|
*laughs at portsmouth* But seriously Liverpool isn't looking so good lately so I have no room to laugh
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2009 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
I would rather Liverpool win a game 1 - 0 than lose tie it 5 - 5 if the article is supposed to be implying otherwise
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
Bovine Delight posted:Please try to make sense. "lose tie it 5-5" what the christ are you on about? Ah whoops, mistyped. Was originally going to put 'lose 5 - 4' but realized anyone would rather their team win..
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 06:07
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Circle one: The sad part is that you can get the club by circling yes to just one of these
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2010 20:18
|
|
|
Homura posted:I have a feeling United would come out on top, simply because they have a ton of worldwide exposure. That being said, I can't help but root for the England team since supporting the USA team generally ends in tears (goddamn it I do it anyways) Ugh
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:USMNT is poo poo. No more so than England
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Jozy is only a Champions League level footballer at best
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
If Nurse Jackie could hack it in [mid-week day/inclement weather conditions/against notoriously physical team] then she could get paid the same in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:edit: Messi "owes Barca" how? For discovering/developing him? That is a terribly anti-labor sentiment which sounds reminiscent of reserve-clause era baseball to me. "oh this poor player should be grateful for the opportunity the generous club has given him to make money playing a game. To demand more compensation is greedy." Is that the idea you're talking about? Football clubs pay more than most other pro sports teams I think http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/barcelona-highest-paying-sports-team-world-213635672.html And get out of here with that "anti-labor" crap Messi makes millions of euros a year to run around a field kicking a ball into a net I'm sure he'll be fine
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:This is hardly different from 16 year old Dominican baseball players growing up in poverty and being given $5 Million USD bonuses to sign with an MLB team, who then retains the rights to that player for many years. Hell, last year my favorite baseball team paid a Cuban refugee (he literally had to escape from Cuba, having tried and failed to do so several times before) a $42 Million/7 year deal. I guess that's the difference between clubs and franchises? More seriously the reason has been given, a club will just try to sell them if it's clear they want to run their contract out. Some players to become free agents, but it's generally in their best interest to not be frozen out for a year.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:There aren't enough football clubs or there are too many? That's not very right. It's 4/4/4/3. And yeah the best players want to typically be on one of like four teams at any given time but I guess some of them don't make the cut? Like there are a lot of good players and they all make pretty amazing money tbh
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Ok, so when lets say Bayern buys a player from Barca, they are negotiating on the price with Barca alone, correct? Then they have purchased exclusive rights to negotiate a contract with that player for how long? Bayern Munich would submit a bid with Barcelona for X amount. Once that is accepted, they can negotiate with the player. This is the legal route, though sometimes it gets circumvented in weird and typically illegal ways. I don't see what the player having "terrible leverage" means. They signed a contract. The club has every right to force them to see it out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:edit: It sounds like the team finds a buyer, and says to the player, "ok, go have fun negotiating your new contract with those guys. no one else is allowed to negotiate with you." Well typically any other club can negotiate should they submit an equal value or higher bid to the selling club (there are rare exceptions). Again, the player signed a contract, the club doesn't have to sell them at all if they don't want to.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Yes, MLS players are underpaid because their union is weak. Likewise, NFL players are terribly underpaid because they have a weak union. MLB players on the other hand have one of the strongest unions in America, and their compensation reflects it. They're making tons of loving money, and they shouldn't have signed a contract if they didn't want to see it out, maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Player signs a contract with Club A for 5 years. 4 years into it, Club B offers Club A some amount of money for the player. Club B says hells yeah, he's all yours. Player is now forced to negotiate a new contract with Club B. What if he refuses? Then he sees out his original contract. bawfuls posted:This is what I don't understand. He IS willing to see out his 5 year contract. Refusal to sign a new deal does not mean he's violating the first one. The club can't break the contract just because they feel like it either.... I don't know where you got that idea.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:And at that point, he's allowed to negotiate with anyone? ....yes? This isn't complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I mean, what it comes down to is this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:So why don't more players do this? Some do, but typically any exceptional player at a smaller club will get bought before they are done with their contract. There's also the negative of, if you're clearly not willing to sign a new contract, getting benched for a significant amount of time (see Fernando Llorente)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
Shroud posted:They can negotiate with any number of parties, so long as their bids have been accepted by the player's current team. Correct, or as was pointed out earlier, they can negotiate with whoever if they only have 6 months left on their current deal which I had actually forgotten about lol
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Which means their current employer is the gatekeeper, and their current employer obviously has conflicting interests. The player signed a contract...........
