Westwood

[cowl]

15 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

But they've played football and trained with the team for the last 12 months, Westwood has virtually been on holiday for 12 months and prior to that his form was falling.

 

So what exactly are you opposed to then? I assume Westwood wouldn't be picked at all if he can't prove his fitness to be adequate.

[vulva]

19 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

In my opinion he should have been sacked and taken off the wage bill along with Forestieri.

 

Managers get sacked for far less and have to depend on idiots like FF and Westwood. When clubs get around to sacking players like this and removing them from the wage bill, hopefully other clubs will think twice before offering them another easy pay-check.

Sacked for what? Not getting picked?

[Ante's Bubbly]

1 hour ago, vulva said:

Sacked for what? Not getting picked?

 

For ruling themselves out of the team. FF refused to play and Westwood was such a disrespectful dXXXhead in training that other players did not want to play with him. I thought you kept up, or are you just trolling for a keyboard feyt?

 

Take that.....JFLYFLT@OUOKLK(@H?L>)

[Hookowl]

3 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

So what exactly are you opposed to then? I assume Westwood wouldn't be picked at all if he can't prove his fitness to be adequate.

I doubt he would be adequately fit after so long off, he was known to be struggling with his back for a long time which he himself said affected his ability to train fully.

 

Also as I said in reply to another poster:- 

"As I've said previously I don't believe he was frozen out as such, more that he was dropped when out of form and didn't appear to want to fight for his place back."

If that is the case then although they're not perfect, I don't believe he would be any improvement on what we've got.

[vulva]

Just now, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

For ruling themselves out of the team. FF refused to play and Westwood was such a disrespectful dXXXhead in training that other players did not want to play with him. I thought you kept up, or are you just trolling for a keyboard feyt?

 

Take that.....JFLYFLT@OUOKLK(@H?L>)

FF was worth £10m at the time. That’s why we didn’t sack him. Our mistake was not selling him. 
 

Good luck at an employment tribunal for suggesting someone get the sack for being disrespectful. We had 3 choices with Westwood. Massage his ego and play him, move him on or let him rot at home and cost us a fortune. Guess which one we picked. 

[Ante's Bubbly]

1 hour ago, vulva said:

FF was worth £10m at the time. That’s why we didn’t sack him. Our mistake was not selling him. 
 

Good luck at an employment tribunal for suggesting someone get the sack for being disrespectful. We had 3 choices with Westwood. Massage his ego and play him, move him on or let him rot at home and cost us a fortune. Guess which one we picked. 

 

So how come it is fine to sack Monk? Your tribunal suggestion is laughable compared to DC's case against Monk! We have just beaten Bournemouth and drawn with Millwall (the team with one of the best defensive records in Europe apparently) with half our first choice players missing! We were so badly short of players against Millwall that Palmer and Pelupessy  were our top two players according to whoscored.com! If DC is going to give his managers peanuts he needs to be prepared to sack the monkeys he brings in not the organ grinder that has to put up with them! FF and Westwood would both have got the boot. Ruling yourself out of the team is not an option. They would have had their verbal warnings, their written warnings and walked. No tribunal necessary. 

 

 

[cowl]

4 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

I doubt he would be adequately fit after so long off, he was known to be struggling with his back for a long time which he himself said affected his ability to train fully.

 

Also as I said in reply to another poster:- 

"As I've said previously I don't believe he was frozen out as such, more that he was dropped when out of form and didn't appear to want to fight for his place back."

If that is the case then although they're not perfect, I don't believe he would be any improvement on what we've got.

 

And if a month or so from now he's able to improve his fitness to the point that he can compete for a place? As I say, it's just assumed that a pre-requisite of being picked is that a player is fit enough (not necessarily 100%, mind). 

 

I'm not really sure why it's just assumed that Westwood was actually given the chance to compete honestly for his place again after losing it any more than what Hutchinson was after he was so unceremoniously dumped from the squad back in February anyway.

[vulva]

Just now, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

So how come it is fine to sack Monk? Your tribunal suggestion is laughable compared to DC's case against Monk! We have just beaten Bournemouth and drawn with Millwall (the team with one of the best defensive records in Europe apparently) with half our first choice players missing! We were so badly short of players against Millwall that Palmer and Pelupessy  were our top two players according to whoscored.com! If DC is going to give his managers peanuts he needs to be prepared to sack the monkeys he brings in not the organ grinder that has to put up with them! FF and Westwood would both have got the boot. Ruling yourself out of the team is not an option. They would have had their verbal warnings, their written warnings and walked. No tribunal necessary. 

 

 

You’re argument is full of holes. 
 

Monk got sacked for results. 
 

We don’t know if Westwood has ruled himself out of the team. My guess is that he’s a bit of a dcik and managers like Monk and Jos both took a view on the team as a whole. You can’t sack someone for being a ********. 
 

FF might have refused to play. But as per my previous answer you don’t sack something worth 10m. 

[Hookowl]

1 minute ago, cowl said:

 

And if a month or so from now he's able to improve his fitness to the point that he can compete for a place? As I say, it's just assumed that a pre-requisite of being picked is that a player is fit enough (not necessarily 100%, mind). 

 

I'm not really sure why it's just assumed that Westwood was actually given the chance to compete honestly for his place again after losing it any more than what Hutchinson was after he was so unceremoniously dumped from the squad back in February anyway.

 

As I said mate it's only my opinion on him, I can't really see it happening but if he got back to fitness and proved to whoever the new manager is that he is worth a place, all well and good.

