The future of football

DOES anybody understand what has -- or hasn't -- been decided this week regarding the long-drawn out transfer row?

The two big East Lancashire clubs were this week adopting a 'wait and see' policy but it is clear to all parties that the transfer system is in for some major changes over the coming months.

The European Commission met up with FIFA and UEFA chiefs on Wednesday to thrash out a compromise deal to give players more freedom of movement yet safeguard stability for clubs.

But the international players' union FIFPro, whose president is former Rovers player and PFA boss Gordon Taylor, said there were still some major issues to agree on and a final compromise could still be months away.

Rovers chief executive John Williams was wary of this week's media reaction.

"Everything so far is speculative," he said. "We have had very good briefing papers before this but so far we have heard nothing about these proposed changes."

Burnley chief Barry Kilby agreed that it was difficult to know what the changes were going to be.

"I have been reading through the documents and there doesn't seem to be anything on what happens when a player unilaterally breaks his contract.

"What is the point in signing players on long-term contracts when they can just walk away for nothing after a year?" Under the rules proposed to the European Commission by FIFA and UEFA on Wednesday, players would have to sign to a club for at least a year, and for no more than five, and will only be able to move from club to club once a season and within specific transfer 'windows'.

Clubs will be compensated if they lose players under the age of 23, but how compensation will be calculated will be decided by an arbitration panel and could be as little as merely the player's training costs.

UEFA, FIFA and FIFPro met with the European Commission again yesterday to try to establish more details for the new system.

It was still not clear when the transfer window would be, how clubs would be compensated if a player walked out and how to protect the employment rights of players under the age of 23.

Burnley chairman Kilby seemed most concerned about how clubs would be compensated if a player walked out.

"These 'sporting sanctions' are the crux of it," he said. "Is anyone going to pay £2million for a player if they can just walk away at the end of the year?

"They can walk away now at the end of their contract but at least you have them signed up for the three or four years."

John Williams agreed that stability was the key.

"From a club, player and supporter point of view we need stability in the system," he said.

"Football clubs need to know that players are going to be around for a certain amount of time. They need to be able to plan.

"For fans, and they are the lifeblood of the club, they need to be able to identify with the team and that means knowing who is going to be in the team next month, if not next year. "And the players need stability as well, stability of contracts, and they need stable employers.

"We have just signed David Dunn on a contract until 2005. I would be very disappointed if, under the new rules, he could just walk out after a year.

"I think the notice period a player has to give before he can move is going to be very important.

"For a 30-year-old on a two-year contract, 12 months notice would be fine, but for a younger player on a longer contract, I think the notice period should be longer, maybe three years, to take that into account."

Kilby added that the new rules could work for and against many players.

"One year contracts can be a bad thing as well as a good thing for players," he said.

"The top five per cent of players will benefit from being able to move from club to club but for others there will be no security.

"Every club has a number of players who are tied to contracts but who aren't in the manager's plans. If the club could give notice to terminate a contract that would be bad for a player."

The effect the changes will have on clubs' youth systems is another major issue.

For Rovers, who have invested so much in their Academy, protecting the players who come through is vital to their future.

"The economics of youth systems will be seriously threatened if young players can walk out but I think that is an area that will be agreed on," he said. "It is a special case and I think all parties agree on that." "But I think it is important to point out that we are under the assumption that current contracts would not be affected by the changes, and we have made arrangements with that in mind, and we agree with the idea of a transfer window. It would offer more stability and would encourage better planning."

Burnley, Kilby says, have never been a club who nurture players to sell on.

"We are a club who have hardly made a bean from transfers but it is always nice to have assets you can sell if you stretch yourself too far," he said.

"But we have survived without selling players before so I think we would adjust quite well.

"The clubs who do bring players through with a view to selling them on would have to radically re-think their youth systems.

"If the compensation package is just re-paying what it has cost to train a player, if it doesn't take into account the commercial value how will these clubs survive?

"You need to be properly compensated for the players you bring through."

Neither Williams nor Kilby is worried their respective clubs will be placed in grave danger by the proposed changes.

But both have different ideas as to how it might affect the game.

Rovers chief Williams wants to sign his players on long-term deals where the player has to give a considerable period of notice.

Kilby believes shorter contracts may be the answer, with players deciding whether to stay, or move on, each year.

Both agree that it will change football forever.