I'm sure you said this when Arsenal had the financial might to compete.
How would eliminating transfer fees stop the wealthiest attracting the best players?
comment by supacity (U15520)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'm sure you said this when Arsenal had the financial might to compete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenals "financial might" is greater than ever, both in its own merits and comparative to other teams.
ps, transfer fees go and so do many teams.
Arsenal, Liverpool and United to be fair, are living within their means you can't say the same as per Barcelona, Madrid, PSG, Chelsea or Man City.
Hahahaha.
Why are transfer fees a restriction of trade and restrict freedom of movement exactly?
Welcome to the world of dominance outside your club. I'm sure you didn't mind when you took on all that talent and sent them out on loan with very little intention of ever using them. Much like many other teams.
This is exactly what arsenal have over clubs in less rich countries.
It doesnt make a goddamn difference if there are no transfer fees. It all comes down to wages then.
My club will pay a million per year, Arsenal will pay a million per month. Where do you think the player will go?
Power will always stay with the rich clubs.
These guys are not employees, who have a contract that just rolls on.
They are contractors. They sign a contract, and if they wish to break a contract the club they do work for are compensated.
There should be release clauses as standard though I believe. Despite us benefitting from it, I think it is morally wrong for a club to demand 50m for a player they pay 3.5m a year.
The release clause should be set as something like YEARLY SALARY x LENGTH OF CONTRACT (max 5 years)
The selling club should be able to offer the player a new contract if they receive a bid, to up the release clause. Not length of contract (unless the player agrees) but salary. Obviously if the buyer pulls out the current club would have to honour that contract.
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 57 seconds ago
These guys are not employees, who have a contract that just rolls on.
They are contractors. They sign a contract, and if they wish to break a contract the club they do work for are compensated.
There should be release clauses as standard though I believe. Despite us benefitting from it, I think it is morally wrong for a club to demand 50m for a player they pay 3.5m a year.
The release clause should be set as something like YEARLY SALARY x LENGTH OF CONTRACT (max 5 years)
The selling club should be able to offer the player a new contract if they receive a bid, to up the release clause. Not length of contract (unless the player agrees) but salary. Obviously if the buyer pulls out the current club would have to honour that contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ rate of inflation (country said player is playing in)
comment by Kami (U9880)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 57 seconds ago
These guys are not employees, who have a contract that just rolls on.
They are contractors. They sign a contract, and if they wish to break a contract the club they do work for are compensated.
There should be release clauses as standard though I believe. Despite us benefitting from it, I think it is morally wrong for a club to demand 50m for a player they pay 3.5m a year.
The release clause should be set as something like YEARLY SALARY x LENGTH OF CONTRACT (max 5 years)
The selling club should be able to offer the player a new contract if they receive a bid, to up the release clause. Not length of contract (unless the player agrees) but salary. Obviously if the buyer pulls out the current club would have to honour that contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ rate of inflation (country said player is playing in)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you could factor in what the buying club are willing to pay him.
What he earns over his first 3 years, divided by 3, payable on year 3.
For example.
If Kane has 3 years left, at 5m per year....
3 x 5m = 15m release clause.
If a club matched that we could up his salary automatically.
10m per year. The release clause would then be 30m.
United then match it. They pay him 15m per year.
If it stays the same, Spurs are due another 15m after year three.
Transfer fee and wage cap
comment by Kami (U9880)
posted 22 seconds ago
Transfer fee and wage cap
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Restriction of trade. Illegal. 👍
A wage cap would just see the dough go to owners.
I would much rather the talent got it
I really don't get why everyone is so butthurt about it. The money, the numbers have got to the point where they're are all meaningless now. £200m from Qatar doesn't mean anything. Football isn't "ruined". Either enjoy all the bullsh*t or go watch League 2 if you hate money so much.
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 14 minutes ago
A wage cap would just see the dough go to owners.
I would much rather the talent got it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the fans with lower ticket prices and/or promotions. Loyalty tickets etc.?
