Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
For Club or Country, Which should be given priority?
|
TSDuke Red
|
 Apr 19 2007, 11:48 AM, updated 19y ago
|
Look at all my stars!!
|
This is not a new topic but I saw it discussed again of Football Focus in-light of the latest Michael Owen saga. Newcastle Chairman Freddie Shepherd is demanding adequate compensation from the FA after Owen injured himself on England duty, sidelining him for much of the season. It can be debated that Newcastle could find themselves in a much better position now had Owen not been injured. It's not that the FA are a poor lot! I do agree with the panel on Football Focus that the FA should be a little more generous with their compensation. As we all know, there are larger stakes in todays game and the loss of a 20 goal striker can cause huge financial damage. Sure playing for one's country is an honour but it is the club that pays his wages and enables him to have a living. It is the club that has developed him as a player and as a person from a young age. There is a lot of time and money invested. As Reavo said, it's like borrowing someones car, damaging it, and then paying for only half the damage. The only question that beckons is, how much is enough compensation? How does one quantify that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
verx
|
Apr 19 2007, 11:54 AM
|
Soshified Madridista
|
His wages are how u quantify it. It's not like the FA doesn't have the resources to compensate. Insurance companies will know how to calculate the compensation with their actuaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
arrowhead
|
Apr 19 2007, 12:00 PM
|
|
|
Same like cars - each one are insured according to the values ya?
|
|
|
|
|
|
aw13
|
Apr 19 2007, 12:20 PM
|
Forgive and Forget, Living in the Past is Time Consuming
|
QUOTE(Duke Red @ Apr 19 2007, 11:48 AM) This is not a new topic but I saw it discussed again of Football Focus in-light of the latest Michael Owen saga. Newcastle Chairman Freddie Shepherd is demanding adequate compensation from the FA after Owen injured himself on England duty, sidelining him for much of the season. It can be debated that Newcastle could find themselves in a much better position now had Owen not been injured. It's not that the FA are a poor lot! I do agree with the panel on Football Focus that the FA should be a little more generous with their compensation. As we all know, there are larger stakes in todays game and the loss of a 20 goal striker can cause huge financial damage. Sure playing for one's country is an honour but it is the club that pays his wages and enables him to have a living. It is the club that has developed him as a player and as a person from a young age. There is a lot of time and money invested. As Reavo said, it's like borrowing someones car, damaging it, and then paying for only half the damage. The only question that beckons is, how much is enough compensation? How does one quantify that?  well i'm in the opinion that they should be compensated fully for the wages, I mean that's why the insurance coverage is for right? unless they go for a lower premium ones, which means the coverage/payout will also be lower lah... but i do think that they should cover the wages for the entirety of the injured period. can't really quantify anything else, but may have to if the injury is a career-threatening one. then all sorts of calculations will fly in. |
|
|
|
|
|
lilredridinghood
|
Apr 19 2007, 04:01 PM
|
|
|
Feel for Newcastle Utd, 17 million pounds and hardly see him playing for them, in 2 seasons...less than 20 games, or is it 10?
|
|
|
|
|
|
TSDuke Red
|
Apr 19 2007, 04:05 PM
|
Look at all my stars!!
|
11 starts unless I'm mistaken. Waiting to see if the G-14 has anything to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soulsareworthless
|
Apr 19 2007, 06:39 PM
|
|
|
Give priorities to clubs, never bite the hand that feeds you.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote
0.0668sec
0.65
5 queries
GZIP Disabled