Bosman 2.0

[Fen Canary 1,456]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cjwdydnl3w0o
 

Perhaps others can explain this in more detail, but as I’ve read it a player can simply now refuse to play for a club, get himself sacked and then move to another with no repercussions.

He may be liable for some compensation to the old club for breach of contract but seeing as this will likely be much less than a transfer fee would otherwise be (and decided by the courts rather than the club) no doubt the new club will gladly cover the costs as part of a signing on bonus.

In my eyes this has the potential to completely destroy transfer fees in football, making contracts essentially worthless 

[chicken 3,086]

12 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cjwdydnl3w0o
 

Perhaps others can explain this in more detail, but as I’ve read it a player can simply now refuse to play for a club, get himself sacked and then move to another with no repercussions.

He may be liable for some compensation to the old club for breach of contract but seeing as this will likely be much less than a transfer fee would otherwise be (and decided by the courts rather than the club) no doubt the new club will gladly cover the costs as part of a signing on bonus.

In my eyes this has the potential to completely destroy transfer fees in football, making contracts essentially worthless 

Clubs just won't sack players for the time being.

Football transfers are farcical anyway. Fifa have long needed to sort out transfer rules. They are long overdue a shake up.

FFP or whatever it's called now doesn't really work. The FA's homegrown rule never worked to do as intended, in fact, made it worse (thanks Greg ****).

Transfers between clubs owned by the same 'group'/people are dodgy AF too.

And yet we're meant to trust FIFA etc. It's honestly laughable.

I feel sorry for Big Sam, he got exposed but it's a drop in the ocean of corruption and rubbish, dodgy practice in football. It's what happens when there is far too much money in something.

It's like tapping up rules. You can't tell me players aren't getting tapped up?

[Robert N. LiM 6,279]

3 minutes ago, chicken said:

thanks Greg ****

Up there with S****horpe as my favourite victim of the forum's naughty-words filter.

 

Edited October 5 by Robert N. LiM

[Fen Canary 1,456]

8 minutes ago, chicken said:

Clubs just won't sack players for the time being.

Football transfers are farcical anyway. Fifa have long needed to sort out transfer rules. They are long overdue a shake up.

FFP or whatever it's called now doesn't really work. The FA's homegrown rule never worked to do as intended, in fact, made it worse (thanks Greg ****).

Transfers between clubs owned by the same 'group'/people are dodgy AF too.

And yet we're meant to trust FIFA etc. It's honestly laughable.

I feel sorry for Big Sam, he got exposed but it's a drop in the ocean of corruption and rubbish, dodgy practice in football. It's what happens when there is far too much money in something.

It's like tapping up rules. You can't tell me players aren't getting tapped up?

FIFA are massively corrupt (as is football in general but it always has been)  but I don’t really understand what you mean by transfer being farcical. Are you suggesting transfer fees shouldn’t happen?

What about the original point I was making? If a player is refusing to play can a club simply stop paying his wages? What’s to stop him pretending to be injured? I just feel this ruling has the potential to destroy transfer fees as we know them if not carefully managed 

[dylanisabaddog 6,135]

24 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

FIFA are massively corrupt (as is football in general but it always has been)  but I don’t really understand what you mean by transfer being farcical. Are you suggesting transfer fees shouldn’t happen?

What about the original point I was making? If a player is refusing to play can a club simply stop paying his wages? What’s to stop him pretending to be injured? I just feel this ruling has the potential to destroy transfer fees as we know them if not carefully managed 

There was a detailed account in the Guardian yesterday and more today. The outcome isn't as bad as FIFA feared but I think the legal profession is still picking through the detail so the full repurcussions may not be known for a while. 

FIFA had feared that footballers would be given the right to hand in a month's notice and move to another employer just like you and I. It doesn't look like that has happened. 

Edited October 5 by dylanisabaddog

[dylanisabaddog 6,135]

[Up and Away 96]

51 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cjwdydnl3w0o
 

Perhaps others can explain this in more detail, but as I’ve read it a player can simply now refuse to play for a club, get himself sacked and then move to another with no repercussions.

