|
|
Post by Excellent Bulletproof Vest on Aug 22, 2017 23:27:34 GMT
Surprising news  |
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 23, 2017 7:16:54 GMT
£138M is the latest with 101M up front. We must take it asap I doubt there even is another offer. Spanish media would have you believe they are preparing a 4th offer for Dembele, when there hasn't been even a 2nd and a 3rd. Lost all respect for these rags. Bild is a beacon of reliability compared to them. |
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 27, 2017 10:56:24 GMT
So, what's going on with this one? Heard he's asked Klopp to be left out of the CL squad? Spanish media still insisting that LFC will sell after all?
|
|
|
|
Post by MrFurious on Aug 27, 2017 11:38:52 GMT
I heard he's gone off to Brazil on international duty with his back injury. I'm hoping we're rid of him by the deadline. Hope Barca come back with that mad offer again
|
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 27, 2017 13:14:50 GMT
Why do you want to get rid so desperately? What are you going to do with the money within three days?
I don't think it's the right stance to let players get away with that kind of behaviour. There's a real danger that if players see that they can get their will, this catches on and we'll see this with every other transfer. Don't think Dembele should have been sold, either, but of course Watzke was always going to sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrFurious on Aug 27, 2017 13:38:40 GMT
Yeah the pundits on the tv said he shouldn't be let go so easily cos Mane etc will want out next Summer. After this Barca nonsense I don't think we're gonna see the best of Couthino again, thats why I want rid. We're never gonna get this sort of cash for him again
|
|
|
|
Post by Excellent Bulletproof Vest on Aug 27, 2017 19:27:34 GMT
Why do you want to get rid so desperately? What are you going to do with the money within three days? I don't think it's the right stance to let players get away with that kind of behaviour. There's a real danger that if players see that they can get their will, this catches on and we'll see this with every other transfer. Don't think Dembele should have been sold, either, but of course Watzke was always going to sell. Why is that such a bad thing? They've received an offer for him that's more than fair, it's a great opportunity for him that probably won't come along again, he wants to leave, they should let him go. It's wrong to keep him and jeopardise his career in such circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 27, 2017 19:39:05 GMT
Why do you want to get rid so desperately? What are you going to do with the money within three days? I don't think it's the right stance to let players get away with that kind of behaviour. There's a real danger that if players see that they can get their will, this catches on and we'll see this with every other transfer. Don't think Dembele should have been sold, either, but of course Watzke was always going to sell. Why is that such a bad thing? They've received an offer for him that's more than fair, it's a great opportunity for him that probably won't come along again, he wants to leave, they should let him go. It's wrong to keep him and jeopardise his career in such circumstances. He signed a contract. Of course he can ask to leave, but if it's the club's decision not to terminate the contract prematurely, he has no right to force a move by going on strike. But as we've discussed earlier, maybe that's a cultural thing. In England there's that idea that once a player hands in a transfer request, the club has a moral obligation to let him go. In Germany, there's no such thing as a transfer request in the statutes of the league, and no moral obligation to let a player leave prematurely just because he wants out. Trying to force a move by going on strike or whatever is a breach of contract, and hence illegal. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Excellent Bulletproof Vest on Aug 27, 2017 20:37:31 GMT
Why is that such a bad thing? They've received an offer for him that's more than fair, it's a great opportunity for him that probably won't come along again, he wants to leave, they should let him go. It's wrong to keep him and jeopardise his career in such circumstances. He signed a contract. Of course he can ask to leave, but if it's the club's decision not to terminate the contract prematurely, he has no right to force a move by going on strike. But as we've discussed earlier, maybe that's a cultural thing. In England there's that idea that once a player hands in a transfer request, the club has a moral obligation to let him go. In Germany, there's no such thing as a transfer request in the statutes of the league, and no moral obligation to let a player leave prematurely just because he wants out. Trying to force a move by going on strike or whatever is a breach of contract, and hence illegal. Simple as that. I'm not talking about the law of the validity of the contract, I'm talking about ethics. It's ridiculous that a company can force an employee to waste years of his career, costing the employee tens of millions of pounds and a terrific opportunity to achieve professional success, and be widely applauded for it. It's a horrible violation of workers' rights. Even within the realm of football's weird ethics refusing a bid that gives them well over £100m profit and is way above the value of the remaining salary on his contract - i.e. how much they valued him when they were trying to tie him down - it's particularly egregious. |
