|
|
Post by Stoke70 on Oct 5, 2024 9:30:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 5, 2024 10:14:28 GMT
Basically means the contracts aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
Which means transfer fees are pointless.
Interesting to see how this goes because on the face it, it opens up madness.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2024 10:38:13 GMT
Basically means the contracts aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Which means transfer fees are pointless. Interesting to see how this goes because on the face it, it opens up madness. The status of a players contract does not change. As I read it if a player terminates their contract with a club (or vice versa) the other party could still take out a civil action for breach of contract. What has changed is that the player can still join another club which they couldn't do previously under FIFA's rule. I think the ruling is right. Suppose your employer tried to reduce your wages (which is what Locomotiv Moscow tried to do to Diarra) wouldn't you want the option of walking out on you contract? And presumably you would expect to work elsewhere which is what the current FIFA rules don't allow. Clubs should not own players to that extent. |
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Oct 5, 2024 10:47:53 GMT
teams will just install clauses in contracts to cover these issues
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2024 11:11:38 GMT
smaller contracts for most players, HUGE contracts for the superstars.
this is utter madness, and it's going to create chaos.
hypothetically - and as i understand it (could be very wrong) - if the players can leave at the drop of a hat, theres nothing to stop Team A, recruiting player X, on a short term, monthly basis. Which means should Team A, be playing Team B in a cup final, they can recruit who they want for it (Player X), and then the player can leave for another team afterwards?
i know that's an extreme or weak analogy, but it works along those lines?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stoke70 on Oct 5, 2024 11:13:07 GMT
teams will just install clauses in contracts to cover these issues Probably but the players and their agents will maybe oppose |
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 5, 2024 11:43:45 GMT
I'm always wary of more player power because I think they arguably have too much anyway and can essentially hold clubs to ransom by not performing, but I think this is possibly the right move because the club were seemingly trying to reduce his wages, he absolutely should have told them to stick it and found somewhere else.
I might have that wrong though, to be honest I don't really care that much. I'm only posting this because I'm having a poo and don't have any paper so I'm just waiting for it to air-dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokefc on Oct 5, 2024 11:53:38 GMT
I'm always wary of more player power because I think they arguably have too much anyway and can essentially hold clubs to ransom by not performing, but I think this is possibly the right move because the club were seemingly trying to reduce his wages, he absolutely should have told them to stick it and found somewhere else. I might have that wrong though, to be honest I don't really care that much. I'm only posting this because I'm having a poo and don't have any paper so I'm just waiting for it to air-dry.Don't worry , you can peel it off in a couple of hours  |
|
|
|
Post by hcstokie on Oct 5, 2024 12:59:37 GMT
Basically means the contracts aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Which means transfer fees are pointless. Interesting to see how this goes because on the face it, it opens up madness. The status of a players contract does not change. As I read it if a player terminates their contract with a club (or vice versa) the other party could still take out a civil action for breach of contract. What has changed is that the player can still join another club which they couldn't do previously under FIFA's rule. I think the ruling is right. Suppose your employer tried to reduce your wages (which is what Locomotiv Moscow tried to do to Diarra) wouldn't you want the option of walking out on you contract? And presumably you would expect to work elsewhere which is what the current FIFA rules don't allow. Clubs should not own players to that extent. I read it the same way as you, however, it does open up the potential of players purposefully getting their contracts cancelled, knowing that they can then immediately join another club. In that instance the original club would want (quite rightly) compensation for the breach of contract (if applicable) and the loss of an asset. |
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Oct 5, 2024 13:12:59 GMT
It'll mean big clubs getting players potentially for the cost of remaining contract (in wages? Will this means transfer fees fall and wages rise?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Oct 5, 2024 13:15:54 GMT
smaller contracts for most players, HUGE contracts for the superstars. this is utter madness, and it's going to create chaos. hypothetically - and as i understand it (could be very wrong) - if the players can leave at the drop of a hat, theres nothing to stop Team A, recruiting player X, on a short term, monthly basis. Which means should Team A, be playing Team B in a cup final, they can recruit who they want for it (Player X), and then the player can leave for another team afterwards? i know that's an extreme or weak analogy, but it works along those lines? Would FIFA be allowed to keep the 2 teams a season rule? |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 5, 2024 13:23:18 GMT
smaller contracts for most players, HUGE contracts for the superstars. this is utter madness, and it's going to create chaos. hypothetically - and as i understand it (could be very wrong) - if the players can leave at the drop of a hat, theres nothing to stop Team A, recruiting player X, on a short term, monthly basis. Which means should Team A, be playing Team B in a cup final, they can recruit who they want for it (Player X), and then the player can leave for another team afterwards? i know that's an extreme or weak analogy, but it works along those lines? Would FIFA be allowed to keep the 2 teams a season rule? Yes because that doesn't affect employment |
