Responding to user query
The user posted a Chinese sentence that seems like a news headline. It says something about a player who skipped training and left the team without authorization, which may indicate they want more information or a summary. Since they didn't ask a direct question, I think I could ask for clarification or provide a brief context. However, I'm not sure if I have network access to fetch news details or sources. We weren’t informed about any restrictions in this conversation.Considering user request
The user likely wants a brief report or explanation regarding Qingdao Hainiu’s response to allegations involving a player named Rankel-Ze. However, I'm uncertain about the exact identity of "兰克尔-泽"—it could refer to different players, and I don’t want to make assumptions. I think I should ask the user if they want a summary, background, timeline, or opinion analysis. I can provide a neutral and concise overview of the dispute's key points, such as salary claims and possible next steps in a contract dispute.Structuring the response
I think I should provide some bullet points outlining what the club states, what it implies, what evidence would matter, and what to watch for next. I want to ask if the user wants the original statement or a compiled timeline. My neutral response could review the club's statement denying wage arrears, claiming breaches like missed training and leaving without permission. These actions could justify disciplinary measures. I might suggest waiting for the player's side or CFA/FIFA ruling. If the user shares a link to the statement, I can summarize it or search if necessary.Clarifying evidence options
I need to explain the types of evidence relevant to this case, which could include payroll or bank slips, attendance logs, and notices. I want to keep my response concise and clear. I plan to offer the user a few options: 1) a quick summary of the official notice, 2) a timeline of events, or 3) a legal or regulatory perspective. I should ask the user which option they prefer before proceeding. That way, I can tailor my response to their needs!
这是俱乐部方面的单方通报:否认欠薪,同时指控球员多次旷训、擅自离队。一般来说:
- 若确有欠薪,球员可能以“正当理由”解约;若确有旷训离队,俱乐部可按队规/合同处罚,严重可视作违约。
- 关键在证据:打款流水/工资条、训练出勤记录、书面通知/请假记录等。
- 后续通常会走足协或FIFA争议解决程序;也可能先由俱乐部内部处罚、再仲裁。

需要我:
- 找到并概括这份官宣的完整要点;
- 梳理事件时间线与各方说法对照; 
- 从足坛争议(FIFA RSTP/国内规定)角度解读可能走向。 选一个编号,或把原文链接发我也行。
.gif)