Shift of power - Transfers

We all hear / are told / know - that only a couple of decades ago, clubs held all the cards in relation to players and whether they stay or go.

It is universally accepted now that players hold the power in determining whether they actually want to leave the club.

However - without being bold enough to make a statement, are things changing? Villa have held firm against Liverpool, likewise United thus far against Real Madrid, Tottenham also have held a firm line in the last 18months in regards to Berbatov, Arsenal also (Vieira and Henry for so long)

Are the clubs regaining some control? are they realising that if they say no, and enforce the point of the contact that was signed - and refute what is considered a reasonable value for the player? - Are because clubs are becoming richer, they are able to ignore the dis content perhaps of the player because the financial reward simply isn't worth the value of keeping the player?

The more a player is paid, surely the more control a club has in one sense - because although some are arrogant millionaires, its quite evident that the clubs whom are becoming run by rich successful business men will not tolerate valued assets going just because the player 'might' want to...

The point i guess is an interesting angle on some of the obstructive transfer tactics happening at the moment perhaps?

I'd love to start seeing clubs making players begin to honour their contracts, this is not slavery - players do not need to sign contracts, they choose to... so in reality they only have themselves to blame.

At the same time players should be allowed to leave imo if they want to. as far as i know there is a new role that players can buy out there contract if they have spent a certain amount of time in a club. problem is that i think clubs around europe has made a gentlemans agreement that they wont use it or something.

regarding club vs player i think you have used bad examples. in cases of players wanting to leave with their clubs not wanting them too it often happens in then end and currently there is Euros happening. Barry will prob end up in Liverpool if he tries to really get the deal through. same with Berbatov if there is anyone willing to pay up. Ronaldo will prob be the best example of who has the power. allthough it all depends on him being willing to really go out and say he doesnt want play for Man utd anymore.

Super Madrid wrote:At the same time players should be allowed to leave imo if they want to. as far as i know there is a new role that players can buy out there contract if they have spent a certain amount of time in a club. problem is that i think clubs around europe has made a gentlemans agreement that they wont use it or something.

regarding club vs player i think you have used bad examples. in cases of players wanting to leave with their clubs not wanting them too it often happens in then end and currently there is Euros happening. Barry will prob end up in Liverpool if he tries to really get the deal through. same with Berbatov if there is anyone willing to pay up. Ronaldo will prob be the best example of who has the power. allthough it all depends on him being willing to really go out and say he doesnt want play for Man utd anymore.

My examples are fine, you even collaborate as such, all 3 want to move - i think we can all agree on that, all three have or have had suitors who want them, yet the clubs have thus far rejected any approach...

I understand what you are saying there have been clubs who have been difficult to work with in terms of buying a player who wants out, however... as Owners become richer, and the purpose of the club is not to provide the bread and butter on the table, owners can be stubborn and not rip the arm off other clubs to make a bit more money.

You have to remember as football has become big money, some very successful business men have taken over, which basically means they become more ruthless and do not like bowing to opposition as it displays weakness and chain of power / command in the market, hence Fergies massive objections - whilst he doesn't want Ronaldo to leave (who would) part of the issue will be that Real Madrid will come across as a step up from Man United - and Man United effectively are competiting globally with Madrid for that top dog spot, and this could essentially indicate United are at least second in the pecking order... Which is not Fergie's vision, he wants United to be a globally accepted number one glamour club in the world.

It does make me laugh, because the Real Madrid business machine is inferior to Man United's in terms of quality / ideas / constant PR programmes - Whereas Real Madrid are just aggressive - perhaps this is why players actually are attracted, because it kind of mirrors their own ego / arrogance, look how lazy the 'Galactico's' became in training - it was more a come together for the richest and most famous players, than a football team, which made a fortune off the pitch.... i mean what kind of club sacks a manager who wins them the league (Capello) and in Del Bosque case the League, but before the ECL and playing good football...

My interpretation? the manager doesn't hold the power to direct the club on a football train track - the moment the manager becomes idolic, he becomes a threat and potentially more powerful than the president, as the president is the man who get 'voted' in.

I used the wrong word by saying they were bad. what i meant was that you were using these examples but they are ongoing so we dont know if this is actually a change or just the same type of transfers as in the past but in a earlier stage.

i dont think Ferguson will be able to make Man utd more glamerous then Real Madrid or Milan for example. at least not in the next decade. but i see your point about the image of Man Utd. so far though i think it has already been exposed or it will be if Ronaldo says he wants to leave Man utd for Real Madrid.

I wouldnt say Man utd are better at PR then Real.perhaps now but not when Perez was under control. in terms of using players to make money he was brilliant and he tripled the income of the club with this method in 3 or 4 years. overall PR they might be but when it came to using players to make money i dont think so.

Regarding the whole galatico thing it has been misunderstood as i think you show in your post. it changed somewhere along the way when the president thought he knew what was best. the initial idea was good imo allthough it needed some tweeking. in the start it was about having the best players because they would be able to bring home the money that they would cost anyway. at the same another part of the plan which is often talked down is that youth players should be promoted to learn from these good players so that while you have star players you also have local talent so the club spirit is there. that is why they called it
Zidane y Pavones( Zidane and Pavones).
Del Bosque didnt get fired because of lack of glamour but due to internal fights. he had enemies inside the club and while i dont agree with the firing im not sure how stable it would be with high profile people disagreeing.
As it was with Capello he also made alot of enemies in the club and he even flicked the people in the stadium off at a time. he was very rude to the players. not a nice guy at all and his style of football was never going to be accepted and it didnt fit with the tradition of trying to play football in a beatiful way.