Hypocrite Holloway

[Jeff]

Player power? It's general employee decency. In most jobs, if you had the offer of a better position on better pay, your current employees wouldn't/couldn't block you from taking it.

But most people aren't on fixed term contracts, just a short notice period.


If footballers want the security of long term contracts they should stick to them.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

But surely it's the clubs who are the ones wanting the security of long terms contracts most of the time, not the players?

 

[bocadillo]

But surely it's the clubs who are the ones wanting the security of long terms contracts most of the time, not the players?

The players want to have the increased remuneration that goes along with longer contracts.

 

[Jeff]

But surely it's the clubs who are the ones wanting the security of long terms contracts more than the players?

It works both ways.


If Adam had been crap since Blackpool signed him do you think he'd have been happy for them to sack him without paying up his contract?

 

[Matt_B]

Player power? It's general employee decency. In most jobs, if you had the offer of a better position on better pay, your current employees wouldn't/couldn't block you from taking it.

Regardless of any claims of "overpaid prima donnas" etc. etc. and any other criticisms footballers get, they are still just people who want to excel in their particular line of work and they should be allowed to move on to another more illustrious position with better pay if they want to. I would see nothing wrong with Adam forcing his employers to let him have a chance at a bigger club, especially given how short a footballer's career is and this could be the only chance he gets.

I have no idea what your line of work is, if any, but if you were offered a pay rise and a better position than your current job would you turn it down saying that you "work at this job and should honour your current contract"?

I'm training to be a teacher, and once I qualify if I want to move schools I have to give my notice at a certain point of the year. When I worked in private industry I had to serve a notice period when I left, and the length of this depended on the contract. I only ever had a 2 month notice, my auntie quit her high paid job a while back and had to give a year long notice.

Anyway, as has been mentioned, football contracts are entirely different, players are a commodity bought and sold.

 

[okie fox]

It works both ways.


If Adam had been crap since Blackpool signed him do you think he'd have been happy for them to sack him without paying up his contract?

Players want it both ways. They want long-term contracts to cover them in case they are injured. But they don't want to honour their contracts if they can get higher wages elsewhere.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

It works both ways.


If Adam had been crap since Blackpool signed him do you think he'd have been happy for them to sack him without paying up his contract?

No one has mentioned honouring the financial side of a contract. If these are fixed length contracts as opposed to short notice period ones and the club sacks him for being crap how is that honouring the contract, when a player leaving a club for being too good for them isn't (from a moral standpoint)?

 

[bocadillo]

No one has mentioned honouring the financial side of a contract. If it works both ways and the club sacks him for being crap how is that honouring the contract, when a player leaving a club for being too good for them isn't?

Player are not sacked for being crap. It just doesn't happen.

 

[Jeff]

No one has mentioned honouring the financial side of a contract. If it works both ways and the club sacks him for being crap how is that honouring the contract, when a player leaving a club for being too good for them isn't?

:icon_conf

The point I'm making is that the club can't sack him for being crap. So if the club has to honour the contract, why do you think the player should be allowed to get out of it?

 

[okie fox]

No one has mentioned honouring the financial side of a contract. If it works both ways and the club sacks him for being crap how is that honouring the contract, when a player leaving a club for being too good for them isn't (from a moral standpoint)?

When has a player been sacked for being crap?

 

[Profondo Rosso]

When has a player been sacked for being crap?

Sorry, missed the point of Jeff's post. I thought he was refering to the financial point with the "without paying up his contract" bit.

:icon_conf

The point I'm making is that the club can't sack him for being crap. So if the club has to honour the contract, why do you think the player should be allowed to get out of it?

Where have I said a player should be able to get out his contract? I've said that if a player wants to move on, I would see nothing wrong with Adam trying to force the club to sell him (from a moral or human viewpoint) to further his career. You refer to players as commodities, but that seems a strange attitude to have towards human beings to me. Fair enough, you can accuse him of being backhanded or slimy, but you only get a career once and if the offer to move up comes in and the club stands in the way of you moving up, then I wouldn't hold him against him (or any player, including Leicester ones in the same situation) to try to force the club to sell him.

 

[Jeff]

You refer to players as commodities

I didn't.


As I've said, if the player has signed a long term contract with a club he should honour it. That's the whole point of contracts.

The club has every right to refuse a transfer request, and it's ridiculous to say he should go on strike. I think that's what you meant when you wrote "I hope Adam refuses to play unless they play him so they have to accept the bid or something."


If a player wants to leave he'll end up leaving, but going on strike is not the best way to do it. If I was a manager I wouldn't sign a player who acted like that.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Fair enough, jeff, you're probably right that refusing to play could be detrimental and that it could put the buying club off, but I don't like seeing clubs trying to stop a player who obviously wants to leave trying to do so.

 

[MHS]

If I was Dalglish, I'd offer 50 marbles. That's one offer the Blackpool board could never refuse.

 

[Billy Boy]

The FA have fined Blackpool for fielding a weakened team. Wonder will the tosser resign as promised?

 

[Profondo Rosso]

We all know what will happen. He'll "offer to resign" the club will refuse it and he'll carry on.

 

[LeeCovFox]

Ian Prior of The Guardian:

"Major - and boy do I mean it - football exclusive coming up on guardian.co.uk sometime around 5.30."

Could it be Holloway gone?

 

[beaumontfox]

S owith this stuff in today's papers about Holloway getting a cut of whatever profits there is from the sale of Adam and him being very honest about getting a slice of the money....is it just me, or is there summat not right about a manager profitting financially from a player transfer and not being at all bothered by who knows he will?

I mean, it's bad enough managers and agents doing dodgy dealsetc without folk really knowing what's going on, but to be so open about the fact??

 

[Jeff]

.is it just me, or is there summat not right about a manager profitting financially from a player transfer

It's not unusual for that to happen, particularly with selling clubs like Blackpool.


For a club like Blackpool to survive financially (when they're not in the Prem - which I'm sure wasn't anticipated when the contract was drawn up) they need to sell players, so they want the manager to be able to sign players that can be sold on for a profit, or develop young players that can be sold.
So I don't see any problem incentivising it. As long as it's linked to performance in some way. So for example if he sells players and they get relegated he won't get the money.

 

[Blue Maniac]

The FA have fined Blackpool for fielding a weakened team.

They haven't.