Players on Strike

hisroyalgingerness · Post by **hisroyalgingerness** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:22 am

Getting silly this. Begovic who Stoke rescued from Pompey now won't play for them. On top of Mascherano's little silly hissy fit and Insomnia's sit in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 941790.stm

Pulis's comments are right on.

The saddest thing is, some numpties will take him on and pay his wages. So the player is likely to win out in the end.

Think it's a disgusting thing to be creeping into the game all too regularly now with agents and transfer windows fuelling it.

Gary the Enfield · Post by **Gary the Enfield** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:26 am

hisroyalgingerness wrote:Getting silly this. Begovic who Stoke rescued from Pompey now won't play for them. On top of Mascherano's little silly hissy fit and Insomnia's sit in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 941790.stm

Pulis's comments are right on.

The saddest thing is, some numpties will take him on and pay his wages. So the player is likely to win out in the end.

Think it's a disgusting thing to be creeping into the game all too regularly now with agents and transfer windows fuelling it.

Players should not be paid as long as they are on strike. Gordon Taylor should grow a pair and sort his union members out, too.

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:55 am

Why did he refuse to play?

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:56 am

H. Pedersen wrote:Why did he refuse to play?

They turned down a bid from Chelsea (I think) for him.

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am

If thats true, then its restarint of trade. Lets not get on our high horses here, if (thats if, just one more time - if -) it was because he was denied the opportunity to earn more and play on a bigger stage, I don't see the issue. First person on here that would put up with that in their own job feel free to criticise.

Gary the Enfield · Post by **Gary the Enfield** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:42 am

Lord Kangana wrote:If thats true, then its restarint of trade. Lets not get on our high horses here, if (thats if, just one more time - if -) it was because he was denied the opportunity to earn more and play on a bigger stage, I don't see the issue. First person on here that would put up with that in their own job feel free to criticise.

He has a contract that he, his agent and the club have agreed to. It's a restraint of trade if certain clauses in that contract are met and the club STILL refuse to let him go. Otherwise he's a contract-breaking, wildcat-striking, motherf*cker!

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:48 am

Get down with ya bad self brother.

Whilst I have sympathy with the likes of Pulis, to cup-tie him when he knows theres a deal on the table smacks of one-upmanship to me. And no I don't like agents etc etc etc.

BWFC_Insane · Post by **BWFC_Insane** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:00 am

Total sympathy with Pulis. No sympathy with the player.

Disgrace.

Let him rot in the reserves.

Players and agents are ruining the game. They sign the contracts and are very keen to tie clubs up to long term contracts when it suits, but when it doesn't "clubs are being unreasonable" not selling their clients.

I hate this about the modern game.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:04 pm

Lord Kangana wrote:If thats true, then its restarint of trade. Lets not get on our high horses here, if (thats if, just one more time - if -) it was because he was denied the opportunity to earn more and play on a bigger stage, I don't see the issue. First person on here that would put up with that in their own job feel free to criticise.

When he signed his contract, he'd have gotten a whopping signing on fee. Massive wages (compared to the everyday man) and he'll probably expect a 'loyalty' payment for serving about a year of his contract (if that). Stoke are waiting for Chelsea to make an offer that matches their valuation. They WILL sell, but only for the right price. What's wrong with that?

If players can stamp their feet and leave for lowly fees because of the fuss they've kicked up, we'll end up selling Cahill for a million quid.

That can't happen to football clubs. They'd be making constant losses on player trading

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:37 pm

Why do they have to pay him, I often feel like not working but know what would happen.

Funny how the good old PFA always seem to hide when this goes on!

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:49 pm

Gets job, loads of money on the basis of doing a good job. Other side of the fence says we have greener grass and a bench in the sun. Player ignores what he's being paid for and goes on a sulk because his paymasters want him to stay and earn what they're currently paying him a fortune for. Decides he won't play at all till he gets his own way.

If that's going to be allowed, then football really has gone to the dogs.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:58 pm

I seem to recall that Ben Arfa threatened to go on strike, but thought better of it when the French FA threatened to ban him from ANY domestic competition and internationals. Turns out he's going to Germany, so that's that settled. I wish our FA had some backbone

blurred · Post by **blurred** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:09 pm

Sounds like the sort of question that should be put to Mr Taylor of the PFA...

seanworth · Post by **seanworth** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:20 pm

What's the point of signing a contract then?

Il Pirate · Post by **Il Pirate** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:04 pm

H. Pedersen wrote:Why did he refuse to play?

His 'head' wasn't right. Let him train with the youth team only and put the Fu**er in the stands on match days until his contract finishes

malcd1 · Post by **malcd1** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:31 pm

I don't think Stoke can refuse to pay him as he can say his contract has been broken and walk away for nothing. But does that mean that they cannot fine him for not playing??

According to Wiki, Stoke signed him for £3.25 million earlier this year so they certainly won't let him walk away for nothing.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:44 pm

malcd1 wrote:I don't think Stoke can refuse to pay him as he can say his contract has been broken and walk away for nothing. But does that mean that they cannot fine him for not playing??

According to Wiki, Stoke signed him for £3.25 million earlier this year so they certainly won't let him walk away for nothing.

They can fine him 2 weeks wages