Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What’s needed is some good old fashioned management. Ignore him, make him train with the kids,don’t give him a squad number,  make his life a misery. He’ll have 2 options then, fuck off and sign a half decent contract with Celtic or A N other, or have a miserable last season of his contract putting the cones out and practising with the nippers.

Cloughie, Shanks, SAF, these guys didn’t get to the top by namby  pamby #benice management, they were ruthless bastards, who would crush anyone who stood in the way of bettering the club. Ferguson humiliated Jim Leighton at Utd  so much that Leighton hasn’t spoken to him since (and Ferguson had him at Aberdeen and bought him to Utd). Lurch has been stealing a fucking good living from us the past 3 years, he hasn’t earned that wedge. Whist we have a obligation to pay him, we don’t have an obligation to  put him in the first team & be nice to him. 
 

If I was Ralph he’d have been in my office the day after the season ended and I’d have spelt out a few home truths to him. I’d them ask him “What’s it to be lurchio, the most miserable 10 months of your career, or a free transfer somewhere? You decide”. 

Last summer was the time to try this I think. Instead he was welcomed back with open arms to the first team. What a surprise he wasn't then interested in taking a huge pay cut to join celtic...

 

Dreadful keeper

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TWar said:

Fraser has done nothing wrong, he got a good contract and signed it like anyone would. I think bullying a person is unacceptable in all circumstances, especially someone with rumoured mental health issues. You shouldn't be able to create a negative workplace environment for financial gain, it's unethical.

I'm not sure it's legal either. I've forgotten who now but there was a player who sued his club for this sort of treatment and won

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, East Kent Saint said:

Er that type of treatment plus holding on to a players registration and not paying them led to the Bowman ruling which is why players / agents hold most of the high value cards .

Pony.

Bosman was about players out of contract. Previously the club that held their registration could demand a fee, or stop him moving on a free. Post Bosman  they couldn’t. It had nothing to do with players that had a year left, like lurch 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

I'm not sure it's legal either. I've forgotten who now but there was a player who sued his club for this sort of treatment and won

Telling a player you’re not good enough for the first team squad, so have to train with the stiffs, is not illegal. Provided he’s paid, a tribunal can’t decide who is and isn’t in the first team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Verbal Kint said:

Last summer was the time to try this I think. Instead he was welcomed back with open arms to the first team. What a surprise he wasn't then interested in taking a huge pay cut to join celtic...

 

Dreadful keeper

Yep. That’s down to Ralph. He froze the Swiss nipper out of the club, but  seems ok with lurch stealing a living. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You never know in football, but I just don't see him going.  He had a fantastic spell there last time but turned down a permanent move there and wanted to get back into our team.

Credit to him, he did that and some argue he's our best keeper.  But why move now when he's got a year left on big money and in a year he can assess all his options?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Telling a player you’re not good enough for the first team squad, so have to train with the stiffs, is not illegal. Provided he’s paid, a tribunal can’t decide who is and isn’t in the first team. 

If you intend to keep paying his wages but inform him once he's not good enough and demote him to the U23s then that is absolutely fine. If you are to "make his life hell" that is illegal. It is tantamount to workplace harrassment.

Quote

Yep. That’s down to Ralph. He froze the Swiss nipper out of the club, but  seems ok with lurch stealing a living. 

Not sure how well Jankewitz would do as a goalkeeper...

Some of the things you say are hilarious. We were able to get good money for a youth player who didn't fit so we sold him. Not sure why that upsets you so. Also, again, since you can't seem to grasp it: It isn't Ralphs job to sell players!

Edited by TWar
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yep. That’s down to Ralph. He froze the Swiss nipper out of the club, but  seems ok with lurch stealing a living. 

It seems extremely unlikely to me that Ralph was begging the club to keep him...

It needed stronger leadership above him to say "this bloke is on an enormous contract. He is either your clear no.1 or we need to do everything we can to get him off the wage bill". I could be wrong but I'd bet that conversation didn't happen, but it should have

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What’s needed is some good old fashioned management. Ignore him, make him train with the kids,don’t give him a squad number,  make his life a misery. He’ll have 2 options then, fuck off and sign a half decent contract with Celtic or A N other, or have a miserable last season of his contract putting the cones out and practising with the nippers.