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 27, 2017 20:45:08 GMT
He signed a contract. Of course he can ask to leave, but if it's the club's decision not to terminate the contract prematurely, he has no right to force a move by going on strike. But as we've discussed earlier, maybe that's a cultural thing. In England there's that idea that once a player hands in a transfer request, the club has a moral obligation to let him go. In Germany, there's no such thing as a transfer request in the statutes of the league, and no moral obligation to let a player leave prematurely just because he wants out. Trying to force a move by going on strike or whatever is a breach of contract, and hence illegal. Simple as that. I'm not talking about the law of the validity of the contract, I'm talking about ethics. It's ridiculous that a company can force an employee to waste years of his career, costing the employee tens of millions of pounds and a terrific opportunity to achieve professional success, and be widely applauded for it. It's a horrible violation of workers' rights. Even within the realm of football's weird ethics refusing a bid that gives them well over £100m profit and is way above the value of the remaining salary on his contract - i.e. how much they valued him when they were trying to tie him down - it's particularly egregious. I know historically Germany had a different view on holding people against their will and forcing them to do things that they don't like, but I hoped that was a thing of the past. Are views like that still widespread in Germany? There's no violation of workers' rights. There is no right to break a contract. Nobody forced him to sign that contract at gunpoint. He could have refused to sign a contract without a release clause. Of course it's a widespread view in Germany. The entire league is of the opinion you can't tolerate that kind of player behaviour. Everyone supported Dortmund's decision not to budge and stick to their demands in the face of Dembele's behaviour. And many are critical that he was allowed to leave at all. And it's the same in the reverse case. I remember nobody in England could understand the outrage in Germany over Mourinho's treatment of Schweinsteiger. A club trying to force a player to leave against his will is being frowned upon equally. |
|
|
|
Post by Excellent Bulletproof Vest on Aug 27, 2017 21:10:41 GMT
I'm not talking about the law of the validity of the contract, I'm talking about ethics. It's ridiculous that a company can force an employee to waste years of his career, costing the employee tens of millions of pounds and a terrific opportunity to achieve professional success, and be widely applauded for it. It's a horrible violation of workers' rights. Even within the realm of football's weird ethics refusing a bid that gives them well over £100m profit and is way above the value of the remaining salary on his contract - i.e. how much they valued him when they were trying to tie him down - it's particularly egregious. I know historically Germany had a different view on holding people against their will and forcing them to do things that they don't like, but I hoped that was a thing of the past. Are views like that still widespread in Germany? There's no violation of workers' rights. There is no right to break a contract. Nobody forced him to sign that contract at gunpoint. He could have refused to sign a contract without a release clause. Of course it's a widespread view in Germany. The entire league is of the opinion you can't tolerate that kind of player behaviour. Everyone supported Dortmund's decision not to budge and stick to their demands in the face of Dembele's behaviour. And many are critical that he was allowed to leave at all. And it's the same in the reverse case. I remember nobody in England could understand the outrage in Germany over Mourinho's treatment of Schweinsteiger. A club trying to force a player to leave against his will is being frowned upon equally. There's a moral right to. You sat nobody forced him at gunpoint, but it's not like he had a choice. If every employer in a particular industry requires contracts that give up certain rights, if you can't sell your labour without signing such a contract, the right has effectively been denied. In the case of Schweinsteiger he did not perform adequately to he was asked to leave, instead he chose to suck money out of the club. I don't know what problem you have with Manchester United's conduct, we fulfilled our contractual obligations to him until he agreed to leave. Isn't fulfilling contractual obligations what you're all about? |
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 27, 2017 21:27:27 GMT
Of course Couthino had a choice. There are lots of football contracts with a release clause. If you aren't ready to sign a contract without a release clause, then don't sign it. Sign with another club that accepts your demands.
