We cant stop them training without their agreement, its a breach of contract and work regs. What we can hope is they use this to either try and get a move away, or null and void the contract so they can move on a free. Unfortunately that will then impact FFP negatively.

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

We cant stop them training without their agreement, its a breach of contract and work regs. What we can hope is they use this to either try and get a move away, or null and void the contract so they can move on a free. Unfortunately that will then impact FFP negatively.

I think you can as long as you pay them. 

It is imo very simple, if we are willing to let all this player go for free then it is actually quite easy to move most of these players. 

It would be a really, really interesting scenario if the club had the balls to go through with this.

A first for football? Especially if we did this en-masse with all the deadwood and flops.

TBH I can't see it happening. The player's Union and solicitors would be all over it like a bad smell. Accusations of victimisation and ensuing legal challenges. Possibly restraint of trade?

Edited June 13, 20233 yr by just

Just now, Bob stark said:

I think you can as long as you pay them. 

It is imo very simple, if we are willing to let all this player go for free then it is actually quite easy to move most of these players. 

You cant, if they want to come to training you need an actual reason, and "we don't like him" isn't one. Its restriction of trade, you cant just stop someone doing their job on a whim. Thats why Bogarde kept coming to training, he had to be paid in full as he was fulfilling his contractual obligations.

8 minutes ago, dkw said:

You cant, if they want to come to training you need an actual reason, and "we don't like him" isn't one. Its restriction of trade, you cant just stop someone doing their job on a whim. Thats why Bogarde kept coming to training, he had to be paid in full as he was fulfilling his contractual obligations.

Wait, so we can't stop them to train even if we pay their full wages? This is interesting. 

Honestly talking about this so called deadweight. Who are they? 

Lukaku? If you say he is free or very cheap. Inter will sign him that second. He is already taking a paycut for Inter + paying us a decent loan fee. 

Kouli, his salary is way too high, it is impossible to move him. 

Sterling? Sterling is still very good, it make no sense to sell him. 

Who else? Cucu? I don't think it is possible to move cucu. 

 

Edited June 13, 20233 yr by Bob stark

On 10/06/2023 at 17:47, Gol15 said:

I'm arguing he's at the base of the midfield, NOT his partner and the players he played with both in Benfica, Argentina and now for us is a living proof of that, thus there is no reason for any manager to change his position, nor to bring in a player to play in his position as he is world class exactly where he plays.

 

But you're wrong about that - again, whether it was Bruno Zuculini at River Plate, Florentino Luis for Benfica or Rodrigo de Paul for Argentina, he has always had a more defensive partner at the base of midfield allowing him to roam forward. We all watched him too. just

 

 

On 10/06/2023 at 17:47, Gol15 said:

The difference is significant in those terms when you compare the two but when you actually look at the whole picture and see that Enzo is far more involved in tackles and in general in defensive actions you can actually stop thinking that Enzo isn't good enough defensively so there's that since after all, his tackle percentage is just 6% lower than Rodri but while being far more involved in tackles to begin with, so with a real structure when Pochettino starts working his percentages will only go up without him needing to change his position at all.

End of.

That's a good explanation but then why try and argue about his dribbled past % in the first place? Defensive stats are meaningless, there's no point bringing them up to justify an argument.

It's also not a good argument about the quality of Enzo's defending. We all know he can tackle, the problem is he is relatively slow, small and therefore is not a great player to have as your last line of defence. You need more than tackling skills to be a good DM. Enzo's tackling and aggression is also an asset up the field.

@venom2011 already raised the comparison to Xavi, i'd also thrown in Ilkay Gundogan. In both circumstances we have a player to slow to be a modern no. 10, played well as a deep-lying playmaker at base of midfield, transformed into a truly world class player by being given the freedom to work between the lines in both halves of the field.

