Telling a player to leave mid-season because he refuses to sign a new contract

[macheda14]

We should have been able to go lower and find a taker, unless he is the one that didnt want to move.
What's the point losing out on 10-15m AND still paying his wages for him to hardly play.

Reports also point to a little from option A, a little from option B. We wanted more money, but he also wanted to stay one season once we signed Ronaldo (more likely, he wanted to stay and get a fat pay-out from signing a free contract)

 

[Smores]

People use the word loyalty but that's not really the expectation is it, clubs pay huge money so they expect servitude until it suits them.

There's never been a huge expectation previously that the transfer fee is just for the length of the players contract.

Either we'll see longer contracts or contracts with more clauses that lessen risk or transfer fees will need to reduce. Clubs can't go on paying hugely inflated fees and risk losing assets like we're now seeing.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

IIf a player thinks a contact offered is not enough then they won't sign it. Again, this is perfectly normal and happens all the time in football and in the real world.
A club freezing a player out, announcing to the world that they are asking for too much money and have until the end of the month to find another club is not a normal occurance.

It's worth pointing out that renewing a contract is a two-way street. Most of the time when a contract isn't renewed it's the club's doing.

"If you're not staying we won't play you" sounds pretty bad when it's the club choosing who stays. If we're going to say it's different when it's the player's choice then we have to admit we're not talking about whether the player 'stays' or not, but something different.

 

[duffer]

It's worth pointing out that renewing a contract is a two-way street. Most of the time when a contract isn't renewed it's the club's doing.

"If you're not staying we won't play you" sounds pretty bad when it's the club choosing who stays. If we're going to say it's different when it's the player's choice then we have to admit we're not talking about whether the player 'stays' or not, but something different.

Yep, every top club refuses to offer contracts to a bunch 17/18 year olds (who have often spent a decade at the club) every year. Where's the talk of "loyalty" then?

It seems that a player rejecting a club = disloyal but a club rejecting a player = absolutely fine.

 

[Piratesoup]

The negotiation team should be clear from the start that if you reach 1 year remaining, we will try to sell you to protect the club

And what would that achieve? You still can't force players to sign with another team.

 

[SuperiorXI]

And what would that achieve? You still can't force players to sign with another team.

Incentive to sign if you want to stay at the club?

I didn't say force anyone, I just said 'try to sell'.

 

[antk]

Fans are quick to compare normal workplace situations with players' behaviors ("late to training? I would have been fired!") but then suggest bullying employees into signing contracts with the threat of lesser treatment.

Not too fussed about work code violations regarding multimillionaires, but by default I side with the employees (especially when they're first gen wealth and come from poor backgrounds as most footballers) and not the employers. God forbid employees have too much power in contract negotiations, power should stay the sole property of billionaire corporations and individuals.

 

[MadMike]

In the sense that from the inside (via talks worth the player and agent) it would have been obvious for a while that this is how it would have played out.

Take the above mbappe for example. The club could have taken £170m last summer and now he walkes away for free (most likely).

Yeah but that implies that someone has made an offer acceptable to the club and the player. The player could well be running his contract down to get a fat sign-on bonus and not be willing to accept offers till then.

Still the clubs fault? For what, for signing him?

But my point was more that they shouldn’t be throwing someone so publicly under the bus just because they’re in a huff he’s not signing a new contract nor anyone willing to pay what they are asking for

I don't know mate. They paid a lot of money (in both fees and salaries for a player) that is in and out of the squad constantly and never achieved a fraction of what they paid for him, yet asks for a pay rise.

I think they're well within their right to do whatever they're doing and it's also ok for the player just stick two fingers up and run down his contract. He's a big boy, he'll be fine. And Barca the same.

You don't always have to apportion blame at how things panned out. Sometimes things just go that way.

 

[Kentonio]

Not quite sure if they are short term. There is so much money in football right still, and I reckon that determines a lot the amount of transfer fees that is being asked for. Maybe if covid has long term damaged the financial wellbeing of too many clubs this might change, but otherwise I can't see transfer fees and wages going down anytime soon.

It's like with the housing market, I keep thinking "dude no one can pay these prices, surely that needs to go down sometime again" but no, as long as there is money available on the cheap, prices will go up it seems.

Wages certainly won't come down, but the large transfer fees are predicated on the idea that players have resale value. If the highest priced players are going to keep running out their contracts instead of agreeing to transfers, then the transfer fee has to be considered a pure cost amortized over the length of the contract. It already is for accounting purposes I believe, but clubs clearly are expecting to receive money back on their purchases at present, and increasingly that seems to not be happening at the highest level. I don't see how anyone other than maybe Newcastle/City/PSG can continue to afford that.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Barca being usual Barca slime-balls.

A player deciding not to renew a contract, is not a breach of policy, regardless of how Barca dress it up.

I hope he stays beyond January, then walks for free at the end of his contract.

 

[Zlatattack]

I fully support Dembele. A contract is a contract. He should stick it out till the summer and then he'll have much more options on a free. There will be plenty of teams willing to take a risk.

 

[Piratesoup]

Incentive to sign if you want to stay at the club?

I didn't say force anyone, I just said 'try to sell'.

My point is that "trying to sell" means nothing if a player is under contract and wants to get paid.

 

[Acrobat7]

I fully support Dembele. A contract is a contract. He should stick it out till the summer and then he'll have much more options on a free. There will be plenty of teams willing to take a risk.

Keeping in mind that Barca basically told him to go on strike while he was at Dortmund to force the move to Barca makes it even more entertaining.

 

[Piratesoup]

Keeping in mind that Barca basically told him to go on strike while he was at Dortmund to force the move to Barca makes it even more entertaining.

Yeah, it's beautiful to witness

 

[Pretzels81]

Laporta's fault. Appalling manners and bad timing.

Inherits a disastrous Bartomeu signing (months ago), forces him to sign a new contract, then isolates him during the winter window. Makes no sense. Just get rid of that overpaid, underperforming failure, but make him play till the very end.

Anyway, this might start a trend: big clubs trying to sell a player (in summer) that has just one more season left (or the bench it is).

 

[Frank Rizzo]

they're not slaves and employment law does apply

in a nutshell

 

[kouroux]

I will never forgive him for this

At that precise moment, I knew Liverpool were gonna pull it off at Anfield. I had that nasty feeling