BBC Home

Explore the BBC


19th April 2015
Accessibility help
Text only
606. 606 on Radio, TV, Web. The UK's biggest football debate.
Live Line: 0500 909 693 SMS Text: 85058 BBC Radio Five Live.BBC Sport.
Rant Line: 08700 100 500 Email: 606@bbc.co.uk

BBC Homepage
premiership section.
premiership section.


Contact Us


Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

 

or register to join or start a new discussion.

You are here > 606 message boards > Premiership > Player's power vs Club power

Discussion:

Player's power vs Club power

Messages  1 - 20 of 292

 
First | < Previous 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10    Next > | Last
 

Message 1 - posted by BBC Sport (U3702819) , Aug 22, 2006

taxi_driver asks:

What right does Uli Hoeness have to dictate to Owen Hargreaves where he is going to play for 4 years (a huge chunk) of his career? Surely if a player wants to move on, he should be allowed to, it is after all how the rest of the world works.

'Owning' a player simply because he is under contract is unethical. It clearly makes sense for Owen Hargreaves to move to England's biggest club, after all, he is an England international.
       

Message 2 - posted by TA5 - the new Kanu (U4746212) , Aug 22, 2006

Well he signed a contract (6 months ago) if United really wanted him they could have signed him for a FREE in Jan of this year.

It is called contract law he signed it, he took the money and he must abide by it.

simple as. do you think clubs would pay players so much money if they could walk away at a whim.

ps. United are not England's biggest club, that honnor belongs to liverpool i think.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 3 - posted by KingLedleyofEngland (U1753134) , Aug 22, 2006

He signed a contract, dont know what the fuss about him is tbh still dont see that he is a fantastic player. rather have Carrick, King or Parker playing defensive midfield for England.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 4 - posted by Arsenal (U4441664) , Aug 22, 2006

man u cant have him ha ha ha

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 5 - posted by VanTheManPersie (U1806897) , Aug 22, 2006

im sorry but he has every right to critisise hargreaves, he only signed a new contract 6 months ago so why should he let hargreaves state time and time again that he wants to leave. If the boot was on the other foot and a man utd player wanted to leave then im sure united fans would be angry with the player. Hargreaves is under contract and unless the rules change, he wont be going anywhere unless bayern say so

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 6 - posted by Dr Heath (U1774507) , Aug 22, 2006

Em if hargreaves wanted to move so badly why did he sign a contract 2 months ago??? And so what if he's an England international, hes was born in Canada so if Canadas "biggest" club wanted him should he go ther. He Also could have played for Germany (having lived there for over 7 years without getting an international Cap).

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 7 - posted by TA5 - the new Kanu (U4746212) , Aug 22, 2006

It is kinda funny that after 3 years and 4 weeks before the new season Fergie has just noticed his midfield is junk.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 8 - posted by SouthernSmugToffee (U1768526) , Aug 22, 2006

ps. United are not England's biggest club, that honnor belongs to liverpool i think.

----------------------------------------------

<laugh> <laugh> <laugh> <laugh>

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 9 - posted by sweet_child_o_mine (U4311889) , Aug 22, 2006

if he signed a contract at Bayern, it's his problem. that's how it works.
i don't want to make you sad but if you look at past Liverpool is the biggest club in England, if you look (only) at present it's (unfortunately) Chelsea. man united is the biggest club only in manchester :D

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 10 - posted by Frowning Face of Treason (U2328170) , Aug 22, 2006

How does what Man Utd are doing with respect to Hargreaves differ from the blatant tapping up of Cole by Chelski last season (incidently shouldn't the suspended ban come into effect if and when that deal goes through?)???

PS Man Utd are generally accepted as being the biggest club in the World, it therefore figures they must be England's biggest club also...far more fans from more diverse corners of the country than Liverpool have (although the glory seekers may be switching to Chelski).

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 11 - posted by R-Keane (Manager) (U1788282) , Aug 22, 2006

Players should not be forced to honour a contract. There has to be a get out clause. Its unfair on the player. They should be allowed to leave a contract as long as the club are compensated for it (15 mill should do it). In your job if you were told to stick out your 4 year contract even if a better offer came along you'd laugh at them. Clubs can sell players on at the drop of a hat. How are they held to a contract clause? They are not and so they should not be trapping a player like this.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 12 - posted by bluereign4decade (U5280602) , Aug 22, 2006

Man U fans funds pliz shut up. Contracts should be respected, and i suppose now that Man U is interested in him, he thinks he can just up and leave automatically and to hell with Bayern, and the fact that he is central to their plans for the season? It wouldn't make sense for Bayern to release a player they are so keen on, esecially when he has just penned a new contract.