1 hour ago, dkw said:

You cant, if they want to come to training you need an actual reason, and "we don't like him" isn't one. Its restriction of trade, you cant just stop someone doing their job on a whim. Thats why Bogarde kept coming to training, he had to be paid in full as he was fulfilling his contractual obligations.

Not sure about UK law but CAS ruled that FIFA's initial ban on Suarez was in breach of restraint of trade, the ban was modified to allow him to continue to train with his club

It's a great way to f*up the dressing room, blocking 10-12 players from training just because Boehly and his crews failed to offload them. Seriously, I doubt Pochettino be looking for a fight as soon as he steps in. At least he will watch them in training for a few times before he makes up his mind. What are the chances we sell even 5-6 players before end of the month? Highly unlikely unless we are sending them to Saudis without a transfer fee attached.

33 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Not sure about UK law but CAS ruled that FIFA's initial ban on Suarez was in breach of restraint of trade, the ban was modified to allow him to continue to train with his club

We tried to sack Bogarde but he was told as long as he turned up for training there was no basis for it, he was doing his job and just kept turning up. Same as this daftness, if we told a player to stay away from training his lawyers would be rubbing there hands together.

22 minutes ago, icecoolguy22 said:

It's a great way to f*up the dressing room, blocking 10-12 players from training just because Boehly and his crews failed to offload them. Seriously, I doubt Pochettino be looking for a fight as soon as he steps in. At least he will watch them in training for a few times before he makes up his mind. What are the chances we sell even 5-6 players before end of the month? Highly unlikely unless we are sending them to Saudis without a transfer fee attached.

You can tell them to go train with the U21s, can remember us sending Malouda to the reserves when he refused to leave. 
Watching them doesn’t change the fact we can only submit a list of 25 players to the PL. 

I reckon we can shift quite a lot of them if we move quickly, willing to take a loss on some & profit on others. Lukaku has a £25m from the Saudi’s but wants more money, sticky point is we want £43m. I would sell at £35m-£40m just to get his wages off our books. Ziyech, Koulibaly, Bakayoko, Mendy, Baba Rahman can all be bundled out there quickly. 

1 hour ago, dkw said:

We tried to sack Bogarde but he was told as long as he turned up for training there was no basis for it, he was doing his job and just kept turning up. Same as this daftness, if we told a player to stay away from training his lawyers would be rubbing there hands together.

Ah yeah, I think that's more about termination of contract - we couldn't end his deal with just cause because he kept showing up for training meaning he was fulfilling his end of the bargain. I still think the same principle applies to this though, so long as the players try/intend to hold up their end of the deal, we can't refuse to allow them to train and if we did it would likely forfeit their contracts allowing them to move for peanuts.

Regardless of legality, it's still a stupid move - witness AVB's implosion when he banished Alex and Anelka to the reserves in much the same fashion, losing the respect of everyone almost immediately.

6 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Telling them not to practice achieve nothing. 

Let's say you manage to make them wanting to move. What is next? Are we going to give all this players for nothing? 

Furthermore, if all these player do is sleep and drink at home, it will be difficult to loan them because they won't be in shape. 

 

 

But it has nothing to do with them. If the club do not want them yet cannot move them on, why should Pochettino have his ability to manage his squad hampered by disaffected players that want out but can't get moves.

Pochettino is perfectly entitled to state the squad that he wants to work with and if the club's hierarchy is unable to loan or sell those deemed surplus it is down to them not him.

I don't really understand your point "Let's say you manage to make them wanting to move." but if you take Hakim Ziyech, he was in PSG's offices, his side was signed up waiting for the paperwork to come through. Doesn't want to be here. has jumped at any opportunity to move. This time he seems to have bu88ered it up himself if the rumours be true, getting pictured in Russia and associating himself with Quincy Promes when a move to A**x is in the offing.

Why shuld Pochetimno have his trainign regime and plans completely disrupted by a player that doesn't want to be here andteh Pochettino has already disregarded. The overbloated squad size is one of the issues that both Potter and Lampard cited as major problems in managing last season. If we are unable to sell them and there are a limited number of loans allowable, what else is Pochettino to do?

