-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Offical*** English Football Season 2004/05
- Thread starter Jamee999
- Start date
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
I'm not sure which one i like best
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
i can see that point, but it still meant Spain had an extra automatic qualifier - Zaragoza would have had to qualify but Real didn't
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
thats not what im saying - Real replaced Zaragoza in the CL but Zaragoza, had real not replaced them, would have had to go in the qualifiers, Real went straight to the group stage - so that year 3 Spanish teams got automatic qualification to the group stage. (real, barca, depor)
Craig
World Traveller
Watched ESPN Press Pass this morning and they came to an agreement that if they had their way at FIFA they would ban transfers and make player's honour their contracts. So if you sign a five year deal, you honour that five year deal. Not buggering off after one or two years.
It would save a lot of clubs from going into debt (that is probably way most of them go into debt).
It would save a lot of clubs from going into debt (that is probably way most of them go into debt).
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
I doubt that - most clubs spend vastly more on wages than transfer fees, and if a player is locked into a five year deal at a high wage, then the club is relegated and income plummets, you're doubly shafted.Craig said:
Craig
World Traveller
It also depends on the club.Neil Pickup said:
If a club like Arsenal gets relegated anytime soon, then it shows there is something wrong with your football, and I doubt any of them have parachute clauses' in their contracts if they get relegated they take a wage cut. That is why West Brom haven't gone down the road of many relegated clubs (when they went down in 2003) where players wages drop, but they have already agreed to this so it isn't a problem.
The other question I have then, wouldn't it leave club's trying to tap up players while still under contract. I mean if those rules where in place, what would stop Chelsea try to tap up Adriano who comes off contract in 2008, so long as the press don't find out? I mean by then a WP would be no problem and by then he would if he wanted to have gained an Italian passport by virtue of how long he has been in Italy, and make his options so much more easier. This could to Real Madrid as well. Also you might have an unhappy player on your cards and apart from letting him sulk and rot in the reserves and totally ignore him, you are stuck with a prima donna on big wages and not interested.
Not that this will ever happen, no club would vote for it, and clubs are bound to try and look for way this breach's EU law, if it doesn't already. IMO if you sign a four or five year contract with a club, you should at least honour three years of it, or the worse two years before moving on. That is unless a rival club offers your club a nice transfer fee which they would be idiots to say no, and the wages are also too good to say no to. And of course there is the club in the Championship, League One or Two who every know and then develops a player capable of playing at a higher level and potentially pushing an England spot, then you couldn't blame club for telling the player to 'go' in the nicest way (like the way Gradi develops players at Crewe and the comments he said when they sold Ashton to Norwich that it was his time to go).
There I have said my bit, I hope it didn't bore you and it makes perfect sense and I stated my case well
