Alexander Isak | Cried his way to a £130m move

chaddblue said:
Ornstein works for the Athletic that are owned by the New York Times who are part owners of Liverpool

He’s a bin dipper schill
Click to expand...
I believe what you state there is incorrect. Pretty sure New York Times sold their minority shares in FSG about 4 years ago.
 
The only thing that makes sense here is if there was a gentleman's agreement that Newcastle have now back tracked on. Surely
 
mexico1970 said:
Disappointingly that's a grey area, clubs just can't refuse to pay a player. IMHO if a player fucks about the club should have every right to refuse to pay him.
Click to expand...
I am with you on not paying a player, who refuses to play, without a valid reason. It is not about a single transfer story, it is a bigger picture. That is my, football fan, view.

I reckon it would likely lead to another Bosman type ruling, though. Human rights and mental health would all get involved.
 
slotter said:
I am with you on not paying a player, who refuses to play, without a valid reason. It is not about a single transfer story, it is a bigger picture. That is my, football fan, view.

I reckon it would likely lead to another Bosman type ruling, though. Human rights and mental health would all get involved.
Click to expand...

It needs to be sorted, clubs need to have some authority over a contract and this could be the way forward for them. Let the coursts decide I say.

Apart from that and IF (And with our media we know we can't trust what they write) he is guilty of being a **** then expecting to be paid is morally shocking.
 
BlueLou82 said:
The lad is a disgrace. As an Everton fan who dislikes the Geordies (but hates that lot) I hope they take a stand.

He was happy to sign a long term deal a couple if years ago. He sould have signed a shorter contract or had his agent get a release clause. Yes he wants to go, yes he may be unhappy and sumbit a request. But at the end if the day, the club has to do whats best for the club not him. Selling one of the top strikers in the world when there are not many decent replacements available is not going to push the club forward. If he has another great season top clubs will come for him again. Very unprofessional.

I hope they refuse to sell him and surely if he refuses to train/play once the window is shut then they can refuse to pay him. Also is he going to ruin his chances of going to a WC at the end of the season? Dont think so.

Plus any RS getting giddy over him being a tit, need to remember that should they get him and then Real/Barca etc tap him up in a few years
Click to expand...
RS = Red Shite?
 
slotter said:
I believe what you state there is incorrect. Pretty sure New York Times sold their minority shares in FSG about 4 years ago.
Click to expand...
Ok. Didn't know that. But still they're heavily linked to Liverpool and probably still on friendly terms with the Liverpool owners
 
mexico1970 said:
Disappointingly that's a grey area, clubs just can't refuse to pay a player. IMHO if a player fucks about the club should have every right to refuse to pay him.
Click to expand...

Im sure they still have to pay him if he's being a dickhead. But surely his job is to train and play football. If he is blatantly refusing to do his job as has been reported (not just moping or doing things half arsed in training, but still training) then im pretty sure there can be some form of financial punishment.

It is a grey area but teams need to take a stand.

We have a similarish situation with Dibling who has been reported to be training alone and not mentally right to play games for Saints. I dont like that at all, as much as it may help us get him it shows who he is. A player who will do exactly the same to us in a few years.
 
mexico1970 said:
It needs to be sorted, clubs need to have some authority over a contract and this could be the way forward for them. Let the coursts decide I say.

Apart from that and IF (And with our media we know we can't trust what they write) he is guilty of being a **** then expecting to be paid is morally shocking.
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence that a player has to still be paid if they go on strike?
Because, if it's true then the players union is missing a major trick here. They're complaining about the number of games they're being forced to play (for instance), but they've not employed the option of striking on full pay to get what they want? Doesn't seem very likely does it?
 
citizen_maine said:
Is there any evidence that a player has to still be paid if they go on strike?
Because, if it's true then the players union is missing a major trick here. They're complaining about the number of games they're being forced to play (for instance), but they've not employed the option of striking on full pay to get what they want? Doesn't seem very likely does it?
Click to expand...


Looks very much like they do get paid even when they throw a hissy fit, I know it seems unbelievable but it does appear to be true. There is some discussion about it here.

www.themag.co.uk

No wages if players refuse to train or play says senior Premier League club official - Report

A senior Premier League club official has told Sky Sports, that players who refuse to train and / or play should have their wages stopped.
www.themag.co.uk

This is AI's take on it.

Generally, yes, a club must continue to pay a player their agreed-upon salary even if the player refuses to play, provided the player's refusal is not a result of a serious breach of contract or other justifiable reason, according to football betting sites. Clubs can't simply stop paying a player for refusing to play, unless there's a valid legal and contractual basis for doing so.
 
mexico1970 said:
It needs to be sorted, clubs need to have some authority over a contract and this could be the way forward for them. Let the coursts decide I say.

Apart from that and IF (And with our media we know we can't trust what they write) he is guilty of being a **** then expecting to be paid is morally shocking.
Click to expand...
When one believes the media, one may as well start trusting 'scruffy of the swamp'!

IF true and if it was your average joe, they'd be sacked or told to apply for sick pay. Tell the footballers they will have to live on £80 p/w! They'd soon be playing again.
 
citizen_maine said:
Is there any evidence that a player has to still be paid if they go on strike?
Because, if it's true then the players union is missing a major trick here. They're complaining about the number of games they're being forced to play (for instance), but they've not employed the option of striking on full pay to get what they want? Doesn't seem very likely does it?
Click to expand...
It has been mentioned as a last resort - strike. It is a very drastic action.
 
mexico1970 said:
Looks very much like they do get paid even when they throw a hissy fit, I know it seems unbelievable but it does appear to be true. There is some discussion about it here.

www.themag.co.uk

No wages if players refuse to train or play says senior Premier League club official - Report

A senior Premier League club official has told Sky Sports, that players who refuse to train and / or play should have their wages stopped.
www.themag.co.uk

This is AI's take on it.

Generally, yes, a club must continue to pay a player their agreed-upon salary even if the player refuses to play, provided the player's refusal is not a result of a serious breach of contract or other justifiable reason, according to football betting sites. Clubs can't simply stop paying a player for refusing to play, unless there's a valid legal and contractual basis for doing so.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that's an opinion piece from 5 years ago that includes this quote that the whole article seems to be based around
“We are not sure what the situation is under their contracts at the moment."
 
citizen_maine said:
To be fair, that's an opinion piece from 5 years ago that includes this quote that the whole article seems to be based around
“We are not sure what the situation is under their contracts at the moment."
Click to expand...

I can't find anything that says that the players aren't paid when they throw their toys out of the pram, if it's true it needs changing IMHO.

Players have power because they are an asset doesn't really help the contracts they sign worth any more. I wonder if other player think the players that go on strike for a move are cunts?
 
mexico1970 said:
I can't find anything that says that the players aren't paid when they throw their toys out of the pram, if it's true it needs changing IMHO.

Players have power because they are an asset doesn't really help the contracts they sign worth any more. I wonder if other player think the players that go on strike for a move are cunts?
Click to expand...
They may well do. The point was though, that the club couldn't do anything about Isak (in this case) going on strike as they'd still have to pay him. This seems to me incredibly unlikely for the reason I stated above. It'd give them (players) incredible power to dictate terms to the clubs/leagues/associations/governing bodies if they did. The fact they haven't exercised that power suggests to me that they don't have it
 
slotter said:
Agree. I say drastic action, as it would tend to be when, all other tactics/attempts, have failed.
Click to expand...

If clubs routinely stopped players wages when they refused to train or play there would be more information that they do it, as it is there isn't so the assumption (A fair one at that) is that they continue to pay them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top