About Schweinsteiger: ManU tried everything they could to force him out, despite a valid contract.
Your thinly veiled accusation of Nazi behaviour is completely beside the point. It's precisely the historical experience of Nazi Germany that's at the basis of present-day Germany's insistence to stick to the rule of law. What you're asking for is a discretion to arbitrarily ignore the rule of the law, in case one party decides that it's too inconvenient to fulfill their part of the contract. As far as I'm concerned, this is the road to the dark side. Because this means that for one party the rule of law no longer applies, and it becomes a question of who has more power to enforce his/her rights.
In the Bundesliga, clubs and players try to solve such conflicts not by going on strike or freezing players out, but by trying to find a solution that's acceptable for both parties. It doesn't work in all cases, but in most cases it does. We very rarely have players going on strike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Aug 27, 2017 22:25:13 GMT
The biggest moral violation was by Coutinho's agent in allowing him to sign a new 5 year contract if he had even the slightest inclination he wouldn't be prepared to play out potentially up to 3 or 4 years at Liverpool. Of course he won't have even spent two seconds worrying about that as his only consideration will have been calculating the percentage he'd be making off the new deal, in exactly the same way, just seven months down the line (!), that he'll be calculating exactly how much he can make out of shifting Coutinho on to Barcelona.
And the most hilarious thing is that he will choose to completely ignore that fact and claim to the Liverpool board that they are holding his client unfairly against his will! Well, I hope they laugh squarely in his face and tell him he should have been thinking about that in January, get Coutinho's name straight down the CL squad, and tell him they expect to see his client back on the training ground asap or fines and the under 23s will on the cards for the foreseeable future...
|
|
|
|
Post by Excellent Bulletproof Vest on Aug 27, 2017 23:17:46 GMT
Of course Couthino had a choice. There are lots of football contracts with a release clause. If you aren't ready to sign a contract without a release clause, then don't sign it. Sign with another club that accepts your demands. About Schweinsteiger: ManU tried everything they could to force him out, despite a valid contract. Your thinly veiled accusation of Nazi behaviour is completely beside the point. It's precisely the historical experience of Nazi Germany that's at the basis of present-day Germany's insistence to stick to the rule of law. What you're asking for is a discretion to arbitrarily ignore the rule of the law, in case one party decides that it's too inconvenient to fulfill their part of the contract. As far as I'm concerned, this is the road to the dark side. Because this means that for one party the rule of law no longer applies, and it becomes a question of who has more power to enforce his/her rights. In the Bundesliga, clubs and players try to solve such conflicts not by going on strike or freezing players out, but by trying to find a solution that's acceptable for both parties. It doesn't work in all cases, but in most cases it does. We very rarely have players going on strike. If he did that they would screw him on wages, so would any club. They are already screwing him, we know from the fact they've rejected this bid that Liverpool value five years of his service at at least £100m, yet they're only paying him £8m a year, imagine how has it would be if he insisted on a release clause. Do you think there are any clubs who wouldn't screw him like that? United fulfilled its contractual obligations. I retracted that because I thought it was unfair, but if Nazi Germany proves anything it is that government policy doesn't always protect civil liberties to a sufficient level. If there had been a law passed that said everything the Nazis did was fine it would make it legal, but it wouldn't make it fine. The law should protect worked from exploitation. That should include footballers. |
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 28, 2017 6:37:49 GMT
