World Cup Thread.

[Major **********]

Can one of you European soccer followers explain how the selling of players works ?

When a team sells a player is that money generally used as a pot to buy more players or does the owner sometimes just keep it. Like if Suarez goes to Spain for close to 100M pounds, will Liverpool spend all that on players ? Do they generally do it immediately or sometimes keep it to spend over several years ? Does the player have to go if he's sold or is it a mutual thing ?

Thanks for any explanation.

Its entirely up to the team what they do with the money. When a player is "sold" his agent is involved (often he is the driving force behind it) in the negotiations as usually a new contract is signed or the player receives a fee or a percentage of the transfer fee as compensation.

 

[BritPat]

Suarez suspended for 9 games + 4 months totally away from soccer.

This is going to open up a huge can of worms in terms of club v country. Players being stopped playing for their employers over something that happened whilst on International duty is shocking precedent.

 

[Big-T]

Players being stopped playing for their employers over something that happened whilst on International duty is shocking precedent.

Not really, both himself & Liverpool are lucky it was ONLY 4 months.

It's the 3rd time he's been banned for the same thing + add in the ban for being racist, he deserves everything he got.

 

[BritPat]

Can one of you European soccer followers explain how the selling of players works ?

When a team sells a player is that money generally used as a pot to buy more players or does the owner sometimes just keep it. Like if Suarez goes to Spain for close to 100M pounds, will Liverpool spend all that on players ? Do they generally do it immediately or sometimes keep it to spend over several years ? Does the player have to go if he's sold or is it a mutual thing ?

Thanks for any explanation.

The proper stages of a transfer should be:

1. Buying club makes offer of a transfer fee to the player's current club.
2. Current club accepts the offer
3. The player and his agent then enter negotiations with the buying club over a contract
4. The player accepts the offer.
5. Medical examination takes place to confirm player is fully fit
6. Contracts exchanged between clubs and player
7. Registration sent off to the relevant Football Association

That's how it normally works, sometimes the medical takes place earlier if the player has a history of injuries and then a contract with certain clauses and assurances based on that may be offered. Sometimes the player may not want to go (very very rare, can't actually remember it happening recently) however more often the player may want to go but the club does not accept the bid.

Sometimes you have a release clause in contracts where if a certain amount is met, then the buying club can bypass any negotiation with the parent club altogether. Some leagues automatically have release clauses, Spain is the most famous and has one of the most famous cases where this happened - read up on Luis Figo's move from Barcelona to Real Madrid. Imagine if the Patriots could have signed Darelle Revis away from the Jets without the Jets being able to do a thing about - that's basically what happened with Figo.

As for the fee, in the old days it would all go to the club who could do what they want with it (and they still can), nowadays though you'll see agents and even players getting a cut of the fee. Most teams will reinvest it in their playing squad, some will use it pay debts etc. Which is very very common.

 

[BritPat]

Not really, both himself & Liverpool are lucky it was ONLY 4 months.

It's the 3rd time he's been banned for the same thing + add in the ban for being racist, he deserves everything he got.

You're very wrong.

This has never ever happened before. It is unique.

And I'm not quite sure how LFC were lucky, considering he was on International duty. His club should not be suffering for something he did playing for International football. No player in the history of the sport has ever suffered the same. It is a first.

 

[Big-T]

You're very wrong.

This has never ever happened before. It is unique.

And I'm not quite sure how LFC were lucky, considering he was on International duty. His club should not be suffering for something he did playing for International football. No player in the history of the sport has ever suffered the same. It is a first.

It's also a first for the same player to be banned 3 times for biting someone in the space of what, 3 years?

Any other sport he would have been banned for life after the first time he bit someone.

FIFA have finally grown a pair, somewhat, in giving him a global ban - albeit a relatively short ban when they could have given him 2 years.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I feel dirty posting this. If there were a Stupid Olympics I think this piece would probably win it. Still, it does make clear how much soccer touches a political vein:

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/...est-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137/

And now to the U.S.-Germany game.

Really excited for it. Hope you Yanks (even you hyphenated ones ) enjoy it a lot.

