• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Son Heung-Min

Hardly an outdated ritual considering who their next door neighbor is.

Imagine Scotland as a Kim lead nuclear power publicity stating that the destruction of England was a primary national objective.
I'm not sure Son standing about with a gun is going to increase their chances against a nuclear power run by an angry short man.
 
I'm not sure Son standing about with a gun is going to increase their chances against a nuclear power run by an angry short man.
A considerable, well trained regular military force could obviously hugely influence the outcome in a conflict. Son on his own obviously wouldn't, but that argument is as valid for any South Korean individual who has to do military service.
 
I find there are many games where he absolutely does my head in.

When he is on it he can be brilliant, but he just cant play that way consistently. I find there are many games where he just doesnt effect the game at all, miss places passes, loses shape, holds the ball instead of passing and then loses it - its like he is playing his own game. It happens quite a lot, and Ill be cursing him, and then he'll pop up with a goal and I think for most all the rest is suddenly forgotten.

Whereas for me it just frustrates the hell out of me.

Clearly he has a lot of talent, and he has shown he can be incredible on his day. I just feel he has too many off days and its really annoying. And I think thats why he isnt a certain first team player, you never know what you are going to get.

Absolutely agree with all of this. Spot on.
I don't dislike seeing him in the starting 11, but jeeeeez is he inconsistent. Has it in him coproduce which is his saviour, but most of the time he wastes very good opportunities in front of goal or gives the ball away easily in very promising positions.
 
A considerable, well trained regular military force could obviously hugely influence the outcome in a conflict. Son on his own obviously wouldn't, but that argument is as valid for any South Korean individual who has to do military service.
Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I can't see a scenario where the weird little short man starts a war and doesn't use nuclear weapons. If he does, the war won't be won on the ground by either the North or the South.
 
All of which is fine by me. There are far more important things at stake and he's needed here to fulfill them

Ha! Well, good luck convincing Son that permanent banishment from his home is worth it because he gets to be on the bus parade when we win the league. :p
 
Absolutely agree with all of this. Spot on.
I don't dislike seeing him in the starting 11, but jeeeeez is he inconsistent. Has it in him coproduce which is his saviour, but most of the time he wastes very good opportunities in front of goal or gives the ball away easily in very promising positions.

Robbie Keane syndrome
Give him time he fluffs his lines... make him play instinctively and he scores
 
Ha! Well, good luck convincing Son that permanent banishment from his home is worth it because he gets to be on the bus parade when we win the league. :p
It's not his place to make that decision. We're his employer, we're the ones he's contracted to play for.

Personal problems are his to sort out, without costing the club at any point.
 
It's not his place to make that decision. We're his employer, we're the ones he's contracted to play for.

Personal problems are his to sort out, without costing the club at any point.

He could just buy out his own contract, no? I thought that was part of the Bosman ruling. Or appeal to FIFPro or something.

Yes, we're his employers, but we're not his *owners*, and I don't think we would be particularly inclined to make him a pariah in his home country - not least because he probably wouldn't play very well after that. Like if we kept Palacios in 09/10 when he received news that his brother's body had been found - yes, technically we *could* do it, but it would have been cruel on our part, surely?
 
He could just buy out his own contract, no? I thought that was part of the Bosman ruling. Or appeal to FIFPro or something.

Yes, we're his employers, but we're not his *owners*, and I don't think we would be particularly inclined to make him a pariah in his home country - not least because he probably wouldn't play very well after that. Like if we kept Palacios in 09/10 when he received news that his brother's body had been found - yes, technically we *could* do it, but it would have been cruel on our part, surely?
We're more owners than employers as we've bought his services from his previous employer - for a fudgepile of money too.

Compassionate leave is short-term and expected in the normal running of a business. Two years of military service is very different - it's a much longer period, and it's pointless.
 
We're more owners than employers as we've bought his services from his previous employer - for a fudgepile of money too.

Compassionate leave is short-term and expected in the normal running of a business. Two years of military service is very different - it's a much longer period, and it's pointless.
How long do you think his contract is? Pretty sure it will be his choice
 
Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic, but I can't see a scenario where the weird little short man starts a war and doesn't use nuclear weapons. If he does, the war won't be won on the ground by either the North or the South.
After air supremacy was gained, ground troops would go in to capture/secure areas.
 
We're more owners than employers as we've bought his services from his previous employer - for a fudgepile of money too.

Compassionate leave is short-term and expected in the normal running of a business. Two years of military service is very different - it's a much longer period, and it's pointless.
But the requirement was known by us when we signed him and hence, also, expected.
 
How long do you think his contract is? Pretty sure it will be his choice
It's not about the contract - if he fudges off he won't get paid, I'm sure. It's about the transfer fee - we have paid money to secure his services and the rights to sell them on. If he chooses to deprive us of that value, then it should be at his cost.
 
It's not about the contract - if he fudges off he won't get paid, I'm sure. It's about the transfer fee - we have paid money to secure his services and the rights to sell them on. If he chooses to deprive us of that value, then it should be at his cost.
If his contract runs out before he fudges off we do not get a transfer fee, any player regardless of national service is free to leave at the end of their contract. It will be at his cost as he will lose 2 years of money but if he is not under contract to Spurs he will owe us nothing.
 
If his contract runs out before he fudges off we do not get a transfer fee, any player regardless of national service is free to leave at the end of their contract. It will be at his cost as he will lose 2 years of money but if he is not under contract to Spurs he will owe us nothing.
I'd say that his actions are depriving us of a transfer fee. At least some of that should be recoverable from him.
 
Back