How much power does and should a player have in his transfers? (1 Viewer)

[HelterSkelter]

Ive heard this on Countless occasions.A Club president saying that one of his players wants to move to a team X,but the president insisting that he'll only go to team Y.I remember a statement by the Palermo head in the summer where he said that Barzagli wants Milan,but he'll be sold to Juventus.

How does the whole thing work?.If a club receives an offer for a player,and the club accepts the offer formally,is the player empowered to reject the move?or is he bound to move to the club which had its offer accepted?

And how much power should have a player have in his transfers anyway?Is the current system correct or should the players have more/less say in their transfers?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Marc]

Very hard and complicated question, but interesting, I´m too lazy to post my opinion.

 

[Seven]

A player can refuse obviously. Resulting in all sorts of measures taken by the club, which he can then again counter by saying the club prevents him from doing his job and thus from earning the money he's entitled to. It's rather complicated, but it's a hell of a lot better than before the whole Bosman case if you ask me. Club presidents might complain about it, but last time I checked cows weren't getting goals for Palermo.

 

[mikhail]

Seven's right. The key thing is that a player doesn't have to sign for anyone, but except when there's a get out clause in the player's contract, the club doesn't have to accept any offer. The only other really significant factor is the player's ability to sit out his contract.

The player has the additional powers of being able to cause trouble and play badly - basically, he can make himself worthless to a club, damaging to moral and marketing. The club, on the other hand, can temporarily ruin his career by letting him rot in the reserves.

It's a matter of who backs down first.

 

[Bozi]

tell that to hearts,last year we had the best defense in the country with the national keeper and two centre backs. rangers were sniffing around andy webster (as they do with any player who is doing well in scotland) and unsettled the player.
webster and his agent set a (rather dangerous) precedent where by he gave his notice and cancelled his contract with a year still to serve. FIFA eventually gave this the green light, meaning that any player, anywhere could walk out on a club with a year to go and they cant do a thing about it.
webster only had one problem, he was not allowed to join rangers as hearts still held his registration in scotland till the end of his contract. he was only allowed an international transfer. webster and his agent needed an escape so signed up at wigan(who's chairman had tied up a big deal between his sports stores and rangers)
surprise, surprise he has now turned up at rangers on loan till the end of the season and will then sign a permanent contract. hearts appealed this but was turned down and he is free to play for gers.

what i ask is if players are able to cancel a contract that still has 1 year left to run, then why bother paying transfer fees?just get agents to screw over the clubs that have developed them and laugh all teh way to the bank.

 

[Red]

The thing with Webster is a really stupid rule. The way things are going football would be as well just getting rid of contracts because, especialy with smaller clubs, players can pretty much move whenever they want.

 

[Seven]

Obviously that is a scary precedent, Bozi. Imagine what this can cause, not even only in the football industry.

 

[Bozi]

exactly is a shocking state of affairs, i am all for giving players teh power to move on at the end of their agreed contract but how can you walk out on a club when you still have a year left to run?
the awful thing is wigan will recieve a transfer fee for webster and hearts are still seeking compensation

 

[Bozi]

Obviously that is a scary precedent, Bozi. Imagine what this can cause, not even only in the football industry.

hey if you sign a contract you should honour it,granted we have freedom to move between jobs in everyday life but footballers trade is very different to any other.

imagine juve pay 12m euros for a player on a 3 year contract, we get 1 and a half years from him then he decides he wants to go, slaps in his notice and walks to inter for free

 

[Red]

Think the rule only applies to players on 4 or 5 year deals and in the final year of them rather than shorter deals. Stupid rule, players have too much power now and it is spoiling the game for smaller clubs.