Get In!

[kenada_blue]

I think there are scholarships for academys but a player is free to move if he hasnt signed pro terms, legally (and its a while since i studied Uk law) a contract in null and void if signed before 16 (Scotland i think)/17 (England) as the person in question is still considered a child.

Clubs are entitled to compensation based on the resources they have put into the players development up untill that point. Thats why the likes of Rooney, Jack and Josie signed pro contracts with us just after their 17th birthdays. Technicaly they could move to Utd or Arsenal academys before signing pro terms, with Everton due compensation - thats what happend with Garbutt.

So its basically a compensation thing then with any kid under 17 that hasnt signed?

What does my head in is that some one at the club like Leeds, Crewe etc has already signed off on the compo. Now the Chelsea thing has come to light (for a different reason I might add) clubs are reporting other clubs all over show for more compo.

Its not tapping up then if the kids arent officially signed to that club. And the way Bates etc comes across its as though clubs have stolen their best players, that they wont function without them, is a joke.

IMO if the compo is over what the clubs feel is right, I'd kick the kid back or just bin him altogether. Plenty more fish in the sea.

 

[bluebastardo]

I sympathize with the clubs who lose players.
A fair way of doing it would be to offer the club a respectable percentage of estimated market value , or actual market value at a particular age.

 

[Neiler]

So its basically a compensation thing then with any kid under 17 that hasnt signed?

What does my head in is that some one at the club like Leeds, Crewe etc has already signed off on the compo. Now the Chelsea thing has come to light (for a different reason I might add) clubs are reporting other clubs all over show for more compo.

Its not tapping up then if the kids arent officially signed to that club. And the way Bates etc comes across its as though clubs have stolen their best players, that they wont function without them, is a joke.

IMO if the compo is over what the clubs feel is right, I'd kick the kid back or just bin him altogether. Plenty more fish in the sea.

They have tended to take into account future potential recently mate with this case and Jordan going nuts at the Bostock compensation.

Chelsea i think are a little more underhand and as i mentioned in other threads they have a track record with dogey dealings with Diarra, Cole and Mikel - so this isnt there first offence and i reckon Fifa want to make an example of him.

Bates new the score and played the media and its current focus on whats happened to Chelsea to get the best deal for Leeds - you cant blame him really. Its similar to Moyes before the dearby replay last season and before the Semi final of the cup useing the media to influence the outcome - that certainly worked. He knew the score just wanted the best deal for Leeds.

The whole system is unjust in many ways there are restrictions say in recruiting youngsters outside a certain geographical region from the club - thats unequitable for a start as you have say us and Liverpool competeing in the same pool or Spurs and Arseanl, Utd and City. While you have clubs like Leeds or Newcastle who have a massive geographical region and huge demographic population to pick from. Not that im saying the old system wasnt flawed- but you wont find any of these kids in a sweatshops sewing Nike signs on kits!

Thats probably what will happen in the future if the compo keeps riseing, we offered 200k in compo for Garbutt but Leeds thought they would do better out of a tribunal - which is there right, if it goes to tribunal there is an appeal process but the final decision is usually binding (and an appeal can work against you as well as for you) - in that sense you mightend get the forsight to decide to bin the kid or give him back as if its gone to tribunal the move has probably already taken place.

What will proabably happen to regulate the situation IMO - is a tribunal will eventually say a player is worth ridiculous money and a club will have to fork out - that will probably be a deterent going on into the future.

 

[kenada_blue]

I sympathize with the clubs who lose players.
A fair way of doing it would be to offer the club a respectable percentage of estimated market value , or actual market value at a particular age.

How inflated is the market value though mate? We're paying £1million for a 16year old plus agreeing to 20% sell on clause for Garbutt.

8 out 10 of these kids never make it, or end up lower league/semi pro. And clubs are expected to pay heafty fees for unknown talant, especially home grown?

Its going to increase clubs going abroad and getting younger kids for less money.

 

[davek]

You have to go back to the start of the Premier League to get to this problem at root. The jettisoning of the rest of the football league by the elite top flght who took the vast majority of tv rights money left small clubs right in the [Poor language removed] (Everton' under Carter' being one of the prime movers of the new deal). Many small have been held together by supporters trusts and selling off their grounds to developers. It shows how desperate they are now having to trundle out this tactic. The big clubs reap what they sow on this issue for me.