Looks like...

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

It has been said before and must be repeated that if Elliott or O'Reilly go to a Continental and not and English club the level of compensation will be much much lower.
Terrible but true.

[Nero]

It has been said before and must be repeated that if Elliott or O'Reilly go to a Continental and not and English club the level of compensation will be much much lower.
Terrible but true.

yes I've always wonder why this hasnt be challenged in European Court surely it should be the same under an EU law

[Riversider]

Remember they are employees and thus can move jobs. How many of us are working with the same company we started with?
That said greedy t#$t seems to fit the bill.

That's fair enough but it is a matter of clubs receiving fair compensation for spotting and bringing through young players and protecting young players from themselves in some sense. For example, how many young players are languishing in top team's u23s or out on loan at a time when, for their careers, they should be gaining first team experience.

Fair compensation?   Isn't football job an investment in a player?  If so, it's a gamble.   It may pay off in the player being good and staying with the team, or it may pay of in the ability of the club to transfer said player...

...but at what point does the PLAYER take control of what happens to him?    At what point is the investment considered PAID IN FULL and the player given the option to do what he thinks is good for his own career?   Only when the club says so?

I'm old school...but I also have an athlete for a child.    As a parent...my child's future is more important to myself and my child than the return on investment the club might get.

At the moment, Harvey Elliot has received coaching at Fulham from "a very young age" and has played just minutes. If he leaves at 16 years old, as he can, Fulham will get some compensation but probably little in comparison to the benefit or profit his new club will get should he be successful.

What is fair does not have to be down to to "when the club says so". It could be down to some agreement at FA level to a share of future contracts and/or sell on values, for example.

If clubs lose their most valuable young players before they benefit from them on the pitch or from a sell on fee then they are going to stop coaching young players as Brentford have done with all the consequences that will bring.

If young players through their own attitude or that of their agents or parents freeload off clubs taking the free coaching and moving on before giving a return then the system will break and only the big clubs will be left offering youth places.

I think it was a shroud business move playing Elliott last season, as when it comes to the level of compensation to say that he has played 1st team football shoul dincrease the money or future % we get

Hmm I wonder if thats why we put him on 😒

[Fulham Joe]

I've got no time at all for people like that, as far as I'm concerned he can far cough tomorrow.

[AnOldBrownie]

Remember they are employees and thus can move jobs. How many of us are working with the same company we started with?
That said greedy t#$t seems to fit the bill.

That's fair enough but it is a matter of clubs receiving fair compensation for spotting and bringing through young players and protecting young players from themselves in some sense. For example, how many young players are languishing in top team's u23s or out on loan at a time when, for their careers, they should be gaining first team experience.

Fair compensation?   Isn't football job an investment in a player?  If so, it's a gamble.   It may pay off in the player being good and staying with the team, or it may pay of in the ability of the club to transfer said player...

...but at what point does the PLAYER take control of what happens to him?    At what point is the investment considered PAID IN FULL and the player given the option to do what he thinks is good for his own career?   Only when the club says so?

I'm old school...but I also have an athlete for a child.    As a parent...my child's future is more important to myself and my child than the return on investment the club might get.

These guys aren't your children, however you are a FFC supporter. There is only one side any supporter can really be on.

Both the players and the club should try and do what is in their best interest or what they think is their best interest. FFC's best interest is selling Ryan, if Ryan doesn't want to re-sign with Fulham. It's like you say, Ryan is like an investment or an appreciating asset. And since Ryan is an investment/appreciating asset, you sell him when someone is willing to pay you more than he's worth or at the point in time you'll get the most for him. That time might be this summer.  Fulham can make do without him and still get promoted.

I wish Ryan all the best and hope he has a wonderful life wherever he goes. If he stays with Fulham, gets us promoted, and then leaves on a free, so be it. FFC just won't have gotten the most value from him, which will be disappointing.

We'll agree to disagree.  I want both parties to be happy.

Unless I'm mistaken he was already under some type of contract no?    He just decided he didn't want to be on another contract with Fulham that might limit his career?

If he played out his contract with Fulham what more is expected of him?