Cloughie, Shanks, SAF, these guys didn’t get to the top by namby  pamby #benice management, they were ruthless bastards, who would crush anyone who stood in the way of bettering the club. Ferguson humiliated Jim Leighton at Utd  so much that Leighton hasn’t spoken to him since (and Ferguson had him at Aberdeen and bought him to Utd). Lurch has been stealing a fucking good living from us the past 3 years, he hasn’t earned that wedge. Whist we have a obligation to pay him, we don’t have an obligation to  put him in the first team & be nice to him. 
 

If I was Ralph he’d have been in my office the day after the season ended and I’d have spelt out a few home truths to him. I’d them ask him “What’s it to be lurchio, the most miserable 10 months of your career, or a free transfer somewhere? You decide”. 

Still stuck in the mid 20th century I see Duckie. How do you think that would play out in any other workplace in the country? It is not his fault that he has got a decent contract so why bully him and make his life a misery? I’m sure you would be delighted if your boss decided that you were surplus to requirements and treated you like crap to try and get you out. The world has moved on thankfully. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sadoldgit said:

Still stuck in the mid 20th century I see Duckie. How do you think that would play out in any other workplace in the country? It is not his fault that he has got a decent contract so why bully him and make his life a misery? I’m sure you would be delighted if your boss decided that you were surplus to requirements and treated you like crap to try and get you out. The world has moved on thankfully. 

Some people have zero empathy. The don't see footballers as human beings so they think it's fine to bully them for the benefit of the club. Or they do see them as humans and treat all people this way, in which case are sociopaths.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SuperSAINT said:
Surely he’ll just leave us on a free at the end of his deal?

 

Supposedly we want to reduce his money to ONLY £70k a week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TWar said:

Some people have zero empathy. The don't see footballers as human beings so they think it's fine to bully them for the benefit of the club. Or they do see them as humans and treat all people this way, in which case are sociopaths.

It’s a ruthless cut throat business. Players that aren’t good enough, need moving on. You Nods are happy with a multi millionaire taking the piss, unbelievable. You weren’t so accommodating with Pelligrino. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TWar said:

Some people have zero empathy. The don't see footballers as human beings so they think it's fine to bully them for the benefit of the club. Or they do see them as humans and treat all people this way, in which case are sociopaths.

There was a softer way to do it though. We could have sat him down last summer and told him he was not part of the first team plans and he wouldn't be named in the 25 man squad for the next 2 seasons, nor would we allow him another loan unless a club would take on all of his wages.

Not saying he definitely would have moved, but it would have given him a decision to make and I don't think you could have called it bullying. Pointless trying it now as he would just sit it out for a season. But 2 seasons of it and he might have had to think harder

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s a ruthless cut throat business. Players that aren’t good enough, need moving on. You Nods are happy with a multi millionaire taking the piss, unbelievable. 

It doesn't matter if someone is a multimillionaire or on minimum wage. Bullying someone off the wage bill and making their life a living hell is unethical, illegal, and will tank your reputation as an employer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Verbal Kint said:

There was a softer way to do it though. We could have sat him down last summer and told him he was not part of the first team plans and he wouldn't be named in the 25 man squad for the next 2 seasons, nor would we allow him another loan unless a club would take on all of his wages.

Not saying he definitely would have moved, but it would have given him a decision to make and I don't think you could have called it bullying. Pointless trying it now as he would just sit it out for a season. But 2 seasons of it and he might have had to think harder

I think that is reasonable. Play the cards you have, be upfront, and try to find a solution that suits both parties. I don't object to us not giving him what he wants, we have no obligation to do that beyond the contractual obligation to pay wages. I just think outright bullying is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yep. That’s down to Ralph. He froze the Swiss nipper out of the club, but  seems ok with lurch stealing a living. 

Stealing a living? Turning up for training and being available to play is stealing a living? I think you’ll find that is called doing your job. As for freezing a 19 year old out of the club. Perhaps it was just that he thought the kid wasn’t ready yet so didn’t play him. 19 years old. Think about that. Certainly his brief appearance against United seem to indicate that Ralph was right not  to play him again at the time, but does that really equate to being frozen out? The guy wants to progress and play football and clearly isn’t going to be a starter in the first team for a while so it seems like the club have agreed to let him go. Why make it sound like a drama?