Of course Couthino had a choice. There are lots of football contracts with a release clause. If you aren't ready to sign a contract without a release clause, then don't sign it. Sign with another club that accepts your demands. About Schweinsteiger: ManU tried everything they could to force him out, despite a valid contract. Your thinly veiled accusation of Nazi behaviour is completely beside the point. It's precisely the historical experience of Nazi Germany that's at the basis of present-day Germany's insistence to stick to the rule of law. What you're asking for is a discretion to arbitrarily ignore the rule of the law, in case one party decides that it's too inconvenient to fulfill their part of the contract. As far as I'm concerned, this is the road to the dark side. Because this means that for one party the rule of law no longer applies, and it becomes a question of who has more power to enforce his/her rights. In the Bundesliga, clubs and players try to solve such conflicts not by going on strike or freezing players out, but by trying to find a solution that's acceptable for both parties. It doesn't work in all cases, but in most cases it does. We very rarely have players going on strike. If he did that they would screw him on wages, so would any club. They are already screwing him, we know from the fact they've rejected this bid that Liverpool value five years of his service at at least £100m, yet they're only paying him £8m a year, imagine how has it would be if he insisted on a release clause. Do you think there are any clubs who wouldn't screw him like that? United fulfilled its contractual obligations. I retracted that because I thought it was unfair, but if Nazi Germany proves anything it is that government policy doesn't always protect civil liberties to a sufficient level. If there had been a law passed that said everything the Nazis did was fine it would make it legal, but it wouldn't make it fine. The law should protect worked from exploitation. That should include footballers. The poor exploited millionaire footballers who *voluntarily* signed a contract and are required to honor it, doing what they love most, just not at the club they'd like to be with at the moment. I'm on the verge of tears. I've no idea how you're supposed to do business if one party doesn't respect a contract and thinks it has a "moral right" to change its mind every five minutes. So he earns less if he insists on a release clause? That's not "exploitation", that's the price you pay for having an advantage you otherwise wouldn't have. Still don't know where you're going with that Nazi Germany comparison. In a state respecting the rule of law, there's a constitution that has to be respected by the lawmakers, and there's a constitutional court that sees to it that the government respects the constitution. Our formidable chancellor is a woman who grew up in a state that didn't respect the rule of law, and it shows. Never since WWII has a government had so many problems with the constitutional court as the Merkel administration. And we are very fortunate that that court has been given such a powerful position by the fathers of the Grundgesetz. And that with Andreas Voßkuhle we have a really good man at the head of that court who clearly shows Ms Merkel her limits no matter how they are raging in Berlin, and who isn't thinking of going anywhere no matter how often she tries to "promote" him away to the office of the federal president. But enough of the OT: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 8:08:34 GMT
I don't think there is much footballers can do to get out of the contracts if their club absolutely wanted to play hard-ball, unless the footballer wasn't made sufficiently aware of the terms of the contract, or was being treated unfairly or something.
George Michael (the singer) tried to get released from his 15 year contract with Sony in a landmark case, I think he called it professional slavery, but the high court ruled against him. Sony eventually sold the contract to someone else after they won the case, but they weren't obligated to.
Personally, I think it is unreasonable to restrict someone's right to work elsewhere when we are getting beyond the realms of about a year, no matter how well compensated they are, I would argue ESPECIALLY in the case of a footballer where it is expected they sign a long term fixed contract, otherwise they'd be ostracised if they were a young player who wasn't yet established. And also they have such a short career span.
