The new, new manager thread - Pt 3

[braineclipse]

The limitations of winning the league and only missing out on the Champions League because of extra time when you have a budget and squad worth about a 5th of your two biggest rivals?

And do you not think Southampton have played some of the best football in the league last season? Because most other people do.

Agreed.

There are reasons to be critical of "the Bielsa style", like with all styles there are positives and negatives. If people are using this year's Atletico Madrid team as a valid negative that wouldn't be true though.

 

[DHSF]

Im intrigued by how football contracts are governed and under which rules and legislation etc.

Im under contract with my employers, if i choose to leave I can leave providing I hand in three or four months notice (in reality theyll put me on gardening leave but thats beside the point). A footballer can he not talk to other clubs being under contract, if so why? Unless of course it is stated within the contract.

 

[Cochise]

The board room split sounds interesting. If all the rumours are true, then the one issue I have is that the decision makers (Lewis and Levy) are not listening to their expert (Baldini), that is to say they are favouring Poch despite the DOF advocating FDB.

 

[Rossi22]

The board room split sounds interesting. If all the rumours are true, then the one issue I have is that the decision makers (Lewis and Levy) are not listening to their expert (Baldini), that is to say they are favouring Poch despite the DOF advocating FDB.

This is always the problem for me, too many people with a say with differing opinions. I'm not a fan of DOFs and Lewis should just leave the **** alone and go play with his yachts, if Levy gets it wrong then it's on him. Same goes for signing players.

 

[ShelfLife]

Im intrigued by how football contracts are governed and under which rules and legislation etc.

Im under contract with my employers, if i choose to leave I can leave providing I hand in three or four months notice (in reality theyll put me on gardening leave but thats beside the point). A footballer can he not talk to other clubs being under contract, if so why? Unless of course it is stated within the contract.

Interesting, if quite old, article on the subject from Lineker http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...snt-illegal-so-why-have-this-stupid-rule.html

In short, "tapping up" is against the 'law of football' (presumably codified in some FA or FIFA regulation), rather than the 'actual law'. So whilst you or I would be free to speak with any prospective new employers whist employed by another company, footballers (in theory at least), are not. Having said that, it would surprise absolutely no one, least of all the FA or FIFA themselves, to learn that this is probably the most flouted and ineffective law in the game. Hence the argument made by Lineker to do away with the rule in the article linked above.

 

[Grassroots]

This is always the problem for me, too many people with a say with differing opinions. I'm not a fan of DOFs and Lewis should just leave the **** alone and go play with his yachts, if Levy gets it wrong then it's on him. Same goes for signing players.

Wow I actually agree with you on this
Well said

 

[NWND]

Im intrigued by how football contracts are governed and under which rules and legislation etc.

Im under contract with my employers, if i choose to leave I can leave providing I hand in three or four months notice (in reality theyll put me on gardening leave but thats beside the point). A footballer can he not talk to other clubs being under contract, if so why? Unless of course it is stated within the contract.

I actually did this (football contracts) as my dissertation at uni (I studied law). Bearing in mind I graduated in 2005 (a long time ago), in addition to standard employment laws, football staff are governed by a set of rules imposed by FIFA, UEFA, The FA, PFA and numerous other sporting governing bodies.

So in our case we have employment legislation governing the employment contracts, many of which are EU directives that have been consolidated within English law by Acts of Parliament.

But you also have the football governing body bodies rules, i.e. "if you want to be a member of FIFA/UEFA/The FA and play in FIFA/UEFA/FA competitions, you have to abide by these rules".

These rules are technically legally binding as they are contractual in nature, however they are open to legal challenge where they infringe, for example, overriding principles of the European treaties, such as freedom of movement for workers.

This is what the Bosman case was all about, where there was a successful argument that a club imposing a transfer fee for a player out of contract amounted to a breach of freedom of movement for workers.

The interesting question was where a player requests a transfer that is denied by his club (i.e. our denial of Modric of his move to Chelsea), does this breach freedom of movement principles?

Well technically it does, it also breaches old principles of English employment legislation, but the European Commission which was investigating this exact issue in the early 2000's bottled it and agreed to ratify a new set of transfer rules (which as far as I am aware amount to the existing transfer rules currently in force in FIFA regulated competitions), which included the introduction of the transfer windows, a set of 'compensation' rules for players under 24 and a raft of other changes.