My wife was bullied by her boss a couple of years ago and it seriously affected her mental health. What made it worse was that she and her partner were friends of ours and drank in our local. Bullying in the workplace (or anywhere for that matter) has no place in a civilised society.

Edited by sadoldgit
Add para
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Stealing a living? Turning up for training and being available to play is stealing a living? I think you’ll find that is called doing your job. As for freezing a 19 year old out of the club. Perhaps it was just that he thought the kid wasn’t ready yet so didn’t play him. 19 years old. Think about that. Certainly his brief appearance against United seem to indicate that Ralph was right not  to play him again at the time, but does that really equate to being frozen out? The guy wants to progress and play football and clearly isn’t going to be a starter in the first team for a while so it seems like the club have agreed to let him go. Why make it sound like a drama?

Yeah Jankewitz wasn't "frozen out", he was never in. He was a young lad in a competitive position, got a chance and blew it and didn't impress enough in training to get another. No freezing out, he just didn't make the grade and had to downgrade to the swiss league. Same as Hesketh and Sims, they weren't frozen out, they just weren't good enough to start.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Football isn’t like the real world. My boss wouldn’t come into the staff canteen and start throwing tea cups around and calling me fucking useless in front of everyone else. You soft arsed Nods would have the HA advisor in the dressing room in case somebody upsets our little darlings and swears at them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Football isn’t like the real world. My boss wouldn’t come into the staff canteen and start throwing tea cups around and calling me fucking useless in front of everyone else. You soft arsed Nods would have the HA advisor in the dressing room in case somebody upsets our little darlings and swears at them. 

Football is like the real world and football players are human beings. It is insane to me that you can't see that.

Edited by TWar
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TWar said:

Football is like the real world and football players are human beings. It is insane to me that you can't see that.

In the real world people who don’t perform to the standard required get sacked, in football they get paid and people like you stick up for them.

I presume you want people thrown out of the ground  for bullying Redmond or Stephens when they make a mistake. 
 

The bloke is taking the piss. It’s not the fucking Boy Scouts, it’s elite sport. It’s a tough environment that gives you unbelievable riches for performing at that level. Fall below the required level and then sit on an elite level contract, and the shit should rightly hit the fan. It’s not like he’s losing everything. He’s a multi millionaire, who could probably earn half a million a year elsewhere. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

In the real world people who don’t perform to the standard required get sacked, in football they get paid and people like you stick up for them.

I presume you want people thrown out of the ground  for bullying Redmond or Stephens when they make a mistake. 
 

The bloke is taking the piss. It’s not the fucking Boy Scouts, it’s elite sport. It’s a tough environment that gives you unbelievable riches for performing at that level. Fall below the required level and then sit on an elite level contract, and the shit should rightly hit the fan.  

He signed a contract to play football and he is, his contract didn't stipulate quality therefore he is performing up to the standard agreed. You don't get sacked in any job if you are fulfilling your contractual obligations.

Also, people also shouldn't bully Redmond and Stephens, for the record, it doesn't help.

He's not taking the piss, he is doing what he is contracted to do. It's not his fault we gave him too big a contract. He doesn't deserve to have us make his life a living hell. The boy scouts isn't the only place where bullying is unacceptable...

Also I'm not "sticking up for him" for performing badly. I've been the first to say our goalkeepers are both atrocious and both are well below prem level. I just am an adult and understand they are human beings so them being bad at football doesn't mean they should be treated like shit.

Edited by TWar
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it really odd that a thread about our two average goalkeepers, who the club have given decent money to and don't have the finances to replace right now, has turned into a blame game on Ralph - the goalkeeping situation is his fault, the lack of finances is his fault. Huh? I don't follow.

If we had money we'd get a new goalie, I'm not doubting that what so ever. Sadly we don't have any money so we have to prioritise elsewhere. Whilst Alex and Fraser aren't great, they're not total calamities let's be fair.

Apart from Ralph getting out his own personal loan to either pay off Fraser, or buy a new GK, I fail to see what he can do.

