Following two rejected bids from Arsenal / Chelsea of 55m and 60m, Caicedo issued a statement last night, basically saying he’s grateful for Brighton etc. but wants the move.

“I am grateful to Brighton. I am proud to be able to bring in a record transfer fee for Brighton which would allow them to reinvest it and help the club”.

“I hope fans they can understand why I want to take up this magnificent opportunity”.

It’s now being reported he hasn’t turned up for training today.

Anthony Gordon did the same this week, didn’t turn up for training for 3 days as he wanted the move to Newcastle. Now he’s having a medical there.

Is this a bad look on the player(s) or is it just ‘how it is’ in the modern game?

Would you be happy if a Burnley player went out in public with the above statement, even if we received big money for them?

Maybe if Dyche had rocked up at Goodison few days earlier, Gordon would've just stubbed his toe rather than engineer a move away?

Honestly, I'm not bothered. We're delusional if we think Zaroury, for example, wouldn't want to do everything possible to leave if say Arsenal wanted him. And we'd all do the same. It possibly is a pretty ugly way to go about it, and preferably it'd all be done behind the scenes, but overall it's ruthless and players, managers and agents have nothing like the affinity and loyalty we have as fans.

It’s a difficult one.

Gordon was literally chased from the ground and had property attacked by ‘fans’ so I can fully understand why he has downed tools.

Caicedo hasn’t had that but Brighton paid £4.5m for a player they can now sell for 12 times that amount. Also in respect of money for the player I imagine there is a huge difference between the packages.

Finally, with some of the young talent we are buying I expect we won’t be immune to this in the coming years. We’ve suffered from it in the past with bang average players.

Football is a strange industry in the way it does its contracts especially after the Bosman ruling.

You can see it from both sides.
Brighton want to keep him as they want to be in Europe and it appears from what they are saying he has been a massive part of why they are where they are. They have a young great player that if they add to that they could be too 4 next season, remember Kante and Leicester. Apparently Brighton have never ever been in a European competition, so it’s massive for them to get top 6 this year. If he left and they miss out, the board and the fans would be gutted.
But if I was chairman, bought him for 4 million, sells at say 70 million. Time to cash in.

From the players point, I think he would get a massive sighing on bonus. His wages would increase dramatically. Players must know they could be one bad injury from it all ending so you need to maximise your earnings as quickly as you can and his agent will know that too. The gent will be looking at a massive fee as well.


Just seen the headline come up, Brighton have told him to stay at home until the transfer window shuts as he is not going anywhere. Club obviously does not need the money.

Sky Sports News are reporting he has been told by Brighton to stay away from training until the transfer window closes, and that he will not be sold.

He's picked the wrong fight there, Bloom doesn't care about the money to a degree.

He's got more chance of going in the summer, but there's a chance now he could be "injured" for the rest of the season, or just do a Bogarde at Chelsea for the rest of the season.

With Arsenal reportedly wanting Rice in Summer this could be his only chance of that move.

Almost every player I can think of has got their own way eventually it’s just a matter of time whether it’s sulking, refusing to do this that & the other, going to the media, now he’s started making noises this will be the beginning of the end away from Brighton they’ll eventually cave in take the cash & get rid of a bad egg. It almost always goes 1 way when the rift starts.

It’s a difficult situation for everyone because Brighton will see themselves as having given this relatively obscure player a gigantic opportunity to play in England, and the player will now see the opportunity to go and win a PL title in a few months and play football at the very top.

Nobody - players, managers, coaches, clubs - show loyalty to anyone these days so there can’t be any surprise really here. Brighton will have to play this right because their model only works if players signing for them know that the club will allow them the chance to move on when they’ve done well and a huge opportunity presents itself. They’ve been good at that in the last couple of years and have still got top dollar for their players.

It’s down to character and having a bit between the ears.

There’s a right and a wrong way to go about things. Plenty of players, probably an overwhelming majority, move on as and when opportunities arise and without upsetting the apple cart.

Others act like the spoilt kids that they are.

Fans never like to see their better players move on. Most though are pretty accepting of it, when it’s done with a bit of respect for all parties.

I've always had a bee in my bonnet over players engineering moves away. I can accept it in some quarters, like the Brighton player having an opportunity to play for Arsenal, but we've had one or two down the years ourselves which has left me a bit grumpy by refusing to play etc, especially when we were not blessed with the greatest squad of players (Andy Gray to Charlton springs to mind). There's probably more going on than I see from the outside, but if we are paying them and they are refusing to do their job, well, I certainly wouldn't get away with it!

Forgive my ignorance, but what is to stop a player resigning, and then just joining another club for free after the notice period?

I can understand a player having ambitions, but at the end of the day, he signed a contract with Brighton and he should honour it without whinging.

