FAQ Off Legal Biffs

[MrFizz]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/art...5prnpy142o

So it is being argued that players should be allowed to simply terminate their own contract and play somewhere else.

Cat, meet Pigeons.

[MrBater]

So players want to work like everyone else in effect? So do club's just insert a minimum season's notice into the contract and say if a player hands in their notice they can't play for another club until that expires? And off they go on gardening leave?

Other club can then pay current club a penalty fee to clear that and allow the player to join them sooner?

I dunno, I'm just dumping random thoughts

Or do players STFU and accept they're in a different world to everyone else and that they're super privileged and therefore are governed by different rules... The kind of tiles they agreed to when signing their effing contracts, that they likely got massive signings on fees to do.

[fuzzbox]

So players want to work like everyone else in effect? So do club's just insert a minimum season's notice into the contract and say if a player hands in their notice they can't play for another club until that expires? And off they go on gardening leave?

Other club can then pay current club a penalty fee to clear that and allow the player to join them sooner?

I dunno, I'm just dumping random thoughts

Or do players STFU and accept they're in a different world to everyone else and that they're super privileged and therefore are governed by different rules... The kind of tiles they agreed to when signing their effing contracts, that they likely got massive signings on fees to do.

It would be interested to see what happens if they get injured and so can't do their job. Players are perfectly entitled to insist on a one week contract. There's plenty of players on short term contracts. Trialists, players with injury issues, players coming towards retirement, 

In all seriousness, this is just bad reporting. This isn't what the case is about - it's about withholding a players license if there's a disagreement.

If you sack a player for say, failing a drug test, can you stop him registering for somewhere abroad next week for, in effect, no transfer fee? Equally, if the player does something which casts the team into a bad light, if you sack him can he move to Chelsea for free because he is no longer in a contract?

If I beat up the young apprentice at work, I'd be sacked and work somewhere else if I could - that's the end of the story. If the player you've just bought for £150m does it, if you sack him, how do you get your £150m back? He's not under contract with you anymore because you've terminated his contract by sacking him. You can't get it off the player (although clubs have tried...) , it's got nothing to do with his previous club and it's got nothing to do with his new team who have, in effect, signed him on a free transfer.

[Logic1]

So players want to work like everyone else in effect? So do club's just insert a minimum season's notice into the contract and say if a player hands in their notice they can't play for another club until that expires? And off they go on gardening leave?

Other club can then pay current club a penalty fee to clear that and allow the player to join them sooner?

I dunno, I'm just dumping random thoughts

Or do players STFU and accept they're in a different world to everyone else and that they're super privileged and therefore are governed by different rules... The kind of tiles they agreed to when signing their effing contracts, that they likely got massive signings on fees to do.

It would be interested to see what happens if they get injured and so can't do their job. Players are perfectly entitled to insist on a one week contract. There's plenty of players on short term contracts. Trialists, players with industry issues, players coming towards retirement, 

In all seriousness, this is just bad reporting. This isn't what the case is about - it's about withholding a players license if there's a disagreement.

If you sack a player for say, failing a drug test, can you stop him registering for somewhere abroad next week for, in effect, no transfer fee? Equally, if the player does something which casts the team into a bad light, if you sack him can he move to Chelsea for free because he is no longer in a contract?

If I beat up the young apprentice at work, I'd be sacked and work somewhere else if I could - that's the end of the story. If the player you've just bought for £150m does it, if you sack him, how do you get your £150m back? He's not under contract with you anymore because you've terminated his contract by sacking him. You can't get it off the player (although clubs have tried...) , it's got nothing to do with his previous club and it's got nothing to do with his new team who have, in effect, signed him on a free transfer.

Sounds like this could potentially kill off transfer fees and create significant player turnover - this really may open Pandoras Box. Instead of teams paying players, might players pay to use a teams brand? It could end up in some sort of auction process, a little bit like IPL cricket. I believe it would likely be great for the best players but for the lesser players makes the job of a footballer much more precarious.

[fuzzbox]

So players want to work like everyone else in effect? So do club's just insert a minimum season's notice into the contract and say if a player hands in their notice they can't play for another club until that expires? And off they go on gardening leave?

Other club can then pay current club a penalty fee to clear that and allow the player to join them sooner?

I dunno, I'm just dumping random thoughts

Or do players STFU and accept they're in a different world to everyone else and that they're super privileged and therefore are governed by different rules... The kind of tiles they agreed to when signing their effing contracts, that they likely got massive signings on fees to do.

It would be interested to see what happens if they get injured and so can't do their job. Players are perfectly entitled to insist on a one week contract. There's plenty of players on short term contracts. Trialists, players with industry issues, players coming towards retirement, 

In all seriousness, this is just bad reporting. This isn't what the case is about - it's about withholding a players license if there's a disagreement.

If you sack a player for say, failing a drug test, can you stop him registering for somewhere abroad next week for, in effect, no transfer fee? Equally, if the player does something which casts the team into a bad light, if you sack him can he move to Chelsea for free because he is no longer in a contract?

If I beat up the young apprentice at work, I'd be sacked and work somewhere else if I could - that's the end of the story. If the player you've just bought for £150m does it, if you sack him, how do you get your £150m back? He's not under contract with you anymore because you've terminated his contract by sacking him. You can't get it off the player (although clubs have tried...) , it's got nothing to do with his previous club and it's got nothing to do with his new team who have, in effect, signed him on a free transfer.

Sounds like this could potentially kill off transfer fees and create significant player turnover - this really may open Pandoras Box. Instead of teams paying players, might players pay to use a teams brand? It could end up in some sort of auction process, a little bit like IPL cricket. I believe it would likely be great for the best players but for the lesser players makes the job of a footballer much more precarious.

transfer fees will go down (too much of a risk) and salaries will go up to discourage bad behaviour as it would hit the player in loss of wages. There's really no other way. You can't stop him from earning a living if you've decided to stop paying him (however legitimate) and if the transfer was 150m you can't get it back from him, even if it says so in the contract - he won't have the money! 

I suppose you could have an arbitration system throughout the FIFA world, but like we've seen with FFP, the lawyers will love it and it won't work in the end anyway.

[Squid]

It should work both ways. As we've seen, it's currently much too difficult for clubs to sack players.

[fuzzbox]

It should work both ways. As we've seen, it's currently much too difficult for clubs to sack players.

What's the betting FIFA will propose paying some of the transfer fee over to them as a 'bond'!