I suppose in the case of the music industry, they have to invest vast amounts of money marketing their artists, which is probably what Sony argued, I'm not sure if a football club could argue the same thing. Sure, they have to spend a certain amount of money on developing a player but that's not really the same thing, once a club has spent money on facilities/coaches etc then the cost doesn't alter that much whether they have 40 players on their books or 60. Where as in the music industry it isn't quite the same, your costs will go up vastly for every additional artist you sign and try to get into the charts. So maybe it could be challenged in court? I supposed you'd have to get yourself the finest employment lawyer money could buy. But the case would probably take some time, and the club would probably cave in before then anyway and move you on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Excellent Bulletproof Vest on Aug 28, 2017 11:57:09 GMT
If he did that they would screw him on wages, so would any club. They are already screwing him, we know from the fact they've rejected this bid that Liverpool value five years of his service at at least £100m, yet they're only paying him £8m a year, imagine how has it would be if he insisted on a release clause. Do you think there are any clubs who wouldn't screw him like that? United fulfilled its contractual obligations. I retracted that because I thought it was unfair, but if Nazi Germany proves anything it is that government policy doesn't always protect civil liberties to a sufficient level. If there had been a law passed that said everything the Nazis did was fine it would make it legal, but it wouldn't make it fine. The law should protect worked from exploitation. That should include footballers. The poor exploited millionaire footballers who *voluntarily* signed a contract and are required to honor it, doing what they love most, just not at the club they'd like to be with at the moment. I'm on the verge of tears. I've no idea how you're supposed to do business if one party doesn't respect a contract and thinks it has a "moral right" to change its mind every five minutes. So he earns less if he insists on a release clause? That's not "exploitation", that's the price you pay for having an advantage you otherwise wouldn't have. Still don't know where you're going with that Nazi Germany comparison. In a state respecting the rule of law, there's a constitution that has to be respected by the lawmakers, and there's a constitutional court that sees to it that the government respects the constitution. Our formidable chancellor is a woman who grew up in a state that didn't respect the rule of law, and it shows. Never since WWII has a government had so many problems with the constitutional court as the Merkel administration. And we are very fortunate that that court has been given such a powerful position by the fathers of the Grundgesetz. And that with Andreas Voßkuhle we have a really good man at the head of that court who clearly shows Ms Merkel her limits no matter how they are raging in Berlin, and who isn't thinking of going anywhere no matter how often she tries to "promote" him away to the office of the federal president. But enough of the OT: The terms of the contract are exploitative. Imagine if an entire industry said that they were not going to give their workers any legal rights they are entitled to. Would you say to people who are in that industry that it's not a problem because they are voluntarily signing contracts? Liverpool value Coutinho at well over £48m a year, we know this because they pay him £8m per year and have turned down a bit well in excess of £140m. That means he is just under 17% of his true worth to the club because of his contract. It would probably be the same at any club. That's severe exploitation, it's an exploitative system. If he signed a contract with a release clause he would be paid even less. You are arguing here that a man should be paid less than 17% of his value to his company, that he is in the wrong if he insists on leaving and that the club is doing a great thing if they keep exploiting him. It's disgusting. |
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 28, 2017 12:19:55 GMT
The poor exploited millionaire footballers who *voluntarily* signed a contract and are required to honor it, doing what they love most, just not at the club they'd like to be with at the moment. I'm on the verge of tears. I've no idea how you're supposed to do business if one party doesn't respect a contract and thinks it has a "moral right" to change its mind every five minutes. So he earns less if he insists on a release clause? That's not "exploitation", that's the price you pay for having an advantage you otherwise wouldn't have. Still don't know where you're going with that Nazi Germany comparison. In a state respecting the rule of law, there's a constitution that has to be respected by the lawmakers, and there's a constitutional court that sees to it that the government respects the constitution. Our formidable chancellor is a woman who grew up in a state that didn't respect the rule of law, and it shows. Never since WWII has a government had so many problems with the constitutional court as the Merkel administration. And we are very fortunate that that court has been given such a powerful position by the fathers of the Grundgesetz. And that with Andreas Voßkuhle we have a really good man at the head of that court who clearly shows Ms Merkel her limits no matter how they are raging in Berlin, and who isn't thinking of going anywhere no matter how often she tries to "promote" him away to the office of the federal president. But enough of the OT: The terms of the contract are exploitative. Imagine if an entire industry said that they were not going to give their workers any legal rights they are entitled to. Would you say to people who are in that industry that it's not a problem because they are