nu774ll
Well-Known Member
Re: City Statement regarding Jeremy...
Sorry this belongs in the ongoing thread!
Sorry this belongs in the ongoing thread!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jérémy Hélan & City (Merged)
- Thread starter Bluemoon115
- Start date
Re: City Statement regarding Jeremy...
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2419489#p2419489" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?p=2419489#p2419489</a>
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2419489#p2419489" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?p=2419489#p2419489</a>
dingdingding
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 153
Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!
Here's what I think: poaching young players is shit.
Fifa are right to crack down on it.
If that means we get in trouble, so be it.
Here's what I think: poaching young players is shit.
Fifa are right to crack down on it.
If that means we get in trouble, so be it.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!
Here's what I think.
Everybody does it at some level including the French.
Decieiving a 13 year old into effectively signing a pro contract is very very shit & completely immoral.
If we're guilty Rennes are more guilty of breaking FIFA regs & should be prosecuted immediately.
Here's what I think.
Everybody does it at some level including the French.
Decieiving a 13 year old into effectively signing a pro contract is very very shit & completely immoral.
If we're guilty Rennes are more guilty of breaking FIFA regs & should be prosecuted immediately.
dingdingding
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 153
Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!
We appear to be poles apart.
Can we at least agree that I am sexy?
We appear to be poles apart.
Can we at least agree that I am sexy?
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!
No.
dingdingding said:We appear to be poles apart.
Can we at least agree that I am sexy?
No.
Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!
I tend to agree. Young players should have to repay the faith and investment that their first club has shown them. Otherwise what is the point of doing so when the best merely get mopped up by the 'biggest' and richest?
A little balance would be restored to the game if young players had to serve some sort of apprenticeship where the club concerned had first dibs on a pro contract until they were say 21/22/23 when they could be sold to the highest bidder (not a free). This would accomplish the following:
* they'd be useful servants to the club that invested in them and 'made' them
* the club would at least gain some benefit in terms of performance on the pitch
* the player would have to earn the right to move to a big club by delivering in matches
* the club would receive a decent fee to compensate for his loss if he moves on
More lateral thinking: how about any player on a pro-contract has to make a minimum small number of x senior appearances. This makes some sort of commitment back to the player and would also help to control the number of players signed up as kids. It would also ensure that players are not merely signed so that no-one else signs them.
I tend to agree. Young players should have to repay the faith and investment that their first club has shown them. Otherwise what is the point of doing so when the best merely get mopped up by the 'biggest' and richest?
A little balance would be restored to the game if young players had to serve some sort of apprenticeship where the club concerned had first dibs on a pro contract until they were say 21/22/23 when they could be sold to the highest bidder (not a free). This would accomplish the following:
* they'd be useful servants to the club that invested in them and 'made' them
* the club would at least gain some benefit in terms of performance on the pitch
* the player would have to earn the right to move to a big club by delivering in matches
* the club would receive a decent fee to compensate for his loss if he moves on
More lateral thinking: how about any player on a pro-contract has to make a minimum small number of x senior appearances. This makes some sort of commitment back to the player and would also help to control the number of players signed up as kids. It would also ensure that players are not merely signed so that no-one else signs them.
whp.blue
Well-Known Member
Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!
what happens when the next superstar comes along and is the best player in the world aged 17 he has the right to play for the biggest teams and earn the best money,
I know we all slag off players wages but in some cases it may be deserved look at messi I want to see him playing on a world stage not some backwater club in argentina and if this was brought in some small clubs would go bust waiting for their top young players come of age
whilst I agree with the sentiment this is fact a restraint of trade.Balti said:I tend to agree. Young players should have to repay the faith and investment that their first club has shown them. Otherwise what is the point of doing so when the best merely get mopped up by the 'biggest' and richest?
A little balance would be restored to the game if young players had to serve some sort of apprenticeship where the club concerned had first dibs on a pro contract until they were say 21/22/23 when they could be sold to the highest bidder (not a free). This would accomplish the following:
* they'd be useful servants to the club that invested in them and 'made' them
* the club would at least gain some benefit in terms of performance on the pitch
* the player would have to earn the right to move to a big club by delivering in matches
* the club would receive a decent fee to compensate for his loss if he moves on
More lateral thinking: how about any player on a pro-contract has to make a minimum small number of x senior appearances. This makes some sort of commitment back to the player and would also help to control the number of players signed up as kids. It would also ensure that players are not merely signed so that no-one else signs them.
what happens when the next superstar comes along and is the best player in the world aged 17 he has the right to play for the biggest teams and earn the best money,
I know we all slag off players wages but in some cases it may be deserved look at messi I want to see him playing on a world stage not some backwater club in argentina and if this was brought in some small clubs would go bust waiting for their top young players come of age
Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!
