Do you think we could have held Bale at the club?

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Do you think we could have held Bale or Modric at the club?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 24.3%
  • No

    Votes: 84 75.7%

  • Total voters
    111
Not entirely true. As with everything you still need to have a case to succeed.

Plus, if there is a contract then you are entitled to hold someone to it.

The reality in all of this is that football is as much about politics and asset trading as it is contracts, which is why it's distinctly different from a standard employment situation. Mad Yid was right in so far as we could, in theory, hold players to their contracts. If they entirely refused to perform, which is unlikely, then it would allow us to fine the player his wages for the continued striking period and, possibly, allow us to declare breach of contract. Where or not this, in turn, would allow us to sue the player in due course for the value of his contract if the non-performance persisted is something you'd have to ask a sports lawyer experienced in this field. But, suffice it to say, legally we could hold a player to the contract.

But football is a business. Players know this, agents know this and clubs know this. The value of a contract has to balanced against transfer value. When offered an amount of money that far exceeds the value of the contract a club has to weigh up the cost of retaining a potentially unhappy player over a set number of years, during which loss of form and injury could occur, against the interests of the club and how the club would benefit from such a huge influx of funds, especially in an unprecedented situation like Bale's.

On top of this is the political game in which, despite not having the final say, players and agents can use the press to pile the pressure on clubs to give over to their desired wish.

So, yes the final decision may lay with the club, but it is not nearly as simple as holding someone to their contract and walking away. In my opinion, Levy saw an absurdly high transfer fee for a player at the top of his game, and took the view that the money would better reinvested in players who wanted to play for the club (as it stood at the time) than trying to risk keeping a player whose value, form and fitness might drop. Not an easy decision to make and very convenient for fans and the likes of Sherwood to claim in hindsight that it was a mistake, but had even half those seven new players come good last year I don't think anybody would be moaning about Bale. Instead they would be hailing Levy's wise move.

Definitely.

Two words - Adrian Mutu.

How much does he owe Chelsea? £10-15m? Went to court and Mutu got stung badly.
 
The only comparison between Bale and Suarez is that they were both by far the best players at their respective clubs. When Real go in there isn't much you can do. Slag Man U off for selling Ronaldo, slag Barca off for selling Ronaldo/Figo, if Real went in for Suarez instead of Bale he'd of gone. End of.
i dont think it would have taken as much as 50 million either. If real had bid for suarez, he would never have been seen near liverpool again
 
We couldn't have kept him. The transfer fee was/is eye watering. I wish the lad well in his career. When Real came knocking for Ronaldo, even Manure couldn't say no & they were probably closer to the stature of Madrid in the football world at that time than we presently are- certainly better equipped to keep hold of players. The issue for me is the areas in which the transfer money was spent (no left back remains a total mystery) & the fact that AVB wasn't given anywhere near enough time to come good with so many new players. We sack him, give his job to the youth team coach, & give him 5 months before the bullet. I am praying we get FDB & give him several years to get things right. A step back to go forwards is worth it. Again, look at Manure. They stuck with Fergie & look at their success. In today's environment, he would have been sacked long before He came good. I remember well that united fans I knew were saying what a fool he was & how they needed to get rid.
 
Bale and Modric still send money from their transfers,and that is awesome for Tottenham:

Spurs net £20 million through Real winning Champions league. Agreement in the sale of both players Bale £15 million and Modric £5 million ⚽
— Darren Kelly (@Darren6kelly) May 24, 2014
 
Bale and Modric still send money from their transfers,and that is awesome for Tottenham:

Spurs net £20 million through Real winning Champions league. Agreement in the sale of both players Bale £15 million and Modric £5 million ⚽
— Darren Kelly (@Darren6kelly) May 24, 2014

I've seen that posted a few times, it all originates from this guy. Someone asked him about it and he just said something like "Fact [football-symbol] [smiley-face]"... I'd like it to be true, but definitely need a better sauce.
 
Like tomato sauce, mayonnaise? Sweet Chili even? :troll:

:( serves me right for trying to be cool - I can spell, honest!

22835_3.jpg
 
Not entirely true. As with everything you still need to have a case to succeed.

Plus, if there is a contract then you are entitled to hold someone to it.

The reality in all of this is that football is as much about politics and asset trading as it is contracts, which is why it's distinctly different from a standard employment situation. Mad Yid was right in so far as we could, in theory, hold players to their contracts. If they entirely refused to perform, which is unlikely, then it would allow us to fine the player his wages for the continued striking period and, possibly, allow us to declare breach of contract. Where or not this, in turn, would allow us to sue the player in due course for the value of his contract if the non-performance persisted is something you'd have to ask a sports lawyer experienced in this field. But, suffice it to say, legally we could hold a player to the contract.

But football is a business. Players know this, agents know this and clubs know this. The value of a contract has to balanced against transfer value. When offered an amount of money that far exceeds the value of the contract a club has to weigh up the cost of retaining a potentially unhappy player over a set number of years, during which loss of form and injury could occur, against the interests of the club and how the club would benefit from such a huge influx of funds, especially in an unprecedented situation like Bale's.

On top of this is the political game in which, despite not having the final say, players and agents can use the press to pile the pressure on clubs to give over to their desired wish.

So, yes the final decision may lay with the club, but it is not nearly as simple as holding someone to their contract and walking away. In my opinion, Levy saw an absurdly high transfer fee for a player at the top of his game, and took the view that the money would better reinvested in players who wanted to play for the club (as it stood at the time) than trying to risk keeping a player whose value, form and fitness might drop. Not an easy decision to make and very convenient for fans and the likes of Sherwood to claim in hindsight that it was a mistake, but had even half those seven new players come good last year I don't think anybody would be moaning about Bale. Instead they would be hailing Levy's wise move.


So basically I'm right you cunts lol :walker-scream:
 
Back
Top Bottom