Championship Players to refuse and NOT play when football resumes

[@owlstalk]

Looks like this Championship restart could hit problems

Players at one club have already said they'll simply refuse to play at all

 

Three Charlton players unwilling to take part in games when league resumes

 

David Davis, Chris Solly and Lyle Taylor will not play for the Championship club when English football’s second-tier resumes.

 

"We have nine players whose contracts finish at the end of June and three of them have said that they're not going to play" Charlton manager Lee Bowyer says that some of his players are refusing to play upon the proposed resumption of the Championship on June 20.

 

An executive at QPR, another London club, said they were “appalled” at the restart date, which is scheduled for June 20.

 

[Harrysgame]

Integrity in football eh?

It's wrong but can't blame Taylor this. move sets him up for life.

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

If an out of contract player suffers a career threatening injury, that's him finished

 

I don't blame players refusing to play

 

The season should be cancelled, just think of the benefits

 

Liverpool don't win the Premier, and Leeds don't get promoted

 

Bonus

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

If an out of contract player suffers a career threatening injury, that's him finished

 

I don't blame players refusing to play

 

The season should be cancelled, just think of the benefits

 

Liverpool don't win the Premier, and Leeds don't get promoted

 

Bonus

Yeah exactly

Imagine turning out for the last few games for a club refusing to give you a new contract and getting a broken leg or cruciate injury

[HIGHERSTATE]

Not as appalling as their display at Hillsbrough but still

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52875186

[WalthamOwl]

Good. 

[Stoop]

The players should play until their deals expire. Can’t blame them for refusing short term extensions though, only takes one bad tackle and the following season could be a write off with no wages 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Yeah exactly

Imagine turning out for the last few games for a club refusing to give you a new contract and getting a broken leg or cruciate injury

 

But that could happen in a normal season in March or April - you know the club aren't giving you a new contract in the summer but you still signed a contract to work for them until the end of the season.

Slightly different now due to contracts ending in June but the principle is the same and really they should have deferred payment for 3 months as they were not doing the job they are paid to do but will now get the opportunity to do so.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Yeah exactly

Imagine turning out for the last few games for a club refusing to give you a new contract and getting a broken leg or cruciate injury

 

A very good reason why no club or manager should tell a player that they are finished at the club weeks or months before the end of a season.

[Brommers]

45 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Yeah exactly

Imagine turning out for the last few games for a club refusing to give you a new contract and getting a broken leg or cruciate injury

But that's exactly the same as if it was the regular season and a player hasn't been offered a new contract.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, Brommers said:

But that's exactly the same as if it was the regular season and a player hasn't been offered a new contract.

It is but I"m guessing these players have actually been told they're not getting one

[Brommers]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

It is but I"m guessing these players have actually been told they're not getting one

Or have refused to sign one.

Their choice not to play but pack your bags and hand back all the wages you've taken over the past 10 weeks.

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, Brommers said:

Or have refused to sign one.

Their choice not to play but pack your bags and hand back all the wages you've taken over the past 10 weeks.

 

 

The wages are expected due to contractual obligations I'm sure. Think clubs could be on a sticky wicket if they didn't pay players. Depends if the players are classed as employees or self employed contracted or summat (I've no idea with stuff like this)

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brommers said:

Or have refused to sign one.

Their choice not to play but pack your bags and hand back all the wages you've taken over the past 10 weeks.

 

Quite. I doubt these 3 Charlton players declared they weren't interested in playing for the club when football returns back in March and will be surprised if they haven't continued to take their wages since then. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

The wages are expected due to contractual obligations I'm sure. Think clubs could be on a sticky wicket if they didn't pay players. Depends if the players are classed as employees or self employed contracted or summat (I've no idea with stuff like this)

 

 

 

Maybe so - the contractual obligations were to continue paying the wages - on the proviso that the players would continue to work for the club. Had they decided not to pay the 3 players as of March and the players would have been within their rights to walk away from their contracts - Charlton would be in a better position now having not wasted 3 months wages on players who only decide to declare now that they have no interest in playing the remaining games for them. 

Players have all the power and are quick to use it, little wonder many fans are disgruntled with the way the game has gone in the current era at times.

[Brommers]

4 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Quite. I doubt these 3 Charlton players declared they weren't interested in playing for the club when football returns back in March and will be surprised if they haven't continued to take their wages since then. 

 

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Maybe so - the contractual obligations were to continue paying the wages - on the proviso that the players would continue to work for the club. Had they decided not to pay the 3 players as of March and the players would have been within their rights to walk away from their contracts - Charlton would be in a better position now having not wasted 3 months wages on players who only decide to declare now that they have no interest in playing the remaining games for them. 

Players have all the power and are quick to use it, little wonder many fans are disgruntled with the way the game has gone in the current era at times.

This 100%.

On the whole footballers have really shown what they are all about these past few months, themselves (yes there are some exceptions).

Can't say I'm that excited about football coming back, I'm sure I'll start getting the same emotions once it starts but i just hope this whole experience forces the game to reboot, doubt it will though as already rumours of £100m transfers.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Brommers said:

 

This 100%.

On the whole footballers have really shown what they are all about these past few months, themselves (yes there are some exceptions).

Can't say I'm that excited about football coming back, I'm sure I'll start getting the same emotions once it starts but i just hope this whole experience forces the game to reboot, doubt it will though as already rumours of £100m transfers.

 

As you say the exceptions are the ones who stand out from the norm.

 

Contracts probably run till the end of June rather than 'the end of the season' generally anyway just to ensure that the players get an extra months pay without having to do much as hardly any of them are employed to do anything during this month, they take the p*ss.

[bobness]

Didn't our squad refuse to play since Christmas?

 

[Hookowl]

9 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Maybe so - the contractual obligations were to continue paying the wages - on the proviso that the players would continue to work for the club. Had they decided not to pay the 3 players as of March and the players would have been within their rights to walk away from their contracts - Charlton would be in a better position now having not wasted 3 months wages on players who only decide to declare now that they have no interest in playing the remaining games for them. 

Players have all the power and are quick to use it, little wonder many fans are disgruntled with the way the game has gone in the current era at times.

 

I would guess that the contract states something like............the contractual obligations were to continue paying the wages - on the proviso that the players would continue to work for the club until the end of their contract...........................this being 30th June.

 

Not saying I agree with this but it's a good get out clause if so.

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, Brommers said:

 

This 100%.

On the whole footballers have really shown what they are all about these past few months, themselves (yes there are some exceptions).

 

 

To be fair

 

1) That's no different from anyone else in the country really

2) They have their own lives/finances to think about - they have to earn as much money as they possibly can in the short burst of life as a pro footballer