18 September 2015
Originally posted by Bucks
All a bit one sided and vague it seems. The argument is that the transfer system is unfair to players, compared to "normal" workers. The new vision suggests players will still have contracts, with all the protection and guarantees that these provide (which normal workers do not enjoy), but somehow there will not be any compensation to a club if a player breaks that contract. No explanation of why this is. Will it work both ways, i.e. can a player who is injured, or ill, or out of form, be terminated mid contract without any compensation? Somehow I doubt it.
As for the loan system being unfair on players, dont get me started. Nuts
To be honest he does make a lot of sense.
He does say that a player would have to pay up the remainder of his contract if he breaches it, so I suppose that is some sort of incentive not to, especially if they are on a larger wedge.
As for the loan system, I don't think he really says it is unfair on players, I think he is saying it is unfair on the samller teams. He uses city having a squad of 90 players as an example! They hoover up the best (young) players, stops the other teams getting them, and then farm them out on loan. If they play well at the other club then they are brought back to the parent club as a ready made player (Courtois is a a good example of this). Win win for the big clubs!
I shudder to think of what impact it may have on the smaller clubs in the PL but overall I think he makes a fair point.