http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/09/08/the-sweeper-uefa-to-ban-u-18-transfers-think-of-the-children/ Exploring football culture around the world Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:51:38 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/09/08/the-sweeper-uefa-to-ban-u-18-transfers-think-of-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-8902 bloggs Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:11:46 +0000 http://pitchinvasion.net/?p=2815#comment-8902 Everton 'snatched away' Garbutt?! They did everything by the book. Bates - a man who once wanted all football fans kept behind electrified fences - takes advantage of the atmosphere created by the Chelsea band and 'journalistas' like Tom Dunmore who can't be arsed to check facts - puts pressure on the tribunal and, lo, suddenly Everton are the bad boys. Truth is, Leeds did not offer Garbutt a contract, so Everton did. Could that be because Leeds actually make more - risk-free - by letting Garbutt go and then whining in the press than by keeping the kid and thus the risk. Like Dario Gradi moaning about Everton once years ago having 'poached' a twelve year-old from Crewe's Centre of Excellence. What he doesn't say is that any twelve year-old is free to join any club at any time as long as they meet the geographical criteria. How can anyone claim to 'own' a twelve year-old, FFS? Nor does Gradi mention that the twelve year-old, like hundreds of promising twelve year-olds, never made the grade, but the loss was Everton's. Gradi would probably say that the kid would have made the grade if he'd stayed at Crewe. Of course. Tthe man who produced Seth Johnson and Danny Murphy clearly knows better than the club that produced Wayne Rooney, Jack Rodwell and (coming soon) Jose Baxter. And of course Gradi fails to mention the fact that he peddled a fourteen year-old Robbie Savage to Man Utd, the great steaming hypocrite! Everton ’snatched away’ Garbutt?! They did everything by the book. Bates – a man who once wanted all football fans kept behind electrified fences – takes advantage of the atmosphere created by the Chelsea band and ‘journalistas’ like Tom Dunmore who can’t be arsed to check facts – puts pressure on the tribunal and, lo, suddenly Everton are the bad boys. Truth is, Leeds did not offer Garbutt a contract, so Everton did. Could that be because Leeds actually make more – risk-free – by letting Garbutt go and then whining in the press than by keeping the kid and thus the risk. Like Dario Gradi moaning about Everton once years ago having ‘poached’ a twelve year-old from Crewe’s Centre of Excellence. What he doesn’t say is that any twelve year-old is free to join any club at any time as long as they meet the geographical criteria. How can anyone claim to ‘own’ a twelve year-old, FFS? Nor does Gradi mention that the twelve year-old, like hundreds of promising twelve year-olds, never made the grade, but the loss was Everton’s. Gradi would probably say that the kid would have made the grade if he’d stayed at Crewe. Of course. Tthe man who produced Seth Johnson and Danny Murphy clearly knows better than the club that produced Wayne Rooney, Jack Rodwell and (coming soon) Jose Baxter. And of course Gradi fails to mention the fact that he peddled a fourteen year-old Robbie Savage to Man Utd, the great steaming hypocrite!

]]> http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/09/08/the-sweeper-uefa-to-ban-u-18-transfers-think-of-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-8901 Tom Dunmore Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:29:08 +0000 http://pitchinvasion.net/?p=2815#comment-8901 I broadly agreed, Dave, but I think Brian raises an interesting point that we should, indeed, stop with kids -- because they are kids, and their ability to make legally binding contractual agreements should be limited. The debate in the <a href="http://www.runofplay.com/2009/09/04/chelsea-kakuta-and-what-childhood-means-in-football/" rel="nofollow">comments to his post over at the Run of Play</a> really gets into that need for differentiation, which I think is well worth considering when we consider the moral high horses some clubs are getting on that really don't have legs to stand on. Do these "pre-contracts" in certain countries not trouble you at all? I broadly agreed, Dave, but I think Brian raises an interesting point that we should, indeed, stop with kids — because they are kids, and their ability to make legally binding contractual agreements should be limited. The debate in the comments to his post over at the Run of Play really gets into that need for differentiation, which I think is well worth considering when we consider the moral high horses some clubs are getting on that really don’t have legs to stand on. Do these “pre-contracts” in certain countries not trouble you at all?

]]> http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/09/08/the-sweeper-uefa-to-ban-u-18-transfers-think-of-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-8899 Dave Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:40:51 +0000 http://pitchinvasion.net/?p=2815#comment-8899 Why stop at kids? Why shouldn't any players be free to play for whichever club wants them? The reason is that most people accept that there are some positives that make the restrictions proportionate, not least in ensuring developing clubs get paid for the investment they make and all clubs can build accordingly knowing that rivals won't just buy their players. This isn't about the human rights of young players; if they want total contractual freedom, they should choose another career, because to give them freedom at 18 which will be denied them until 24 seems illogical. Why stop at kids? Why shouldn’t any players be free to play for whichever club wants them? The reason is that most people accept that there are some positives that make the restrictions proportionate, not least in ensuring developing clubs get paid for the investment they make and all clubs can build accordingly knowing that rivals won’t just buy their players. This isn’t about the human rights of young players; if they want total contractual freedom, they should choose another career, because to give them freedom at 18 which will be denied them until 24 seems illogical.

]]>