Jimmy Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Obviously this is non bcfc but i think it raises an interesting question and highlights the recent (perhaps the past decade) shift in power from the club to the player. I was just wondering your opinions. For any that dont know, Manchester United made an enquiry about Louis Saha, Fulham turned down the reported £8 million bid (which is now reported to have been increased to £10 million) stating the player is NOT FOR SALE and will not be leaving, since then he (Saha) has come out and publicly criticised the manager/club for not allowing to move on. This is an unbelievably awkward situation for Chris Coleman to deal with. I can see both sides of the argument - Saha wants to play at the highest level whilst Fulham do not wish to part with their only firing striker. I can only see one way for this saga to end and that being Saha leaving Fulham to join Man U, probably for an increased bid of around £12 million. This way Fulham can lead people to believe that they were 'bartering' with Man U and have not infact been forced to sell a player who has declared his displeasure with his club. It really shows how power has shifted in football, as players can (and I'm not suggesting Saha will do this) hold clubs to ransom, effectively forcing the club to sell him as he is unhappy - and this breeds unrest throughout a club. Once again we see an example of how worthless contracts are - in regards to players seeing out what they have effectively agreed to. Obviously his contract (which i think i heard expires in 2006) ensures Fulham will get a fee but apart from this they hold no weight or meaning in todays game. Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Matt Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 If a club deciedes to terminate a contract they are obliged to pay compensation, so i see no reason why players should not pay compensation to clubs if they dont train or play etc? I suppose without the big guns in the leagues, then you have nothing to aim for so if you have them chasing you, you may well be interested! It would be nice to see more loyalty to clubs from some players though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeCoxer Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 I say coleman should keep playing him, if Saha keeps playing well, they dont lose out on anything, if he sulks and purposefully dosent play as well as he could, no1 will want to sign him, and he'll lose the fans support. coleman cant really lose. Fulham have to prove that the club is bigger than the player, ne1 remember the dutch lad who was playin for Nottingham Forest? Cant remeber his name, that bloke made a mockery out of them, and fulham cant allow Saha to do the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whooosh Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Not a problem, sell him, it is a very healthy profit for someone who doesn't want to stay. Personally, if I were a manager I would be upset if my players didn't want to better themselves and no one can tell me Chris Coleman wont be off if in the future a big club, let alone the worlds richest, comes calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted January 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 The problem with that theory (Duke Coxer) is that if Saha does start under performing clubs are still aware of his ability and his performances will be put down to the fact he is 'unsettled' due to the situation. This is why it is so hard,id also be tempted to pmake him play and if he did 'sulk' and begin under performing drop him to the bench or even reserves to make an example of him, and as you state put forward that the club is bigger than the player. However in this situation you have a top earner playing reserve team football and effectively doing nothing for the club, at which point the club must face the ultamatium of either selling him now for a profit (the player gets what he wants) or facing losing him on a free whe his contract expires. Granted that expiry is not for a few years but if that situation occured presumibly, even if interest from other clubs had subsided - Fulham would not want to offer him a new deal nor would he wish to sign one - thus he plays in the reserves (the club get no benefit) then leaves on a free (the club gets no benefit)!! I think the Dutch player you speak of was Pierre Van Hoijdoink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeCoxer Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Pierre Van Hoijdoink, thats the one. I think by 2006 when the blokes contract is up, granted fulham keep playing him, that things will be put behind coleman and saha. i would imagine that he would sign a new contract if hes a mature enough person. Saha has to realise that its not just him who has ambitions, fulham do as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pogue mahone Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 It really shows how power has shifted in football, as players can (and I'm not suggesting Saha will do this) hold clubs to ransom i'd suggest that is exactly what he is doing sounds like paul ince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bow_Legged_Chicken Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Personally i am on Saha's side. What person in this world doesn't want to progress in their job? If you got offered a job earning more money than what are on now, working at a higher level where you would get recognised more, would you leave your company for another? I know i would! Chris Coleman has done a fantastic job with Fulham this season, however he has prooved with this whole transfer saga what an inexperiences foolish manager he is. What young, bright, up and coming star is going to want to go to Fulham now they know if someone big like real madrid or Man Ure came in with a reasonable bid for them they aren't going to be allowed to go? In fact I'm sure this whole thing would be off putting for any player wanting to go there. As soon as a good bid for saha came in and Saha experessed his feeling that he wanted to move on and progress Coleman should have let him, no manager should stop his employees from progressing thats just blatent poor mangerial skills. Also lets put the boot on the other foot. Saha doesn't produce the good anymore, infact he is very poor barely div2 standard, would Coleman be loyal and say he done well ages ago and he done some great service to the club i think i will just keep playing him? No he would say your #### go to our reserves and wait for someone like Rushden and Diamonds to sign you. EDIT: Adding to my points! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 if i were coleman i'd let him go, and then laugh out loud as he flops completely. Saha isn't good enough for Man U, and never will be. Playing for Fulham he is the star, playing alongside RvN he will look like a chump, i still can't see why they are bothering, when they could pick up DeFoe for less, or Vieri for the same price, both are better than saha, and DeFoe has far more potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotusman Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Football is a business and as such one imagines all clubs have cotingency plans or at least ideas in place. It may not be a pleasant prospect for Coleman to contemplate life without Saha but when Utd. come a calling it must surely be hard to ignore for both player & club. Keep & spend the money within the U.K.& then the ripples can trickle down even to our level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pogue mahone Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Personally i am on Saha's side. What person in this world doesn't want to progress in their job? If you got offered a job earning more money than what are on now, working at a higher level where you would get recognised more, would you leave your company for another? I know i would! ok, so you are on saha's side, but not liam rosenior's, have i got that right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bow_Legged_Chicken Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 No not at all, expecially after reading the whole sitution from all points of view i think they all should share a little bit of blame and not so much Rosenior. Lansdown for making such a simple and important mistake and Wilson for coming and making such silly comments to the media after being directly asked not to do so. Ok i can't believe everything him and his agent said in the incider interview but if it is lies they are well thought out ones which fit into the publicised pattern of events. But if a player says he wants to move on, however he said he will discuss a new contract with us which he did, he said he don't want any media involved at allat this point, to which Wilson goes out and basically says, hes alittle rat who don't want to play for us and he will not be in my plans ever. Thats really going to inpire a youngster to stay isn't it. I was angry at Rosenior at the time becuase i read and believed one side of the story. But after a bit of time i understood his decision and if he wants to try and go for the big time fair play. I think i was more angry at the system, if you bring up a young player no matter what if he leaves the club there should be an automatic percentage of his future sales and money have to be given to the club depending on prgress. But lets not stray from the point, any person wants to move on in their job and prgress and along with that want to earn more money! I'm 16 and i know i am going to do everything possible to earn as much as i can, een if it means leaving a business that taught me lots to go to another and be on almost twice as much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pogue mahone Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 fair point, well made. i assumed what your stance on rosenior was and i am glad that you were able to reason otherwise, his behaviour has been dismissed as unacceptable by too many people on here who don't look at the whole situation. as i see it saha could have kept to himself while the little war between the two clubs was on-going, but he has to open his mouth constantly and make a spoilt child sound like a model of reserve. i have little concern for fulham, but chris coleman has my every sympathy. he's in the early stage of a managerial career, he's trying to keep a team (and club) on the straight and narrow, and yet he's got this ###### who obviously has ideas that shoot high above his station. one of the traits of football players that annoy me immensely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompo Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myoudale Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 i think if colemans sells him then with the 12million that they will have to pay for him, fulham can bring in another striker like cisse or someone like that to replace him, and I'm sure he will get the goals for him and liverpool will get really ticked off because they wont him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TinnionForEngland Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 if i were coleman i'd let him go, and then laugh out loud as he flops completely. Saha isn't good enough for Man U, and never will be. Playing for Fulham he is the star, playing alongside RvN he will look like a chump, i still can't see why they are bothering, when they could pick up DeFoe for less, or Vieri for the same price, both are better than saha, and DeFoe has far more potential. Good point, very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.