|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Sept 8, 2020 7:33:33 GMT
Who do these players think they are? He’s not even particularly good. then they should go and now way should we top up there wages to play for other clubs I voiced an opinion earlier in the thread, that if a player clearly indicates that they do not want to play for us, or be at the club, then that amounts to withdrawal of labour and effective breach of contract. I am sure there are more things that we can legally do to terminate the contract, that we don't seem to have tried yet. |
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Sept 8, 2020 9:52:55 GMT
Yup. Needs sorting.
Employment law here allows employers to cite virtually anything to get rid of an employee within the first two years of service.
Yet in football (or just at Stoke?) it's the players / agents that seem to hold all the cards.
Not saying the system needs a 180° and players's livelihoods aren't protected or respected but it seems at odds with the law as 99.99% of us will experience it and it needs to be at least equitable.
Maybe the Coate's billions will fund the first test case to reset the goal posts?
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 8, 2020 10:02:56 GMT
Players will always hold all the cards. It’s simply down to economics in that the player knows he becomes a club asset reducing in value over his contract. Taking Wimmer as a good example he cost 18m over 5 years. He still has 2 years left so he is still a 7.2m asset to the club. Simply sacking him would massively affect FFP regs plus we would have to pay his remaining contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Sept 8, 2020 10:17:09 GMT
Players will always hold all the cards. It’s simply down to economics in that the player knows he becomes a club asset reducing in value over his contract. Taking Wimmer as a good example he cost 18m over 5 years. He still has 2 years left so he is still a 7.2m asset to the club. Simply sacking him would massively affect FFP regs plus we would have to pay his remaining contract. I was once described as "an asset to the company" and I'm pretty sure that my value to them keeps on increasing!  |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Sept 8, 2020 10:25:49 GMT
Players will always hold all the cards. It’s simply down to economics in that the player knows he becomes a club asset reducing in value over his contract. Taking Wimmer as a good example he cost 18m over 5 years. He still has 2 years left so he is still a 7.2m asset to the club. Simply sacking him would massively affect FFP regs plus we would have to pay his remaining contract. If we sacked him for breach of contract ( not keeping fitness levels etc,) why would we have to honour his contract? |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 8, 2020 10:42:27 GMT
Yup. Needs sorting. Employment law here allows employers to cite virtually anything to get rid of an employee within the first two years of service. Yet in football (or just at Stoke?) it's the players / agents that seem to hold all the cards. Not saying the system needs a 180° and players's livelihoods aren't protected or respected but it seems at odds with the law as 99.99% of us will experience it and it needs to be at least equitable. Maybe the Coate's billions will fund the first test case to reset the goal posts? It is the contract system that allows this to happen. It stops players leaving if the club doesn't agree to them leaving before the end of their contract but it also means that the club can't simply sack them before the end of their contract if it wishes to do so. When I was employed, effectively I was on a monthly contract which meant I could always leave if I gave a month's notice. To get rid of me my employer either had to go through normal redundancy procedures or had to prove a I had behaved very badly or incompetently. The footballer, on the other hand, may be on a short or long contract ranging from a few months to 5+ years. We chose to give our most expensive players 5 year contracts and it has come back to bite us. Bauer is the weirdest of all - for some reason, after we got relegated and were without a manager, we offered to extend his contract for reasons which I have never understood - surely any extension should have waited until a new manager had been appointed and had given his opinion on Bauer's quality or the lack of it.  |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Sept 8, 2020 10:52:48 GMT
The only game in the Premier where he had a good 90 minutes was last game of the season - Swansea away. I thought he had a good 45 minutes in most games, but couldn’t put two good halves together; I also could never really figure out what his real skill was? Not a great passer, certainly not a dribbler, and when at CDM quite often got drawn out of position. Yet another that we can’t even get a basic fee of a couple of million for. He was one of only 3-4 players who could not be blamed for our relegation |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 8, 2020 11:14:09 GMT
