10 Aug 2017 14:08:40
Interesting developments with Danny Rose.
He's unsurprisingly met with some stinging criticism, for both form and content of his "outburst".
It raises some interesting questions.

1), Footballers are essentially employees at work, like many of us. So is it inherently bad/ wrong for them to primarily look to prioritize maximising their earnings, at every possible turn?

2) Is it inherently wrong/ bad for footballers to see their club as primarily/ merely an employer; their career merely a job? Or are they necessarily obliged to have an affinity with the club? Share same dreams as club/ fans?


3) Is it reasonable to expect a player to view football and particularly his relationship with his parent club thru the same lenses as the fan? Is it inherently wrong when this is not the case?

4)Is it inherently wrong for a player to see and use a club as a "stepping stone"? Is the very concept of "stepping stone" automatically bad and justified of its negative connotations?

5) The CONTRACT: Wantaway player.

Fans: "Well, he happily signed a new six year contract only just 10 months ago"; "The club should hold firm and force him to honour his full contract. "

These are some of the things normally churned out in cases when a player wants out. Is there merit in these? Is it the correct way of going about things?
Let's flip it and put shoe in the other foot.

The CONTRACT: Club wants rid of players Klavan and Sakho.

Klavan: "I have 3 years left in my contract and I fully intend seeing it out. Liverpool should honour the full years. I'm going nowhere. "

Sakho: "My deal has 2 years to run. I want club to fully honour it and I intend going nowhere".

Fans react: "Bloody leeches. They are a disgrace. Let them rot in the reserves. "

What does a contract mean? Does it mean that the both player and club SHOULD and intend fully seeing it?
Is reality as mechanical as the contract envisions?
Is a strictly legalistic, rather than pragmatic (reasonable), approach to matters, desirable here?

Wouldn't adopting such an approach result in rather absurd situations which would soon be pretty much unworkable, to the benefit of no one?
I believe that it is down to reason and pragmatism that so much business is (sometimes) seamlessly done.


Clubs have their own ambitions, granted. And they would like to hold onto their important players, understandably. And there's a contract in place, sure. But then the player has his rights and entitlements, maybe more so morally than legally, depending.
Is it just and fair for an employee to be held against their will?
Would it be fair and just for a club that wants rid to be lumbered with that player refusing to leave, because of a contract?

Surely the reasonable, moral and just position is that of granting the employee/ employer their wish so long as reasonable and due compensation is paid?

Appealing to reason seems to me to be the sensible and most workable rout than this inconsistent insistence on the principle of "he signed a contract. Force him to honour it".

Of course, other factors come into play, crucial among them being timing. It obviously has to be right for the selling club.
It would be unreasonable and frankly absurd to expect to Spurs to just sell Harry Kane should Madrid rock up with even a £200m offer tomorrow morning.
However, it would be absurd and unreasonable of Arsenal to reject advances for Sanchez even NOW given that they've known, and thus had time to make provision for this eventuality. They would, however, be within their legal rights to do so.

The stance of a club like RBL, from the point of view of not having had sufficient time to make provision for Keita's departure, would be perfectly reasonable. In light of Rangnick/ their coach's recent pronouncements about a sale being likelier next summer, I'd think this is pretty much the case.
On the whole, RBL cannot be deemed to have been unreasonable in the Keita matter.
The timing may have been a problematic issue, hence the unshakable stance.

I'm a strong believer in reason, pragmatism and moral justness. This is why, as much as I want Coutinho to stay and Liverpool to keep all its best players, I accept that may not always be practical.
Football is not much different from life. People will always be ambitious, thirsting to rise and keep rising.

You starting out at this one company don't necessarily mean you wanna stay there for a long time. Same with football. Let's not demonize footballers for being human.

Nothing wrong with Coutihno or any other player wanting to leave Liverpool for Barcelona. But you never going to make peace with it so long as you expect footballers to view thru your lenses and to share your ideals. When it happens, it happens, great. When it doesn't, it doesn't, no big deal

Apologies for the long post.


1.) 10 Aug 2017
10 Aug 2017 14:28:16
No matter what I reply with, its going to seem insignificant. I lost you about halfway down the post, but I do agree with your points around Football being a "job" to players. This is where I sometimes struggle with transfers, because the whole football world and way of operating is so far removed from the real world. I think it was Ronaldo (when he was pushing for a move to Madrid) that said he felt like a modern slave. To an extent I can understand it, but the ridiculous wages they earn just makes me not care a single bit haha.


2.) 10 Aug 2017
10 Aug 2017 14:39:56
I scrolled down looking for a response in red.

There wasn't so kept moving lol.


3.) 10 Aug 2017
10 Aug 2017 15:15:04
I feel that was too long. I read it, but I'm not sure what I read.


4.) 10 Aug 2017
10 Aug 2017 16:26:36
to the OP: your post was a pleasure to read, thank you.


5.) 10 Aug 2017
10 Aug 2017 17:30:44
I challenge you to an essay-off! These boards aren't long enough for the both of us 😉.


6.) 10 Aug 2017
10 Aug 2017 17:37:22
Suku great post mate.