raise hell and if we wanted him badly we would offer a figure that Levy can work with. The problems arise when players overestimate the lengths to which their suitors would go to to buy them like Berahino did back then and proceed to burn bridges at the club.
I'd guess that Levy knows very well the intent of the other parties and also knows that Pochettino would not sanction selling Dier. So if he said 'not for sale at any price', he'll stick to it come hell or high water.
The purchasing club will simply give it to them.
Couldn't there be a way to regulate and prevent that though? I follow the NBA and sometimes you have players taking a pay-cut because they have a soft salary cap in the league, and you wonder if maybe the players get paid under-the-table for taking an official pay-cut, but I'm sure there's a way to keep track of that and sanction any violations.
I doubt players would take that risk. Think about it, one major injury and all of the sudden you could be out for months without pay, and then it'd be extra difficult to get back to a good contract right away. It'd be a big risk.
People often speak of 'player power' like it's a bad thing. The power people are actually referring to is power over their own lives and careers! Who should have it? All this 'players are too powerful' stuff the old school say because a player left to work elsewhere (and left a handsome sum behind by way of a transfer fee) I don't get. They aren't cattle where their 'owners' should have all power over them.
They are not cattles as cattles don't have a choice. Players do. Every single one of those contracts are signed by the players themselves willingly.
Buy out clauses now work that way. Herrera didnt pay his buy himself.
It's not about Dier, that's just an example and the discussion is more about the process rather than single player.
Clubs have agreed to not do so, because they know that things will eventually go bad for them. We can do that to Spurs, Real can do that to us with De Gea and so on. It will open the Pandora box.
To some degree.
I've seen the non-compete clause mentioned a lot in comparison, but it's not quite the same for me, as my guess is if your new company offered £50m, your current company would happily tear your non-compete clause up and throw it in the bin. That is similar to a transfer fee.
This is my general view. I understand the legislation of it all, I'm an adult - but it appears that what most are indirectly proposing here is that it is only suitable or right for a player to leave or want to leave on a Bosman, having fulfilled his contract.
'Prisoner' implies the player has no say in the matter though - they do, ie, not signing a long-term contract.
No what's rediculous is comparing football players to cattle, slaves or prisoners. Me thinks some people need to take a step back and look at the world we are living in.
Expecting a player to honor a deal he's agreed on is now considered "holding him a prisoner"?
What he said.
Agree. They are not slaves or prisoners at all. They can walk away from the sport, wealthier than they could dream of at any point. If they want to get a different job than playing football they are free to do so. If anything, the fans are much more slaves than they are, and are not in an opportunity to walk away from their relatively low paid job, and those are the fans they are shitting on by refusing to honour their contract, and walk away.
Bosman's strike me as fair enough - if a player's contract is coming to an end then it's the fault of the club at hand for not being able to secure their services over a longer period. If your contract has ended there's no legal requirement for the club to be compensated for you leaving, and you should be free to move wherever you want.
Perhaps but that never happens because the employee can later decide to leave the new company for yet competitor, rendering the 50m "transfer fee" instantly worthless.
Again, I understand the legislation behind it, I just think it's poor game to not be willing to discuss the matter if a player is unhappy. Contract or not, that makes the club become more possessive of a player, as opposed to an employer. That very player only joined your club in the first place because he wanted to leave his previous club while under contract. You paid the fee and got it done. That is the nature of football, so to take on that 'we will enforce the contract at all costs' position, for me, removes the human or free will element from the process.
What if clubs are ready to negotiate but puts way too much price on player? ex 150 million for Dier.
The contracts are not necessarily meant to guarantee the services of a player for the length. They are there more to protect the financial interests of the club (and players).
This is what happens now, but sometimes the club who the player wants to move to doesn't offer the sum the selling club would want. Many examples of this, and in this situation I completely understand that the club will ask the player to stay. Today, Southampton can't really replace Van Dyjk (not sure about spelling), not even for 50m, should they still accept to sell for 50m? I would say no, he just signed a new long term deal and can't suddenly start crying of being forced to stay.