voluntarily signing contracts? Liverpool value Coutinho at well over £48m a year, we know this because they pay him £8m per year and have turned down a bit well in excess of £140m. That means he is just under 17% of his true worth to the club because of his contract. It would probably be the same at any club. That's severe exploitation, it's an exploitative system. If he signed a contract with a release clause he would be paid even less. You are arguing here that a man should be paid less than 17% of his value to his company, that he is in the wrong if he insists on leaving and that the club is doing a great thing if they keep exploiting him. It's disgusting. There are no legal rights entitling a footballer to earn more than what he's agreed upon in his contract. There aren't even statutory rights entitling workers to earn more than what's stipulated in their contracts, as long as they earn more than the statutory minimum wage. There are labor agreements between unions and employers, but even they only apply to employees at companies who are members of the social partners associations. And they sure as hell don't cover contracts of employees who earn millions a year. The football equivalent is the FIFPro, and apparently there are labor agreement for England, Italy, and Spain. Guess like with every other labour agreement, they don't cover income millionaires. A player forcing his way out of a contract he voluntarily agreed upon is extortion. You don't get away with that kind of behaviour in any other job. You'd be dismissed effective immediately. Unfortunately, that's not an option for the clubs, because that's exactly what these players want. But we're probably not going to find a common denominator here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 12:35:42 GMT
The terms of the contract are exploitative. Imagine if an entire industry said that they were not going to give their workers any legal rights they are entitled to. Would you say to people who are in that industry that it's not a problem because they are voluntarily signing contracts? Liverpool value Coutinho at well over £48m a year, we know this because they pay him £8m per year and have turned down a bit well in excess of £140m. That means he is just under 17% of his true worth to the club because of his contract. It would probably be the same at any club. That's severe exploitation, it's an exploitative system. If he signed a contract with a release clause he would be paid even less. You are arguing here that a man should be paid less than 17% of his value to his company, that he is in the wrong if he insists on leaving and that the club is doing a great thing if they keep exploiting him. It's disgusting. There are no legal rights entitling a footballer to earn more than what he's agreed upon in his contract. There aren't even statutory rights entitling workers to earn more than what's stipulated in their contracts, as long as they earn more than the statutory minimum wage. There are labor agreements between unions and employers, but even they only apply to employees at companies who are members of the social partners associations. And they sure as hell don't cover contracts of employees who earn millions a year. The football equivalent is the FIFPro, and apparently there are labor agreement for England, Italy, and Spain. Guess like with every other labour agreement, they don't cover income millionaires. A player forcing his way out of a contract he voluntarily agreed upon is extortion. You don't get away with that kind of behaviour in any other job. You'd be dismissed effective immediately. Unfortunately, that's not an option for the clubs, because that's exactly what these players want. But we're probably not going to find a common denominator here. A players career is very short though. Probably lasts an average of around 12 years. Let's just say a 19 year old signs a 5 year contract. At first, he probably can't sign that contract quick enough, all his dreams have come true, earning more money than he has ever seen. But over that 5 years things can change very quickly. A year down the line, he might be homesick, miserable, he might meet the love of his life who lives in another country, or maybe he just wants to further his career at a better club. I dunno, maybe you could say he shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place, but it is pretty hard to turn down, and we've all probably agreed to things in life we've later regretted. You can't tell me it is okay to force someone to stay somewhere they are miserable for almost half their career? By all means give them hell when they come back, but I think you lose the moral high-ground the moment you set out to destroy a person's career. |
|
|
|
Post by mandragora on Aug 28, 2017 12:59:41 GMT
I don't think any of these clubs want to force a player to stay until the end of his contract. I definitely know that with Leipzig, and with Liverpool it also seems to be the case that he told the club he'll stay early in the transfer window and changed his mind later - and for the club too late. Dembele knew he was going to be sold, he was simply trying to force the price down - maybe was encouraged by Barcelona, at least that's what Dortmund officials believe. Not only the player, the club has rights and justified interests, too.
After the Bosman verdict it's in the interest of both sides not to let the contract run down. But that doesn't mean a player can come whenever he likes and force a move. Forsberg and Couthino signed new contracts not even half a year ago. As Midi_Chlorian Count pointed out, if they didn't plan on staying at least two or three years, they shouldn't have signed a new five year deal with no release clause.
As I said, in 95 percent of the cases it's possible to find a solution that's acceptable for both parties. But it's not acceptable for the player to behave like a spoiled five year old if he doesn't immediately get what he wants.
|
|
