Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Add Reply RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Discussion Big Clubs Raiding Starlet?, City join Chelsea and ManU in report

views
     
vreis
post Sep 8 2009, 05:34 PM

Golden Past Red Future
******
Senior Member
1,658 posts

Joined: Jul 2006
From: Spion Kop
QUOTE(skystrike @ Sep 8 2009, 04:26 PM)
to be honest...english club really like to pouch underage youngster from abroad....italy i dunno...but at spain big club at there seldom pouch underage youngster from abroad...look at barca n real madrid...
*
You think Messi just happens to migrate to Barcelona in young age whistling.gif

QUOTE(matyrze @ Sep 8 2009, 04:33 PM)
I would be really happy if FIFA are continuously trying to look at these matters. Poaching activities should not be allowed, as it always benefits big clubs with huge financial backing.
As you can see, only EPL clubs are being accused of poaching. IMO, it is because only EPL teams have the advantage of doing so. La Liga and Serie A clubs can only tie above-17 youngsters with a professional contract, so how can they 'poach' a 16 years old youngster?
*
Dunno much about contract, but didn't youngster sign YTS form before they are 17 or 18 in England? The only screw up is in other country, youngster are just a trainee without any contract? So it bound to happens English clubs take advantage of this.
Its like whole loads of free agent out there, why not pay peanuts for outstanding talents though it doesn't means these youngsters will all make it. I don't see any difference in way that eg: Barca got Messi from his Argentina club when he's young to the way English clubs operate.
But it only means there's dearth of talents in England when they go around world looking for young talents. Just see Fabian Delph whisch cost a bomb even though he never played in top flight.

QUOTE(verx @ Sep 8 2009, 05:02 PM)
Spanish clubs do poach players. Even if they don't sign professional terms, a youth contract is still a contract. And taking 14-15 year olds from South America or Africa to put them into the academy is also poaching talent no matter how you look at it. Messi anyone? Probably the difference is that the Spanish and Italian clubs pay some form of compensation when they take these talents over. English clubs however have tried to totally screw smaller European clubs by taking their talent for free. I may be wrong though and I'm sure it doesn't represent the behaviour of all or most English clubs; just a minor few.
*
Don't think they got for free. Most of the time its a fee set by tribunal because as always, reluctant seller will wanna sell high & buyer wanna buy low, in this case is possible due to lack of contract binding youngster with clubs
vreis
post Sep 11 2009, 11:46 AM

Golden Past Red Future
******
Senior Member
1,658 posts

Joined: Jul 2006
From: Spion Kop
QUOTE(verx @ Sep 11 2009, 11:36 AM)
@Kerplunk: Innocent until proven guilty. European clubs in general tend to bring in youngsters at a far younger age (ard 8-13). And for players that are older normally a fee is involved. What the English clubs are criticised for now are for bringing in players just before they can sign professional contracts by offering them a lucrative pro contract (because it's allowed in England) and without compensating a fee. It may be legal but to me it's unethical. That is what I want to see being cracked down. Chelsea may have been unlucky because Kakuta had signed a pre-agreement with Lens but that doesn't mean that all the other European clubs practice the same way mainly because there is no loophole for them to exploit. The whole thing would have been a non-issue if the clubs that trained these players since they were 8 yrs old were being compensated in the first place.
*
How much do you compensate them when there's no contract involve. What is the amount that seems fair to both sides? Reluctant seller will quote sky high price while buyer will find ways to nick those youngster for free since there's practically no contract binding them. What if seller determine to hang into their prized asset & buyer determine to get their hands on the said asset while the asset himself determine to move on to better things? Do we need to consider the opinion of the youngster since there's no contract? If not, then buyer & seller is equally guilty for treating the youngster like a piece of meat.
Trouble is determining the amount of compensation. For pro, their transfer fee mostly based on their income/year. If this approach are used to compensate those small clubs, it's practically nil.
On the other hand, do the buyer just pay whatever the figure quoted by seller? It's a no brainer since, why would they pay the seller asking price when they know they can get it for far less if its decided by tribunal.

BTW bet all those big clubs across Europe would like to have a youth policy like the English. Its just that government policy prevented them from signing contracts with youngster like the English whistling.gif

This post has been edited by vreis: Sep 11 2009, 11:49 AM
vreis
post Sep 11 2009, 12:07 PM

Golden Past Red Future
******
Senior Member
1,658 posts

Joined: Jul 2006
From: Spion Kop
QUOTE(verx @ Sep 11 2009, 12:00 PM)
In such cases once the youngster wants a move, the seller can't really hang onto them. But you're right, it's difficult to quantify what would be an adequate fee. Which is why there needs to be legal guidelines drawn up whether by FIFA or by some other body. Most of these cases are decided by a tribunal currently and in most cases the fee was accepted by the seller. Chelsea's case is unique because the player had signed a pre-agreement. Chelsea will argue that such an agreement shouldn't be legally binding. It's interesting FIFA has chosen to uphold it. Might open a new can of worms.
Well if they were able to sign players on pro contracts as early as the English there wouldn't be any problems would there whistling.gif
But if the cases were reversed I definitely can see the same outcry happening. Clubs at the end of the day will only look after their interests.
*
Thought any agreement with minor is void? hmm.gif

Even if there's reversed case, I don't think there's loads of English boy willing to go abroad in such a young age. How many Englishmen in recent seasons that willing to play abroad? Somehow, just like the Italian, they don't like to go abroad. Maybe it stems from their mind that their leagues is among the best in Europe so there's no need to go abroad. Funny, have a feeling that they're pampered in their country instead tongue.gif
vreis
post Sep 11 2009, 12:49 PM

Golden Past Red Future
******
Senior Member
1,658 posts

Joined: Jul 2006
From: Spion Kop
QUOTE(madmoz @ Sep 11 2009, 12:22 PM)
I disagree. It is like the doping of thoroughbred racehorses in america (google eight belles). The 'solution' is obvious - for racehorses stop the use of dopes), for football stop the transfer of under 18s.
In both cases, it will change the face of the sport, and most are not willing to do this.

If NO kids are allowed to leave their countries to learn their trade elsewhere until they are 18, then clubs will have no choice to either develop their local lads or spend money developing an academy on foreign soil in partnership of local club. And yes, it is true that not one club can have 100 academies in 100 nations, so it is again a matter of making priorities. Heck, this even levels the playing field imho.

It will change football, for the better imho.
*
Big clubs can simply uproot the families, no? Instead of transfer of minor, it became emigration of family. So when a family start a new life in other country, cant the kids enrol in big clubs academy?
« Next Oldest · Football Lounge · Next Newest »
 

Add ReplyOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
 0.0178sec    0.76    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 22nd December 2025 - 12:30 PM
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Removal Request
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025  IPS, Inc.