I think players should have the right to move clubs if that’s what they want, and clubs should be obliged to facilitate that. It’s just unfortunate when you get these messy situations that should be dealt with privately but become public, though once a club refuses player requests, few options are left for players. I also think players have the right to stay put when clubs try to move them on, but you’d hope reason in some situations dictates a good outcome for all parties. So I guess I’m on the side of ‘player power’.

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:45 am

Forgive my ignorance, but what is to stop a player resigning, and then just joining another club for free after the notice period?

Nothing.

The notice period will be when the contract ends. So if, as the report says he's contracted till 2025 he can sit at home watching TV but can't legally play for another team until then.

Dingo wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:53 am

I think players should have the right to move clubs if that’s what they want, and clubs should be obliged to facilitate that. It’s just unfortunate when you get these messy situations that should be dealt with privately but become public, though once a club refuses player requests, few options are left for players. I also think players have the right to stay put when clubs try to move them on, but you’d hope reason in some situations dictates a good outcome for all parties. So I guess I’m on the side of ‘player power’.

And that will lead to loads of smaller clubs going bust as no transfer fees will be paid to them.

This is as much about the (buying)power of bigger clubs. Smaller club finds and nurtures a talent only for a bigger club to just walk in and take him away. Look at Newcastle now.
Should clubs be even allowed to approach players that are not for sale?

I can understand the situation from all sides and it is also a situation that arises on numerous occasions throughout the January transfer window.

As a measure to stop the fallout between players and both clubs a system could be introduced whereby every player is allocated a value from the 1st of Jan ( this is probably already in place ) then the buying club has to pay that amount in one straight payment. The buying club can of course arrange finance but has to pay the selling club just one payment.
The selling cannot really argue as the price has been agreed with club / player / agent beforehand. Therefore no luring can really occur that can upset the player

Spijed wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:14 pm

Nothing.

The notice period will be when the contract ends. So if, as the report says he's contracted till 2025 he can sit at home watching TV but can't legally play for another team until then.

Just to clarify, Brighton hold the players registration and they are not obliged to relinquish that until the contract ends, whether that be through expiry or a sale, or even free transfer.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:14 pm

Nothing.

The notice period will be when the contract ends. So if, as the report says he's contracted till 2025 he can sit at home watching TV but can't legally play for another team until then.

The maximum length of time for a notice period is 12 weeks, as far as I can make out. This is statutory, no matter what your contract says. After this period the player is no longer employed by that club, and can therefore be employed elsewhere, unless that club wishes to continue paying them, I presume to stop this from happening? But if they were to be offered a higher salary, then I'm not sure the club would legally be allowed to stop them from accepting this, would they?

Also, if he isn't showing up for work, they don't have to pay him

I never looked at Tarkowski the same again after he came out with that totally selfish interview mid relegation fight. I understand there is little loyalty in football (from both clubs and players) and it's a short career but do that crap behind closed doors.

Dingo wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:53 am

Players should have the right to move clubs if that’s what they want, and clubs should be obliged to facilitate that. It’s just unfortunate when you get these messy situations that should be dealt with privately but become public, though once a club refuses player requests, few options are left for players. I also think players have the right to stay put when clubs try to move them on, but you’d hope reason in some situations dictates a good outcome for all parties. So I guess I’m on the side of ‘player power’.

I disagree, the two parties signs a professional agreement and the player should hold up his part if it. If a bigger club want to pay him more money, he should've requested a release clause.

It's like arranging for a builder to build your house extension, would you agree that it's fair for them to stop working on it because they've been offered a better building job somewhere else?

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:31 pm

The maximum length of time for a notice period is 12 weeks, as far as I can make out. This is statutory, no matter what your contract says. After this period the player is no longer employed by that club, and can therefore be employed elsewhere, unless that club wishes to continue paying them, I presume to stop this from happening? But if they were to be offered a higher salary, then I'm not sure the club would legally be allowed to stop them from accepting this, would they?

Also, if he isn't showing up for work, they don't have to pay him

Err no, otherwise clubs would never pay massive transfer fees. A player would resign from one club, wait 12 weeks (easy to keep fit with specialist coaching no doubt) and then join a bigger club, for example.

Why would the likes of Man City pay large transfer fees if they could just persuade players to leave and wait 12 weeks?

Player power is a good thing. It's a short career and players must advocate for their own best interests, because nobody else will ever do it for them. They do earn a lot of money, but that's only because their labour generates a lot of money.

As fans, we value loyalty because we ourselves are incredibly loyal and because demanding loyalty from our own players benefits us directly. However, it's something we need to let go of - how can we demand loyalty to an employer that we wouldn't even think about demonstrating ourselves?

