He's already got a contract until 2030, probably with an option for another year, people don't need to worry about losing him any time soon, plenty of time to sort out a longer deal in the future.
-
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...
Player Luka Vuskovic
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
What do you mean by this? He said himself he needed to go out on loan.
I mean- he ought to not sign more contracts with us if he can't get games. If he's on loan by choice that's great but other than wanting more pay why tie yourself somewhere you've not even established yourself?
I just can't really see our car crash team helping young players develop properly until a change of ownership happens.
we need him next year, drag and danso are not good enough, both dead wood.
If he's impressing, obviously I'm not watching but going off the reports, then the impetus to a new deal is to keep it from being bought out.
Supposedly making €700k/yr, so contract could be bought out for as little as €3M even if we didn't want to sell.
I almost posted the same thing but wasn't sure about the legality in England- can they buy out their own contracts in the EPL? Or is it a UEFA or FIFA thing?
I see your point - he might be wise to keep his powder dry and not rush to commit to Spurs.
However, you also gotta bear in mind he's probably currently on peanuts and if Spurs offer to triple his wages and add a couple of years to his contract as an 18 year old, that's going to be very tempting indeed. Especially given he'd still only be 24-25 at the end of a 6-7 year deal at Spurs. He could feasibly see out that entire contract and not even be in his prime yet. And club like Spurs, even if we're a basketcase, would probably be better for his development as a young 20-something than one of the absolute giants, and he could move to one of them when he's more established and experienced anyway.
In terms of getting minutes, I think he'll be fine. This year a loan was a no-brainer (and he said so himself) but if he comes back to Spurs next year (or the year after) he'll be challenging for first team minutes and getting plenty of matches. Even if he's not first choice immediately, he'll get tons of games as 3rd choice and I wouldn't be surprised if he forced himself into the team as he seems like a bit of a freakish talent.
Hmm. Hadn't thought about this as it regards Brexit in the context of the CJEU ruling in the Diarra case.
Yeah, people tend to think of what a contract is per week (which can always rise) rather than total value like the Americans quote. Would Vuskovic really turn down £10 million to extend his contract by a year?
Security and money.
So far his career is going well and we obviously have a plan for him, the kid has improved year on year so we've done something right - ask yourself why Bergvall, Sarr and Destiny all commited themselves to longer deals with the club despite us being in the shit and in particular Bergvall's case.
We don't need a change of ownership to develop players, we need a coach to profile them and nurture them properly.
Its a really bad look the lack of mins the likes of Bergval, Gray and Tel get. Bergval broke onto the scene last year and was regarded as one of our most important players before his injury. Now he's really struggling to start any games.Gray and Tel are lucky to even make the mach day squads and both will be relying on an injury crisis to get regular mins.
If I'm Vuskovic or any agent of a young player. Then I'm not convinced by this Spurs project. Young players need freedom to break through and we just never give them that opportunity to build momentum.
If I'm Vuskovic or any agent of a young player. Then I'm not convinced by this Spurs project. Young players need freedom to break through and we just never give them that opportunity to build momentum.
It's not that simple (obviously otherwise it would happen all the time).
1. Compensation also takes in to account stuff like transfer fee so it would be a lot more than 3m.
2. Terminating without just cause would also lead to sporting sactions for the player given by the court of arbitration for sport.
3. An 18 year old less than 6 months in to his first big contract doesnt have that sort of money laying about.
The 2024 CJEU ruling in the Diarra case was that restricting players from terminating their contracts buy paying out the remainder of the contract to the club violated violated EU labour laws.
It would not be difficult for a professional footballer to secure a bridge loan from a lender for $3M to buyout their contract and turn around and sign a much more lucrative contract with, say, a $5M+ sign on bonus. Thereby repaying the bridge lender, stuffing some in their trousers, and enjoying a much more lucrative contract over the next several years.
We've not yet seen the Diarra rulings impacts on the transfer market, but soon will. And clubs would be wise to do what they can to mitigate their risk. Lke not having talented young players on loan impressing other clubs while playing for a (relative to football) pittance.
Yeah, you are right but hard to be too worried about that happening unless we start seeing other high profile players using the ruling to terminate deals without any real reason other than to force a move. I think there's plans already to amend the RSTP as a work around. Luka seems pretty happy with how we've developed him so far and obviously had the biggest clubs on the table back when we first agreed to sign him and chose us.
I think we'll see more of it with younger players, honestly, than higher profile players. Smaller/cheaper contracts and more of a motive to get out of a situation where they're struggling for opportunities to go to a place where they can play regularly.
Anyway, I don't think we're in a huge danger of losing Vuskovic. But we probably need to increase his wages as he's , apparently, impressing.
If there's a break clause for January (probably not) we should get him back. We are desperate for some flair in the team, even if it comes from a teen CB. I'd happily let him have any minutes Danso and Dragusin might get. Could even ease our trouble at LB as VdV can deputize there. But, all hypothetical I suspect, he's probably gone for the full season.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that UK courts are no longer bound by ECJ rulings, though they must interpret domestic UK law in line with retained EU law (ie pre Brexit) principles where applicable.
So in other words the Diarra judgement is not binding on UK, although UK courts may ) or may not) reach a similar decision.
You have totally got the Diarra ruling wrong, and shown you don’t understand the transfer regulations in football on the slightest.
All the Diarra ruling said, was as his club had terminated his contract due to breach of contract, they could not ask for a transfer fee from the next club Diarra joined.
In summary. Vuskovic cannot in any way shape or form just buy out his contract and join another club.
Just think what you are even suggesting here.
A 100m rated player with 2 years on his contract, earning say 20m a year could just ask another club to pay 40m on his behalf to walk away from his contract, costing his current employer 100m in lost fees.
The only place buy out clauses, where a player can basically deposit a sum to buy out his contract, actually exist is Spain, and these are usually set at massive multiples of players earnings and expected worth, sometimes in the billions (Bellingham Yamal Mbappe and many other Barca or Real players have a billion euro buy out clause)
Last edited: