Diego Costa

[coolhead23 1,146]

13 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

And then his agent will fill up a formal complaint and he'll legally terminate Diego' contract, so Chelsea would receive nothing.

Formal Complaint ...  Against what? The services of Costa are owned by Chelsea solely for the remaining 2 yrs (I guess that is what is left), they can use Costa the way they like and no ones will have the balls to object it legally. 

Regarding the Behavior stuff, Ppl just want to have their 15 mins of fame and they will come up with any BS that is possible. I hope the board are strong about this one and should let Costa see out his contract with the reserves ... They shouldnt be running to make money out of it. 

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

16 minutes ago, Yeboii said:

There is precedence for clubs to alienate first team players in the youth squads. For example, Florent Malouda.

Yes, Florent Malouda, who then left next summer for free.

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

16 minutes ago, Jype said:

On what grounds though? It's not a breach of contract to make a player train with the reserves and not play him, he'll still gets his paycheck every two weeks as long as he shows up for training and that's as far as the club's contractual obligations go. The club don't have to allow him join another team while still under contract and he's sure as hell not contractually bound to play with the first team, so I fail to see how they could 'legally terminate' the contract just because Chelsea are refusing to let him join Atletico unless the player's asking price is met. If that were the case, then Virgil Van Dijk would also be moving to Liverpool on a free after he 'legally terminated' his contract at Soton.

Wouldn't be the first time for a club to do that. Man United froze out Schweinsteiger last season for more than half a year before he finally left, also Man City told Yaya Toure he's banned from the training ground and only few months later welcomed him back after he apologized to Guardiola. Let's not forget Chelsea also had Florent Malouda sit out the last year of his contract with the youth players in 12/13 and I'm sure there are other cases too.

Yes, it is. On ground of FIFA rules. Article 15.

"An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than ten per cent of the offi cial matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause".

[Jype 6,398]

Just now, pHaRaOn said:

Yes, Florent Malouda, who then left next summer for free.

Exactly, after his contract ran out. With Malouda that was the club's plan all along and it worked. There was no 'complaint' from Malouda that ended the contract earlier than agreed, he accepted his fate and happily trained with the youngsters while still getting paid £100K a week or whatever he was on. 

Costa on the other hand still has two years left in his deal. Atletico are offering £26M for his services while the club are asking for closer to £50M. If a deal can't be reached, it's not a breach of contract to sit him in the stands for one year, effectively ending his chances of making the World Cup, and then selling next year for that £26M or whatever would be on offer at the time.

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

10 minutes ago, coolhead23 said:

Formal Complaint ...  Against what? The services of Costa are owned by Chelsea solely for the remaining 2 yrs (I guess that is what is left), they can use Costa the way they like and no ones will have the balls to object it legally. 

Regarding the Behavior stuff, Ppl just want to have their 15 mins of fame and they will come up with any BS that is possible. I hope the board are strong about this one and should let Costa see out his contract with the reserves ... They shouldnt be running to make money out of it. 

No, they can't. This is not slavery. Players have their rights too.

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

1 minute ago, Jype said:

Costa on the other hand still has two years left in his deal. Atletico are offering £26M for his services while the club are asking for closer to £50M. If a deal can't be reached, it's not a breach of contract to sit him in the stands for one year, effectively ending his chances of making the World Cup, and then selling next year for that £26M or whatever would be on offer at the time.

 

3 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

Yes, it is. On ground of FIFA rules. Article 15.

"An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than ten per cent of the offi cial matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause".

 

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

12 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

Yes, it is. On ground of FIFA rules. Article 15.

"An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than ten per cent of the offi cial matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause".

Hmm, Malouda seems not bother about that. Is it to put his name on the Reserves team line-up and then subs out immediately in minute 1, would count as an appearance?

[coolhead23 1,146]

Just now, pHaRaOn said:

No, they can't. This is not slavery. Players have their rights too.

Yes they can ... And if I want to be blunt then yes this is kind of corporate slavery. You can only be released if you get dumped by the club (mutual or fired), This is a big bad world of business, employers will not shell out money without covering their asses through proper legal channel else anyone can come after 1/2/3 yrs and say they dont want to play. 

Player rights come into play when the club is wrongly treating them when it comes to their wages, environment provided, inhumane treatment etc ... But there is no rights when it comes to where the club wants their players to play and/or refusal to sell/loan the player.

Being humble and grounded goes a long way and there examples of Mata, Cech, Matic. 

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

22 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

Yes, it is. On ground of FIFA rules. Article 15.

"An established professional who has, in the course of the season, appeared in fewer than ten per cent of the offi cial matches in which his club has been involved may terminate his contract prematurely on the ground of sporting just cause".

Wouldn't the games he plays for the second team count as official games though ? 

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

4 minutes ago, coolhead23 said:

Yes they can ... And if I want to be blunt then yes this is kind of corporate slavery. You can only be released if you get dumped by the club (mutual or fired), This is a big bad world of business, employers will not shell out money without covering their asses through proper legal channel else anyone can come after 1/2/3 yrs and say they dont want to play. 

Player rights come into play when the club is wrongly treating them when it comes to their wages, environment provided, inhumane treatment etc ... But there is no rights when it comes to where the club wants their players to play and/or refusal to sell/loan the player.

Being humble and grounded goes a long way and there examples of Mata, Cech, Matic. 

For God's sake. I already twice posted excerpt from FIFA rules that clearly stated that you can't just bench first-team player for a year without consequences, beause then he'll have a full right to terminate contract.

[Jype 6,398]

3 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

No, they can't. This is not slavery. Players have their rights too.

How is it 'slavery' when the player still gets paid in excess of £8M a year for doing fuck all?

As for the FIFA rules, read there:

goo.gl/iofXNs

There are no precedents of that clause ever being used to terminate a contract at top level football and says there on the book that the English FA don't even recognize what is considered a 'sporting just cause' which is the key point of that ruling. Also I'm pretty sure the club facilitating a transfer to Milan or wherever else and Costa himself declining the move means he doesn't have a case to using that FIFA clause because for 'sporting reasons' the club are more than willing to sell him but it's the man himself who doesn't want to go except to a club that doesn't want to pay for him.

If, and right now it's a very big if, the club sat out Costa for an entire season and next year he sued the club demanding for the contract to be terminated based on that FIFA clause and the case was ruled in Costa's favour, it would set a really bad precedent for all contract rebels wanting to move. Are you seriously suggesting that for example Virgil Van Dijk, who last year signed a six year contract at Southampton and now wants to move with the club not willing to sell, could get out of his deal early if he sat out a season and then could move on a free transfer next year? That's not how it works, mate.

[Yeboii 1,844]

2 minutes ago, Jype said:

How is it 'slavery' when the player still gets paid in excess of £8M a year for doing fuck all?

As for the FIFA rules, read there:

goo.gl/iofXNs

There are no precedents of that clause ever being used to terminate a contract at top level football and says there on the book that the English FA don't even recognize what is considered a 'sporting just cause' which is the key point of that ruling. Also I'm pretty sure the club facilitating a transfer to Milan or wherever else and Costa himself declining the move means he doesn't have a case to using that FIFA clause because for 'sporting reasons' the club are more than willing to sell him but it's the man himself who doesn't want to go except to a club that doesn't want to pay for him.

If, and right now it's a very big if, the club sat out Costa for an entire season and next year he sued the club demanding for the contract to be terminated based on that FIFA clause and the case was ruled in Costa's favour, it would set a really bad precedent for all contract rebels wanting to move. Are you seriously suggesting that for example Virgil Van Dijk, who last year signed a six year contract at Southampton and now wants to move with the club not willing to sell, could get out of his deal early if he sat out a season and then could move on a free transfer next year? That's not how it works, mate.

Agreed. A "sporting just cause" would be that we have to allow the player to play football. If we are allowing him to leave to a team that will play him (like AC Milan), but he declines since he only wants Atletico then he cannot use sporting just cause.

[coolhead23 1,146]

1 minute ago, pHaRaOn said:

For God's sake. I already twice posted excerpt from FIFA rules that clearly stated that you can't just bench first-team player for a year without consequences, beause then he'll have a full right to terminate contract.

That is at the end of the season ... Not right now.
And even if the player terminates his contract at the end of the season, the club can still fight that legally. Yes the player will be given preference but it will be a 50-50 chances. 

Clubs are smart that we think ... they will tell Costa to play the odd league game in between, if he does the quota is met, if he doesnt legal will say that the player refused to ply his services when asked for. At of the day, the above clause is just messy and no one wants to get into it. 

 

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

His obsessiveness to Atletico is a fucking disease.

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

10 minutes ago, Jype said:

How is it 'slavery' when the player still gets paid in excess of £8M a year for doing fuck all?

As for the FIFA rules, read there:

goo.gl/iofXNs

There are no precedents of that clause ever being used to terminate a contract at top level football and says there on the book that the English FA don't even recognize what is considered a 'sporting just cause' which is the key point of that ruling. Also I'm pretty sure the club facilitating a transfer to Milan or wherever else and Costa himself declining the move means he doesn't have a case to using that FIFA clause because for 'sporting reasons' the club are more than willing to sell him but it's the man himself who doesn't want to go except to a club that doesn't want to pay for him.

If, and right now it's a very big if, the club sat out Costa for an entire season and next year he sued the club demanding for the contract to be terminated based on that FIFA clause and the case was ruled in Costa's favour, it would set a really bad precedent for all contract rebels wanting to move. Are you seriously suggesting that for example Virgil Van Dijk, who last year signed a six year contract at Southampton and now wants to move with the club not willing to sell, could get out of his deal early if he sat out a season and then could move on a free transfer next year? That's not how it works, mate.

You can't use player in whatever way you like only because he's on contract. That's a mutual contract that works both way. Player have obligations to the club the same way as the club have obligations to player.

If there's no such cases yet, it doesn't mean that there's no such rule. Maybe that's the reason why clubs just don't benching a player with a long-term (>1 year) contract for a season. You can only refute this rule by giving an example.

Van Dijk example is complete opposite. Southampton don't want to sell him and player want to leave. If Van Dijk will refuse to play, it would be breach of contractual obligations by him. As per yet, Diego doesn't refused to play for Chelsea. Club just don't want him to play.

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

15 minutes ago, coolhead23 said:

That is at the end of the season ... Not right now.
And even if the player terminates his contract at the end of the season, the club can still fight that legally. Yes the player will be given preference but it will be a 50-50 chances. 

Clubs are smart that we think ... they will tell Costa to play the odd league game in between, if he does the quota is met, if he doesnt legal will say that the player refused to ply his services when asked for. At of the day, the above clause is just messy and no one wants to get into it. 

 

I never said about "right now". That's why I quoted after words "let this cunt rot with the U23s till next summer and".

Again then, "playing the odd league game" is not "rot with the U23s till next summer". You just can't ostracize player completely for a season.

[TheIceMan 596]

Such a shame !!! I loved him so so much !!! Imagine him and Morata together !!!

[Special Juan 27,429]

Told ya, goes both ways, he fucked us off in January and Conte fucked him off.

Nobody is bigger than this club, fucking rot.