Take the football out of it and look at it financially.
If you were told you are awarded £50k after successfully winning a raffle. And you had a chance to win a further £2k first by picking a number out of a hat. You would think great. But if you were told the numbers are 1-100 and if you pick the number 27 out you don't win the the £2k and you lose the £50k too. No one owuld take the risk. Even the odds are in your favour it's too much of a risk to take the 1 in 100 chance because the £50k is life changing.
That's what the player is looking at. A low possibility of losing the life changing contract but very little personal gain in taking the risk.
I do think that because it's a relagation battle the players conscience should overrule logic and he owes it to the club. But do understand that logically it is the right decision for him. If I was his manager/agent the right advice would be to do what he is doing.
If the club were not in a fight for relegation I don't think there would be many complaints.
Right so my thoughts on this.
Those players refusing to play those last 9 games as you may get injured and screw up your move...
Why are these 9 games now any different to them being from March as they were originally. Only difference is there is a smaller amount of time to recover should injury occur. Utter bull.
If there are no punishments for this, then what’s to stop a player, say in February, state that they aren’t playing for rest of season in case they get injured...
It’s setting a very blooming dangerous precedent and clubs need to be very cautious of these types of player.
If this was due to concerns over covid-19 then fair play, it’s understandable.
I would answer that Pags, but the fact that same point has already been answered repeatedly on this thread makes me reluctant to do so.
comment by BATTYWACK (U2254)
posted 16 hours, 11 minutes ago
also he has a contract with the currant club Charlton. What makes him special that he thinks he has the right to refuse to do his job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats a "currant club"?
I've had orange club and mint club but never a currant one
Seriously though you are correct. They are pretty pathetic.
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by BATTYWACK (U2254)
posted 16 hours, 11 minutes ago
also he has a contract with the currant club Charlton. What makes him special that he thinks he has the right to refuse to do his job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats a "currant club"?
I've had orange club and mint club but never a currant one
Seriously though you are correct. They are pretty pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ones that pay raisins, maybe thats why they won't play or sign a new contract?
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by BATTYWACK (U2254)
posted 16 hours, 11 minutes ago
also he has a contract with the currant club Charlton. What makes him special that he thinks he has the right to refuse to do his job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats a "currant club"?
I've had orange club and mint club but never a currant one
Seriously though you are correct. They are pretty pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stoopo - you haven't lived! They are the best ones:
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/263044107
comment by Pags ™ - HJ & AM (U2433)
posted 3 hours, 24 minutes ago
Right so my thoughts on this.
Those players refusing to play those last 9 games as you may get injured and screw up your move...
Why are these 9 games now any different to them being from March as they were originally. Only difference is there is a smaller amount of time to recover should injury occur. Utter bull.
If there are no punishments for this, then what’s to stop a player, say in February, state that they aren’t playing for rest of season in case they get injured...
It’s setting a very blooming dangerous precedent and clubs need to be very cautious of these types of player.
If this was due to concerns over covid-19 then fair play, it’s understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is he doesn't have a contract to play during the months that these games are due to be played.
anyone refusing to do their job which they get paid for, should be sacked
Kamara, really does depend on circumstances. Has the whole trades union movement passed you by, workers in certain circumstances have a right to withdraw their labour, not saying this is one of those circumstances but if for example an employer was expecting an employee to perform a task that was dangerous then that would be such a circumstance. If in the case of the guys from Charlton they hadn't had sufficient chance to prepare for the upcoming matches that might be sufficient. The guys aren't able to get close enough to practice defending and you could argue there's a risk there.
He's under contract, refusing to play is a breach of said contract. He doesn't have to play, but he is open to being fined or not being paid. The players all get testing and full covid secure environments, unlike many of us who still work in factories, supermarkets and other key jobs.
Contracts are worth next to nothing in professional sport, has the sorry affair with Saiz taught you nothing?
Contracts are worth next to nothing in professional sport,
————————
Utter nonsense
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 3 hours ago
anyone refusing to do their job which they get paid for, should be sacked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamara. He won’t be under contract and won’t have a job at the club so can’t be sacked because he’s not there. He’s not going to be getting paid during the games.
