Hopefully same won't happen to Kieran Lee...

[Sonny]

17 hours ago, poite said:

if all clubs did introduce it it would form part of a standard contract 

 

What about when clubs are competing to sign a player by offering the best terms & conditions? I’d say a promise to pay a player when injured and not to just ditch them will be quite appealing to that player and so the ‘standard contract’ is immediately blown out the water.

[DJMortimer]

Footballers are protected creditors when clubs go into administration. In other words, even as everyone else may have to accept a small percentage of what's owed to them, the players are guaranteed to get 100% of their contract's value. So good luck getting them to accept the kinds of terms being proposed by one radical in case of injuries, regardless of the implications regarding Employment Law.

 

[poite]

5 hours ago, markg said:

So you get injured at work and it takes you a while to recover. They can then just get rid of you? That’s pretty bad

 

If your not going to bother reading comments properly don't bother replying mate.

 

What I said was that in every place I have worked you get a certain amount of full sick pay and after a point you go on statutory sick pay.

[poite]

5 hours ago, Sonny said:

 

What about when clubs are competing to sign a player by offering the best terms & conditions? I’d say a promise to pay a player when injured and not to just ditch them will be quite appealing to that player and so the ‘standard contract’ is immediately blown out the water.

 

as I have said multiple times. It would only work if all clubs had it set as part of a standard contract and it was not removed or modified. It's theoretical, it will NEVER happen but it's the only way it could ever work. 

 

[poite]

 

20 hours ago, McRightSide said:

Abdi has some time injured and a lot of time unselected.

 

A deliberate strategy of not saying anything about him was used as they knew exactly conclusions fans would draw: injured

 

Might have something to do with his name continuously mentioned every time the injury list is stated. But maybe they've been lying.

[poite]

5 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

Footballers are protected creditors when clubs go into administration. In other words, even as everyone else may have to accept a small percentage of what's owed to them, the players are guaranteed to get 100% of their contract's value. So good luck getting them to accept the kinds of terms being proposed by one radical in case of injuries, regardless of the implications regarding Employment Law.

 

One radical in case of injuries?

 

Are you suggesting that we are the only club ever to sign a player on a long term contract for them to hardly ever play a game because they can't recover from injury? It's not something completely unique to us. 

 

All I'm saying is that in an ideal world clubs would be protected in some way by not having players entitled to thousands of pounds a week season after season when they can't play longer than 32mins without their knee caps falling off. 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by poite

[McRightSide]

27 minutes ago, poite said:

 

If your not going to bother reading comments properly don't bother replying mate.

 

What I said was that in every place I have worked you get a certain amount of full sick pay and after a point you go on statutory sick pay.

 

You do realize players would never sign those contracts don’t you?

[McRightSide]

18 minutes ago, poite said:

 

 

Might have something to do with his name continuously mentioned every time the injury list is stated. But maybe they've been lying.

 

You weren’t paying full attention and your brain is filling in the blanks with the wrong information. That’s ok, it’s what our brains do.

 

He was fit (and unselected) for more games than he was injured.

[poite]

9 minutes ago, McRightSide said:

 

You do realize players would never sign those contracts don’t you?

 

God this is hard work. 

 

If every club had it in their contracts they'd have too. By refusing players would basically be saying I refuse to sign for any football club.

Edited June 16, 2018 by poite

[McRightSide]

3 minutes ago, poite said:

 

God this is hard work. 

 

If every club had it in their contracts they'd have too. By refusing players would basically be saying I refuse to sign for any football club.

 

It’s only hard work because you’re talking nonsense

 

If every club had it in their contract then there would be a lockout at the point they tried to introduce it.

 

What does football need more than anything else? The players.

 

Thats why player power will always exist

Edited June 16, 2018 by McRightSide

[poite]

4 minutes ago, McRightSide said:

 

It’s only hard work because you’re talking nonsense

 

If every club had it in their contract then there would be a lockout at the point they tried to introduce it.

 

What does football need more than anything else? The players.

 

Thats why player power will always exist

 

Well it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation because id say the paying fans are the most important thing. Players only get paid 30k a week because the amount of money pumped into it by paying supporters and advertisers (who only do that because of fans)

 

I know what I'm suggesting would never happen but it's not nonsense to suggest that footballers should be treated like any other person in employment under a contract. Football when it comes to finance is simply ridiculous. But that's the way it is and it won't change. I can't think of any other industry where people get paid I  full every week despite been unable to do the job for months on end.

 

Just because something is completely unrealistic and unachievable doesn't mean it's nonsense. Destroying every gun in the world is the best way to eliminate gun crime. Completely unrealistic that it could ever happen but it makes perfect sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[McRightSide]

29 minutes ago, poite said:

 

Well it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation because id say the paying fans are the most important thing. Players only get paid 30k a week because the amount of money pumped into it by paying supporters and advertisers (who only do that because of fans)

 

I know what I'm suggesting would never happen but it's not nonsense to suggest that footballers should be treated like any other person in employment under a contract. Football when it comes to finance is simply ridiculous. But that's the way it is and it won't change. I can't think of any other industry where people get paid I  full every week despite been unable to do the job for months on end.

