Player watch: Christian Eriksen

Lilbaz said:

Is that toby? When he said he was fit but we said he was injured. Yet he played for belgium?

Click to expand...

JayB said:

I personally think it's in the club's long-term interest to ostracize any player who runs their contract down. It undermines the player's bargaining leverage with his next club and creates a disincentive to other players leaving on a free, which is obviously in the club's interest.

Look at Ramsey and Rabiot. Ramsey was not ostracized by Arsenal, continued performing at a high level, and left for Juventus on a contract worth a reported €400k/w in wages. Rabiot on the other hand was ostracized and despite being a younger, more talented (IMO), and less injury prone player, signed a contract with the exact same club on a relatively paltry €135k/w. I'm sure that Rabiot's record of being a twat played into that somewhat, but looking at the two purely from an age and footballing perspective it should have been the case that Rabiot held a higher market value than Ramsey. Yet having not played for an entire season, he wound up signing a contract on one third the wages.

The message sent to players at Arsenal is that leaving on a free could be the best financial decision of their lives, provided that they're good enough to attract interest from the elite. The message sent to players at PSG is that if they attempt to leave on a free they will have the rug pulled out from underneath them, effectively lose a year of their playing career, and find it very difficult to negotiate a massive contract with their next club. I'm guessing you won't see many players attempt to run their contract down at PSG as a result.

Faced with the same dilemma, we should be more like PSG than Arsenal.

Click to expand...

dtxspurs said:

Must have forgotten about that. Regardless, I think its crazy talk that Poch would sit Eriksen on the bench all season if he signed a new contract.

Click to expand...

THFCSPURS19 said:

PSG were in a position where not playing Rabiot wasn't a big deal. You also neglected to mention that PSG ostracised him because, along with running his contract down, he was also a massive ****. Eriksen has been largely respectful towards us (as Ramsay was to Arsenal) and we're not in a position to ostracise such a talented player, so I disagree pretty strongly.

Click to expand...

"The player informed me that he would not sign a contract and that he wanted to leave the club by being free at the end of the season, at the end of his contract.

"For the player, this will have a very clear consequence: he will remain on the bench for an indefinite period."

Click to expand...

JayB said:

Rabiot was sent to the reserves over his contract. Here's a direct quote from Henrique from when contract talks broke down:


The reason that players run their contracts down is because it is in their own self-interest. Having a policy of sending anyone who does so to the reserves creates a disincentive, thereby rendering it less in their own interest and therefore less likely to happen.

If we sign Lo Celso and bring in Ceballos on loan, we wouldn't need to rely on Eriksen. It'd be harsh, and I'm not suggesting that I think it will happen, I'm just saying it'd be best for the club. I think it's pretty clear that PSG is in a much stronger position vis a vis would-be Bosmans than Arsenal.

Click to expand...

THFCSPURS19 said:

He also said:

"It seems that the player and his representative have misled us for several months," he said.

I don't think the punishment would have been as severe had this not been the case.

We wouldn't need to reply on Eriksen as much with those signings, but given that Eriksen playing would increase our chances of winning the PL or CL, something we haven't done since 1961 (or even win a trophy for the first time since 2008), I can't agree that your theory about 'long-term interests', which is seemingly based off some free transfers this season and isn't even proven, overrides the importance of winning a trophy for the club.

Click to expand...

JayB said:

I don't see it as a vindictive punishment for bad behavior, it was a ruthless business decision taken in order to send a message to other players and protect the club's interest. It's clear that if Rabiot had eventually decided to sign a new contract he would have played despite his other behavior, so the decisive variable was the contract.

PSG were light in midfield last season and could have used Rabiot, of course we will be able to use Eriksen next season as well. But losing your best players without compensation is a massive blow to the club, and while you can't guarantee that you'll be able to stamp it out, you can create a structure which disincentivizes it and makes it less likely.

With transfer fees what they are, more and more players are running their contracts down to get moves, and that's a major disruption to our model. ENIC have built the club through player trading, we can't afford for our knees to be cut out from underneath us. I'm guessing that PSG won't be alone in the policy they've established, and there's certainly a business logic to it. I don't know whether we'll do the same but if we do then it won't be about punishment, it would be about business.

Click to expand...

THFCSPURS19 said:

Let's say we adopted this model and Poch wanted to use him. Do we say 'I know you want him to play and he could improve us but we have to make this business decision so soz'?

Click to expand...

JayB said:

I'm sure it would be unpopular and every single time we put in a poor performance people would be howling for Eriksen to play, but if the club decide to adopt this policy we'd have to live with it just like PSG supporters saw their team flame out early in the CL while arguably their best midfielder rotted in the reserves. Who knows what the club will do if Eriksen and Toby do try to leave on free transfers -- we haven't been in this position with important players since Campbell. Let's hope we can resolve the situations over the summer and don't have to find out.

Click to expand...

THFCSPURS19 said:

Doesn't really answer my question? I asked what would be the correct course of action if Poch wanted to use him.

Click to expand...

dtxspurs said:

Must have forgotten about that. Regardless, I think its crazy talk that Poch would sit Eriksen on the bench all season if he signed a new contract.

Click to expand...

ToDarrenIsToDo said:

People need to ask themselves what is better. Eriksen plays next season, we secure top 4 and he leaves on a free or we sit him on the bench all season, we finish 5th and he leaves on a free.

Of course Eriksen would play if we don't sell him and he doesn't sign a new deal. We'd be wise to blood someone at the same time though to ensure we are well settled the season after

Click to expand...

ToDarrenIsToDo said:

People need to ask themselves what is better. Eriksen plays next season, we secure top 4 and he leaves on a free or we sit him on the bench all season, we finish 5th and he leaves on a free.

Of course Eriksen would play if we don't sell him and he doesn't sign a new deal. We'd be wise to blood someone at the same time though to ensure we are well settled the season after

Click to expand...

Yid-ol said:

Or he signs a new contract and is rotated in the squad with the new players

Click to expand...

SpartanSpur said:

Sounds pretty ominous, but could be RM playing games. You'd be certain we could only use 2 out of Eriksen, Ceballos and Lo Celso, even if Lo Celso was seen as a forward player. Depth would be Man City level though

Edit: Just checked and can't see this on their website.

Click to expand...