49 and OUT!!!

[eduardo]

Ace it's nice to see a Chelsea fan give an honest account of the Abramovich situation as you do, as I know many and I don't think they have a sense of reality.

I agree that you have many overpriced and overpaid players but as I said in my previous post that they probably wouldn't have joined Chelsea otherwise.

I unlike a lot of non Chelsea supporters think that he might be around for a little longer than most think and I in the short term anyway think that his money is and will be good for the game.

Take the summer of 2003. No clubs were buying players because there was no money around. Then Abromovich's money bought Makelele. Madrid used the money to buy Beckham. Utd bought.......and so on and the money filtered through the enitre football system.

That money breathed life into a stagmant football market and alot of clubs reaped the benefit.

The problem in the long term is that every club (exccept Chelsea) has to work to a business plan. Whereas Chelsea don't. Hence the wages go through the roof and clubs overstretch themselves to compete.

[eduardo]

I and all football fans would agree with you that all players money should be performance related but that isn't ever going to happen unfortunately.

When a player transfers then he will always have a number of clubs to choose from and all the clubs could band together and say his pay will be performance related but I bet you one club would break ranks and offer guaranteed money just so as to get him.

Take Jamie Redknapp for example. Before he left Liverpool to join Tottenham he made some statements that he owed Liverpool big time. Why because in the last 3 years of his contract he had barely kicked a ball due to his various injuries.

He said that he owed Liverpool because they had paid his wages, got him the best medical treatment and looked after him well. Because of this loyalty he said he would be going nowhere even though his contract was about to expire and he could therefore leave on a free.

He said he owed the supporters, the club, management etc and would show his loyalty.

Liverpool offered him a pay as you play 2 year contract with half the money guaranteed and the rest dependent on the number of games he played. The estimate was he "could" get ?1.5m a year if fit.

So what did he do? He signed for Tottenham who guaranteed the 2 year ?1.5m a season deal in full.

So much for loyalty then hey.

I don't blame him for doing it though. I'd have the done the same myself as his loyalty is to himself and his family first.

[Deuce Bigolo]

Stimulating the transfer market so the Big teams can expand their Squads
is neither here nor there IMHO

The reason I'm firmly against the Big Money is that far too many clubs are being just feeder clubs to the Rich Clubs.

The system where the Rich Clubs can Poach opposition stars(who are on fire) mid-season is a very bad joke.

The transfer mid-season of Fulhams Saha to Man U illustrated to me how silly & damaging this activity can be.Took the steam out of Fulhams chance of a European spot big time

cheers
B....OZ

[Deuce Bigolo]

Loyalty is certainly a thing of the past but the Club has certainly shown some
and been supremely kicked in the teeth in return

The fact that he went to Tottenham says it was all about money?

God knows your not going to win anything playing at Tottenham in this century

They're not very good at buying players Tottenham,almost as bad as Man C
for duds bought

cheers
B....OZ

[eduardo]

Yeah but for a club to buy a player there has to be willing parties. A club who wants to buy and a club who wants to sell.

Saha was under contract and had a few years left so the fact is that Fulham didn't have to sell.

They chose to do so, so isn't that their fault then?

Surely though this new transfer system brought in by Fifa and the EU is contradictory.

It was changed by the EU because it didn't comply with EU Law on workers rights and was supposed to give players more freedom and the same freedom to choose their employer as ordinary workers but has achieved the total opposite.

Now players can only move at two given times of the season and can only make one permanent transfer per season. Whereas in the old system they could move at any time and as many times as desired whether that be by the players or clubs request.

Surely the new tranfer system has restricted players rights more than the old way?