Player power is not a good thing. The player signs the contract, and if there is business to be done during your agreement, you are free to talk to the interested party, and it should go from there.

How does Caicedo know that joining Arsenal would be a good move for him anyway? Has he discussed any terms? If he knows the situation, then the process hasn't been followed correctly.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:34 pm

I never looked at Tarkowski the same again after he came out with that totally selfish interview mid relegation fight. I understand there is little loyalty in football (from both clubs and players) and it's a short career but do that crap behind closed doors.

To be fair, there were times after Christmas where it looked like he was single handedly trying to keep us up. Just honesty that, everyone knew the deal there, but you couldn't question his commitment while contracted.

Tarks was on the verge of signing for Leicester, but then it fell through for some reason. He returned after that ‘toe injury’ and lost the captain's armband. I thought he always gave 100% on the field though even though it was clear he wasn't staying beyond the end of the season.

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:31 pm

The maximum length of time for a notice period is 12 weeks, as far as I can make out. This is statutory, no matter what your contract says. After this period the player is no longer employed by that club, and can therefore be employed elsewhere, unless that club wishes to continue paying them, I presume to stop this from happening? But if they were to be offered a higher salary, then I'm not sure the club would legally be allowed to stop them from accepting this, would they?

Also, if he isn't showing up for work, they don't have to pay him

I stand to be corrected here, but what I think you’re missing in your analysis above is the player registration aspect.

Ie a player could in theory work his notice and leave to be employed by another club, but the first club would still hold his player registration with the FA (EPL?), so he’d only be able to work for the second club in an off the field capacity (kitman / cleaner etc). I’m not sure he’d be worth the higher salary on offer from club 2 in that scenario.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:12 pm

To be fair, there were times after Christmas where it looked like he was single handedly trying to keep us up. Just honesty that, everyone knew the deal there, but you couldn't question his commitment while contracted.

I'd rather a player mid relegation fight not just be honest in an interview, or be honest and say ''we'll see what happens when my contract ends''. Coming out mid relegation fight and screaming about how he can't wait to take back control of his own career like he was being held hostage was in poor taste and disrespectful.

if you signed a contract and a huge worldwide company came along and tripled your wages you would all be off in a flash

Is rather a player give his best on the field as thats what's he's paid to do

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:45 pm

if you signed a contract and a huge worldwide company came along and tripled your wages you would all be off in a flash

It's different because football is different. An agreement has to be in place with the selling club. Imagine if it was Burnley and a big club was offered a £1 for Zaroury but offered him a massive wage to unsettle him.

The player can't suddenly demand that he should be allowed to leave. What about Burnley? We in invested him and not getting anything in return and will lose money.

Greenmile wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:32 pm

I stand to be corrected here, but what I think you’re missing in your analysis above is the player registration aspect.

Ie a player could in theory work his notice and leave to be employed by another club, but the first club would still hold his player registration with the FA (EPL?), so he’d only be able to work for the second club in an off the field capacity (kitman / cleaner etc). I’m not sure he’d be worth the higher salary on offer from club 2 in that scenario.

I think I was wrong initially. An employer has to offer a minimum notice period, but this can be capped at 12 weeks. An employee is not limited by this 12 weeks, so I assume the notice period is writtwn as the length of the remaining contract, as Spijed pointed out

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:54 pm

It's different because football is different. An agreement has to be in place with the selling club. Imagine if it was Burnley and a big club was offered a £1 for Zaroury but offered him a massive wage to unsettle him.

The player can't suddenly demand that he should be allowed to leave. What about Burnley? We in invested him and not getting anything in return and will lose money.

Wouldn't there be some proviso in any footballer's contract along the lines of 'he will keep himself fit and available when required and do his best at all times and so on...'?

He could of course hand in a transfer request. I don't know what power they have these days as I presume that can be refused but he would loose a portion of the transfer fee I guess.

No one can say Tarks didn't do that despite all knowing he was leaving at the end of the season.

Tough one - he’s got a great chance here to earn a PL winners medal; be hard to begrudge him that opportunity as well as a significantly higher salary.

Pro football is a lucrative career of course but nothings guaranteed, he could (though unlikely) have a career ending/hampering injury the next match he plays so I can’t begrudge any player wanting out to be honest.

A player could hand in a transfer request, but it doesn't mean he's on the transfer list. The club can reject it. As long as the club fulfils their agreement, there's not much a player can do other than down tools which won't do his reputation any good.

Handing in a transfer request just opens the door to the other clubs to take advantage to get a player at a cut-down price, and the club could listen to those offers but not the club who initiated it all unless something is stated in the contract.

In the end, the players usually come out on top though. Clubs don't want the hassle and would rather cash in.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:54 pm

It's different because football is different. An agreement has to be in place with the selling club. Imagine if it was Burnley and a big club was offered a £1 for Zaroury but offered him a massive wage to unsettle him.