And 'making Frasers life hell' so he leaves isn't what I'd call an approach. Completely out of touch.

Edited by S-Clarke
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I find it really odd that a thread about our two average goalkeepers, who the club have given decent money to and don't have the finances to replace right now, has turned into a blame game on Ralph 

If we had money we'd get a new goalie, I'm not doubting that what so ever. Sadly we don't have any money so we have to prioritise elsewhere. Whilst Alex and Fraser aren't great, they're not total calamities let's be fair.

Aprt from Ralph getting out his own personal loan to either pay off Fraser, or buy a new GK, I fail to see what he can do.

Yet again a Ralph apologist twists what’s been written.

Nobody is blaming Ralph for the lack of money. If he decides the limited money is needed elsewhere, that’s down to him. If that’s the case, people can question his judgement, can question whether getting Walcott in rather than somebody in nets, was the right judgement or priority (and don’t give me any pony that has no say in what positions are recruited). One can presume he’d rather spend the money elsewhere and have one of these 2 in nets. If that’s the wrong call, whose fault is that, Les Reeds? 
 

We can also question why we’ve got 2 shite keepers who are both out of contract in ‘22 and nobody has addressed this. Hes the manager not some back of house office bod. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

In the real world people who don’t perform to the standard required get sacked, in football they get paid and people like you stick up for them.

I presume you want people thrown out of the ground  for bullying Redmond or Stephens when they make a mistake. 
 

The bloke is taking the piss. It’s not the fucking Boy Scouts, it’s elite sport. It’s a tough environment that gives you unbelievable riches for performing at that level. Fall below the required level and then sit on an elite level contract, and the shit should rightly hit the fan. It’s not like he’s losing everything. He’s a multi millionaire, who could probably earn half a million a year elsewhere. 

Have you ever managed anyone? If so can you let me know what line of work you are in so I can entirely avoid ever having to deal with you.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yet again a Ralph apologist twists what’s been written.

Nobody is blaming Ralph for the lack of money. If he decides the limited money is needed elsewhere, that’s down to him. If that’s the case, people can question his judgement, can question whether getting Walcott in rather than somebody in nets, was the right judgement or priority (and don’t give me any pony that has no say in what positions are recruited). One can presume he’d rather spend the money elsewhere and have one of these 2 in nets. If that’s the wrong call, whose fault is that, Les Reeds? 
 

We can also question why we’ve got 2 shite keepers who are both out of contract in ‘22 and nobody has addressed this. Hes the manager not some back of house office bod. 

Walcott was free...

He has wages, but so would a keeper, and a keeper good enough to displace our two probably comes with an associated transfer fee. Gunn just went for £5m for example and he was 3rd choice behind them.

Edited by TWar
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Football isn’t like the real world. My boss wouldn’t come into the staff canteen and start throwing tea cups around and calling me fucking useless in front of everyone else. You soft arsed Nods would have the HA advisor in the dressing room in case somebody upsets our little darlings and swears at them. 

What's a nod? I think I might be one, but just wanted to be sure.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Pony.

Bosman was about players out of contract. Previously the club that held their registration could demand a fee, or stop him moving on a free. Post Bosman  they couldn’t. It had nothing to do with players that had a year left, like lurch 

Pony . The Bosman ruling changed the whole relationship which is why clubs want to give new contracts to players with 2 years left on their current contracts . Their objective now is to retain some value of their assets so they don’t leave for free so even with one year left it may be worth extending . We’ve no idea why Saints went overboard with FF’s long gold plated extension . Bale is another mystery , he was on the point of leaving but Real pulled out , explain that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

In the real world people who don’t perform to the standard required get sacked

You often see these statements on here but it's complete bullshit. Loads of people perform badly in jobs for decades without being sacked. It's very rare for someone to be managed out for bad performance "in the real world".

Anyway, this thread has been quite entertaining latterly, thanks mostly to your posts and this sort of 1960s pub-bore character you're running, so cheers for that.

  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, benjii said:

You often see these statements on here but it's complete bullshit. Loads of people perform badly in jobs for decades without being sacked. It's very rare for someone to be managed out for bad performance "in the real world".