Yup. Needs sorting. Employment law here allows employers to cite virtually anything to get rid of an employee within the first two years of service. Yet in football (or just at Stoke?) it's the players / agents that seem to hold all the cards. Not saying the system needs a 180° and players's livelihoods aren't protected or respected but it seems at odds with the law as 99.99% of us will experience it and it needs to be at least equitable. Maybe the Coate's billions will fund the first test case to reset the goal posts? It's not just Stoke It's a reoccurring issue across football and particularly acute at clubs who drop out of the Premier League and don't get back in The central issue is that Premier League players,are paid far more than they would get abroad or in the Championship. If those players fail (& obviously in our case it was a lot of players) then those clubs are generally stuck with then until contracts expire. See Leeds under Risdale as the classic example You could fill pages with non Stoke examples though. |
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Sept 8, 2020 13:35:39 GMT
Yup. Needs sorting. Employment law here allows employers to cite virtually anything to get rid of an employee within the first two years of service. Yet in football (or just at Stoke?) it's the players / agents that seem to hold all the cards. Not saying the system needs a 180° and players's livelihoods aren't protected or respected but it seems at odds with the law as 99.99% of us will experience it and it needs to be at least equitable. Maybe the Coate's billions will fund the first test case to reset the goal posts? It's not just Stoke It's a reoccurring issue across football and particularly acute at clubs who drop out of the Premier League and don't get back in The central issue is that Premier League players,are paid far more than they would get abroad or in the Championship. If those players fail (& obviously in our case it was a lot of players) then those clubs are generally stuck with then until contracts expire. See Leeds under Risdale as the classic example You could fill pages with non Stoke examples though. The "only at Stoke" bit was tongue in cheek tbh as it seems like we've have a whole second team of the useless articles recently. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing obviously but surely we weren't so arrogant in our Prem years as to assume relegation would never happen to us? (I think I just answered that ...) And what do the 'potential drop' candidates in the Prem now do with their contacts I wonder? As Forny says above, an employer has to prove that an individual has done something very wrong to fire you but surely a clever legal mind could incorporate some aspect of collective responsibility across the squad's contracts? (Salary cuts covers that one I guess.) But, as mentioned numerous times before, in the case of a player just downing tools because he didn't fancy the C'ship all of a sudden, is surely grounds for some sort of contract 'adjustment'? If I was PC, I'd spend some lose change to find out I think. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 8, 2020 16:23:08 GMT
It's not just Stoke It's a reoccurring issue across football and particularly acute at clubs who drop out of the Premier League and don't get back in The central issue is that Premier League players,are paid far more than they would get abroad or in the Championship. If those players fail (& obviously in our case it was a lot of players) then those clubs are generally stuck with then until contracts expire. See Leeds under Risdale as the classic example You could fill pages with non Stoke examples though. The "only at Stoke" bit was tongue in cheek tbh as it seems like we've have a whole second team of the useless articles recently. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing obviously but surely we weren't so arrogant in our Prem years as to assume relegation would never happen to us? (I think I just answered that ...) And what do the 'potential drop' candidates in the Prem now do with their contacts I wonder? As Forny says above, an employer has to prove that an individual has done something very wrong to fire you but surely a clever legal mind could incorporate some aspect of collective responsibility across the squad's contracts? (Salary cuts covers that one I guess.) But, as mentioned numerous times before, in the case of a player just downing tools because he didn't fancy the C'ship all of a sudden, is surely grounds for some sort of contract 'adjustment'? If I was PC, I'd spend some lose change to find out I think. Think different clubs do different things Burnley refuse to spend too much on wages & miss out on players a result (e.g. Clucas to us) , if they go down they wont have a financial mess Newcastle have gone down twice in last decade but still don't have relegation wage decreases built in (even Stoke managed that) Fulham spent a fortune and came back down, should they have a prolonged spell in the Championship they would surely have a problem? e.t.c. as for the breach of contract stuff, if they literally withdraw their services i..e refuse to train,refuse to play then yes clubs could fuck them & their contracts off that doesn't happen though does it (does it?....) the players turn up for training & play - even if often they are utterly half arsed about it Badou was clearly like that under Rowett at Leeds, it was shocking however under Jones he put the yards in I guess as long as theere is much money in the Prem then the only answer is for clubs to have clauses in contacts whereby wages go down to Championship level upon relegation, so not 50% cuts but more like 75% cuts in some cases Of course if a club does that then you'd assume that most players wouldn't accept those contracts in the first place |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 8, 2020 16:23:27 GMT
