Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Tuscans on July 09, 2013, 12:23:07 PM
-
...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.
-
Restriction of trade surely?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Richer/bigger clubs have been taking players form 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.
Spot on pws.
-
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?
Sorry I said that wrong, my example was just the Premier League...it would have to come into effect to all leagues of course.
-
What football needs to do is start enforcing some of the apparent laws they try to implement. Financial fair play being one, and the home grown quota too (the rule needs to be stricter on this). Certainly in the latter, there seems to be no movement because clubs like Man City keep spunking more money than they could possibly make back.
Also enforcing clubs to develop younger domestic talent is also key for the national game. If we ever want to compete again, we cannot sit idly by and carry on as the level of quality of English players continues to dwindle significantly. It's soon going to get to the point where our national side will be struggling along with Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc to qualify for tournaments. I was thinking about the strikers we had 15 odd years ago. Shearer, Owen, Fowler, Heskey, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Wright, Dublin, Le Tissier, Cole, Phillips, Collymore and probably more. Even with such a grouping to pick from we achieved nothing. Now I could barely name you half a dozen strikers who might be good enough to play at National level in this country. Likewise in every other position. That's only 15 odd years ago too. The decline from that point, to this has been shocking.
We could also do with being more open to players born in other countries who earn citizenship. Other national sides have done it. Lets get some Brazilian skill with shiny British passport in the England side.
But this is another matter entirely.
-
Oh well, like I said it was just a quick idea guys. I do think there's a point in there somewhere though.
-
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.
As far as the people who make the rules are concerned, football (and in particular, Premier League football) is the most popular that is has ever been.
And as UK Redsox points out above, every single suggestion that has ever been made to make football more like American sports (i.e more fair) is universally ridiculed.
And you've not responded to the point that I'm making. It's hard to take people seriously when talking about 'changing the game for the better' if they only complain about a problem when it disadvantages them. Norwich fans didn't have a problem when Lambert left Colchester for them and there was a good deal of mocking on here about their hypocrisy when he did the same to Norwich when he joined us. I bet those same people laughing at the Norwich fans will be complaining when Lambert eventually does it to us.
Personally I didn't have any issues about the fairness of it when we decided that we would take Benteke from Genk (note: after just the one season with them). It's the way that a food-chain works.
-
any new rule governing contracts needs to be worldwide. It canot be for one governing body only. I like what the NHL does whereby the original club owns your contractual rights for up to 7 years, and even then, at the end they have a right to exceed any offer going into the final year of the contract. Again, unique because all of the teams are in the same boat, but as it is today football is set up for players to demand moves and big fish to eat smaller fish. There will never be a wage cap, and FFP won't work because bigger, more marketable teams will always get the bigger commercial deals.
-
Dog eat dog I'm afraid - we have done it to smaller clubs without feeling any sympathy - its the way of the game and as i said happens to bigger clubs than us - look how many stars arsenal have lost in recent years.
-
Dog eat dog I'm afraid - we have done it to smaller clubs without feeling any sympathy - its the way of the game and as i said happens to bigger clubs than us - look how many stars arsenal have lost in recent years.
I thought you were going for pint with your mate and would be back in 20 pages?
-
As far as the people who make the rules are concerned, football (and in particular, Premier League football) is the most popular that is has ever been.
And as UK Redsox points out above, every single suggestion that has ever been made to make football more like American sports (i.e more fair) is universally ridiculed.
And you've not responded to the point that I'm making. It's hard to take people seriously when talking about 'changing the game for the better' if they only complain about a problem when it disadvantages them. Norwich fans didn't have a problem when Lambert left Colchester for them and there was a good deal of mocking on here about their hypocrisy when he did the same to Norwich when he joined us. I bet those same people laughing at the Norwich fans will be complaining when Lambert eventually does it to us.
Personally I didn't have any issues about the fairness of it when we decided that we would take Benteke from Genk (note: after just the one season with them). It's the way that a food-chain works.
I get exactly what you are saying, I didn't give 2 hoots about how Norwich or Genk fans felt, because I don't have any type of affection for those clubs. But that's not saying Villa did it to those two so it's ok....I feel it isn't.
-
I'm not sure the situation is all that different to what happened to Genk last Summer. It's the way the transfer system in this sport works.
I agree it's a bit shit how you can't build without disruption but we need to utilise the market to the best of our ability to give us the best possible chance of succeeding. So sell him. Quickly. And ideally we'll use the money to sign another 2-3 Benteke types and rinse and repeat.
That's always been our issue under Randy, we've not invested the money we've received well enough. Look at some of the players Spurs have lost over the last 5-6 years; Carrick, Keane, Berbatov, Modric and they've used the money to improve the squad.
What did we do with the Young, Milner or Downing money and what do we have to show for it? Milner and Young money combined financed Ireland and Bent. Downing to Given, Hutton and N'Zogbia. Only Bent and Given are anything like close to being decent signings from that lot and we'll make a massive loss on both just to get them off the wage bill.