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Oct 5, 2024 13:41:04 GMT
Would FIFA be allowed to keep the 2 teams a season rule? Yes because that doesn't affect employment This might reduce the chopping and changing but a team could potentially turn over a squad every season if wages better elsewhere and demand is out there Could make Bosman look like a minor issue over time |
|
|
|
Post by pavel on Oct 5, 2024 14:01:27 GMT
Anything that curtails and pisses off that corrupt and reprehensible organisation is fine with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2024 14:03:31 GMT
teams will just install clauses in contracts to cover these issues The FIFA rules have been declared illegal. Clubs cannot draw up a contract of employment thar breaks the law and if someone signs a contract that is illegal the courts would declare it null and void. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 5, 2024 14:13:52 GMT
The status of a players contract does not change. As I read it if a player terminates their contract with a club (or vice versa) the other party could still take out a civil action for breach of contract. What has changed is that the player can still join another club which they couldn't do previously under FIFA's rule. I think the ruling is right. Suppose your employer tried to reduce your wages (which is what Locomotiv Moscow tried to do to Diarra) wouldn't you want the option of walking out on you contract? And presumably you would expect to work elsewhere which is what the current FIFA rules don't allow. Clubs should not own players to that extent. I read it the same way as you, however, it does open up the potential of players purposefully getting their contracts cancelled, knowing that they can then immediately join another club. In that instance the original club would want (quite rightly) compensation for the breach of contract (if applicable) and the loss of an asset. Yes I agree but this ruling does not prevent the original club from taking a civil case against the player for a breach of contract. I assume Leagues could make it a rule that no player can play for 2 clubs in a season providing the player can still play for a club in a different League. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 5, 2024 16:24:57 GMT
teams will just install clauses in contracts to cover these issues The FIFA rules have been declared illegal. Clubs cannot draw up a contract of employment thar breaks the law and if someone signs a contract that is illegal the courts would declare it null and void. And if you're in Russia you're gonna get fucked but that's your own fault for trusting their promises and you deserve it IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Oct 5, 2024 16:27:02 GMT
I'm always wary of more player power because I think they arguably have too much anyway and can essentially hold clubs to ransom by not performing, but I think this is possibly the right move because the club were seemingly trying to reduce his wages, he absolutely should have told them to stick it and found somewhere else. I might have that wrong though, to be honest I don't really care that much. I'm only posting this because I'm having a poo and don't have any paper so I'm just waiting for it to air-dry. I have a dump and a shower straight after. Saves no end on bog roll. |
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Oct 5, 2024 16:39:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 5, 2024 17:39:24 GMT
"All professional players have been affected by these illegal rules (in force since 2001!) and can therefore now seek compensation for their losses.“
Hell of an interesting line that. 23 years’ worth of player litigation against FIFA incoming?
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 7, 2024 20:03:18 GMT
The FIFA rules have been declared illegal. Clubs cannot draw up a contract of employment thar breaks the law and if someone signs a contract that is illegal the courts would declare it null and void. And if you're in Russia you're gonna get fucked but that's your own fault for trusting their promises and you deserve it IMO. So if you make a mistake in who you choose to work for, get screwed over and leave, the entire industry you work in should be able to prevent you from getting employment in your chosen profession anywhere else in the world? Well that's a capitalists wet dream if ever there was one. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Oct 7, 2024 20:11:25 GMT
And if you're in Russia you're gonna get fucked but that's your own fault for trusting their promises and you deserve it IMO. So if you make a mistake in who you choose to work for, get screwed over and leave, the entire industry you work in should be able to prevent you from getting employment in your chosen profession anywhere else in the world? Well that's a capitalists wet dream if ever there was one. Oh I didn't mean that. I mean that he went to Russia and as soon as they felt like it they decided to try and "renegotiate" the contract. If you do business with Russia you're asking for that. But you should be allowed to get out and work somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 7, 2024 20:16:00 GMT
I'm always wary of more player power because I think they arguably have too much anyway and can essentially hold clubs to ransom by not performing, but I think this is possibly the right move because the club were seemingly trying to reduce his wages, he absolutely should have told them to stick it and found somewhere else. I might have that wrong though, to be honest I don't really care that much. I'm only posting this because I'm having a poo and don't have any paper so I'm just waiting for it to air-dry. In the olden days you'd have been using a Sentnull cut into squares. Spent half my childhood with a newsprint covered arse, probably as good as that Izal stuff we got at school tbf. |
|
