Drogba and / or Hargreaves - Worth a punt?

largehat wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:
Wouldn't be legal. You claim to run a business, if you did, you'd damn well know that.

I don't run a football club.

And you think football clubs are exempt from UK employment law?

In a few ways they are.....

Name any other business where a company can just "release" staff as they are not part of the future the manager envisages?

Name any other business that actively discriminates against other EU citizens in joing their workforce? - and I can name quite a few examples of laws in the game where that happens

Name any other business where they have to pay not only an agent but another company just for 1 person to join the workforce, and then pay that person a signing on fee?

Actually Chris as raised a very pertinent point - Sports bodies govern themselves rather than recourse to the judiciary for arbitration.

It is their 'laws' that have to be abided by.

Largehat's contract example though is the most logical one to have been used in the Hargreaves situation though.

bwfc71 wrote:
In a few ways they are.....

Name any other business where a company can just "release" staff as they are not part of the future the manager envisages?

Name any other business that actively discriminates against other EU citizens in joing their workforce? - and I can name quite a few examples of laws in the game where that happens

Name any other business where they have to pay not only an agent but another company just for 1 person to join the workforce, and then pay that person a signing on fee?

Well in answer to your first question, all footballers are on fixed term contracts, like a lot of public sector workers are. When that fixed term ends, unless both parties agree to a renewal, the employee is effectively "released", though this is not the vernacular, it's what happens.

Second question. What discrimination are you referring to?

Third question. This practice doesn't break UK Employment Law.

It should also be noted that when proven to be wrong, rather than accepting it - and even apologising, which would have been unnecessary - as claiming she would earlier, Natasha has mysteriously abandoned this thread.

I always assumed it was common knowledge that "pay as you play" includes a small basic.

Tony Pulis confirmed as much when he signed Woodgate.

What player with a history of serious injury would agree to basically work for nothing.

largehat wrote:Second question. What discrimination are you referring to?

Third question. This practice doesn't break UK Employment Law.

The "English" only rules - especially when it comes to the 25 man squad, of which there can be only a set number of non-English, which has to be nominated at each half of the season and then out of the academys only those who are English, or have trained in England for last 4 consecutive years, can be chosen.

The rules are not "English only". They concern the number of 'homegrown' players that can be nominated in the 25 man PL squad aged over 21.

You can have as many under 21 year olds from wherever you like on top of that 25 man allowance.

You can have a number (I forget how many) of non-homegrown players within the 25 man squad.

I think because the emphasis is on what country the player trained in, rather than their nationality, that's what makes it lawful.

However I'm certainly not an expert on this rule and haven't looked into it. Perhaps one day it will fall afoul of a Bosman or a Kolpac type ruling.

Do bear in mind though that there hasn't yet emerged a situation where a club has been desperate to sign a player and not been able to because of their non-homegrown quota, simply because the rule is so new and the clubs are able to jig their squads coinciding with the transfer window being open and existing players being out of contract.

Moreover, I wouldn't describe the situation as discriminatory personally but I do see your point.

largehat wrote:
However I'm certainly not an expert

As if that's ever stopped you.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:
However I'm certainly not an expert

As if that's ever stopped you.

Yes that's right, Natasha. You don't have to be an expert to have a discussion about something. You make a really useful point.

The question was "worth a punt" and we can argue till the cows come home about whether or not there is a deal to be struck, however the more interesting aspect is would we want Hargreaves anyway?
For me, if he was fit probably. A fit Hargreaves would have been what we needed last season as in the absence of Muamba and Holden he would have done a great job screening our brittle back 4.
Next season, if Holden plays, those two would be perfect for us in front of the defence.
Not sure if Hargreaves is an OC type player as such - he's a bit like Batty was - but his presence would give a lot of freedom for our youngsters to get forward and create, prompted by both him and especially Holden.
It would possibly be viewed as a tactical compromise by OC - but it's a tactic I'd prefer personally.