This was to prevent a threatened legal challenge by the European Commission into the transfer system, so overall my conclusions at the time were that while technically still open to challenge, I doubt whether there will be another successful legal challenge to the transfer rules following Bosman as there is no desire really by the European Commission or any other legal entity to interfere in Sport where there are no major concerns that workers are being mistreated and that the football governing bodies are seen to be taking their own action where mistreatment is evident (i.e. bringing in regulations to prevent the transfer of minors across borders etc)

 

[DHSF]

Thanks Shelf and NWIND.

I guess then in summary it isnt actually illegal but against the football rules etc. So eg taking into account what Levy has supposedly done, he hasnt done anything illegal but against the spirit of football rules? Spirit of the law vs illegal I suppose.

As far as im concerned I think any player no matter under contract or not should be allowed to talk to anyone and vice versa. Contract doesnt mean you are not allowed to talk to anyone just means you shouldnt play for anyone else and that the club owns you.

Its a subject in its entirety and perhaps not in this thread but its interesting and always intrigued me.

 

[NWND]

Thanks Shelf and NWIND.

I guess then in summary it isnt actually illegal but against the football rules etc. So eg taking into account what Levy has supposedly done, he hasnt done anything illegal but against the spirit of football rules? Spirit of the law vs illegal I suppose.

As far as im concerned I think any player no matter under contract or not should be allowed to talk to anyone and vice versa. Contract doesnt mean you are not allowed to talk to anyone just means you shouldnt play for anyone else and that the club owns you.

Its a subject in its entirety and perhaps not in this thread but its interesting and always intrigued me.

The football rules are legally binding though, as they are contractual. So THFC are under a legally binding contractual obligation to abide by the rules of the associations they have signed up to.

These associations are able to impose sanctions for breach of these rules, e.g. Barcelona's sanctions for breaching rules relating to transfers of minors. These sanctions or the rules CAN be challenged in the court of arbitration for sport and if a satisfactory resolution cannot be found there, then appeals can be lodged with higher courts and up to the European Court, but the 'non-sporting courts' are unlikely to interfere in decisions taken by sporting governing bodies, or the court of arbitration for sport, unless there is strong evidence that the regulations are producing outcomes that are contrary to overriding principles of employment law , or the European treaties, or international treaties on human rights etc

If your question is 'have THFC done anything illegal'? Well both Pochettino and THFC could well be in breach of contract. This is a civil matter firstly, not a criminal matter but any legal action Southampton are likely to take would A:

Have to involve Pochettino as well as THFC and they are unlikely to want to take legal action against their own manager if they're trying to convince him to stay and B:

Likely be in the form of a complaint to the Premier League for breach of regulations at first point of call, not to any court.

The term 'legal advice' as well doesn't really mean anything. Legal advice is sought all the time by people and bodies for all sorts of things on a daily basis. If Southampton are seeking legal advice, its less likely to do with how to punish THFC and Pochettino, but how to best protect their own position, i.e. by obtaining maximum compensation, potentially using this 'episode' as leverage with a letter from their lawyers pointing out THFC's duty to comply with PL regulations.

 

[jts1882]

I actually did this (football contracts) as my dissertation at uni (I studied law). Bearing in mind I graduated in 2005 (a long time ago), in addition to standard employment laws, football staff are governed by a set of rules imposed by FIFA, UEFA, The FA, PFA and numerous other sporting governing bodies.

So in our case we have employment legislation governing the employment contracts, many of which are EU directives that have been consolidated within English law by Acts of Parliament.

But you also have the football governing body bodies rules, i.e. "if you want to be a member of FIFA/UEFA/The FA and play in FIFA/UEFA/FA competitions, you have to abide by these rules".

These rules are technically legally binding as they are contractual in nature, however they are open to legal challenge where they infringe, for example, overriding principles of the European treaties, such as freedom of movement for workers.

This is what the Bosman case was all about, where there was a successful argument that a club imposing a transfer fee for a player out of contract amounted to a breach of freedom of movement for workers.

The interesting question was where a player requests a transfer that is denied by his club (i.e. our denial of Modric of his move to Chelsea), does this breach freedom of movement principles?