There isn’t a contract there. So it doesn’t matter how much contracts are worth. There isn’t one.
comment by Lubo - Super Cooper! (U14008)
posted 13 hours, 20 minutes ago
I would answer that Pags, but the fact that same point has already been answered repeatedly on this thread makes me reluctant to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t particularly looking for an answer my love, I was putting forward my thoughts on the matter.
Forgot this was a public forum to air our views
I'm more than happy to see other views if they happen to be informed and actually acknowledge the facts.
The amount of comments here spouting how he is "under contract" when, in actual fact, he absolutely isn't. He'd probably be under contract from Charlton for, at most, two or three games out of nine. If they have given him the choice to say no to playing those games then that is because the club appreciates that there is a line between what is best for the club and the player.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people here probably hadn't heard of Lyle Taylor or Chris Solly before, and so the faux oureage of someone doing exactly the same thing that any of us would do in their position, after plenty of positive years of service to their football club, is mildly amusing.
Wow … how pious.
Pags is right. It's a public forum to air views, or god forbid even own held opinion.
comment by VOF - I can see clearly now.... (U17124)
posted 9 minutes ago
Wow … how pious.
Pags is right. It's a public forum to air views, or god forbid even own held opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And by all means hold them. Just try to be informed.
I must admit I am surprised by the amount of comments arguing he's under contract and getting paid so should play. Which misses the whole point of the situation, in that he isn't under contract or getting paid during the months in which the games are played.
There is definitely an argument he should have signed a contract extension of 2 months to cover these games. But most people haven't made this argument on here and have misunderstood the situation.
comment by Lubo - Super Cooper! (U14008)
posted 4 hours, 26 minutes ago
I'm more than happy to see other views if they happen to be informed and actually acknowledge the facts.
The amount of comments here spouting how he is "under contract" when, in actual fact, he absolutely isn't. He'd probably be under contract from Charlton for, at most, two or three games out of nine. If they have given him the choice to say no to playing those games then that is because the club appreciates that there is a line between what is best for the club and the player.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people here probably hadn't heard of Lyle Taylor or Chris Solly before, and so the faux oureage of someone doing exactly the same thing that any of us would do in their position, after plenty of positive years of service to their football club, is mildly amusing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit, Lubo, I had a go at the fella, too - but only because I was under the impression he was under contract and getting paid during that period. Are you saying that's not the case?
Lorra, their contract expire at the end of June. They have been offered a 2 month extension but turned it down. They don't want to sign a two month extension which could jeopardise a 3 year contract for double the money.
I'm making assumption with the figures but it is expected to be life changing contract for the two players should they land it.
I still think it's wrong what they are doing. But I do completely understand it. It's not fair on Charlton and I would be effed off we were in that position.
It's a very tough position for the players to be in though. The two players will not have earned massive amounts over their careers when you look at the clubs they have played for. Rangers who are supposed to be in the running for Lyle Taylor may be coming close to doubling his career earnings over a 3 or 4 year contract.
As I said I still actually think it's the wrong thing to do but this is not a simple case of a player refusing to play while under contract and getting paid.
does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 24 minutes ago
does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a disgrace not playing when you aren't under contract?
comment by Lubo - Super Cooper! (U14008)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 24 minutes ago
does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a disgrace not playing when you aren't under contract?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah disgrace. Willian won’t have a contract either. We should ask him to play for us and if he says no he’s a disgrace and we should sack him for refusing to play.
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 58 minutes ago
circumstances dictate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I assume that you would also keep going in to a job that offered far less security and money? Right
Sign in if you want to comment
Refusing to play
Page 3 of 3
posted on 2/6/20
Take the football out of it and look at it financially.
If you were told you are awarded £50k after successfully winning a raffle. And you had a chance to win a further £2k first by picking a number out of a hat. You would think great. But if you were told the numbers are 1-100 and if you pick the number 27 out you don't win the the £2k and you lose the £50k too. No one owuld take the risk. Even the odds are in your favour it's too much of a risk to take the 1 in 100 chance because the £50k is life changing.
