[Mild Rover]

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:30 pm  

Standee wrote:

you would lose your job eventually, under capability.

Eventually.

In fact, iirc, we could technically have terminated Chev Walker's contract at the back end of last year (but he was ooc anyway). I think Bradford did with Danny Sculthorpe.

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:31 pm  

Standee wrote:

you would lose your job eventually, under capability.

Perhaps, but not within the time scales you are suggesting, and not necessarily for something like depression unless it's diagnosed as being 'long term'. The fact is, we entered into this contract knowing that there was a very real risk that Gleeson wouldn't be able to play at some point because of the problems he's had. We took a risk (wrongly, in my view) and should have to face the consequences of that risk. Entering into a contract with a player and then binning him without compensation at the first sign of trouble is hardly ethical.

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:33 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Perhaps, but not within the time scales you are suggesting, and not necessarily for something like depression unless it's diagnosed as being 'long term'. The fact is, we entered into this contract knowing that there was a very real risk that Gleeson wouldn't be able to play at some point because of the problems he's had. We took a risk (wrongly, in my view) and should have to face the consequences of that risk. Entering into a contract with a player and then binning him without compensation at the first sign of trouble is hardly ethical.

I don't disagree on the ethical front, but how ethical are players when the tables are reversed, not very, in the main.

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:36 pm  

Standee wrote:

I don't disagree on the ethical front, but how ethical are players when the tables are reversed, not very, in the main.

I'm not quite sure how the 'tables' could be 'reversed' in this situation.

Even if they could, is it right that, because some players behave in an unethical manner, our club should do the same?

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:42 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

I'm not quite sure how the 'tables' could be 'reversed' in this situation.

Even if they could, is it right that, because some players behave in an unethical manner, our club should do the same?

lets just keep paying players not to do the job for which they were employed, a sure fire way to a top 4 finish.

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:49 pm  

Hutchie wrote:

The deal should have been done so that we could release him if he was not upto contract obligations etc .

Can't see him playing for us again though

I'm sure there will be something in the contract, if he is not fit to play again I think he would decide to walk away anyway. I think the situation will become clear by the end of the season.

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:49 pm  

Standee wrote:

lets just keep paying players not to do the job for which they were employed, a sure fire way to a top 4 finish.

Why should it affect our chances of a top 4 finish? If he's paid off before the season starts, it won't count on the cap. So the club can behave ethically, do right by one of the players it chose to enter into a contract with knowing he had problems, and still be in with a chance of finishing 4th (if Agar is sacked).

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:51 pm  

Standee wrote:

lets just keep paying players not to do the job for which they were employed,

If that is what his contract states then YES

Is that too difficult to understand?

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:53 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Why should it affect our chances of a top 4 finish? If he's paid off before the season starts, it won't count on the cap. So the club can behave ethically, do right by one of the players it chose to enter into a contract with knowing he had problems, and still be in with a chance of finishing 4th (if Agar is sacked).

where is the money coming from, if he's on £60k for next season then it's a chunk of cash.

either way, I hope it is all sorted and Gleeson manages to recover from his problems.

[grow up cod'ead, we're having a discussion, if you've nothing to add then don't post.]

Re: Gleeson : Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:55 pm  

Standee wrote:

[grow up cod'ead, we're having a discussion, if you've nothing to add then don't post.]

You were bitching about how unfair it all seems.

What's the point in whingeing over something you have little knowledge of and certainly zero influence in?