Well technically it does, it also breaches old principles of English employment legislation, but the European Commission which was investigating this exact issue in the early 2000's bottled it and agreed to ratify a new set of transfer rules (which as far as I am aware amount to the existing transfer rules currently in force in FIFA regulated competitions), which included the introduction of the transfer windows, a set of 'compensation' rules for players under 24 and a raft of other changes.

This was to prevent a threatened legal challenge by the European Commission into the transfer system, so overall my conclusions at the time were that while technically still open to challenge, I doubt whether there will be another successful legal challenge to the transfer rules following Bosman as there is no desire really by the European Commission or any other legal entity to interfere in Sport where there are no major concerns that workers are being mistreated and that the football governing bodies are seen to be taking their own action where mistreatment is evident (i.e. bringing in regulations to prevent the transfer of minors across borders etc)

Good post, but there was another challenge to the transfer rules, the Webster case. Iirc, this allows a player to leave by buying out his contract after two (if over 28 years old) or three years. It was used by a player leaving Hearts. It hasn't been used for a prominent player as there seems to be a gentleman's agreement between the clubs.

 

[NWND]

Good post, but there was another challenge to the transfer rules, the Webster case. Iirc, this allows a player to leave by buying out his contract after two (if over 28 years old) or three years. It was used by a player leaving Hearts. It hasn't been used for a prominent player as there seems to be a gentleman's agreement between the clubs.

You are right, but this happened after I did my dissertation, so its less ingrained in my mind, but in actual fact, the rules for over 28 players were changed in the 2001 shake up to avoid EU Commission challenge, and allowed greater freedom for these older players to be released from their contractual obligations, so I don't think the Webster case was anything massive like the Bosman case, it was merely a challenge to Hearts (rather than the rules) as Hearts did not abide by the transfer rules in place regarding over 28 players and it was more about the court's interpretation of these rules in allowing him to buy out his contract for a minimal amount, rather than a definite challenge to the rules and legislation.

 

[NWND]

Good post, but there was another challenge to the transfer rules, the Webster case. Iirc, this allows a player to leave by buying out his contract after two (if over 28 years old) or three years. It was used by a player leaving Hearts. It hasn't been used for a prominent player as there seems to be a gentleman's agreement between the clubs.

actually gentlemen's agreements between clubs are contrary to competition laws, which is another thing I touched on quite significantly when I was at uni and this is the biggest area of football practice that is open to real challenge as some of the practices of 'gentlemen's agreements in place' (I interviewed 2 prominent agents at the time about these agreements and they told me it was common practice between big clubs to make 'non aggression' pacts over players, i.e. (and i'm not saying this is happening, its just a possible example) Real Madrid agree not to rival Chelsea for Diego Costa if Chelsea agree not to rival them for Luis Suarez). This is contrary to competition laws as the aim of these agreements is to reduce competition and keep prices lower and is contrary to an 'open market' principle which is what the EU (and English free market) principles are all about.

 

[Rossi22]

James Ward-Prowse:

"It would be a major blow to lose him - all the players love him.

"He has played me out of position on the right, so I've had to adapt. I've had to work on my game going forward - an area I needed to improve.

"Having done that, he has added another string to my bow. I feel I can now play in a number of different positions but he has not only helped me technically, he's helped me physically.

"I'm the fittest I've ever been in terms of the running he makes us do. We do two or three gym sessions a week that involve a lot of running and running with resistance.

"He demands a lot from us, and it is hard work, but it has been proved to work. None of us want to see him go. He is a fantastic manager and he has done really well."

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2014/05/25/4839727/ward-prowse-pochettino-exit-would-be-a-major-blow

 

[scaramanga]

James Ward-Prowse:

"It would be a major blow to lose him - all the players love him.

"He has played me out of position on the right, so I've had to adapt. I've had to work on my game going forward - an area I needed to improve.

"Having done that, he has added another string to my bow. I feel I can now play in a number of different positions but he has not only helped me technically, he's helped me physically.

"I'm the fittest I've ever been in terms of the running he makes us do. We do two or three gym sessions a week that involve a lot of running and running with resistance.

"He demands a lot from us, and it is hard work, but it has been proved to work. None of us want to see him go. He is a fantastic manager and he has done really well."