That's what the player is looking at. A low possibility of losing the life changing contract but very little personal gain in taking the risk.
I do think that because it's a relagation battle the players conscience should overrule logic and he owes it to the club. But do understand that logically it is the right decision for him. If I was his manager/agent the right advice would be to do what he is doing.
If the club were not in a fight for relegation I don't think there would be many complaints.
posted on 2/6/20
Right so my thoughts on this.
Those players refusing to play those last 9 games as you may get injured and screw up your move...
Why are these 9 games now any different to them being from March as they were originally. Only difference is there is a smaller amount of time to recover should injury occur. Utter bull.
If there are no punishments for this, then what’s to stop a player, say in February, state that they aren’t playing for rest of season in case they get injured...
It’s setting a very blooming dangerous precedent and clubs need to be very cautious of these types of player.
If this was due to concerns over covid-19 then fair play, it’s understandable.
posted on 2/6/20
I would answer that Pags, but the fact that same point has already been answered repeatedly on this thread makes me reluctant to do so.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by BATTYWACK (U2254)
posted 16 hours, 11 minutes ago
also he has a contract with the currant club Charlton. What makes him special that he thinks he has the right to refuse to do his job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats a "currant club"?
I've had orange club and mint club but never a currant one
Seriously though you are correct. They are pretty pathetic.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by BATTYWACK (U2254)
posted 16 hours, 11 minutes ago
also he has a contract with the currant club Charlton. What makes him special that he thinks he has the right to refuse to do his job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats a "currant club"?
I've had orange club and mint club but never a currant one
Seriously though you are correct. They are pretty pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ones that pay raisins, maybe thats why they won't play or sign a new contract?
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by BATTYWACK (U2254)
posted 16 hours, 11 minutes ago
also he has a contract with the currant club Charlton. What makes him special that he thinks he has the right to refuse to do his job.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats a "currant club"?
I've had orange club and mint club but never a currant one
Seriously though you are correct. They are pretty pathetic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stoopo - you haven't lived! They are the best ones:
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/263044107
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Pags ™ - HJ & AM (U2433)
posted 3 hours, 24 minutes ago
Right so my thoughts on this.
Those players refusing to play those last 9 games as you may get injured and screw up your move...
Why are these 9 games now any different to them being from March as they were originally. Only difference is there is a smaller amount of time to recover should injury occur. Utter bull.
If there are no punishments for this, then what’s to stop a player, say in February, state that they aren’t playing for rest of season in case they get injured...
It’s setting a very blooming dangerous precedent and clubs need to be very cautious of these types of player.
If this was due to concerns over covid-19 then fair play, it’s understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is he doesn't have a contract to play during the months that these games are due to be played.
posted on 2/6/20
anyone refusing to do their job which they get paid for, should be sacked
posted on 2/6/20
Kamara, really does depend on circumstances. Has the whole trades union movement passed you by, workers in certain circumstances have a right to withdraw their labour, not saying this is one of those circumstances but if for example an employer was expecting an employee to perform a task that was dangerous then that would be such a circumstance. If in the case of the guys from Charlton they hadn't had sufficient chance to prepare for the upcoming matches that might be sufficient. The guys aren't able to get close enough to practice defending and you could argue there's a risk there.
posted on 2/6/20
He's under contract, refusing to play is a breach of said contract. He doesn't have to play, but he is open to being fined or not being paid. The players all get testing and full covid secure environments, unlike many of us who still work in factories, supermarkets and other key jobs.
posted on 2/6/20
Contracts are worth next to nothing in professional sport, has the sorry affair with Saiz taught you nothing?
posted on 2/6/20
Contracts are worth next to nothing in professional sport,
————————
Utter nonsense
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 3 hours ago
anyone refusing to do their job which they get paid for, should be sacked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamara. He won’t be under contract and won’t have a job at the club so can’t be sacked because he’s not there. He’s not going to be getting paid during the games.