We've already seen huge signing on fees for players who had run down their contracts and signed for a new club with no transfer fee. One I remember is Sol Campbell when he joined Arsenal. There have been others I have heard about after that one ut cant remember who they were as it wasnt Arsenal related.
All that will happen is they will demand bigger and bigger fees. Look at the rumoured cut Pogbas fee got for his move to Man U. I read reports the agent got over £30m. All that would happen is the money will get distributed differently, although as clubs could not get any money back by selling players on it would have a big impact on football.
^ That's true. And Wenger's recent comments are right when he says players are going to be running their contracts down more frequently in future. The signing-on fees are gonna be ridiculous.
The Fan of an elite Premier League Club, owned by several multi-billionaires, situated in the world's greatest city; complaining how football's not fair.
comment by Scarf (U21116)
posted 3 minutes ago
The Fan of an elite Premier League Club, owned by several multi-billionaires, situated in the world's greatest city; complaining how football's not fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worlds greatest City? It's a toxic dive FFS
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Scarf (U21116)
posted 3 minutes ago
The Fan of an elite Premier League Club, owned by several multi-billionaires, situated in the world's greatest city; complaining how football's not fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worlds greatest City? It's a toxic dive FFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A toxic dive awash with money
OP, I think you are forgetting that a football club is mostly just a business and the players are just a commodity / asset to be used in whatever way the club feel will get them the best return.
It does seem like something should be done to at least improve the image of football. Like maybe when a fee is over a certain amount, a small percentage should go back into the game to improve grassroots football and development of youngsters in poor areas.
I know some football clubs do stuff in this area anyway . But at least on the face of it'd look like some benefit for everyone was coming from these astronomical fees, and not just benefiting greedy agents, players and rich clubs
Sign in if you want to comment
Transfer fees must go
Page 1 of 2
posted on 4/8/17
I'm sure you said this when Arsenal had the financial might to compete.
posted on 4/8/17
How would eliminating transfer fees stop the wealthiest attracting the best players?
posted on 4/8/17
comment by supacity (U15520)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'm sure you said this when Arsenal had the financial might to compete.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenals "financial might" is greater than ever, both in its own merits and comparative to other teams.
posted on 4/8/17
ps, transfer fees go and so do many teams.
posted on 4/8/17
Arsenal, Liverpool and United to be fair, are living within their means you can't say the same as per Barcelona, Madrid, PSG, Chelsea or Man City.
posted on 4/8/17
Hahahaha.
Why are transfer fees a restriction of trade and restrict freedom of movement exactly?
Welcome to the world of dominance outside your club. I'm sure you didn't mind when you took on all that talent and sent them out on loan with very little intention of ever using them. Much like many other teams.
posted on 4/8/17
This is exactly what arsenal have over clubs in less rich countries.
posted on 4/8/17
It doesnt make a goddamn difference if there are no transfer fees. It all comes down to wages then.
My club will pay a million per year, Arsenal will pay a million per month. Where do you think the player will go?
Power will always stay with the rich clubs.
posted on 4/8/17
These guys are not employees, who have a contract that just rolls on.
They are contractors. They sign a contract, and if they wish to break a contract the club they do work for are compensated.
There should be release clauses as standard though I believe. Despite us benefitting from it, I think it is morally wrong for a club to demand 50m for a player they pay 3.5m a year.
The release clause should be set as something like YEARLY SALARY x LENGTH OF CONTRACT (max 5 years)
The selling club should be able to offer the player a new contract if they receive a bid, to up the release clause. Not length of contract (unless the player agrees) but salary. Obviously if the buyer pulls out the current club would have to honour that contract.
posted on 4/8/17
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 57 seconds ago
These guys are not employees, who have a contract that just rolls on.
They are contractors. They sign a contract, and if they wish to break a contract the club they do work for are compensated.
There should be release clauses as standard though I believe. Despite us benefitting from it, I think it is morally wrong for a club to demand 50m for a player they pay 3.5m a year.