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2014/05/25/4839727/ward-prowse-pochettino-exit-would-be-a-major-blow

I can see non-contract season Ade and BAE loving him.

 

[braineclipse]

Thanks Shelf and NWIND.

I guess then in summary it isnt actually illegal but against the football rules etc. So eg taking into account what Levy has supposedly done, he hasnt done anything illegal but against the spirit of football rules? Spirit of the law vs illegal I suppose.

As far as im concerned I think any player no matter under contract or not should be allowed to talk to anyone and vice versa. Contract doesnt mean you are not allowed to talk to anyone just means you shouldnt play for anyone else and that the club owns you.

Its a subject in its entirety and perhaps not in this thread but its interesting and always intrigued me.

A good article written by Norwegian scout/DoF Tor Kristian Karlsen when United were looking for a new manager: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/apr/23/manchester-united-manager-successor-david-moyes

About contacting your target(s):

This is the most delicate step and one that can make or break a club executive as well as a potential manager if it goes wrong. The research process will have generated a very short list and it's likely that those people, being the best around, are in other jobs. From my experience one wouldn't talk to their employers at this stage so in most cases there would be a first contact or unofficial approach (usually through a trusted middleman so it can all be denied if needs be) either with the candidate or more typically, his representatives. There is no suggestion that United would do anything against the rules but generally speaking, it's why incognito, clandestine meetings occur out of the public eye in hotel suites with as few people as possible present; I have met managers under contract to other clubs in such situations. The ethics might be questionable but as an executive you want the best for your club so in a way it's your duty to try; managers want the best for their careers, so it goes on all the time in football.

I think that's key. If you don't do this you're essentially putting your club at a disadvantage. Would we want Levy to do that?

By the way, I'm feeling a bit lost, has it been claimed that Levy has operated outside the regulation at this point by someone?

 

[Gutter Boy]

The board room split sounds interesting. If all the rumours are true, then the one issue I have is that the decision makers (Lewis and Levy) are not listening to their expert (Baldini), that is to say they are favouring Poch despite the DOF advocating FDB.

That rumour is ******** IMO.

We only have 2 directors - Levy and Collecott. Collecott is the finance guy. We also have two non-execs, who do audits and roles like that. So not exactly a dozen men sat around in a smoky room to have a 'boardroom split'. At board level then, we are effectively a dictatorship. We don't even have shareholders to act as a check. It's Levy's gig.

But Levy has appointed Baldini to be head of football operations. He's his football side delegate/adviser. It'll be those two doing the interviews/making the decisions between them - Baldini as the football man, Levy as the person with the ultimate responsibility. IMO Lewis will be no more involved than the queen hires the window cleaners at Windsor Castle.

Considering how similar all the main candidates are - Poch, FdB, Martinez and even back to LvG (RBM is the odd one out) are all philosopher managers who believe in possession football, intense coaching, and youth over transfers - I'd say there's a lot of agreement going on.

Basically my point is, who says Poch isn't Baldini's choice too? Our relationship with Ajax predates Baldini, whereas Baldini has the reputation of being a connoisseur of all things Argentine.

I can see non-contract season Ade and BAE loving him.

I'll think they'll be early casualties. Whereas AVB had a lot of casualness to dispose of, Poch has only got the final two that AVB never managed to get shot of.

I like both as players and individuals, but they won't have places in Poch's super efficient machine.

 

[scaramanga]

A good article written by Norwegian scout/DoF Tor Kristian Karlsen when United were looking for a new manager: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/apr/23/manchester-united-manager-successor-david-moyes

About contacting your target(s):



I think that's key. If you don't do this you're essentially putting your club at a disadvantage. Would we want Levy to do that?

By the way, I'm feeling a bit lost, has it been claimed that Levy has operated outside the regulation at this point by someone?

IndianSpur did a couple of pages back.

 

[Baleforce]

Poch's super efficient machine.

I'm sold

 

[Kingdawson]

This is getting boring....hire someone already ffs.

 

[jts1882]

Indeed. I'd be very disappointed if this drags on into June. I think there are positives and risks with both Poch and FdB. The risks are no more than in any managerial appointment and the positives would be enough to make me happy with either appointment. We just need to make a decision and start working for next season.

If it drifts into June, the world cup is upon us and then I fear they might wait until after the world cup.