-
All this can and should be handled by the club at the contract stage.
Benteke for example could have had something written into his contract that said he would only be sold this summer for a bid in excess of £40m, with no limit the following season. So stay 2 years and you can go where you like but after 1 year the only way your leaving is if someone throws stupid money our way and if you try to submit a transfer request or go on strike we have a contract that you're in breech of.
-
What football needs to do is start enforcing some of the apparent laws they try to implement. Financial fair play being one, and the home grown quota too (the rule needs to be stricter on this). Certainly in the latter, there seems to be no movement because clubs like Man City keep spunking more money than they could possibly make back.
Also enforcing clubs to develop younger domestic talent is also key for the national game. If we ever want to compete again, we cannot sit idly by and carry on as the level of quality of English players continues to dwindle significantly. It's soon going to get to the point where our national side will be struggling along with Scotland, Wales, Ireland etc to qualify for tournaments. I was thinking about the strikers we had 15 odd years ago. Shearer, Owen, Fowler, Heskey, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Wright, Dublin, Le Tissier, Cole, Phillips, Collymore and probably more. Even with such a grouping to pick from we achieved nothing. Now I could barely name you half a dozen strikers who might be good enough to play at National level in this country. Likewise in every other position. That's only 15 odd years ago too. The decline from that point, to this has been shocking.
We could also do with being more open to players born in other countries who earn citizenship. Other national sides have done it. Lets get some Brazilian skill with shiny British passport in the England side.
But this is another matter entirely.
That line for me is gold. It doesn't matter what industry/sector, we have at our disposal a pretty robust set of legislation already, most problems derive from not enforcing the legislation.
-
Dog eat dog I'm afraid - we have done it to smaller clubs without feeling any sympathy - its the way of the game and as i said happens to bigger clubs than us - look how many stars arsenal have lost in recent years.
Done what? Are you aware of a bid being made that I'm not?
As far as I'm aware he's only handed in a transfer request. I don't have a problem with other clubs bidding for him at all. I do have a problem with him telling us he doesn't want to play for us any more though.
-
This is why American football is fairer and more competitive than European football.
-
This is why American football is fairer and more competitive than European football.
The american football model only works because there's only 1 league structure. English football could introduce salary caps but how would those caps translate to spain/france/germany/etc.
Rugby union has salary caps which all the northern hemisphere unions agree to except for France, meaning France have a monopoly on players and those sides generally have bigger and stronger squads as a result. In football it would be worse.
-
Only one way to stop this. If you have a player on a long contract, like our man, than DON'T sell if you don't want to and deal with the consequences.
Manu are doing fine by stopping Rooney second time around!
-
Sell on your own terms is more likely, would anyone on here, for example, turn down £40m for Benteke this summer?
The key is to make sure everyone knows that you sell on your own terms and will stand by it, even if it means you're left with an unhappy player.
The key thing to remember is that most players do actually want to play football, if you tell them what they leave for, it's fair price and they can't find a buyer there aren't many players who will sit and sulk and not play when the window closes, doing that hurts them more than the club. The issue is that the money has got so silly that players are treated as commodities and the idea of them losing value is unthinkable.
-
This is why American football is fairer and more competitive than European football.
Yo! Tell that to the mofos who have had their fuckin frachise moved to another fuckin state, dude.
-
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.
Exactly PWS. Something like a player having to see out at least half of his contract before moving might be an idea.
-
All this can and should be handled by the club at the contract stage.
Benteke for example could have had something written into his contract that said he would only be sold this summer for a bid in excess of £40m, with no limit the following season. So stay 2 years and you can go where you like but after 1 year the only way your leaving is if someone throws stupid money our way and if you try to submit a transfer request or go on strike we have a contract that you're in breech of.
Who would have had the foresight to see how well he was going to do? So well, that only 30-40m mark is "baulkable". I get your point though.
-
Ban independent agents and make everyone go through a new FA player trading department, with any commission going into a fund dedicated for grass roots development.
-
Ban independent agents and make everyone go through a new FA player trading department, with any commission going into a fund dedicated for grass roots development.
That's a bloody good idea.
-
Ban independent agents and make everyone go through a new FA player trading department, with any commission going into a fund dedicated for grass roots development.
That's a bloody good idea.
Not necessarily.
For every Claude Anelka getting another £200k from his brother's latest signing-on fee, there are probably ten agents who are spending their time negotiating that the 33 year old having to move from League One to League Two gets the extra £200 per week which means he doesn't have to sell his house. Or helping the 17 year old that we've just decided isn't going to be good enough for us get a trial at Walsall or Kidderminster Harriers.
Just because the players we care about are going to more at the top-end, money-drenched side of things, that does mean there's not a whole industry below the surface in which agents play a very important part.