Academies should exist to give kids opportunities, just like schools and universities. The fact that a company, the football club, sponsors the academy shouldn't tie the kids to anything. Until they are adults they should be free to go anywhere they like. Any compensation should be between the clubs and the football associations and should never interfer with what a kid decides he wants to do. Once they get to adulthood (be that 16, 17 or 18 depending on the rules of the country) then they have big decisions to make and must take on the accountability of a binding contract.
I don't like the idea of acedemies being in the interest of the clubs, they should be in the interest of the footballing community. For this reason I'd prefer if a different term was used for pre adult acedemies (e.g. school of football) and post adult acedemies (e.g. professional football academy). It'd make it a bit awkward for teams with both age groups but players could still be invited to be part of ewither team and the academy could still carry on prett much as is but with the emphasis placed appropriately on different aged kids.
Academies should exist to give kids opportunities, just like schools and universities. The fact that a company, the football club, sponsors the academy shouldn't tie the kids to anything. Until they are adults they should be free to go anywhere they like. Any compensation should be between the clubs and the football associations and should never interfer with what a kid decides he wants to do. Once they get to adulthood (be that 16, 17 or 18 depending on the rules of the country) then they have big decisions to make and must take on the accountability of a binding contract.
I don't like the idea of acedemies being in the interest of the clubs, they should be in the interest of the footballing community. For this reason I'd prefer if a different term was used for pre adult acedemies (e.g. school of football) and post adult acedemies (e.g. professional football academy). It'd make it a bit awkward for teams with both age groups but players could still be invited to be part of ewither team and the academy could still carry on prett much as is but with the emphasis placed appropriately on different aged kids.
Re: Feel ill but a Rag just spoke some sense and I agree!
Would it be restraint of trade if he had willingly signed a contract on that basis?
For me if a small backwater club in Argentina or a small English lower league side like,say, Leeds unearthed a gem then why shouldn't they get to capitalise on that. That player might allow them to beat the drop or gain promotions. Why shouldn't they enjoy that benefit if they did all the ground work? Seems far fairer to me. (Wouldn't actually apply to Leeds though obviously). Otherwise it is just another part of the system that helps to maintain the status quo and for me that goes against the very ethos of what is meant to be a competitive sport. It would distribute money around the lower leagues more fairly too. Anyway just thinking out loud. I know it's probably impractical and certainly won't happen. But rules that make the game more equitable and help to level the playing field are sorely needed. Otherwise for the majority of clubs what is the point of participating? Seriously.
whp.blue said:whilst I agree with the sentiment this is fact a restraint of trade.Balti said:I tend to agree. Young players should have to repay the faith and investment that their first club has shown them. Otherwise what is the point of doing so when the best merely get mopped up by the 'biggest' and richest?
A little balance would be restored to the game if young players had to serve some sort of apprenticeship where the club concerned had first dibs on a pro contract until they were say 21/22/23 when they could be sold to the highest bidder (not a free). This would accomplish the following:
* they'd be useful servants to the club that invested in them and 'made' them
* the club would at least gain some benefit in terms of performance on the pitch
* the player would have to earn the right to move to a big club by delivering in matches
* the club would receive a decent fee to compensate for his loss if he moves on
More lateral thinking: how about any player on a pro-contract has to make a minimum small number of x senior appearances. This makes some sort of commitment back to the player and would also help to control the number of players signed up as kids. It would also ensure that players are not merely signed so that no-one else signs them.
what happens when the next superstar comes along and is the best player in the world aged 17 he has the right to play for the biggest teams and earn the best money,
I know we all slag off players wages but in some cases it may be deserved look at messi I want to see him playing on a world stage not some backwater club in argentina and if this was brought in some small clubs would go bust waiting for their top young players come of age
Would it be restraint of trade if he had willingly signed a contract on that basis?
For me if a small backwater club in Argentina or a small English lower league side like,say, Leeds unearthed a gem then why shouldn't they get to capitalise on that. That player might allow them to beat the drop or gain promotions. Why shouldn't they enjoy that benefit if they did all the ground work? Seems far fairer to me. (Wouldn't actually apply to Leeds though obviously). Otherwise it is just another part of the system that helps to maintain the status quo and for me that goes against the very ethos of what is meant to be a competitive sport. It would distribute money around the lower leagues more fairly too. Anyway just thinking out loud. I know it's probably impractical and certainly won't happen. But rules that make the game more equitable and help to level the playing field are sorely needed. Otherwise for the majority of clubs what is the point of participating? Seriously.