There isn’t a contract there. So it doesn’t matter how much contracts are worth. There isn’t one.
posted on 2/6/20
comment by Lubo - Super Cooper! (U14008)
posted 13 hours, 20 minutes ago
I would answer that Pags, but the fact that same point has already been answered repeatedly on this thread makes me reluctant to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t particularly looking for an answer my love, I was putting forward my thoughts on the matter.
Forgot this was a public forum to air our views
posted on 3/6/20
I'm more than happy to see other views if they happen to be informed and actually acknowledge the facts.
The amount of comments here spouting how he is "under contract" when, in actual fact, he absolutely isn't. He'd probably be under contract from Charlton for, at most, two or three games out of nine. If they have given him the choice to say no to playing those games then that is because the club appreciates that there is a line between what is best for the club and the player.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people here probably hadn't heard of Lyle Taylor or Chris Solly before, and so the faux oureage of someone doing exactly the same thing that any of us would do in their position, after plenty of positive years of service to their football club, is mildly amusing.
posted on 3/6/20
Wow … how pious.
Pags is right. It's a public forum to air views, or god forbid even own held opinion.
posted on 3/6/20
comment by VOF - I can see clearly now.... (U17124)
posted 9 minutes ago
Wow … how pious.
Pags is right. It's a public forum to air views, or god forbid even own held opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And by all means hold them. Just try to be informed.
posted on 3/6/20
I must admit I am surprised by the amount of comments arguing he's under contract and getting paid so should play. Which misses the whole point of the situation, in that he isn't under contract or getting paid during the months in which the games are played.
There is definitely an argument he should have signed a contract extension of 2 months to cover these games. But most people haven't made this argument on here and have misunderstood the situation.
posted on 3/6/20
comment by Lubo - Super Cooper! (U14008)
posted 4 hours, 26 minutes ago
I'm more than happy to see other views if they happen to be informed and actually acknowledge the facts.
The amount of comments here spouting how he is "under contract" when, in actual fact, he absolutely isn't. He'd probably be under contract from Charlton for, at most, two or three games out of nine. If they have given him the choice to say no to playing those games then that is because the club appreciates that there is a line between what is best for the club and the player.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people here probably hadn't heard of Lyle Taylor or Chris Solly before, and so the faux oureage of someone doing exactly the same thing that any of us would do in their position, after plenty of positive years of service to their football club, is mildly amusing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit, Lubo, I had a go at the fella, too - but only because I was under the impression he was under contract and getting paid during that period. Are you saying that's not the case?
posted on 3/6/20
Lorra, their contract expire at the end of June. They have been offered a 2 month extension but turned it down. They don't want to sign a two month extension which could jeopardise a 3 year contract for double the money.
I'm making assumption with the figures but it is expected to be life changing contract for the two players should they land it.
I still think it's wrong what they are doing. But I do completely understand it. It's not fair on Charlton and I would be effed off we were in that position.
It's a very tough position for the players to be in though. The two players will not have earned massive amounts over their careers when you look at the clubs they have played for. Rangers who are supposed to be in the running for Lyle Taylor may be coming close to doubling his career earnings over a 3 or 4 year contract.
As I said I still actually think it's the wrong thing to do but this is not a simple case of a player refusing to play while under contract and getting paid.
posted on 3/6/20
does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace
posted on 3/6/20
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 24 minutes ago
does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a disgrace not playing when you aren't under contract?
posted on 3/6/20
comment by Lubo - Super Cooper! (U14008)
posted 58 minutes ago
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 24 minutes ago
does not matter, under contract or not, refusing to play is a disgrace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a disgrace not playing when you aren't under contract?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah disgrace. Willian won’t have a contract either. We should ask him to play for us and if he says no he’s a disgrace and we should sack him for refusing to play.
posted on 3/6/20
circumstances dictate
posted on 3/6/20
comment by Kamara's left foot (U21862)
posted 58 minutes ago
circumstances dictate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I assume that you would also keep going in to a job that offered far less security and money? Right
Page 3 of 3