Players will always hold all the cards. It’s simply down to economics in that the player knows he becomes a club asset reducing in value over his contract. Taking Wimmer as a good example he cost 18m over 5 years. He still has 2 years left so he is still a 7.2m asset to the club. Simply sacking him would massively affect FFP regs plus we would have to pay his remaining contract. If we sacked him for breach of contract ( not keeping fitness levels etc,) why would we have to honour his contract? We could sack him for BOC and maybe avoid paying off his contract. But Wimmer is currently a 7.2m asset which would be immediately wiped off Stokes books. As I said, this is why footballers hold all the cards. I don’t see how it can change unless contracts could be written where a sacked player is deemed liable to pay the club his remaining asset value. I’m sure the PFA would have something to say about that though. After all it was these who introduced the maximum fine a club could impose on a player of 2 weeks wages. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 8, 2020 17:00:29 GMT
The "only at Stoke" bit was tongue in cheek tbh as it seems like we've have a whole second team of the useless articles recently. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing obviously but surely we weren't so arrogant in our Prem years as to assume relegation would never happen to us? (I think I just answered that ...) And what do the 'potential drop' candidates in the Prem now do with their contacts I wonder? As Forny says above, an employer has to prove that an individual has done something very wrong to fire you but surely a clever legal mind could incorporate some aspect of collective responsibility across the squad's contracts? (Salary cuts covers that one I guess.) But, as mentioned numerous times before, in the case of a player just downing tools because he didn't fancy the C'ship all of a sudden, is surely grounds for some sort of contract 'adjustment'? If I was PC, I'd spend some lose change to find out I think. Think different clubs do different things Burnley refuse to spend too much on wages & miss out on players a result (e.g. Clucas to us) , if they go down they wont have a financial mess Newcastle have gone down twice in last decade but still don't have relegation wage decreases built in (even Stoke managed that) Fulham spent a fortune and came back down, should they have a prolonged spell in the Championship they would surely have a problem? e.t.c. as for the breach of contract stuff, if they literally withdraw their services i..e refuse to train,refuse to play then yes clubs could fuck them & their contracts off that doesn't happen though does it (does it?....) the players turn up for training & play - even if often they are utterly half arsed about it Badou was clearly like that under Rowett at Leeds, it was shocking however under Jones he put the yards in I guess as long as theere is much money in the Prem then the only answer is for clubs to have clauses in contacts whereby wages go down to Championship level upon relegation, so not 50% cuts but more like 75% cuts in some cases Of course if a club does that then you'd assume that most players wouldn't accept those contracts in the first place
Depends on the club I suspect. Players would sign for top clubs like Liverpool and Man Citeh with a relegation clause in their contracts knowing that the chances of relegation were very low. The same is not true of Stoke even though we stayed up for longer than most teams manage to. |
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 9, 2020 17:45:44 GMT
Confirmation expected tonight apparently with the traditional Turkish purchase option of 7m euros. Think we can already guess which way they'r going to go with the option.  |
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Sept 9, 2020 17:47:50 GMT
Confirmation expected tonight apparently with the traditional Turkish purchase option of 7m euros. Think we can already guess which way they'r going to go with the option. It may as well be 7m Turkish Delight for all the likelihood they will ever pay it! |
|
|
|
Post by wazbagsbro on Sept 9, 2020 18:00:35 GMT
BET 365 WILL UNDERSTAND HOW TO TERMINATE A CONTRACT ,FOR WHATEVER REASON ,BETTER THAN ALMOST ALL STOKE / FOOTBALL SUPPORTERS. THEY EMPLOY SELF EMPLOYED CONTRACTERS FOR OVER £1000 A DAY.WE NEED TO TRUST THE CLUB HAVE ALL THE KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO GET US BACK ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT SUFFERING FROM overspending and being punished
|
|
|
|
Post by wazbagsbro on Sept 9, 2020 18:04:30 GMT
I know that's not footballers wage but contract law is contract law surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 9, 2020 18:30:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 9, 2020 18:39:56 GMT
Everything seems to be really open there with salaries and loan fees, with them having to be reported.
