I know, I know... three weeks without a post and one could easily think that this blog is over before it even began! Had I signed a contract though, the frequency of the updates would have definitely been inserted as a clause and I would have to respect it... or would I?
Contracts are the flavour of this year's summer. And it's not just the Cristiano Ronaldo saga (I was thinking of including a link but where do I begin? Maybe this is the most appropriate) which is still going on with as many twists and turns as the player's moves on the football pitch. Gareth Barry has also been involved in a tug of war between Aston Villa and Liverpool regarding his registration. So should players be forced to honour the contracts that they have already signed or should they be allowed to blackmail their clubs, forcing them to accept a transfer?
Let's take Ronaldo's example: he plays for Manchester United but he more or less says that he would like to go to Real Madrid. Of course, he is under contract with the Red Devils, a contract that he was expected to see out unless both his team and himself agreed upon its cancellation. Real Madrid play the game very carefully: they know that approaching the player without Man Utd's agreement would probably land them some sort of fine by FIFA (although it is Real Madrid that we are talking about...). At the same time, they are making noises about wanting Ronaldo dressed in the white shirt of Madrid.
Ronaldo himself is also in a delicate position. He knows what he wants (the whole world probably does) but is also aware that it may be the case that he will still be at Man Utd come September 1st. He does not want to burn any bridges ... yet! So he sits still. Officially demanding a transfer would probably cost him (in money terms), whereas should Real launch a bid and is accepted, he would benefit more.
But what of the contract which is already under way? Manchester United obviously do not want to sell him, and they may even try to force him to stay by flatly rejecting any approach. And then what? You end up with a disgruntled player, not producing at the best of his ability or even worse who is forced to watch the game from the stands (as Ferguson threatened). Furthermore, the dressing room morale may take a hit and as a result the team's form may plunge especially when we are talking about such an important player.
So who is right in all of this? In my opinion, contracts are there to be respected. If a player is not happy, he should have thought twice before agreeing on what was offered. If he desperately wants to move, then he should find a club who will compensate the team which holds the player's registration adequately. "Adequately" here means at a price which represents the value of the player to his current team (and of course that value may be different to the value of the player to his prospective team), however that is defined. Now whether the valuation is representative or not, that's another post!
Contracts are the flavour of this year's summer. And it's not just the Cristiano Ronaldo saga (I was thinking of including a link but where do I begin? Maybe this is the most appropriate) which is still going on with as many twists and turns as the player's moves on the football pitch. Gareth Barry has also been involved in a tug of war between Aston Villa and Liverpool regarding his registration. So should players be forced to honour the contracts that they have already signed or should they be allowed to blackmail their clubs, forcing them to accept a transfer?
Let's take Ronaldo's example: he plays for Manchester United but he more or less says that he would like to go to Real Madrid. Of course, he is under contract with the Red Devils, a contract that he was expected to see out unless both his team and himself agreed upon its cancellation. Real Madrid play the game very carefully: they know that approaching the player without Man Utd's agreement would probably land them some sort of fine by FIFA (although it is Real Madrid that we are talking about...). At the same time, they are making noises about wanting Ronaldo dressed in the white shirt of Madrid.
Ronaldo himself is also in a delicate position. He knows what he wants (the whole world probably does) but is also aware that it may be the case that he will still be at Man Utd come September 1st. He does not want to burn any bridges ... yet! So he sits still. Officially demanding a transfer would probably cost him (in money terms), whereas should Real launch a bid and is accepted, he would benefit more.
But what of the contract which is already under way? Manchester United obviously do not want to sell him, and they may even try to force him to stay by flatly rejecting any approach. And then what? You end up with a disgruntled player, not producing at the best of his ability or even worse who is forced to watch the game from the stands (as Ferguson threatened). Furthermore, the dressing room morale may take a hit and as a result the team's form may plunge especially when we are talking about such an important player.
So who is right in all of this? In my opinion, contracts are there to be respected. If a player is not happy, he should have thought twice before agreeing on what was offered. If he desperately wants to move, then he should find a club who will compensate the team which holds the player's registration adequately. "Adequately" here means at a price which represents the value of the player to his current team (and of course that value may be different to the value of the player to his prospective team), however that is defined. Now whether the valuation is representative or not, that's another post!
0 comments:
Post a Comment