No one is selling, if they do not wish. Good or bad?

[Phube]

As we've now seen (with the exception of Southampton to Liverpool of course!) no Premier League club is going to sell this year unless they want to (and for silly money) or players have a clause.

The question is, s this a good or bad thing?

Will it help stabilise the middle to lower ranked clubs, or stifle player moves and make them unhappy?

Will it force most clubs to go abroad to less lucrative foreign clubs hence further 'ruining the national team'?

Or force the purchase of lower league players, hence enhancing the league pyramid?

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

[Phube]

image.jpeg

Well he might as it seems we've already lost one of his targets and being held to ransom on two more?

[pSinatra]

It's generally a good thing, but it could also ruin a few players careers.  A player who wants a move is tied to his contract (fair enough) but if the club are adamant they won't sell they could potentially lob that player in the reserves & he's never the same player again.

 

It has created some equality between clubs to some extent, but the big hitters will always be spending more than most clubs & will maintain their dominance.  Leicester have questioned that theory, but I expect normal service to be resumed next season.  That doesn't bother me so much, seeing as we have a Premier League title under our belts.

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

Well he might as it seems we've already lost one of his targets and being held to ransom on two more?

Walshy has got more uncovered gems than a South African diamond mine

[MC Prussian]

Well, if you're able to work with the same players for a prolonged period of time and they're happy where they are, it can only benefit the overall squad cohesion and teambuilding exercices, can't it?

 

As a player, you get to develop a deeper understanding for each other's idiosyncracies and movement patterns on the pitch, the manager has the chance of implementing tactics and refining them with the same personnel, further strengthening his own philosophy (if he is given the time to stay at the club, that is).

 

Personally, I can't see that much that's wrong with it.

[sylofox]

OP sorry you missed on.

Will it just force clubs to pay higher wages.

We only need to look at two players to prove this or even 3.

Vardy and Deeney have done very well out of this.

Keane at Burnley has been offered a huge contract for Burnley and turned it down.

The extra sky money won't make clubs richer just players and w4nkers sorry agents.

[Ashley]

It's a good thing for me football is changing and you'll see the smaller clubs win the Premier League as the bigger clubs cant cherry pick the best players anymore... Everton shown this with Stones and Barkley.

However clubs will possibly have to start paying bigger wage which could piss current players off? Where do you draw a line? Same with us at Leicester? We give Vardy 100k a week what's stopping Mahrez knocking on the door oh can I have £100k per week please I done this last season.. next player and so on. Could be bad

[Webbo]

We don't need to sell our best players and we don't want to either. Why should other clubs be different?

[Guest Col city fan]

Has to be a pretty good thing doesn't it as it's going to even things out and make a more level playing field.

It shows how crucial it is to get a contract right for new signings. I.e. Longer term contracts, bigger buy out clauses etc. it should also lead to more consistency of squads. They won't be chopping and changing so readily.

[Fox42]

50% of our business will be spent on deadline day.

[JamesfromlondonLCFC]

my advice? english clubs should hire better youth coaches. academy system in england is a joke, which means few good young english players come through, which means you either have to pay drastically over the odds for someone elses english player, buy a foreign player, or play your own sub-standard players. i think the coaching of youth in this country needs a complete revamp from top to bottom.