Have them train at different times when the main group is not there. 

Maybe it's just me, but if I wasn't wanted by a football club, I would just look to get out, even if I couldn't get the same high wages at another club. Who's going to notice 50k less when you're earning over 100k a week anyway?

3 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

Maybe it's just me, but if I wasn't wanted by a football club, I would just look to get out, even if I couldn't get the same high wages at another club. Who's going to notice 50k less when you're earning over 100k a week anyway?

Probably makes a sh*t ton more on endorsements and sponsorships too. 

15 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

Maybe it's just me, but if I wasn't wanted by a football club, I would just look to get out, even if I couldn't get the same high wages at another club. Who's going to notice 50k less when you're earning over 100k a week anyway?

Because the vast majority of players have families and the more money the more generations are set up.

They may also want a safety net incase they hit a period of reckless spending/addiction once their career is over.

I can't really hold it against any of these players if they want to sit on a contract, not even Mr first touch, it's on us for giving them out in the first place.

1 hour ago, Argo said:

Because the vast majority of players have families and the more money the more generations are set up.

They may also want a safety net incase they hit a period of reckless spending/addiction once their career is over.

I can't really hold it against any of these players if they want to sit on a contract, not even Mr first touch, it's on us for giving them out in the first place.

I’m sorry but £200,000 per f**king week is ridiculous. That to many, many people is a lifetime salary. Fed up to the back teeth how cretins defend this. Unf**king believable. 

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

But you're wrong about that - again, whether it was Bruno Zuculini at River Plate, Florentino Luis for Benfica or Rodrigo de Paul for Argentina, he has always had a more defensive partner at the base of midfield allowing him to roam forward. We all watched him too. just

No, he really hasn't had that. At all. So you didn't watch him that means since it's also a long way from that, to him being our KDB...

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

That's a good explanation but then why try and argue about his dribbled past % in the first place? Defensive stats are meaningless, there's no point bringing them up to justify an argument.

It's also not a good argument about the quality of Enzo's defending. We all know he can tackle, the problem is he is relatively slow, small and therefore is not a great player to have as your last line of defence. You need more than tackling skills to be a good DM. Enzo's tackling and aggression is also an asset up the field.

@venom2011 already raised the comparison to Xavi, i'd also thrown in Ilkay Gundogan. In both circumstances we have a player to slow to be a modern no. 10, played well as a deep-lying playmaker at base of midfield, transformed into a truly world class player by being given the freedom to work between the lines in both halves of the field.

Because I'm not the one arguing that being dribbled past actually means something, I'm showing you the whole picture, which shows him being totally fine defensively. The fun part of what you're saying is that it's clear to me that Enzo is a good DM already, regardless of his size or...pace?

Didn't know he was slow but okay, if he is why would you want him as an asset further up the pitch to begin with? Kante has always had the pace and yet it was a huge mistake to put him at the base of the midfield, while Jorginho that lacked a lot of pace could play there so clearly you're not doing yourself any favours when you yourself want to argue that one defensive metric like tackles isn't important but that having pace is, after all a good DM is known to have a good read of the game and good positioning. Either way, like I said, I'm showing that Enzo isn't as bad defensively as some want to believe he is and that this alone simply isn't a good enough argument of fully changing his position, it's ridiculous he's 21 and he's clearly playing where he wants to play so let him be.

You can compare him to Xavi or Gundogan but if you had watched him winning the world cup, playing for us or playing for Benfica you would have seen that he was mainly the midfield player that played at the base of the midfield, again if he didn't want to play there he simply wouldn't have done it ever since he came here to play for our club but that's simply not the case he's clearly fine being at the base of the midfield so why make a false narrative that he's some problem when he simply isn't, yes we got problems but Enzo isn't one of them.