Anyway, this thread has been quite entertaining latterly, thanks mostly to your posts and this sort of 1960s pub-bore character you're running, so cheers for that.

Agreed - after a shite day at work his posts have cheered me right up before I hit the pub!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic shipped six at home to West Ham today, hopefully they will push the boat out to get Fraser in on a 3 year deal. Substitute the fee for 100% of final year’s wages and that’s another of Les’s Sanatogen moments gone at long last. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2021 at 12:58, TWar said:

I think that is reasonable. Play the cards you have, be upfront, and try to find a solution that suits both parties. I don't object to us not giving him what he wants, we have no obligation to do that beyond the contractual obligation to pay wages. I just think outright bullying is wrong.

I wish we had someone at the helm with enough insight to make a decision along those lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, saint1977 said:

Celtic shipped six at home to West Ham today, hopefully they will push the boat out to get Fraser in on a 3 year deal. Substitute the fee for 100% of final year’s wages and that’s another of Les’s Sanatogen moments gone at long last. 

We're not selling either of our keepers surely? Why the hell did we sell gun in a cut price deal if that was the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

We're not selling either of our keepers surely? Why the hell did we sell gun in a cut price deal if that was the case.

Because Gunn was the most sellable and a similar standard.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we sold one of Fraser or McCarthy, and bring in a No 1 next season when one or both are out of contract.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

We're not selling either of our keepers surely? Why the hell did we sell gun in a cut price deal if that was the case.

Because he was crap and last season we let in 60+ not difficult is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

We're not selling either of our keepers surely? Why the hell did we sell gun in a cut price deal if that was the case.

It was surely always the plan to ship out Gunn and one of the others in order that we can bring a new keeper in. That`s why we have offered FF a crap deal, less than Alex, so he gets the idea he needs to shift his arse. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why FF gets so much flack on here. I know he's expensive but we gave him the contract--was he meant to say ''no no that's far too much". He's not a world beater and he makes me nervous but I can't remember too much wrong last season.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Billy the Kidd said:

Because Gunn was the most sellable and a similar standard.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we sold one of Fraser or McCarthy, and bring in a No 1 next season when one or both are out of contract.

Let Forster go, bring in a potential no1 on a loan with an upfront fee and an option to buy at an agreed price? Certainly not the simplest deal but you do see a lot of them in Serie A. It would give us a bit of 'try before you buy' without needing significant outlay upfront.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, UpweySaint said:

Let Forster go, bring in a potential no1 on a loan with an upfront fee and an option to buy at an agreed price? Certainly not the simplest deal but you do see a lot of them in Serie A. It would give us a bit of 'try before you buy' without needing significant outlay upfront.

I dont disagree with this, but getting someone to do a deal we are happy with re Fraser isn’t simple, we’ve tried for a few years and best we did was loan him out, with us covering much of his wage I believe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, UpweySaint said:

Let Forster go, bring in a potential no1 on a loan with an upfront fee and an option to buy at an agreed price? Certainly not the simplest deal but you do see a lot of them in Serie A. It would give us a bit of 'try before you buy' without needing significant outlay upfront.

We’ve been trying to let him go for 3 years it’s finding someone to take him that’s the problem

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Billy the Kidd said:

I dont disagree with this, but getting someone to do a deal we are happy with re Fraser isn’t simple, we’ve tried for a few years and best we did was loan him out, with us covering much of his wage I believe.

 

 

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

We’ve been trying to let him go for 3 years it’s finding someone to take him that’s the problem

 

Okay I should have qualified this with 'assuming Celtic (or other) want him and can offer a deal that doesn't shaft us'. It was more of a 'what if' musing on my part.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, UpweySaint said:

Let Forster go, bring in a potential no1 on a loan with an upfront fee and an option to buy at an agreed price? Certainly not the simplest deal but you do see a lot of them in Serie A. It would give us a bit of 'try before you buy' without needing significant outlay upfront.

He’s on a contract so we can’t just let him go. Whilst we’re paying him we ought to use him in some way or another.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

He’s on a contract so we can’t just let him go. Whilst we’re paying him we ought to use him in some way or another.

