[Football] £14m player signng on fee

[kjgood]

I don't think my conscience could cope with that sort of money.

I'm sad to say mine would.

 

[NooBHA]

What about when a record company owns the rights to a musician, and they can only sell music through that company?

I thought you had passed away ''George'' LOL Only joking Triggaaar

That's another bone of contention with me but due to the George Michael issue several years back Artists tend to have clauses drawn into their contracts these days where they don't get themselves tied up in such situations

 

[NooBHA]

It works the other way too though, when a player is injured, or isn't putting the effort in, they still get paid every single week until their contract expires.

If a player is concerned they might not be first choice all the time, and wants to be playing every week, they shouldn't sign long contracts, the choice is theirs.

I think I covered this in an earlier posts and I do concede there is a need to reserve contracts on both sides. It's the '' transfer fee '' to sell a player on that I take issue with

 

[NooBHA]

In accountancy (don't know about other professions) the company gets years of cheap labour out of the trainees which massively outweighs the cost of training that they pay for. I know of firms whose business model used to be based around this, knowing that the majority of staff would move on once they qualified for a better paid job.

It's not really the same as developing an "asset" which goes from a value of zero to millions only to have to give it away for free.

And therein lies my issue and my bone of contention........................... Human Beings are NOT Assets to be owned by anyone

 

[Triggaaar]

That's another bone of contention with me

Right, so it's not just sportsmen.

but due to the George Michael issue several years back Artists tend to have clauses drawn into their contracts these days where they don't get themselves tied up in such situations

Well known artists with power can have such clauses, but nobodies like George was, don't have the power to insist on such clauses.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think I covered this in an earlier posts and I do concede there is a need to reserve contracts on both sides. It's the '' transfer fee '' to sell a player on that I take issue with

Sure, but if there was no transfer fee, then the players wouldn't be assets, and the clubs wouldn't want to pay for them when injured.

I'm not against changing it, it's not something I've spent time thinking about, but it's not like the players don't have a choice on how long a contract to sign.

 

[NooBHA]

Right, so it's not just sportsmen.
Well known artists with power can have such clauses, but nobodies like George was, don't have the power to insist on such clauses.

The point I am trying to make is that all human beings should have the right not to be forced into a continuance of ''future service/subserviance''. They should have the right to withdraw their labour at any given point.

The Music Industry does have something similar but not quite the same. Everyone in any profession has a worth but all I am saying is that an individual has to be given the right to withdraw their consent at any given point. By all means put a clause in that if you terminate your contract early that there will be a Financial Penalty if either party fails to fulfil that contract but it should not be at the expense of Civil Liberties or that withdrawing labour from a particular Entity stops them working elsewhere in the future.

We already have it in that companies are not allowed to give a negative reference on someone which stops them gaining employment elsewhere. Although Companies do get round this.

I know people will have differing opinions on this subject. I am just explaining what my views are and I have no issue with anyone who holds a different opinion on the subject.

 

[NooBHA]

Sure, but if there was no transfer fee, then the players wouldn't be assets, and the clubs wouldn't want to pay for them when injured.

I'm not against changing it, it's not something I've spent time thinking about, but it's not like the players don't have a choice on how long a contract to sign.

If there was no transfer fees then all contracts would be only one or two years at the most. The only reason clubs put players on long term contracts is to stop them running contracts down and going for free.. Players would adapt very easily to shorter contracts. To be honest I don't even know why they enter into longer contracts. Except the ones nearing the end of their careers or who know that not many clubs might take them on when a contract expires

 

[LlcoolJ]

The point I am trying to make is that all human beings should have the right not to be forced into a continuance of ''future service/subserviance''. They should have the right to withdraw their labour at any given point.

The Music Industry does have something similar but not quite the same. Everyone in any profession has a worth but all I am saying is that an individual has to be given the right to withdraw their consent at any given point. By all means put a clause in that if you terminate your contract early that there will be a Financial Penalty if either party fails to fulfil that contract but it should not be at the expense of Civil Liberties or that withdrawing labour from a particular Entity stops them working elsewhere in the future.

We already have it in that companies are not allowed to give a negative reference on someone which stops them gaining employment elsewhere. Although Companies do get round this.

I know people will have differing opinions on this subject. I am just explaining what my views are and I have no issue with anyone who holds a different opinion on the subject.

Didn't Diego Costa do exactly that though? Withdraw labour and force a move to a new employer that he chose?

Anyway, I can't see the current system changing any time soon. For change to occur, people on one side or the other need to really want it to. Since Bosman, players now have much more power so why upset a system that works for them?

I get your viewpoint about people as assets but if the assets are happy being treated as such (and it's really just a label when they have so much freedom) then it's not exactly slavery is it.

I think of it like a director of a company that without whom would be of no value. For people to invest in the company, they would have to have a contract in place that the director isn't going to just piss off and start something new. So he/she is not an asset on the balance sheet but in reality that's exactly what they are.

 

[Triggaaar]

If there was no transfer fees then all contracts would be only one or two years at the most. The only reason clubs put players on long term contracts is to stop them running contracts down and going for free.. Players would adapt very easily to shorter contracts. To be honest I don't even know why they enter into longer contracts.

Probably because they get offered more per week to be on a longer contract. It's their choice.

 

[Triggaaar]

The point I am trying to make is that all human beings should have the right not to be forced into a continuance of ''future service/subserviance''.

So now you're against marriage too?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Strange comparisons. Tennis players, pop stars, tv celebrities, film stars some of whom haven't got an ounce of talent, but just happen to have good looks.

Dunno what you're talking about...

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Strange comparisons. Tennis players, pop stars, tv celebrities, film stars some of whom haven't got an ounce of talent, but just happen to have good looks.

Still don't know what you're talking about...

 

[Bold Seagull]

The point I am trying to make is that all human beings should have the right not to be forced into a continuance of ''future service/subserviance''. They should have the right to withdraw their labour at any given point.

They're not forced, there are always termination clauses to a contract to both sides, and both usually involve compensation. You sign a contract you are bound to its terms. The player's right to withdraw or terminate the contract would be known at the time of signing. The reason we don't hear of it is that players will not want to pay the compensation back to the club. Likewise a transfer request normally cancels the compensation the player would receive through the parent club terminating the contract.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So now you're against marriage too?

Bravo.

 

[NooBHA]

so now you're against marriage too?

lol lol lol lol lol