Sensational rumours are circulating that Peter Crouch may use FIFA's controversial Article 17 to quit Liverpool, having been out of favour for much of the season.
Article 17 produced a huge dispute involving Andy Webster recently; the regulation allows players to hand in a transfer notice if they have played three years (or two if they are over 28) or a four or five year contract.
The move's legality was challenged by Hearts, and FIFA at first demanded the defender pay £625,000 in compensation to the Scottish club, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the fee to just £150,000, which was proportionate to the player's wages as opposed to his transfer value.
This was said to infuriate Hearts — who valued Webster at £4.6 million — but the player managed to engineer the leave, having been frozen out by the Edinburgh club.
Sepp Blatter described the decision as "far-reaching and damaging" — and many concur it is the most controversial introduction to transfer regulations since the Bosman ruling — this, though, taking player power to an almost ridiculous level.
It is now, at least potentially, rearing its ugly head again. Frank Lampard has been rumoured on numerous occasions as one who will exercise the ruling to engineer a move to either Barcelona or Juventus, and now out-of-favour Liverpool striker Peter Crouch is thought to be considering the same.
Despite an impressive goals-to-minutes ratio, the beanpole striker has failed to win over Rafael Benitez for one reason or another, and despite his usually cheery demeanour, he has apparently had enough of playing third or fourth fiddle at Anfield.
There have been no concrete statements made by the player or his agent Jonathan Barnett, but Barnett has spoken to The Daily Telegraph and suggestions are mounting that the threat of Crouch buying his contract out for far less than his market value a la Webster will pose a major threat to the 'Pool, who are already enduring a miserable time, out of both domestic cups, woefully behind in the league and facing Europe's best side Internazionale in the Champions League in just two days.
"Certainly [the new rule] will change the way things are conducted and we are probably heading for a period of shorter contracts," declared Crouch's agent Barnett. "But I've never heard of a player volunteering to leave a club when he is happy and being well-paid."
The rule only applies to cross-border transfers, it has received fierce criticism from many personalities from different sections of the beautiful game. Sports lawyer Graham Shear insists it "would certainly be challenged."
Meanwhile, Leicester Chairman Milan Mandaric went one further, blasting the plan altogether.
"It's totally unfair," he said. "Clubs often take players on long contracts to develop them into better players. To just say goodbye and wind up somewhere else for far less money than you would want to sell them for will cause unbelievable instability. How on earth do you build for the future?"
"We discussed this at the Premier League meeting and you could see some concerned faces," recalled David Gold, chairman of Birmingham City.
The rule was supposedly designed to provide unhappy players a way out — despite the fact the transfer list works perfectly well most of the time — and this move mainly seeks to benefit agents, who are sure to make mountains of money negotiating new deals for their players at every available opportunity, knowing the many clubs will be forced into compliance due to the threat of players walking out for a fraction of their market value.
Article 17 produced a huge dispute involving Andy Webster recently; the regulation allows players to hand in a transfer notice if they have played three years (or two if they are over 28) or a four or five year contract.
The move's legality was challenged by Hearts, and FIFA at first demanded the defender pay £625,000 in compensation to the Scottish club, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport reduced the fee to just £150,000, which was proportionate to the player's wages as opposed to his transfer value.
This was said to infuriate Hearts — who valued Webster at £4.6 million — but the player managed to engineer the leave, having been frozen out by the Edinburgh club.
Sepp Blatter described the decision as "far-reaching and damaging" — and many concur it is the most controversial introduction to transfer regulations since the Bosman ruling — this, though, taking player power to an almost ridiculous level.
It is now, at least potentially, rearing its ugly head again. Frank Lampard has been rumoured on numerous occasions as one who will exercise the ruling to engineer a move to either Barcelona or Juventus, and now out-of-favour Liverpool striker Peter Crouch is thought to be considering the same.
Despite an impressive goals-to-minutes ratio, the beanpole striker has failed to win over Rafael Benitez for one reason or another, and despite his usually cheery demeanour, he has apparently had enough of playing third or fourth fiddle at Anfield.
There have been no concrete statements made by the player or his agent Jonathan Barnett, but Barnett has spoken to The Daily Telegraph and suggestions are mounting that the threat of Crouch buying his contract out for far less than his market value a la Webster will pose a major threat to the 'Pool, who are already enduring a miserable time, out of both domestic cups, woefully behind in the league and facing Europe's best side Internazionale in the Champions League in just two days.
"Certainly [the new rule] will change the way things are conducted and we are probably heading for a period of shorter contracts," declared Crouch's agent Barnett. "But I've never heard of a player volunteering to leave a club when he is happy and being well-paid."
The rule only applies to cross-border transfers, it has received fierce criticism from many personalities from different sections of the beautiful game. Sports lawyer Graham Shear insists it "would certainly be challenged."
Meanwhile, Leicester Chairman Milan Mandaric went one further, blasting the plan altogether.
"It's totally unfair," he said. "Clubs often take players on long contracts to develop them into better players. To just say goodbye and wind up somewhere else for far less money than you would want to sell them for will cause unbelievable instability. How on earth do you build for the future?"
"We discussed this at the Premier League meeting and you could see some concerned faces," recalled David Gold, chairman of Birmingham City.
The rule was supposedly designed to provide unhappy players a way out — despite the fact the transfer list works perfectly well most of the time — and this move mainly seeks to benefit agents, who are sure to make mountains of money negotiating new deals for their players at every available opportunity, knowing the many clubs will be forced into compliance due to the threat of players walking out for a fraction of their market value.
No comments:
Post a Comment