Stick a torch on his head and use him as an extra floodlight. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2021 at 13:21, TWar said:

He signed a contract to play football and he is, his contract didn't stipulate quality therefore he is performing up to the standard agreed. You don't get sacked in any job if you are fulfilling your contractual obligations.

Also, people also shouldn't bully Redmond and Stephens, for the record, it doesn't help.

He's not taking the piss, he is doing what he is contracted to do. It's not his fault we gave him too big a contract. He doesn't deserve to have us make his life a living hell. The boy scouts isn't the only place where bullying is unacceptable...

Also I'm not "sticking up for him" for performing badly. I've been the first to say our goalkeepers are both atrocious and both are well below prem level. I just am an adult and understand they are human beings so them being bad at football doesn't mean they should be treated like shit.

I agree with you in so far he accepted an offer made in error by the Saints to get a long contract.  However you cannot really believe that football at the top is like me playing Sunday football. The man has every right to stay put but doing so only hurts the team because of his high wages, Paying over the odds for someone not rated as our number 1 is crazy. AM we got from Palace and he was only a reserve. Neither FF nor AM are good enough for us as goalkeepers. 

With both being bad at keeping clean sheets often enough we should put both on the transfer list and look for another keeper. Once one has gone and with a new keeper who hopefully would be number 1 we would have a reserve to fall back on if necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SFC Forever said:

I agree with you in so far he accepted an offer made in error by the Saints to get a long contract.  However you cannot really believe that football at the top is like me playing Sunday football. The man has every right to stay put but doing so only hurts the team because of his high wages, Paying over the odds for someone not rated as our number 1 is crazy. AM we got from Palace and he was only a reserve. Neither FF nor AM are good enough for us as goalkeepers. 

With both being bad at keeping clean sheets often enough we should put both on the transfer list and look for another keeper. Once one has gone and with a new keeper who hopefully would be number 1 we would have a reserve to fall back on if necessary.

Oh for sure. Don't misinterpret this as me saying we shouldn't try to get rid and upgrade. For the record my stance is our keepers are not prem quality although I do think we have bigger issues at the moment like attacking mid, replacing Ings/Vest when/if they go, and fullback depth. If we sort those though then I'm all for binning off whoever we can get a fee for and buying someone actually competent.

My only point is that Forster has, as a person, not done anything wrong. He's signed a deal as any one of us would in his situation and is fulfilling his end of it. He doesn't deserve to be bullied or have his life "made a living hell".

Edited by TWar
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it sound so easy--'put him on the transfer list'--but who will buy? no one at the wage contract we've given.And he won't accept less-who would? We shouldn't blame him, we gave the contract. Other Premier clubs have similar problems-overpaid and underplayed players they can'r move on. It's common but we haven't the cash reserves the others have

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2021 at 18:07, benjii said:

You often see these statements on here but it's complete bullshit. Loads of people perform badly in jobs for decades without being sacked. It's very rare for someone to be managed out for bad performance "in the real world".

Anyway, this thread has been quite entertaining latterly, thanks mostly to your posts and this sort of 1960s pub-bore character you're running, so cheers for that.

If you've been in a role less than 2 years and the employer doesn't rate you, it's pretty easy for them to sack you

https://www.thrivelaw.co.uk/2020/09/03/can-you-be-sacked-without-a-warning/

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, saintsdan said:

Not if you're on a fixed term contract they can't.

In general, fixed-term contracts can have notice periods too but that's not the case with professional football contracts.  Rules of mitigation  can theoretically still apply though.  So if a player is released early from his contract and is fully paid up, then finds another club immediately a balance of the pay-off (depending on whether he's been able to secure the same, worse or better wages) is repaid.  These rules, however, are usually negotiated away - say, with a pay-off that isn't the full amount of the contract that's outstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Verbal said:

In general, fixed-term contracts can have notice periods too but that's not the case with professional football contracts.  Rules of mitigation  can theoretically still apply though.  So if a player is released early from his contract and is fully paid up, then finds another club immediately a balance of the pay-off (depending on whether he's been able to secure the same, worse or better wages) is repaid.  These rules, however, are usually negotiated away - say, with a pay-off that isn't the full amount of the contract that's outstanding.

Or gross misconduct.

Letting in a few goals doesn't count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})