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I understand that, I was mostly responding to the assertion that players can negotiate with "anyone they want" as long as that team has a bid accepted by the current team. They don't have to because typically anyone exceptional at a smaller club (see: Arsenal) will be bought out before the last six months of their contract (see: half of Manchester City, Robin Van Persie)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:Isn't a player fully capable of rejecting a proposed sale? My understanding is that players can choose to reject any sale and leave on a Bosman, same thing as a baseball player becoming a free agent in the US. Yes they are
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:But when you get bought out, you are still only negotiating your new salary with one (maybe two?) teams. That can't possibly be maximizing your value. Okay here John Smith signs a contract with Ajax making 1m a year, for 5 years. JS goes 2 years playing at a high level, he's loving life, having a great time. Manchester United submit a bid of 10m for him, Ajax rejects this, because they value him at 12m. Morally and legally, they are fine doing this - remember, good old JS signed for 5 years, he has three left, which the club has no qualms about making him see out. Chelsea on the other hand comes in and submits 12m, and Ajax accept. JS can negotiate a new contract with them - he can reject it too, if he likes, for whatever reason he so pleases. There are no moral or legal issues anywhere in this process. If JS really wants to go to Manchester United, but they wont put in 12m, then he can play in the Netherlands for three years and sign with them after that. He made a legal commitment to the club, remember?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:This is also a VERY important detail that was left out in the initial explanations... Did you think that there was a law that allowed the forceful employment of someone in another country because of a club's decision in an unrelated country? I didn't think that'd have to be explained really.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
There are those weird "contract for life" things that Casillas and Raul (I think) had, where if they make 20+ appearances they're automatically extended.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:This is a very team-friendly arrangement though, because if the player is injured or just plain bad and gets benched, then the contract expires. It offers much less security for the player than a simply long-term deal. Phone up Raul and tell him then idk
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I guess I"m just a moron then, whatever. We went whole pages before anyone bothered to mention important details like "players have the right to veto contract buyouts" so you'll have to excuse me if I don't have perfect information. We didn't think something like that had to spelled out to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Thanks for that link, I will definitely check it out. I figured clubs had to publish some accounting annually, as private companies in the US are also legally obliged to do. It's just that here, it is pretty much assumed that what is published is the most favorable accounting possible for the company and in reality things aren't always as they seem. European accounting disclosures are perhaps more stringent/reliable. You're honestly incoherent. The simplest poo poo seems wildly difficult for you and I can't fathom why. There's nothing inherently complicated about the way transfers/wages work in European leagues. It has nothing to do with "labor power" or whatever inane crap you want to talk about, they almost all make a loving ton of money and nobody is getting screwed except Byolante who earlier mentioned he has to watch Charlie Adam play e Also please stop talking about loving baseball ahahglkdghghhh
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
I'd quite like to be an agent and have some Brazilian kid run around a bit while chatting it up with managers all while making a few million euros or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
TelekineticBear! posted:I wish I was a football agent, financially exploiting people denied a proper education sounds like a right laugh Dude same....pm me
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
It's ridiculous how common that poo poo seems to be. Ibrahimovic said the same stuff in his book, that when he moved either to Juventus or Ajax I forget which he was underweight cuz he couldn't cook and had no idea what to do.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
euroboy posted:Zlatan stayed up all night playing video games because Ajax got him an apartment and he had no clue what to do. Until he had this big bonding experience with Maxwell who taught him different stuff around the house. Fascinating. Probably why he follows him to every club
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
I still don't really get FFP, to me it seems like all it does is solidify the already rich?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Rangers's situation confuses me so much.. I may be wrong from a legal/or feasibility way but I can't see why some PL club doesn't just sponsor them out of the poo poo they're in. The amount of money is so small it wouldn't even register to them (1.5m???) and they could get what amounts to basically a feeder club or some poo poo. Maybe it breaks some rules or something? But players could get work permits, play in a (second or third tier) top league, get used to Britain, etc. All for like three months of a single average players wages lol
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
jre posted:It breaks the SFA rules on owning two clubs, which is why Mike Ashley can't own more than 9.9%. Ah okay that makes a lot of sense, granted I only ever hear anything about Rangers when I look in this thread so I was wondering wtf How have Celtic not run into these problems?? Do they have higher revenues or pay much less or something e Meaning before Rangers collapsed not now obv
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Byolante posted:Celtic actually paid their taxes so they didn't get booted out of the top flight and lost their shot at CL money. Sounds like some fail
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Insanely Sikh posted:What University do you support? For Math he supports MIT, but for Liberal Arts hell, always been a Harvard guy
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
ephex posted:Hmmm look at those tasty advanced stats: 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 14:22
|
|