[Deuce Bigolo]

You'll never convince me that Chris Coleman wanted Saha to leave

It would have been a Business decision by the Fulham Board that asked

Will we be better of financially selling Saha or will we generate more revenue by keeping him and qualifiying for Europe

Anything to do with Players Transferring should be in their Binding Contracts

The simple truth is that they are not like other workers because other workers aren't bought and sold for Millions of Pounds/Dollars

Until they are if they sign a contract they should honor it

No team is going to fork out tens of millions if the player can just waltz out in a month or 2 when they find they're on the bench playing super sub

I think the "on Loan" alternative seems to be the way around breaking these contracts.Then again I might be talking out of my ass

cheers
B....OZ

[eduardo]

I'm not saying that.

The EU rightly came to it senses and made football a special case with regards to EU employment law because if they hadn't done so then some clubs could well have gone to the wall overnight with millions of pounds wiped off there overall value as there capital assets (players) became virtually worthless.

My point is that the current system designed by the EU in conjunction with Fifa is supposed to have less restrictions on players and allow them greater movement and therefore greater rights than the previous system which is simply not the case.

Before players could move at any time of the season and as many times as they liked.

Now they can only move clubs at 2 designated times of the season and can only permanently transfer once in any 12 month period.

Surely this is more restrictive? Now I am not saying whether the new system is right or wrong but if any politician or beaurocrat things the system is better for the players (i.e workers) now then they are surely wrong.

I also agree with you that players should be made to honour contracts that they have signed but they only want this when it suits them.

Take El Hadji (shite) Diouf for example. This summer Liverpool couldn't give him away. Why? Because of his ?30k per week contract and the fact that he had 3 years left. Oh and he's shite. He refused to give up his contract and rightly so as it was signed in good faith.

My problem is that had he come to Liverpool and been a world beater and consequently Real Madrid came kncking then he'd have (like all players) wanted to get out of that contract pronto.

Contracts are one sided in the players favour and soon as it suits them they are off.

So I agree with you that it's about time clubs put there foot down and made them honour them.

[Deuce Bigolo]

If a club buys you for Millions then maybe they own you for what ever period your contract is.Either way its a unique situation which doesn't have a clear solution for clubs,players & fans alike.

Smart High profile players have an OUT clause in any contract

Its easy to see how the players have the clubs over a barrel
They either get their way or they sit it out and the club gets no transfer
Harry Kewells eventual sale to Liverpool for a pittance was a good example of Player power

Any Club that signs an un-tested player like diouff long term deserves all it gets IMHO
Just because you star in a World Cup doesn't mean your going to make it in the EPL.What were they thinking?Only big "we never win anything" clubs make such silly signings

Another good example of a superstar flopping was Ian Rush going to Juventus but the club was smart enough to sign him for only a year?.
Superstar in England,also ran in Italy because of the differing styles of play

Its rare but some of the more high profile basketballers in OZ have them incase European Clubs come knocking

Everybody knows what might happen up front before the season starts so they make contingency plans in the squad

cheers
B....OZ

[eduardo]

Liverpool bought El Shitey Diouf the day before the World Cup started so that didn't really come into it in this case.

The story is even worse than that though as "supposedly" Gerrard Houllier bought him after watching him once on French TV whilst recovering from his heart attack and then decided to buy him.

Ah Gerrard Houllier. I do SO not miss him.

With the Harry Kewell thing then it was widely believed at the time that Leeds got mugged by Liverpool on his transfer but if you've seem him play the last year or so then you may agree with me that it was Liverpool who got stiffed.

He's been very very ordinary and I am being kind there.

[Deuce Bigolo]

Apparently Houllier claims to have been the driving force behind the revival of French Football but the facts don't seem to say that at all from what I've read

Houllier for all his short comings did stop Liverpools slide into obscurity and for one season delivered a bonanza of Minor trophies but that was as good as it was ever going to get for him with his ability of signing good players and reducing them to also rans by playing them out of position

O'Leary got the best out of Kewell at Leeds but only because they were a TEAM.Liverpool at best seem to be a team of bits & pieces IMHO
Then again maybe Kewells best is behind him
I'd imagine not Qualifying for the World Cup AGAIN could easily be a factor in underperforming

Once your financially set for Life you might not be as hungry for success
as you once were?

cheers
B....OZ