 

Just because something is completely unrealistic and unachievable doesn't mean it's nonsense. Destroying every gun in the world is the best way to eliminate gun crime. Completely unrealistic that it could ever happen but it makes perfect sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you just need to change your mindset and realize that being injured is just an unfortunate part of a footballers job. They are still following strict rehab, diet and conduct regulations - which you probably don’t if you’re off sick

[hawksmore]

On 14/06/2018 at 07:59, TrickyTrev said:

I get your point on contracts and agree with you but if the club actually carried out thorough medicals then there’d be no need for such clauses.

 

Medicals are there to protect clubs from signing overpaid crocs like Abdi and Matias.

 

We’ve done it before with Hinchcliffe, Donnelly, O’Donnell and Scott. I know when Dave Allen came to the club, one thing he wanted to stop was the practice of signing injured players and he put in place stringent medicals, looks like we’ve let that slip over time.

 

Next you'll be stating we didn't even have a medical team either. 

 

Think about what you are suggesting, that the club doesn't have a stringent medical in place, based on just 2 players. Great logic.

[TrickyTrev]

1 hour ago, hawksmore said:

 

Next you'll be stating we didn't even have a medical team either. 

 

Think about what you are suggesting, that the club doesn't have a stringent medical in place, based on just 2 players. Great logic.

On reflection you’re probably right, if last season proved one thing it’s that the medical team are doing a great job at Hillsborough. 

[McRightSide]

3 hours ago, poite said:

 

Well it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation because id say the paying fans are the most important thing. Players only get paid 30k a week because the amount of money pumped into it by paying supporters and advertisers (who only do that because of fans)

 

I know what I'm suggesting would never happen but it's not nonsense to suggest that footballers should be treated like any other person in employment under a contract. Football when it comes to finance is simply ridiculous. But that's the way it is and it won't change. I can't think of any other industry where people get paid I  full every week despite been unable to do the job for months on end.

 

Just because something is completely unrealistic and unachievable doesn't mean it's nonsense. Destroying every gun in the world is the best way to eliminate gun crime. Completely unrealistic that it could ever happen but it makes perfect sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s not chicken and egg. No players = no fans.

 

Players come first, fans need something to support

 

Its nonsense. 

 

[poite]

9 hours ago, McRightSide said:

 

I think you just need to change your mindset and realize that being injured is just an unfortunate part of a footballers job. They are still following strict rehab, diet and conduct regulations - which you probably don’t if you’re off sick

I do accept it's part of it. It's a job that exposes a risk of getting injured because you have other players bashing into you and potentially injuring you. I get that.

 

But players like Abdi and Matias aren't always injured because of an incident in the game. They are getting injured through just doing the basic actions I.e. running and stretching. 

 

In terms of illness I bet if one of the players got seriously ill and couldn't play for 6 months theyd still be getting full wages every week 

[poite]

6 hours ago, McRightSide said:

 

It’s not chicken and egg. No players = no fans.

 

Players come first, fans need something to support

 

Its nonsense. 

 

 

Pretty sure 22 people playing football in front of no fans wouldnt pay them 30k a week. It's the reason women's football isn't a full time career for those players. 

 

It's a bit like when a band playing in front of 50 thousand people say thanks, without the fans we wouldn't be here. Well it's true isn't it. If nobody listened to them or wanted to pay to go see them they'd just be stuck playing local boozers getting paid with pints. 

 

[McRightSide]

9 hours ago, poite said:

 

Pretty sure 22 people playing football in front of no fans wouldnt pay them 30k a week. It's the reason women's football isn't a full time career for those players. 

 

It's a bit like when a band playing in front of 50 thousand people say thanks, without the fans we wouldn't be here. Well it's true isn't it. If nobody listened to them or wanted to pay to go see them they'd just be stuck playing local boozers getting paid with pints. 

 

 

I cant believe you’re still getting this wrong.

 

Why do you think those 50k people are there? Just standing around together hoping something might happen?

 

Cracking logic

[McRightSide]

9 hours ago, poite said:

I do accept it's part of it. It's a job that exposes a risk of getting injured because you have other players bashing into you and potentially injuring you. I get that.

 

But players like Abdi and Matias aren't always injured because of an incident in the game. They are getting injured through just doing the basic actions I.e. running and stretching. 

 

In terms of illness I bet if one of the players got seriously ill and couldn't play for 6 months theyd still be getting full wages every week 

 

In other words, they are injured due to their job.

 

You should go run an NFL team then you can oppose Workers Comp to your heart’s content - that might make you feel more justified in your nonsense

Edited June 17, 2018 by McRightSide

[poite]

38 minutes ago, McRightSide said:

 

I cant believe you’re still getting this wrong.

 

Why do you think those 50k people are there? Just standing around together hoping something might happen?

 

Cracking logic

 

Theres two scenarios:

 

1) The band formed and wrote some songs. They put those songs on a CD and released it to the public. The public heard it and thought it was great and tons of people ended up buying it. Then the band decide that based on the amount of fans who bought their CD they'd play a live show. The management thought that based on CD sales they'd be able to play a massive stadium. 50k people turn up and and as result the band get rich and famous. 

 

2) The band formed and wrote some songs. They put those songs on a CD and released it to the public. Nobody bought it. The band didn't bother doing any shows. They still make music today and play in the local pub on firdays but all still have their day jobs.