Man U should look elsewhere for available holding midfielders and stop trying to bulldoze their way. Anyway they have no chance of winning the big trophies this season, their side is weak, and the likes of Ronaldo are inconsistent.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 13 - posted by waynes_betting_slip (U3857606) , Aug 22, 2006

too many footballers are mercenary at the best of times. What use is a contract if a player can choose to ignore what he has signed - and when he receives a more than reasonable reward from the club for doing so. I'm a man utd fan and would like to see hargreaves at OT but we cannot compel Bayern to sell him.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 14 - posted by Tore_was_great (U3751127) , Aug 22, 2006

"'Owning' a player simply because he is under contract is unethical. It clearly makes sense for Owen Hargreaves to move to England's biggest club, after all, he is an England international"

Chelsea aren't interested in him though, so its fine if he stays at Munich.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 15 - posted by Arsenal (U4441664) , Aug 22, 2006

man u are a massive club, this must be true coz there fans keep telling us its true, by the way when did they last win the title

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 16 - posted by Martinjolismydad (U2525436) , Aug 22, 2006

I don't like paying for my rent, bills, but i agreed into a contract where 2 parties agree to certain stipulations they both honour.

Would it be fair if Bayern Munich decided to not pay his wages because they thought he wasn't worth it? It works both ways.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 17 - posted by Denchanter™ (U2894071) , Aug 22, 2006

Well he signed a contract (6 months ago) if United really wanted him they could have signed him for a FREE in Jan of this year.

It is called contract law he signed it, he took the money and he must abide by it.

simple as. do you think clubs would pay players so much money if they could walk away at a whim.

ps. United are not England's biggest club, that honnor belongs to liverpool i think.

Quoted from this message




Yep United should have gone in for him last year. As far as I'm concerned he is the same player he has been for the past 2 years. It's just people's perception of him that has changed.

There seems to be a pattern developing. Carrick was exactly the same. My question is simple. What on earth do United's up to?

Their recomendations seem to be based on public opinion.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 18 - posted by TA5 - the new Kanu (U4746212) , Aug 22, 2006

PS Man Utd are generally accepted as being the biggest club in the World, it therefore figures they must be England's biggest club also...far more fans from more diverse corners of the country than Liverpool have (although the glory seekers may be switching to Chelski).

****************

going on the assumption that Liverpool have won the most i put them as the biggest club in England.

United are not considered the biggest in the world.

they used to make the most money from merchandizing - i would never use that as a criteria for "biggest in the world" and they dont even have that title anymore anyways.

it was just something Peter Kenyon made up when United were winning things.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 19 - posted by R-Keane (Manager) (U1788282) , Aug 22, 2006

What if you join a club that completely changes very shortly afterwards and you no longer have the respect for the club or manager. This looks like Gallas' situation to me. He should be allowed to move on. If Chelsea didnt want him he'd have been sold whether he wanted to go or not. Just like Beckham.
too many footballers are mercenary at the best of times. What use is a contract if a player can choose to ignore what he has signed - and when he receives a more than reasonable reward from the club for doing so. I'm a man utd fan and would like to see hargreaves at OT but we cannot compel Bayern to sell him.

Quoted from this message


This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       

Message 20 - posted by waynes_betting_slip (U3857606) , Aug 22, 2006

"Players should not be forced to honour a contract. There has to be a get out clause. Its unfair on the player. They should be allowed to leave a contract as long as the club are compensated for it (15 mill should do it). In your job if you were told to stick out your 4 year contract even if a better offer came along you'd laugh at them. Clubs can sell players on at the drop of a hat. How are they held to a contract clause? They are not and so they should not be trapping a player like this."


Most top players employ agents to act on their behalf .if they dont have the foresight to have release clauses in the contracts they sign then they have only themselves and/or their agents to blame.

This is a reply to this message

Complain about a message       
First | < Previous 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10    Next > | Last
Getting Involved help: How to reply to messagesThis link opens in a new popup window
Complain help: Alert us about a messageThis link opens in a new popup window
Online Safety help: Are you being safe online?This link opens in a new popup window

Messages  1 - 20 of 292

 



About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy