Diego Costa

[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 1,147]

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 1,147]

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 28,124]

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

Nobody is bigger than this club, fucking rot.

[Jype 6,398]

51 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

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.

What about Costa's previous history of asking for a transfer though? Surely the club have evidence of that correspondence to prove all this has started because Costa made his bed and now has to lie in it. Ffs the man even caused a fight with his boss in training because the club didn't want him to move to China and instead continue at Chelsea, stuff like that will certainly go a long way in ruling any case in favor of the club.

And also like I said, and you so conveniently ignored, the club are not exactly denying him the chance to play football so that's "sporting just cause" thrown out of the window already.

He's being allowed to leave the minute an acceptable bid comes in and after that it's all up to him. If he declines an offer from another club because he would rather sit in the stands at Chelsea if he can't move to Atletico, that's the case done and dusted for him and there's no 'sporting just cause'. If Atletico are so obviously lowballing because they know Costa will decline a move elsewhere, Chelsea sure as hell can't be bullied into accepting an offer well below market value or risk the player suing the club for termination of contract. Like I said earlier, sets a really bad precedent that would have huge implications on the transfer market as a whole.

In the end this is all Costa's own doing, he's the one who's repeatedly thrown his tantrums and soured his relationship with the staff at the club. A little respect to the employer goes a long way in securing a move elsewhere, see cases of Matic, Mata, Cech, Lukaku etc. where the club have even sold to domestic rivals when the players haven't behaved like spoiled brats. Chelsea are not a club that has history of keeping players against their wills as long as the situation is handled professionally, but Costa's behavior has been anything but professional with all these public statements about Atletico, partying with Atletico shirt and so on. 

[YorkshireBlue 3,265]

2 minutes ago, Jype said:

What about Costa's previous history of asking for a transfer though? Surely the club have evidence of that correspondence to prove all this has started because Costa made his bed and now has to lie in it. Ffs the man even caused a fight with his boss in training because the club didn't want him to move to China and instead continue at Chelsea, stuff like that will certainly go a long way in ruling any case in favor of the club.

And also like I said, and you so conveniently ignored, the club are not exactly denying him the chance to play football so that's "sporting just cause" thrown out of the window already.

He's being allowed to leave the minute an acceptable bid comes in and after that it's all up to him. If he declines an offer from another club because he would rather sit in the stands at Chelsea if he can't move to Atletico, that's the case done and dusted for him and there's no 'sporting just cause'. If Atletico are so obviously lowballing because they know Costa will decline a move elsewhere, Chelsea sure as hell can't be bullied into accepting an offer well below market value or risk the player suing the club for termination of contract. Like I said earlier, sets a really bad precedent that would have huge implications in the transfer market as a whole.

In the end this is all Costa's own doing, he's the one who's repeatedly thrown his tantrums and soured his relationship with the staff at the club. A little respect to the employer goes a long way in securing a move elsewhere, see cases of Matic, Mata, Cech, Lukaku etc. where the club have even sold to domestic rivals when the players haven't behaved like spoiled brats. Chelsea are not a club that has history of keeping players against their wills as long as the situation is handled professionally, but Costa's behavior has been anything but professional with all these public statements about Atletico, partying with Atletico shirt and so on. 

Let's no forget it was Costa who went running to the media about this so called text message even tho he was told in January he will be leaving. Brilliant player just an absolute idiot head case.

[Johnnyeye 7,501]

Costa is just going to drag this club down with all his bullshit, if Atletico want him pay up or fuck off, no player is bigger than the club, Costa is a disgrace