
Originally Posted by
57vintage
Both parties signed a contract. It can only be terminated by mutual consent, although I suspect that there will be clauses to protect both parties within it (eg breaches of club discipline, failure to honour agreed payments etc). The club could, of course, agree to terminate his contract and pay him his dues to do so, allowing him to sign a new contract with another club. That would mean no fee like, an odd and poor business decision if the market (Thatcherism, ken?) suggests that some suitor is offering to pay a seven-figure sum for a signed player.
Footballers now enjoy the same employment protection as other workers do. That is only civilised, right and proper. Didn’t a tasty crew ditch a statue of the slave owner Colston in Bristol docks of late? Isn’t there debate in process about the naming of streets in Glasgow in tribute to the slave traders? Isn’t Edinburgh all afizz with arguments on the wording of an explanatory plaque at the foot of Dundas’s statue, and the good citizens of Toronto considering how best to deal with the main Dundas thoroughfare?
Slavery’s over in the so-called civilised world, chum, although there would be no objection to its return in some areas of the Conservative Party. Footballers are employees of organisations, and are some of the last to be recognised as having such status and concomitant rights. They cannot be traded as commodities any more, nor can they have their trade restrained by clubs with whom they have contracts. If and when Cosgrove moves, he, Aberdeen FC, and any third party wishing to offer him a contract, will all have to agree.
Welcome to the 21st century.