The release clause should be set as something like YEARLY SALARY x LENGTH OF CONTRACT (max 5 years)
The selling club should be able to offer the player a new contract if they receive a bid, to up the release clause. Not length of contract (unless the player agrees) but salary. Obviously if the buyer pulls out the current club would have to honour that contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ rate of inflation (country said player is playing in)
posted on 4/8/17
comment by Kami (U9880)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 57 seconds ago
These guys are not employees, who have a contract that just rolls on.
They are contractors. They sign a contract, and if they wish to break a contract the club they do work for are compensated.
There should be release clauses as standard though I believe. Despite us benefitting from it, I think it is morally wrong for a club to demand 50m for a player they pay 3.5m a year.
The release clause should be set as something like YEARLY SALARY x LENGTH OF CONTRACT (max 5 years)
The selling club should be able to offer the player a new contract if they receive a bid, to up the release clause. Not length of contract (unless the player agrees) but salary. Obviously if the buyer pulls out the current club would have to honour that contract.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ rate of inflation (country said player is playing in)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you could factor in what the buying club are willing to pay him.
What he earns over his first 3 years, divided by 3, payable on year 3.
posted on 4/8/17
For example.
If Kane has 3 years left, at 5m per year....
3 x 5m = 15m release clause.
If a club matched that we could up his salary automatically.
10m per year. The release clause would then be 30m.
United then match it. They pay him 15m per year.
If it stays the same, Spurs are due another 15m after year three.
posted on 4/8/17
Transfer fee and wage cap
posted on 4/8/17
comment by Kami (U9880)
posted 22 seconds ago
Transfer fee and wage cap
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Restriction of trade. Illegal. 👍
posted on 4/8/17
A wage cap would just see the dough go to owners.
I would much rather the talent got it
posted on 4/8/17
I really don't get why everyone is so butthurt about it. The money, the numbers have got to the point where they're are all meaningless now. £200m from Qatar doesn't mean anything. Football isn't "ruined". Either enjoy all the bullsh*t or go watch League 2 if you hate money so much.
posted on 4/8/17
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 14 minutes ago
A wage cap would just see the dough go to owners.
I would much rather the talent got it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the fans with lower ticket prices and/or promotions. Loyalty tickets etc.?
posted on 4/8/17
Article is pointless
posted on 4/8/17
We've already seen huge signing on fees for players who had run down their contracts and signed for a new club with no transfer fee. One I remember is Sol Campbell when he joined Arsenal. There have been others I have heard about after that one ut cant remember who they were as it wasnt Arsenal related.
All that will happen is they will demand bigger and bigger fees. Look at the rumoured cut Pogbas fee got for his move to Man U. I read reports the agent got over £30m. All that would happen is the money will get distributed differently, although as clubs could not get any money back by selling players on it would have a big impact on football.
posted on 4/8/17
^ That's true. And Wenger's recent comments are right when he says players are going to be running their contracts down more frequently in future. The signing-on fees are gonna be ridiculous.
posted on 5/8/17
The Fan of an elite Premier League Club, owned by several multi-billionaires, situated in the world's greatest city; complaining how football's not fair.
posted on 5/8/17
comment by Scarf (U21116)
posted 3 minutes ago
The Fan of an elite Premier League Club, owned by several multi-billionaires, situated in the world's greatest city; complaining how football's not fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worlds greatest City? It's a toxic dive FFS
posted on 5/8/17
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Scarf (U21116)
posted 3 minutes ago
The Fan of an elite Premier League Club, owned by several multi-billionaires, situated in the world's greatest city; complaining how football's not fair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worlds greatest City? It's a toxic dive FFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A toxic dive awash with money
posted on 5/8/17
OP, I think you are forgetting that a football club is mostly just a business and the players are just a commodity / asset to be used in whatever way the club feel will get them the best return.
posted on 5/8/17
It does seem like something should be done to at least improve the image of football. Like maybe when a fee is over a certain amount, a small percentage should go back into the game to improve grassroots football and development of youngsters in poor areas.
I know some football clubs do stuff in this area anyway . But at least on the face of it'd look like some benefit for everyone was coming from these astronomical fees, and not just benefiting greedy agents, players and rich clubs
Page 1 of 2