Frankie 8,218 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Indeed it does... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim White 0 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Rangers have pulled out of the deal to sign Salim Kerkar for now as Gueugnon want compensation. More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Does this not sound like the makings of a whole new "Bosman" scenario ? His previous club let him go i.e. they no longer wanted him. But as soon as some other team show interest in him then they want compensation. Makes no sense to me. This means that the only way this lad will be able to play is if either a) a team pay compensation, to a club who dont even want him or b) if he pays out his own compensation, but I doubt his wages would be sufficient enough for him to do so or c) he has to sit out a whole season waiting for the compensation issue to expire, which given football is a short career, is a bit harsh. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexscottislegend 2,163 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Looks like the French club are out of order, but then again, how would we feel if someone had taken Danny Wilson after we had spent a few years developing him? Think WS is right not to pursue; we have need of a wide player but �£300k is a gamble. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Yeah this rule makes sense to protect current players but if he was released then it should be a fresh start. It would make more sense if maybe they got some sort of compensation later down the line if he turned out good, or a small percentage of his next fee. It sounds silly though, countless young players (and he's not even that young) get released then join a new club for free. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Looks like the French club are out of order, but then again, how would we feel if someone had taken Danny Wilson after we had spent a few years developing him? Think WS is right not to pursue; we have need of a wide player but �£300k is a gamble. As far as I can see though he left the club and they didn't want him. If Wilson left us and wasn't given a new deal then joined someone else we wouldn't expect to suddeny get money. Either way for all the organisation we have on the field, we still seem a bit of a mess off it. Surely the powers that be would know the rules backwards and know prior to signing him if any money would legally be due. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I agree that's the point. They should only be able to demand compensation if they are also willing to employ him and pay his wages. They are creating another Bosman by denying the guy the opportunity to make a living which is obviously immoral. The Wilson scenario is not even remotely related - you'd have to talk about one of the players we freed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Looks like the French club are out of order, but then again, how would we feel if someone had taken Danny Wilson after we had spent a few years developing him? Think WS is right not to pursue; we have need of a wide player but �£300k is a gamble. Completely unrelated and, actually, irrelevant alex. Wilson was wanted at Ibrox, we tried to keep him. This lad left and his club had no interest in retaining his services. Yet they still want compensation. FIFA/UEFA need to look at, and IMO amend, their legislation here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 I agree that's the point. They should only be able to demand compensation if they are also willing to employ him and pay his wages. They are creating another Bosman by denying the guy the opportunity to make a living which is obviously immoral. The Wilson scenario is not even remotely related - you'd have to talk about one of the players we freed. Exactly. And how many of us saw our freed players sign for another club and think "wait up, we trained him, we should get compensation" ? None I would suspect. Because it makes no sense to release a player and subsequently expect compensation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 What do they want to be "compensated" for? The way I see it the compensation is for when you spend money training a player and then lose them to another club after they refuse to sign a new contract with you. You are being compensated for training the player and being denied his services. If you don't want his services, why do you need compensated? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.