He may be liable for some compensation to the old club for breach of contract but seeing as this will likely be much less than a transfer fee would otherwise be (and decided by the courts rather than the club) no doubt the new club will gladly cover the costs as part of a signing on bonus.

In my eyes this has the potential to completely destroy transfer fees in football, making contracts essentially worthless 

There are two interlinked issues. The first is the right of a player to give notice on their contract, which is not currently possible. Players sign fixed term rather than permanent employment contracts. The second is whether the acquiring club should pay compensation when signing a player who has breached their contract. 

Transfer fees are an anachronism in the labour market, top executives can freely move to other companies. There are things you can do to reduce the risk of players handing in their notice. Remuneration can be back loaded, so you get a small percentage of your basic wage each month with the majority paid out as a guaranteed bonus at the end of the contract (loyalty bonus) but the bonus is waived if notice has been handed in. You can also set long notice periods, for some executives this can be 12 months. In many cases, executives are put on garden leave. How would a player feel about not being able to play for 12 months? Their value to the new employer would likely diminish?

It is complicated and not entirely clear where it will end up. Stepping back for a moment, in a word without transfer fees the clubs that generate the most revenue will still have the most to spend. They will spend more on wages (and possibly lawyers!) if there are no transfer fees. It will though remove the incentive for the big clubs to hoover up all the young talent as they would not be able to sell them on for £ms anymore. Finally if all clubs lived within their means, they would not need transfer fees to plug the gap on their overspent budget. 

[cornish sam 1,040]

Surely it's not just breached their contract, but rather had their contract terminated. Which does kind of make sense, you can't fire someone and then refuse to let them get employed elsewhere... It feels like it was a stupid hill for FIFA to fight on in this instance as it has opened a can of worms that could have stayed shut...

[norwich canary 171]

This transfer fee nonsense needs to stop and tv money should be equally shared between all league clubs. That will transform the game for the better 

[The Raptor 1,573]

7 minutes ago, norwich canary said:

This transfer fee nonsense needs to stop and tv money should be equally shared between all league clubs. That will transform the game for the better 

Ipswich shouldn't get any TV money though. No one wants to watch those fools

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

There was a detailed account in the Guardian yesterday and more today. The outcome isn't as bad as FIFA feared but I think the legal profession is still picking through the detail so the full repurcussions may not be known for a while. 

FIFA had feared that footballers would be given the right to hand in a month's notice and move to another employer just like you and I. It doesn't look like that has happened. 

MacInnes, a Norwich City fan, has been ahead of the game on this.
 

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

Cole Palmer has signed a 9 year contract with Chelsea. Presumably he can walk walk away when he gets fed up unless they have worded it approapiately. As said this effectively could end transfer fees, depending on how it ends up.

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

6 hours ago, cornish sam said:

Surely it's not just breached their contract, but rather had their contract terminated. Which does kind of make sense, you can't fire someone and then refuse to let them get employed elsewhere... It feels like it was a stupid hill for FIFA to fight on in this instance as it has opened a can of worms that could have stayed shut...

That was my initial understanding when I was reading about the verdict the other day; it seemed like the main issue was not giving international clearance to a player who had more-or-less been sacked. International clearance does seem a little bit outdated in the modern era anyway. 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,330]

I would've thought the club had other options than sacking available to them, if the player doesn't turn up for training. Once they've sacked him, he should be free to get a new contract with a club wherever he can.

Regarding the  Bosman issue all those years ago, I think it was a disgrace the way he was treated. And I hope all those players who have benefited from that ruling are grateful for the shít he went through. It's a shame he hasn't been supported better once he finished playing 

[Fen Canary 1,456]

12 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I would've thought the club had other options than sacking available to them, if the player doesn't turn up for training. Once they've sacked him, he should be free to get a new contract with a club wherever he can.

Regarding the  Bosman issue all those years ago, I think it was a disgrace the way he was treated. And I hope all those players who have benefited from that ruling are grateful for the shít he went through. It's a shame he hasn't been supported better once he finished playing 

What are the other options available to a club though? Can they just refuse to pay him if he doesn’t turn up to training? How about if he turns up but doesn’t apply himself, or feigns injury after injury?