Edited June 13, 20233 yr by Gol15

12 minutes ago, Kev56 said:

I’m sorry but £200,000 per f**king week is ridiculous. That to many, many people is a lifetime salary. Fed up to the back teeth how cretins defend this. Unf**king believable. 

And what we earn in a week or two is a lifetime salary (at best) in poverty stricken parts of Africa and North Korea. Where is the moral line drawn?

I'm assuming by this post you don't have a sky/BT subscription or go to games?

Edited June 13, 20233 yr by Argo

11 hours ago, just said:

It would be a really, really interesting scenario if the club had the balls to go through with this.

A first for football? Especially if we did this en-masse with all the deadwood and flops.

TBH I can't see it happening. The player's Union and solicitors would be all over it like a bad smell. Accusations of victimisation and ensuing legal challenges. Possibly restraint of trade?

Or they just do what was done to Jermain Defoe, and make them training with the kids. They are still not part of the first team set up and won't impact the training regime.

Edited June 13, 20233 yr by WhiteWall

1 hour ago, Kev56 said:

I’m sorry but £200,000 per f**king week is ridiculous. That to many, many people is a lifetime salary. Fed up to the back teeth how cretins defend this. Unf**king believable. 

Totally agree. Once players started earning these obscene amounts, I definitely got a bit more detached from the modern game. Don't get me wrong, I still love football but don't like the way money and wages have effected the game. I don't begrudge the top players earning the big money - your Hazards, Drogba's' Lampards etc. But when you see some of these very average players on £100k-£200k PER WEEK, it is absolute madness.

There has been recent talk about clubs being capped on what they can spend on wages and I think  a move like this MUST happen to address the situation, help give more of an even playing field and make clubs think twice about signing certain players (we might not have so much dross on our books now if this had already been in place!!)

7 minutes ago, Nibs said:

Totally agree. Once players started earning these obscene amounts, I definitely got a bit more detached from the modern game. Don't get me wrong, I still love football but don't like the way money and wages have effected the game. I don't begrudge the top players earning the big money - your Hazards, Drogba's' Lampards etc. But when you see some of these very average players on £100k-£200k PER WEEK, it is absolute madness.

There has been recent talk about clubs being capped on what they can spend on wages and I think  a move like this MUST happen to address the situation, help give more of an even playing field and make clubs think twice about signing certain players (we might not have so much dross on our books now if this had already been in place!!)

If wages are capped transfer fees would go up, if one or the other I'd much rather the money goes to even a sh*t player than an owners back pocket.

The elephant in the room no one seems to want to address is we're complicit to this by paying for the product. If every football supporter so pissed off with the current money flowing through the game cancelled their TV subscriptions and stopped going to games these "obscene" wages would crash quicker than football index during a pandemic.

On 06/06/2023 at 13:30, ducavis said:

Not sure.. did you watch his Celtic side in Europe? Seems he only knows one way to play, so I expect to see a lot of exciting high scoring games. I agree he is a team builder but Levy will get in his way 

Another problem he will have is Kane might be leaving, Son is aging, he has a pair of 36yr old GKs, & he needs a pair of CBs. Good luck getting that shopping list past Levy.  

Agreed. If we had doubts over Potter in terms of experience at the top level  that is nothing compared to this appointment. This is a huge step up for him and there is every chance he'll fail miserably. Let's hope so

3 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Maybe it's just me, but if I wasn't wanted by a football club, I would just look to get out, even if I couldn't get the same high wages at another club. Who's going to notice 50k less when you're earning over 100k a week anyway?

You'd be surprised at the amount of people without any self pride.

3 hours ago, Argo said:

Because the vast majority of players have families and the more money the more generations are set up.

They may also want a safety net incase they hit a period of reckless spending/addiction once their career is over.

I can't really hold it against any of these players if they want to sit on a contract, not even Mr first touch, it's on us for giving them out in the first place.

They can still do that with ease after taking a pay cut to move somewhere else. There is no need to sacrifice the rest of your playing career.