Loan fee of 675k
And salary of 1.2m euros
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 9, 2020 18:40:47 GMT
Just the 3 wasters left then
|
|
|
|
Post by The battheader chronicles on Sept 9, 2020 18:42:35 GMT
Everything seems to be really open there with salaries and loan fees, with them having to be reported. Loan fee of 675k And salary of 1.2m euros Not a bad deal that |
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Sept 9, 2020 18:47:06 GMT
BET 365 WILL UNDERSTAND HOW TO TERMINATE A CONTRACT ,FOR WHATEVER REASON ,BETTER THAN ALMOST ALL STOKE / FOOTBALL SUPPORTERS. THEY EMPLOY SELF EMPLOYED CONTRACTERS FOR OVER £1000 A DAY.WE NEED TO TRUST THE CLUB HAVE ALL THE KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED TO GET US BACK ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT SUFFERING FROM overspending and being punished Parklife! |
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Sept 9, 2020 19:52:05 GMT
Thank fuck he's gone just another 3 more now. Gouranga.  |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 9, 2020 19:53:04 GMT
Everything seems to be really open there with salaries and loan fees, with them having to be reported. Loan fee of 675k And salary of 1.2m euros Exactly how it should be everywhere |
|
|
|
Post by unknown182 on Sept 9, 2020 20:13:04 GMT
It makes you wonder why he agreed to sign here in the first place if he doesn't want to play championship football. He'll be out on loans until his contract runs out here.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Sept 9, 2020 20:26:49 GMT
Thank fuck he's gone just another 3 more now. Gouranga. Plus Butland, Lindsay and Either Gregory or Afobe would be good |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Sept 9, 2020 20:39:06 GMT
Thank fuck he's gone just another 3 more now. Gouranga. Plus Butland, Lindsay and Either Gregory or Afobe would be good And the rest. At least one more centre back (Bruno) and one more forward - we need to get rid of two of Gregory, Afobe and Ince now Brown has signed. I suspect Edwards will be off too |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Sept 9, 2020 20:41:15 GMT
Everything seems to be really open there with salaries and loan fees, with them having to be reported. Loan fee of 675k And salary of 1.2m euros They negotiate hard. Only paying 9 months wages |
|
obhstokie
Academy Starlet
Vis Unita Fortior
Posts: 233
|
Post by obhstokie on Sept 9, 2020 20:43:53 GMT
It makes you wonder why he agreed to sign here in the first place if he doesn't want to play championship football. He'll be out on loans until his contract runs out here. Do you know how long a contract we gave him? Hoepfully we learnt from giving out 5 year deals to everyone.... |
|
|
|
Post by bolders on Sept 9, 2020 20:53:35 GMT
Plus Butland, Lindsay and Either Gregory or Afobe would be good And the rest. At least one more centre back (Bruno) and one more forward - we need to get rid of two of Gregory, Afobe and Ince now Brown has signed. I suspect Edwards will be off too I forgot Bruno, don’t think we will get rid of Ince this season he will want 4 wingers. We have no back up if Edwards goes, plus if he does go I think it will only be a loan |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 9, 2020 21:04:16 GMT
|
|
