Jump to content

Joe Bennett


Si.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

He hasn't been "chatting shit" though has he?

Sheffield Wednesday didn't want to pay all of his wages, Joe didn't want to drop his wages. Why should Aston Villa cover those wages? It's a nonsense.

Joe Bennett is, in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with football. I'm glad to see it being aired in public, about time. 

I get that we're all Villa fans, not Joe Bennett fans, but my point is it's not surprising that if we have a chairman who releases information to the public that is not normally shared with the public - and we do, and then some - then it's hardly surprising if people who feel their privacy has been violated moan about him in public either. 

At the end of the day, the point of contracts is to bind club and player together. Both have responsibilities to each other. You say 'why should Aston Villa agree to cover his wages', he says 'why should I move house and family across the country for a new job on less money for the convenience of Aston Villa'. I don't see how or why encountering this conflict of interest makes him 'in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with football'.  

EDIT: Having now read the post above this one, it now seems like the discussion may be moot anyway. 

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I get that we're all Villa fans, not Joe Bennett fans, but my point is it's not surprising that if we have a chairman who releases information to the public that is not normally shared with the public - and we do, and then some - then it's hardly surprising if people who feel their privacy has been violated moan about him in public either. 

At the end of the day, the point of contracts is to bind club and player together. Both have responsibilities to each other. You say 'why should Aston Villa agree to cover his wages', he says 'why should I move house and family across the country for a new job on less money for the convenience of Aston Villa'. I don't see how or why encountering this conflict of interest makes him 'in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with football'.  

EDIT: Having now read the post above this one, it now seems like the discussion may be moot anyway. 

Why should he move for the convenience of Aston Villa? Is this a real question?

If he wants to move then it's for his career, if he doesn't want to move then accept you have no part to play and keep quiet and train. Him leaving isn't for our convenience it's for his benefit, so he does have to move his family if they're the only club that are willing to match his wage demands. 

It's not up to us to ensure that players like bennett are well looked after when leaving. As you said, he signed a contract so we owe him nothing more than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Why should he move for the convenience of Aston Villa? Is this a real question?

If he wants to move then it's for his career, if he doesn't want to move then accept you have no part to play and keep quiet and train. Him leaving isn't for our convenience it's for his benefit, so he does have to move his family if they're the only club that are willing to match his wage demands. 

It's not up to us to ensure that players like bennett are well looked after when leaving. As you said, he signed a contract so we owe him nothing more than that.

The following is my understanding of the situation around the early conclusion of a player's contract. It may be wrong, please feel free to correct me if it is. A contract is for a set period of time. If one of the parties causes the break of the contract, they suffer a financial penalty. There are three possible parties who can have to pay a penalty - the player if he forces a move (I'm not aware of Joe Bennett handing in a transfer request, but I may be wrong - please correct me if so), the club purchasing a player in the case of a buyer (this is what a transfer fee is) and the selling club, if the player stands to lose income as a result of a transfer they haven't requested. 

The good thing in the Bennett situation is that we seem to have moved from situation 3 to situation 2 (possibly with the transfer fee waived? - I don't know if Cardiff have paid anything), though without knowing the details of his contracts it's impossible to say for sure. I don't see what it is about this that makes Bennett 'in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with football'. 

Edited by HanoiVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't see what it is about this that makes Bennett 'in a nutshell, everything that is wrong with football'. 

I agree with your wider stance, but there is part of me that that sees a different view HV.

I think the "wrong with football" part is that (in general) players earn such huge sums, that supporters maybe feel, that yes, while a player may be contractually entitled to stay put and pick up the contracted huge sums for sitting in the reserves, maybe from a sporting perspective, fans want to see a sport where players understand their privilege and that they have wonderful jobs as well as wonderful salaries and that moving clubs to be able to play the game every week, whilst only earning what most people earn in a year, say, every 10 days, instead of every 7 days isn't such a bad price to pay at all. That they'll still be fabulously rewarded athletes and maybe sounding off on twitter about how bad it all is, is y'know, a bit much?

Legally you're spot on, it's the sporting ethos part where our argument falls down a bit.

Anyway, good luck to Joe Bennett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

I agree with your wider stance, but there is part of me that that sees a different view HV.

I think the "wrong with football" part is that (in general) players earn such huge sums, that supporters maybe feel, that yes, while a player may be contractually entitled to stay put and pick up the contracted huge sums for sitting in the reserves, maybe from a sporting perspective, fans want to see a sport where players understand their privilege and that they have wonderful jobs as well as wonderful salaries and that moving clubs to be able to play the game every week, whilst only earning what most people earn in a year, say, every 10 days, instead of every 7 days isn't such a bad price to pay at all. That they'll still be fabulously rewarded athletes and maybe sounding off on twitter about how bad it all is, is y'know, a bit much?

Legally you're spot on, it's the sporting ethos part where our argument falls down a bit.

Anyway, good luck to Joe Bennett.

There's certainly a moral point in here somewhere, although I'm not completely convinced, on three counts: firstly, it seems harsh to me to make Joe Bennett an avatar for the entire economic operation of football. Secondly, I don't see why Xia discussing these things on Twitter is fine and dandy, but Bennett replying is 'sounding off' and 'a bit much'. The other thing I was bristling at in the first place was that it seemed to me people were suggesting that Xia's motives are entirely pure while Bennett's only motive could be avarice. 

However, I'm going to leave it there, as if I had to pick a hill to die on, it wouldn't be 'defending Joe Bennett's reputation', and I have an IKEA sofa to assemble, so I'll back online sometime in the spring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if you had to pay the difference for all players if they move onto a lower paid contract. I'm sure what ever agreements are in place could be waived by the player to get the move. In the case of bennett he didn't seem to want to do that.

And none of that explains why he was moving for our convenience and nothing to do with furthering his own career. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
×
×
  • Create New...
Â