Just throwing it out there...

[Tuscans]

...had an idea the other day and in the light of the Benteke saga I thought I would post it and see the reaction.

The way the transfer system works, run by money and the Champions League, clubs who fail to never get anywhere near the top four or don't have a mega billionaire sugar daddy will always have to take a big gamble on the Benteke's of this world and will end up selling if they succeed.

So...if the Premier League, FIFA etc want a really competitive competition, and I mean not just say 2 clubs competing over the season, I now suggest my idea.

Of course this was quickly thought of, has flaws I know...but it's just a suggestion.

"The club that wants a player who finishes above the club they want the player from can not buy that player for at least 2 years of his contract". So for example...Benteke could not got to Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham as they finished above us, and if so they did next season he still couldnt go. After 2 seasons and the same scenario happens, then he could make the move."

Guess what I'm saying is it stops clubs taking players quickly with the lure of £100,000 week contracts and Champions League after just 1 season. Yea I know it only applies to the country they're playing in but I would rather Benteke go abroad after 1 season than play for Chelsea. At least clubs who are lower in the league may get a chance to build something without losing their best players in 6 months/ 1 year.

[eastie]

Restriction of trade surely?

[Tuscans]

Restriction of trade surely?

I know what you're saying but then is there any point to the transfer window...that's restricting trade compared to what it was like a few years back.

[Dave]

So presumably no Lowton or Westwood then. Or Young. Or Milner. Or Platt.

What's the problem with the current system? If a club wants to sell or buy a player and terms are agreed by all three parties then it happens. If they don't, then it doesn't.

[PeterWithesShin]

Surely that would hinder the clubs who need to sell players to survive?

Or what if, i'll use Benteke for arguments sake, despite scoring the 19 league goals, he was a real ****** behind the scenes, shagging other players wives, causing a lot of disruption at training etc, so we wanted to get rid as he was poison in the dressing room?

[ozzjim]

So presumably no Lowton or Westwood then. Or Young. Or Milner. Or Platt.

What's the problem with the current system? If a club wants to sell or buy a player and terms are agreed by all three parties then it happens. If they don't, then it doesn't.

I think the only issue with the current system is the inability to build your side over a period to challenge the top. The money dictates, and as such teams like us will struggle to effectively build as play x can just do one pretty much when they like. There is almost no power of the club to be able to keep them.

My stance would be that for the first 2 years of a contract, a player cannot leave unless made available by the club, after that they are free to request a move in the current way. If would at least give the clubs a little bit of power/ control back and give them time to plan. The current system favours the big clubs cherry picking.

[Dave]

I think the only issue with the current system is the inability to build your side over a period to challenge the top. The money dictates, and as such teams like us will struggle to effectively build as play x can just do one pretty much when they like. There is almost no power of the club to be able to keep them.

So what?

There's no power for Sheffield Utd, Crewe or Watford to keep their players and build either. Or for teams like Norwich to keep their management and coaching staff.

If we're going to whinge about rules, contracts and player power when our best players want to leave, it's a bit hypocritical if we then use our size to our advantage over smaller teams. Which we've already done this summer and will continue to do ad infinitum.

[Tuscans]

So presumably no Lowton or Westwood then. Or Young. Or Milner. Or Platt.

What's the problem with the current system? If a club wants to sell or buy a player and terms are agreed by all three parties then it happens. If they don't, then it doesn't.

Well I was sticking to just the Premier League, the lower leagues don't come into question unless its a club buying from that league who plays in that league.

I guess I was just saying what's the point of contracts and transfer windows if this keeps happening. The fashionable thing to do these days is "player signs in August, goes away on international duty in September, gets his arm twisted by his mates playing in London, goes back to his club and then asks his agent for a move in December for January"...my idea was just to try and stop that happening and at least keep a player who DID make the decision in the first place to sign for FOUR years and not ONE! aka Benteke.

[UK Redsox]

Restriction of trade surely?

