Transfer fees to be abolished?

smat

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,404
Likes
2,476
Supports
arsenal
Twitter
@mrsmat
Thread starter #1
Technically this should go somewhere else but the Premier League being the home of the massive transfer fee, it seems like a good place to put this.

http://www.theguardian.com/football...-fees-could-go-fifa-brussels?CMP=share_btn_tw

Having run out of patience with Fifa and Uefa following long-running negotiations over reforms to the transfer system to protect players better, Fifpro’s lawyers will electronically file a complaint in Brussels with the European Commission.

Fifpro wants to abolish transfer fees and make it easier for players to move between clubs while respecting contracts. It believes its members have less freedom of movement than other workers when a club is able to demand a fee for a footballer under contract. Its lawyers also plan to argue that the existing system is anti-competitive because it places disproportionate power in the hands of elite clubs who can afford to pay large transfer fees.

Other Fifpro objectives include an end to the loan system, restrictions on squad sizes and the capping of payments to agents.
 

JimJams

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,170
Likes
2,567
Supports
Premier League Champions 15/16
#2
Obviously little thought went into the line "the existing system is anti-competitive because it places disproportionate power in the hands of elite clubs who can afford to pay large transfer fees" because all it does is put power in the hands of clubs who can afford to pay large wages. That then screws the smaller clubs out of getting a fee and the gap widens.
 

Christian Slater

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,957
Likes
936
Supports
Mino Raiola & Jorge Mendes
#5
It'll never be introduced when so many people get a chunk of the money that goes about for doing fuck all.

The fairest way to make things competitive is to only allow clubs to spend the money they generate and allow a certain outside investment. That way clubs thrive or struggle on their own decisions and can't keep spending £100+ when they fall short and make it inevitable.
 

johnnytodd

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,273
Likes
1,031
Location
Cheshire
Supports
Everton
#6
It'll never be introduced when so many people get a chunk of the money that goes about for doing fuck all.

The fairest way to make things competitive is to only allow clubs to spend the money they generate and allow a certain outside investment. That way clubs thrive or struggle on their own decisions and can't keep spending £100+ when they fall short and make it inevitable.
You might as well say nothing can change forever, stupid idea.
 

thespus

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,182
Likes
416
Supports
Arsenal
#7
Obviously little thought went into the line "the existing system is anti-competitive because it places disproportionate power in the hands of elite clubs who can afford to pay large transfer fees" because all it does is put power in the hands of clubs who can afford to pay large wages. That then screws the smaller clubs out of getting a fee and the gap widens.
Isn't that the way of life? The people that have the most money can lead a better life. I.e. better houses, holidays etc.
These are both great, succinct points. Eliminating transfer fees will only widen the gap - and having a pyramid of success isn't rare.

I think the current set-up, with the new television deal, will increase competition within the league - and already has done in only its first summer. Cabaye/Ayew/Amavi/Payet/Shaqiri - these are all players that can make the squads of the big 5/6. I'd have all except Shaqiri competing for places at Arsenal. Instead of accepting bench roles at the biggest clubs, or fucking off to less competitive leagues, these players will now have attractive, mid-table "projects" in England. English sides are off to a poor start in Europe, but I don't believe there is a league with as much quality distributed throughout. It isn't perfect, but if you go through life expecting perfect you end up an angry, bitter bastard.
 

Christian Slater

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,957
Likes
936
Supports
Mino Raiola & Jorge Mendes
#8
You might as well say nothing can change forever, stupid idea.
The way it is means nothing will change forever. Having a team that can only spend its own money, and not the oil wealth of Russia or GDP of UAE, means there is a risk of failure. Every time City have fallen short, whether it was missing out on 4th to Spurs or the two failed title retentions, they have spent over £90m net.
 

johnnytodd

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,273
Likes
1,031
Location
Cheshire
Supports
Everton
#9
The way it is means nothing will change forever. Having a team that can only spend its own money, and not the oil wealth of Russia or GDP of UAE, means there is a risk of failure. Every time City have fallen short, whether it was missing out on 4th to Spurs or the two failed title retentions, they have spent over £90m net.
So basically your saying whoever has the most foreign fans should be allowed to spend more.
 

Christian Slater

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,957
Likes
936
Supports
Mino Raiola & Jorge Mendes
#13
Trust the United fan to suggest that teams should only be allowed to spend what they generate XD - nice try.
It's not working for us. :emb:

I did say there should be a certain amount allowed for investment but it should be regulated. After all, having clubs be totally reliant on their owners money to run as a business puts the club as a whole at risk.

United could easily fuck up and lose a generation of fans. They are certainly not immune from failure. Try to compete with oil rich men and they'll bankrupt you trying to keep up.
 
Messages
459
Likes
133
Location
Birmingham
Supports
The Villa
#14
It's not working for us. :emb:

I did say there should be a certain amount allowed for investment but it should be regulated. After all, having clubs be totally reliant on their owners money to run as a business puts the club as a whole at risk.

United could easily fuck up and lose a generation of fans. They are certainly not immune from failure. Try to compete with oil rich men and they'll bankrupt you trying to keep up.
So what you're asking for is some kind of financial fair play system? Sounds interesting.
 

JimJams

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,170
Likes
2,567
Supports
Premier League Champions 15/16
#15
I'd quite like the MLS system where everyone is capped on wages bar a select few per side. That way clubs can't stockpile players because they can't entice people to essentially join their reserves for a few years on 75k a week just to stop other clubs going in for them. It also means clubs have to have more conviction in who they go for, and it'd give a better competitive balance. Trouble is it's got to be UEFA wide at least otherwise everyone would just piss off elsewhere.
 

BigDaveCUFC

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,667
Likes
540
Supports
Curzon Ashton....and Carlisle
#16
I could actually back this IF players also can be made redundant or sacked for in easier words failing to live up to expectations with the usual basic redundancy payments all us lot get.

If players want the same treatments in employment for their benefit then on other front the companies should be allowed their benefit to not be restricted to paying out 2-3 years worth of money to someone crap at their job.

they either want the sport based business of contracts which makes it harder for them to move, but allows them protection if they are rubbish at their job, or they want the normal employment way of working, but at same time can be removed from their job like rest of us if rubbish.
 

Benji

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,356
Likes
1,049
Supports
Expected Goals
#22
What would we make fun of Liverpool for if there were no transfer fees?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
14,939
Messages
923,742
Members
5,090
Latest member
Bordon Shot