 

[Major **********]

Lahm at the double pivot with Schweisteiger and Kroos at CAM with Ozil as a winger. That's at least one winger that the US doesn't have to worry about tracking back on defense. Also the 4 CB back line experiment continues.
On another note the suspensions to Boateng and especially Muntary are good news for the loser of the USA-Ger match. It weakens Ghana which is the one winner of that match that is more likely to knock the USA or Germany out on goal differential. Portugal need a 5 goal swing to eliminate USA on goal differential and a 9 goal swing for Germany. Ghana on the other hand would need a 2 goal swing (they win by one and USA looses by one) in order to make up goal differential on the US then they go onto goals for which at present the US has 4 and Ghana 3. If that is also tied then the head to head match up comes into account and the US has that tiebreaker.They would need a 3 goal swing to knock the US out on goal differential.
Germany would need a 5 goal swing to get knocked out by Ghana. Needless to say it would take quite a calamity for them not to go through. So the only pressure on them really is to play well and build confidence and avoid injuries and suspensions going into the next round.

 

[Kontradiction]

It's also a first for the same player to be banned 3 times for biting someone in the space of what, 3 years?

Any other sport he would have been banned for life after the first time he bit someone.

FIFA have finally grown a pair, somewhat, in giving him a global ban - albeit a relatively short ban when they could have given him 2 years.

Apparently a ban is not going to get him to stop, though. My plan of having someone roll up on his leg and cause a compound fracture, maybe ending his career, would. And it doesn't sound like the punishment would be all that harsh.

 

[BritPat]

It's also a first for the same player to be banned 3 times for biting someone in the space of what, 3 years?

Any other sport he would have been banned for life after the first time he bit someone.

FIFA have finally grown a pair, somewhat, in giving him a global ban - albeit a relatively short ban when they could have given him 2 years.

Wrong.

It's violent conduct. It's no different to a player (say Pepe or Sergio Ramos) who have a history of red cards and violent conduct. They headbutt someone, they're sent off and miss three games. They come back and do the same thing, they miss three games. They do it at International level, they miss three games. They don't incrementally increase the ban each time, there is no precedent. The number of times it's happened makes no difference. It's not written into the laws of the game.

What is written in is punishing someone based on the severity of an incident. The previous record, Mauro Tasotti of Italy, was for a premeditated elbow on Luis Enrique of Spain. An 8 game International ban. Before that, the worst incident on record (and probably still is), is Toni Schumacher of Germany almost killing Patrick Batiston of France in something that was again premeditated.

Again, just an International ban.

There's no precedent for what FIFA have done. A player has never been banned for an incident and the ban affected his club, or vice versa. There's already a couple of football lawyers on Twitter stating it's an over the top move by FIFA and without precedent, which may be over-turned.

 

[BritPat]

Apparently a ban is not going to get him to stop, though. My plan of having someone roll up on his leg and cause a compound fracture, maybe ending his career, would. And it doesn't sound like the punishment would be all that harsh.

There have been far worse players and moments in the history of football. Check out Andoni Goikoetxea's (a player so fearsome he was nicknamed the butcher of Bilbao) attempted leg break on Maradona back in the 80's, or Roy Keane trying to end Alfe Inge Haaland's career in a game against Man City.

Recently you can watch Danny Mills (another serial scumbag who is a two-faced ****rat to boot) attempting to give Pedro Mendes brain-damage.

Many many incidents out there.

 

[Kontradiction]

There have been far worse players and moments in the history of football. Check out Andoni Goikoetxea's (a player so fearsome he was nicknamed the butcher of Bilbao) attempted leg break on Maradona back in the 80's, or Roy Keane trying to end Alfe Inge Haaland's career in a game against Man City.

Recently you can watch Danny Mills (another serial scumbag who is a two-faced ****rat to boot) attempting to give Pedro Mendes brain-damage.

Many many incidents out there.

Thanks for the recommended viewing. I have a stream up and ready to go at work for the U.S. match so I'll try to catch up afterward. Not going to be a very productive day for me but I figured I could squeeze some work in in between the match.