 

[morganowl]

1 hour ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

In my opinion he should have been sacked and taken off the wage bill along with Forestieri.

 

Managers get sacked for far less and have to depend on idiots like FF and Westwood. When clubs get around to sacking players like this and removing them from the wage bill, hopefully other clubs will think twice before offering them another easy pay-check.

i would have paid westwood off but if he gets 30k a week he might have wanted 20k x 1year to leave = 1 million . no club out there will have any interest in westwood , fitness record appalling ,attitude appalling , and keeper ability appalling based on 1st half of last season , even i dont think i could have been as bad he had the ball going through his hands,his legs he was shocking ,i watch weds home and away and our keepers over last 2 years must be the worst ive ever  seen play for us since early 80s ,what club in championship would swap thee 2-3 keepers for our 3?. 

[nickswfc]

3 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Says everything about Wednesday fans and being stuck in the past that we are on the verge of a new era at the club and an exciting time welcoming a new manager and yet the longest thread is about asking an old bloke who’s been watching Loose Women from his sofa for the past year to put his gloves on and let blunder goals in again for us 

 

 

 

Why are you so offended at the suggestion Westwood is still a potential number 1?

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, nickswfc said:

 

Why are you so offended at the suggestion Westwood is still a potential number 1?

 

I'm not

Because he isn't

 

 

[Ante's Bubbly]

4 hours ago, vulva said:

You’re argument is full of holes. 
 

Monk got sacked for results. 
 

We don’t know if Westwood has ruled himself out of the team. My guess is that he’s a bit of a dcik and managers like Monk and Jos both took a view on the team as a whole. You can’t sack someone for being a ********. 
 

FF might have refused to play. But as per my previous answer you don’t sack something worth 10m. 

 

You are the one arguing. I just said I would have sacked the pair of them. It is your argument that is full of holes.

 

I WOULD HAVE SACKED THEM BOTH!

 

How much did FF go for in the end?

[Ante's Bubbly]

4 hours ago, morganowl said:

i would have paid westwood off but if he gets 30k a week he might have wanted 20k x 1year to leave = 1 million . no club out there will have any interest in westwood , fitness record appalling ,attitude appalling , and keeper ability appalling based on 1st half of last season , even i dont think i could have been as bad he had the ball going through his hands,his legs he was shocking ,i watch weds home and away and our keepers over last 2 years must be the worst ive ever  seen play for us since early 80s ,what club in championship would swap thee 2-3 keepers for our 3?. 

We sack managers because the players are poor and do not perform as well as they can. So sacking underperforming players should not be something we baulk at. 

[trevdi9]

5 hours ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

For ruling themselves out of the team. FF refused to play and Westwood was such a disrespectful dXXXhead in training that other players did not want to play with him. I thought you kept up, or are you just trolling for a keyboard feyt?

 

Take that.....JFLYFLT@OUOKLK(@H?L>)

funny how you know what happened but no one else does, Monk has a history of doing this at other clubs , ,and when he left the players came back and did the business  , therefore Monk could  well be the problem 

[pazowl55]

6 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

We sack managers because the players are poor and do not perform as well as they can. So sacking underperforming players should not be something we baulk at. 

Has a player ever been sacked for underperforming in the history of football.

[torryowl]

Just now, pazowl55 said:

Has a player ever been sacked for underperforming in the history of football.

that bloke at orient who got sacked by sitton at half time ..........

[Guest LondonOwl313]

13 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

We sack managers because the players are poor and do not perform as well as they can. So sacking underperforming players should not be something we baulk at. 

Players just don’t get sacked, it’s not in their contract to facilitate it. The only player I can remember being sacked was Mutu at Chelsea and he was sacked for failing a drugs test and he got banned. Finished the ban and then turned up at a Serie A club, decision will have cost Chelsea millions in transfer fees

 

Manager contracts are different in that it’s kind of expected they’ll be sacked. Would imagine most have a severance clause in there when they’re signed

 

you might say well what’s the difference and why can’t players be treated the same. And I think that’s because either it’s not industry standard and no player is going to sign a contract like that when they can go to a club that doesn’t demand such a clause, or it’s because the clubs like a watertight contract because the players are assets potentially, or a bit of both 

[pazowl55]

6 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Players just don’t get sacked, it’s not in their contract to facilitate it. The only player I can remember being sacked was Mutu at Chelsea and he was sacked for failing a drugs test and he got banned. Finished the ban and then turned up at a Serie A club, decision will have cost Chelsea millions in transfer fees

 

Manager contracts are different in that it’s kind of expected they’ll be sacked. Would imagine most have a severance clause in there when they’re signed

 

you might say well what’s the difference and why can’t players be treated the same. And I think that’s because either it’s not industry standard and no player is going to sign a contract like that when they can go to a club that doesn’t demand such a clause, or it’s because the clubs like a watertight contract because the players are assets potentially, or a bit of both 

Yeah you would have to pay up the remainder of any contract nowadays which is why Ozil is still at Arsenal and we still have Westwood. 

But as torryowl said it did happen back in the day. Back when there probably wasn't the sort of money on the contracts to make it matter or the potential legal challenges that there are today. And managers were a bit more get out my club and never come back with a few more swear words.

[torryowl]

Just now, LondonOwl313 said:

Players just don’t get sacked, it’s not in their contract to facilitate it. The only player I can remember being sacked was Mutu at Chelsea and he was sacked for failing a drugs test and he got banned. Finished the ban and then turned up at a Serie A club, decision will have cost Chelsea millions in transfer fee....

he was ordered by fifa to repay chelsea £17 million quid .......