I know what you're saying but then is there any point to the transfer window...that's restricting trade compared to what it was like a few years back.

Any more restrictions on transfers and Football will be heading in the direction of Communist leagues such as the NFL and NBA.

[VinnieChase84]

I was thinking of something to combat the fact contracts mean nothing to the players except the selling clubs valuation. Idea is this
A) player x signs a 4 yr contract with x club (Benteke) If said players hands in a transfer request
1 yr into his 4yr deal he should be made to reimburse his club 75% of his wages he was paid or year one
2yrs into a deal = 50% reimbursement
3yrs - 25% reimbursement and so on
Clubs if they choose to sell a player have to pay the remainder of their contract as a loyalty bonus as it stands so why not the other way?
Would make players think long and hard about how long they 'commit' themselves for cause at the moment there is no 'loyalty' process.
Stop mercenaries signing long deals to maximise their case in the short te
When they are just hoping to move on

[RussellC]

Restriction of trade surely?

I know what you're saying but then is there any point to the transfer window...that's restricting trade compared to what it was like a few years back.

Any more restrictions on transfers and Football will be heading in the direction of Communist leagues such as the NFL and NBA.

Don't you think those leagues are an example of how to level the playing-field wherever possible though, in terms of the draft-system, salary caps, etc?

I don't know a great deal about the workings of either but it's always seemed to me that American sports are good at stopping clubs from being able to dominate their competitions just by having the most money.

[Tuscans]

My idea wasn't to restrict trade, I can't see how it really does. Most players sign 3-4 year contracts on average, then decide to shoot off after 1 season. This just gives the club a little more power these days as it should have by saying you signed for 4 years, you now want to leave after 1 but you can't unless you leave for a team who finished below us or you go abroad. So if that doesnt take the players fancy who cracks on for another season knowing he can get his dream move after 2 seasons to anyone.

Its only 2 years, they still play, they still get paid...if they can't play for a club for only TWO seasons then they should of done their homework and signed for someone else in the first place. Oh yea that's right, we took the gamble and put it out there how good you are!

Its pathetic we're all treating players like they're the victims. Sod em' I wasn't throwing them in prison for 2 years!

[Dave]

So presumably no Lowton or Westwood then. Or Young. Or Milner. Or Platt.

What's the problem with the current system? If a club wants to sell or buy a player and terms are agreed by all three parties then it happens. If they don't, then it doesn't.

Well I was sticking to just the Premier League, the lower leagues don't come into question unless its a club buying from that league who plays in that league.

Why would you restrict it to just Premier League clubs? Assuming your idea is for the overall good of the game rather than just being a bit grumpy that Benteke is going to leave, surely you're be just as concerned by Villa buying from the Championship and disadvantaging those clubs as you are by Chelsea buying our players?

Also, given how important it is that all agreed contracts are abided by, I presume you are quite keen for us to stick to the ones that we agreed with Given and Ireland and you don't want the club to do whatever we can to persuade them to leave?

[ozzjim]

I think the only issue with the current system is the inability to build your side over a period to challenge the top. The money dictates, and as such teams like us will struggle to effectively build as play x can just do one pretty much when they like. There is almost no power of the club to be able to keep them.

So what?

There's no power for Sheffield Utd, Crewe or Watford to keep their players and build either. Or for teams like Norwich to keep their management and coaching staff.

If we're going to whinge about rules, contracts and player power when our best players want to leave, it's a bit hypocritical if we then use our size to our advantage over smaller teams. Which we've already done this summer and will continue to do ad infinitum.

So what?

At some point football will eat itself with the greed and excess of a few clubs, with fans of the others tired and bored of it all. Something to make it a more level playing field would be really useful. Players hopping it after 1 good season is massively disappointing for fans, and a nightmare for managers and clubs I would imagine.

[PeterWithesShin]

Richer/bigger clubs have been taking players from smaller/poorer clubs since football was invented. We're just pissed off because it's happening to us again. We don't seem quite as pissed off when it's us doing the nicking.