Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

2020/21 Jean-Philippe Gbamin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nymzee said:
I, like most full-time employed people, get sick pay for as long as they have doctors notes etc. to prove it.

Football is just another full-time employment industry so why should they not get sick pay too?
Click to expand...
There’s a difference though between statutory sick pay and contractual sick pay. Statutory sick pay is a fraction of contractual salary, particularly in the case of someone on the wages of a footballer and SSP is what an employer is required by law to pay. What an employee is paid when sick, over and above SSP, is a matter of the contract.
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
But you can legally structure contracts based on pay ie. Delph earns 60k a week however if he misses set number of games or doesnt meet certain targets i.e. goals/assists etc etc that 60k a week is halved to 30k with the remaining 30k based on pay as you play or performances like many people on commission etc.

Football clubs would love to implement it but the agents run the game and hold all the cards. The fans are also gullible enough to think that players should be paid multi million contracts no matter how often they actually are doing their jobs or to the level required.

Morgan Schneiderlin on 120k a week putting in half arsed performances is sickening but hey ho the fans think thats acceptable so the gravy train keeps on rolling.
Click to expand...
I see where you’re going but not quite right. Penalty clauses are illegal in contracts so you couldn’t have a base rate salary and then add in deductions for failed performance targets to reduce base salary. You can incentivise though so in your scenario you could pay a lower base rate of £30k and incentivise further performance based targets I.e. number of appearances etc. Guess it then becomes about how much you want the player and whether the offer is competitive with other offers they have on the table.
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
In very rare/unique circumstances like Dean Ashton I believe. I think if a player in injured for the international sides they could claim something as well.

We won't have claimed anything from Delph/Gbamin and will more than likely been hit with FFP restrictions as an extra kick in the teeth.
Click to expand...

Every single player has to be insured as per PFA regulations.
 

BigDuncTributeBand said:
There’s a difference though between statutory sick pay and contractual sick pay. Statutory sick pay is a fraction of contractual salary, particularly in the case of someone on the wages of a footballer and SSP is what an employer is required by law to pay. What an employee is paid when sick, over and above SSP, is a matter of the contract.
Click to expand...

Yeh but you're still getting some £££ whereas he's arguing he should get nothing.
 

ForeverBlue92 said:
You could argue nows the best time for the league to do it with Covid leaving the mainland largely skint.

The reality is a player would still earn more weekly playing in England than say France/Germany/Italy even with a reform on contracts.
Click to expand...
The thing is performance related contracts already exist but in a positive incentive form rather than negative i.e. appearance, scoring, assist bonuses.
 
@ForeverBlue92 taking lumps out of a massive straw man here. Who said players would be on the breadline if they earned less/nothing?

As someone else pointed out - it boils down to supply and demand. Want a good player (as you perceive him)? Offer a contract that would make him choose you over his current club/other suitors. If not you’ll likely lose out. If you get a player and he is injured a lot that’s down to some combo of bad luck and poor scouting - Buyer beware in either case.

Using the “logic” of ‘take money from players who can’t play because of injury’, what do we do for players we don’t play because they’re dump/have a bad attitude/the manager doesn’t like them? Presumably pay them more for the inconvenience/reputational harm?
 
Brett Angell Delight said:
@ForeverBlue92 taking lumps out of a massive straw man here. Who said players would be on the breadline if they earned less/nothing?

As someone else pointed out - it boils down to supply and demand. Want a good player (as you perceive him)? Offer a contract that would make him choose you over his current club/other suitors. If not you’ll likely lose out. If you get a player and he is injured a lot that’s down to some combo of bad luck and poor scouting - Buyer beware in either case.

Using the “logic” of ‘take money from players who can’t play because of injury’, what do we do for players we don’t play because they’re dump/have a bad attitude/the manager doesn’t like them? Presumably pay them more for the inconvenience/reputational harm?
Click to expand...

You can still do that whilst having incentives etc in the contract.

Man City could still offer Haaland 300k a week but have it 200k a week flat earning with the other 100k based on performances, goals, appearances etc.

He would still be earning more than he would at a Dortmund type club but would also need to put maximum effort each week.

I have no problem with Everton offering Schneiderlin 120k a week but I do have a problem with him earning 120k a week no matter how much or should I say how little effort he used to put in.

Same way I dont agree Delph should be picking up more in a week than most footie players in Europe/lower leagues do despite being "injured" most games every season - if he can't stay fit get a job outside of football or at a lower level with less physical demand instead of robbing a living at the top level collecting elite level wages he cant perform at.

If you wanted true FFP change then wage/contracts/agents fees in football instead of limiting what a clubs owner can kin invest into HIS club its absolutely bonkers the current system.
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
You can still do that whilst having incentives etc in the contract.

Man City could still offer Haaland 300k a week but have it 200k a week flat earning with the other 100k based on performances, goals, appearances etc.

He would still be earning more than he would at a Dortmund type club but would also need to put maximum effort each week.

I have no problem with Everton offering Schneiderlin 120k a week but I do have a problem with him earning 120k a week no matter how much or should I say how little effort he used to put in.

Same way I dont agree Delph should be picking up more in a week than most footie players in Europe/lower leagues do despite being "injured" most games every season - if he can't stay fit get a job outside of football or at a lower level with less physical demand instead of robbing a living at the top level collecting elite level wages he cant perform at.

If you wanted true FFP change then wage/contracts/agents fees in football instead of limiting what a clubs owner can kin invest into HIS club its absolutely bonkers the current system.
Click to expand...
And then another club offers Haaland a straight £300k and City lose out on a massive target.

Again, a player not achieving the required level of fitness or applying themselves properly is a chance every club takes on every signing and is arguably something that could and should be coached into/out of them.

I agree FFP is a garbage model but the issues have nothing to do with clubs paying elite footballers at what is essentially the market rate.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top