 

[BritPat]

Rooting for the USA today, just for my American friends on here, by the way

 

[BelichickFan]

The proper stages of a transfer should be:

1. Buying club makes offer of a transfer fee to the player's current club.
2. Current club accepts the offer
3. The player and his agent then enter negotiations with the buying club over a contract
4. The player accepts the offer.
5. Medical examination takes place to confirm player is fully fit
6. Contracts exchanged between clubs and player
7. Registration sent off to the relevant Football Association

That's how it normally works, sometimes the medical takes place earlier if the player has a history of injuries and then a contract with certain clauses and assurances based on that may be offered. Sometimes the player may not want to go (very very rare, can't actually remember it happening recently) however more often the player may want to go but the club does not accept the bid.

Sometimes you have a release clause in contracts where if a certain amount is met, then the buying club can bypass any negotiation with the parent club altogether. Some leagues automatically have release clauses, Spain is the most famous and has one of the most famous cases where this happened - read up on Luis Figo's move from Barcelona to Real Madrid. Imagine if the Patriots could have signed Darelle Revis away from the Jets without the Jets being able to do a thing about - that's basically what happened with Figo.

As for the fee, in the old days it would all go to the club who could do what they want with it (and they still can), nowadays though you'll see agents and even players getting a cut of the fee. Most teams will reinvest it in their playing squad, some will use it pay debts etc. Which is very very common.

So what happens if a team owner pockets most of the money.

For example with Luke Shaw, if he goes to MU and Southampton isn't a contender anyway, if they spend half the money on a replacement and the owner takes half the money.

Does that ever happen ? Do the fans riot ?

 

[BritPat]

So what happens if a team owner pockets most of the money.

For example with Luke Shaw, if he goes to MU and Southampton isn't a contender anyway, if they spend half the money on a replacement and the owner takes half the money.

Does that ever happen ? Do the fans riot ?

The clubs aren't always owned by one person, although mostly they are. At the end of the day, if the owner has put a lot of money into the club, then it's only fair they get something back. Southampton's a pretty good shout actually, before Markus Liebherr took over, the club was in Administration and might have gone out of existence (a fate many have suffered recently), however he came in, sorted out the debts and then put up money to bring in new playing staff, as well as coaches and he also invested further in the Southampton Academy.

Clubs like Southampton put a lot of time into bringing through youngsters and coaching up players. I'd liken it to Fast & Loud (if you watch it?). Richard will buy an old rust-bucket on the cheap, do it up, and then sell it for decent money. It's a similar idea.

However, there's a different side to this - sometimes you will see owners come in with the sole intention of making money and with little idea of investment. Sadly my club, Liverpool, suffered this with the arrival of Tom Hicks and George Gillet back in 2008. They were in it solely for the revenues and the team, which had been challenging under the manager, suffered. They ended up millions in debt (about £400M, which is a conservative estimate) and the fans started demonstrating. It ended up with RBS (who Hicks and Gillet were in debt to) forcing through a sale to FSG.

It's not the first and it won't be the last. Look at Man United and the Glazers.

 

[BritPat]

U-S-A
U-S-A
U-S-A

 

[Kontradiction]

U-S-A
U-S-A
U-S-A

I believe that we will win!

 

[Big-T]

So what happens if a team owner pockets most of the money.

For example with Luke Shaw, if he goes to MU and Southampton isn't a contender anyway, if they spend half the money on a replacement and the owner takes half the money.

Does that ever happen ? Do the fans riot ?

Ken Bates pretty much kept every penny of every transfer when he owned Leeds United (thankfully he sold the club in the end), the fans protested etc....all he did was ban them from buying tickets and called them "morons".

 

[ctpatsfan77]

My proposed solution for Suárez: he can end the ban immediately, provided he wears a Hannibal Lecter mask whenever he plays (so he can't even try to bite anyone).

 

[Galeb]

Rooting for the USA today, just for my American friends on here, by the way

Thanks buddy. And if I don't see ya next week, happy Independence Day!