Being able to prevent a player from playing until the club has received any compensation they’re owed seems fair to me

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,330]

9 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

What are the other options available to a club though? Can they just refuse to pay him if he doesn’t turn up to training? How about if he turns up but doesn’t apply himself, or feigns injury after injury?

Being able to prevent a player from playing until the club has received any compensation they’re owed seems fair to me

I think clubs can issue fines to players that don't turn up, though I don't know if that is time limited. I guess it depends on the contract. The medical teams should be able to spot a player feigning injury. Not giving 100% is a tricky one 

The initial report I read was that the club sacked him. I've since seen another report that says the player terminated the contract. If that was the case, then the club would have a good argument for compensation 

[Fen Canary 1,456]

1 hour ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I think clubs can issue fines to players that don't turn up, though I don't know if that is time limited. I guess it depends on the contract. The medical teams should be able to spot a player feigning injury. Not giving 100% is a tricky one 

The initial report I read was that the club sacked him. I've since seen another report that says the player terminated the contract. If that was the case, then the club would have a good argument for compensation 

I must admit I’ve read conflicting reports, some say he was sacked for refusing to train/play, others said he resigned so I’m not too sure what the truth is.

I just feel it’s a worrying development if a player can quit/get himself sacked and then waltz into another club before the compensation is paid. It has the potential to destroy transfer fees if not handled correctly 

[chicken 3,086]

On 05/10/2024 at 10:13, Fen Canary said:

FIFA are massively corrupt (as is football in general but it always has been)  but I don’t really understand what you mean by transfer being farcical. Are you suggesting transfer fees shouldn’t happen?

What about the original point I was making? If a player is refusing to play can a club simply stop paying his wages? What’s to stop him pretending to be injured? I just feel this ruling has the potential to destroy transfer fees as we know them if not carefully managed 

For starters, transfer windows being open at different times. Then closing them after a season has started, only for there to be an international break a few weeks after it's shut...

Then how the agents are just mavericks, many clearly not interested in the welfare of the players they represent.

It's a massively archaic system that's corrupt and allowed to become this huge festering, bloated mess. How you can have teams in debt to the tune of hundres of millions allowed to spend £100m on a player, £300kpw in wages whilst a team that isn't maybe spends that in total... and be in the same league and placing in and around a European spot...

[BurwellCanary 256]

On 05/10/2024 at 17:10, Capt. Pants said:

Cole Palmer has signed a 9 year contract with Chelsea. Presumably he can walk walk away when he gets fed up unless they have worded it approapiately. As said this effectively could end transfer fees, depending on how it ends up.

 

Isn't the lengthy contract becoming the way around the FFP rules. By spreading the transfer cost over a longer period it reduces the annual spend and keeps clubs within limits?

But this could very easily change the transfer system and what is the knock on effect for lower division clubs as a result. 

 

 

[king canary 8,754]

It is kind of fun to imagine a world without transfer fees. They are so ingrained in football that people forget that they aren't the norm in most other sports. 

I like how things are done in American sports- collective bargaining agreements govern how contracts work, players can be traded or released but no team can use financial muscle to get a player from another team while under contract.

Sometimes these deals are skewed too far in the favour of rich owners but in general the system helps keep leagues competitive.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

4 hours ago, BurwellCanary said:

Isn't the lengthy contract becoming the way around the FFP rules. By spreading the transfer cost over a longer period it reduces the annual spend and keeps clubs within limits?

That loophole was closed very quickly. Clubs can offer contracts for whatever length they wish, but the maximum for amortising the fee is five years.

[sgncfc 1,330]

Selling a players registration is very much contrary to the way employment rights are moving, so it's no real surprise that transfer fees are under scrutiny. It just means that good players will get paid even more. The major impact will be on club funding - TV money would have to be shared more evenly in order to compete on wages, and supporters will be asked to pay lots more to watch live.