The player can't suddenly demand that he should be allowed to leave. What about Burnley? We in invested him and not getting anything in return and will lose money.

they paid 4.5 million for Caceido and have been offered 60 so with respect your argument has no merit because it would never ever happen the way you suggest. Clearly there would need to be a valuation met, it's how it works.

Mine was a hypothetical situation.

Brighton obviously value him more than the £60m though... Holding out might increase the bid over the coming days, but the player releasing a statement tells clubs he wants out and has decreased his financial worth.

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:31 pm

The maximum length of time for a notice period is 12 weeks, as far as I can make out. This is statutory, no matter what your contract says. After this period the player is no longer employed by that club, and can therefore be employed elsewhere, unless that club wishes to continue paying them, I presume to stop this from happening? But if they were to be offered a higher salary, then I'm not sure the club would legally be allowed to stop them from accepting this, would they?

Also, if he isn't showing up for work, they don't have to pay him

Those rules don’t apply to football.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:31 pm

A player could hand in a transfer request, but it doesn't mean he's on the transfer list. The club can reject it. As long as the club fulfils their agreement, there's not much a player can do other than down tools which won't do his reputation any good.

Handing in a transfer request just opens the door to the other clubs to take advantage to get a player at a cut-down price, and the club could listen to those offers but not the club who initiated it all unless something is stated in the contract.

In the end, the players usually come out on top though. Clubs don't want the hassle and would rather cash in.

So talking to ex Football players.
As I understand it.
Player has two years left on his contract and club wants to sell, he gets his two year contract paid to him as part of the transfer.

If he puts in a transfer request, he is letting the selling club out of that part of the deal.

Just reading they now offered 70 million. They really want this kid.

Hipper wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:16 pm

Wouldn't there be some proviso in any footballer's contract along the lines of 'he will keep himself fit and available when required and do his best at all times and so on...'?

He could of course hand in a transfer request. I don't know what power they have these days as I presume that can be refused but he would loose a portion of the transfer fee I guess.

No one can say Tarks didn't do that despite all knowing he was leaving at the end of the season.

Remember, Tarks went on strike to force his move to Burnley.

claptrappers_union wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:34 pm

I disagree, the two parties signs a professional agreement and the player should hold up his part if it. If a bigger club want to pay him more money, he should've requested a release clause.

It's like arranging for a builder to build your house extension, would you agree that it's fair for them to stop working on it because they've been offered a better building job somewhere else?

That situation does happen and you have legal rights to make them pay for the completion of the work. But these are two related but discrete branches of employment law (contract of service vs. contract for service), so the example you give isn’t entirely relevant, though I do agree with the sentiment in that case. In terms of employment rather than service provision, I just don’t think people should be held against their will.

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:52 pm

So talking to ex Football players.
As I understand it.
Player has two years left on his contract and club wants to sell, he gets his two year contract paid to him as part of the transfer.

If he puts in a transfer request, he is letting the selling club out of that part of the deal.

Thats interesting, I suppose when the club make a business decision and decides to sell, the club should pay the remainder of the contract... Presuming that's what's agreed.

I suppose if we were to get rid of Barnes for example to save the wages, Burnley will still have to pay him out, minus appearances and goal bonus fees, and so on.

Lowbankclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 6:48 pm

Those rules don’t apply to football.

Im not sure football is exempt from employment law

Anyhow, I think I was misreading what an employer had to do, and what employees were entitled to

Spijed wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:15 pm

And that will lead to loads of smaller clubs going bust as no transfer fees will be paid to them.

No-one wants to see clubs go bust but we can’t say for sure that would happen. It’d be a risky and unsustainable business model to presume that you can always sell players on for increased value, so I’d suppose clubs aim only to give contracts that they can viably cover from start to finish. Though we’ve seen plenty examples of poor financial management at football clubs which is perhaps more of an issue than whether they can get transfer fees for their players.

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:40 pm

they paid 4.5 million for Caceido and have been offered 60 so with respect your argument has no merit because it would never ever happen the way you suggest. Clearly there would need to be a valuation met, it's how it works.

I was curious about that & had a look on wiki wasn't it undisclosed the initial fee?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mois%C3%A9s_Caicedo

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:22 pm

Im not sure football is exempt from employment law

Anyhow, I think I was misreading what an employer had to do, and what employees were entitled to

It is different, I think it’s around registration to play football, could be wrong.

In our world, normally we give 4 weeks notice a nd just leave.

But in our world no one pays a transfer value.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:25 pm

I was curious about that & had a look on wiki wasn't it undisclosed the initial fee?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mois%C3%A9s_Caicedo

google it