Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Sunderland

Kaizero

by Kaizero
in Football

 Share

Will Sunderland Be Promoted from LEAGUE ONE? 0 = No chance 10 = Definitely  

643 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Sunderland Be Promoted from LEAGUE ONE? 0 = No chance 10 = Definitely

    • 0
      8
    • 1
      0
    • 2
      2
    • 3
      4
    • 4
      2
    • 5
      2
    • 6
      2
    • 7
      1
    • 8
      2
    • 9
      0
    • 10
      1

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Guest neesy111

Guest neesy111

Posted
Posted

i think the argument is a sound one mandoon assuming you believe the don and it's as cut and dry as he makes out, aaaaand they went through a whole heap of notifications/letters etc. explaining what was going to happen if he didn't show up by a certain date..it is fairly rare for players to go missing for an entire month lets be honest

 

my feeling is they probably sat and waited when he never came back then decided to sack him with minimal contact

 

he'll probably claim some sort of constructive dismissal as well if he fancies it :lol:

 

Costa and Tevez did it iirc. But generally I don't see how suddenly sunderland have found out you can sack players for breach of contract, when surely, refusing to play would be a breach? Not turning up to training? Or any numerous cuntish things footballers do that a normal employee wouldn't get away with. I don't see how they'll end up in the right here.

 

As far as I can see it, he turned up in the end and they said he was unfit/overweight? I would imagine footballers contracts have protections in them for this sort of occasion, or he wouldn't have just gone AWOL without any thought.

 

maybe yeah but i'm saying it's rare in the game, usually you get a mahrez type strop where they miss a game and a week of training then take the fine and get back to normal...a month with no contact is probably fairly unusual even for footballers but still as i say you'd have to believe the don is not telling porkies to even make the argument and i don't believe that for second

 

:thup: same. It's just playing to the gallery imo, they love it. I honestly can not see how this in any way ends up ruling in their favour. At the end of the day he did turn up, and they deemed him not fit. But i mean is being unfit a fair enough reason to sack him?

 

They'll have shit loads of data for starters of his fitness levels at various points of his time at Sunderland.  Fitness tests are quite thorough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrmojorisin75

mrmojorisin75

Posted
Posted

i think the argument is a sound one mandoon assuming you believe the don and it's as cut and dry as he makes out, aaaaand they went through a whole heap of notifications/letters etc. explaining what was going to happen if he didn't show up by a certain date..it is fairly rare for players to go missing for an entire month lets be honest

 

my feeling is they probably sat and waited when he never came back then decided to sack him with minimal contact

 

he'll probably claim some sort of constructive dismissal as well if he fancies it :lol:

 

Costa and Tevez did it iirc. But generally I don't see how suddenly sunderland have found out you can sack players for breach of contract, when surely, refusing to play would be a breach? Not turning up to training? Or any numerous cuntish things footballers do that a normal employee wouldn't get away with. I don't see how they'll end up in the right here.

 

As far as I can see it, he turned up in the end and they said he was unfit/overweight? I would imagine footballers contracts have protections in them for this sort of occasion, or he wouldn't have just gone AWOL without any thought.

 

maybe yeah but i'm saying it's rare in the game, usually you get a mahrez type strop where they miss a game and a week of training then take the fine and get back to normal...a month with no contact is probably fairly unusual even for footballers but still as i say you'd have to believe the don is not telling porkies to even make the argument and i don't believe that for second

 

:thup: same. It's just playing to the gallery imo, they love it. I honestly can not see how this in any way ends up ruling in their favour. At the end of the day he did turn up, and they deemed him not fit. But i mean is being unfit a fair enough reason to sack him?

 

They'll have shit loads of data for starters of his fitness levels at various points of his time at Sunderland.  Fitness tests are quite thorough.

 

Yeah I don't doubt it. But fitness is not a finite thing. He can regain it. I don't think that's a legitimate reason to sack someone. He most likely was unfit when he turned up, but then the fitness trainers just get him up to speed.

 

exactly :lol:

 

unless you're a shitty contractor like me they generally can't go you're not up to scratch at this exact point in time goodbye, they have to give you time to improve and help you do so...given he's a professional athlete it's not unreasonable to assume he'd reach that level fairly quickly

 

if fitness was a thing as they're making out you'd make him go unpaid until he reached the target or something, not just bin him on the spot

Link to post
Share on other sites
pinkeye

pinkeye

Posted
Posted

I'm pretty sure you'll not be able to sack players for being unfit. It's a very arbitrary measurement and would open the door to all sorts of sackings. If he's breached his contract (which I don't think he will have) then fair enough

 

He didn't turn up for work for a fucking month. :lol: Not sure how much more of a breach of contract you want?

 

Try doing that at your workplace whilst ignoring all their attempts to contact you, then swan back in and see what happens. Whilst you might get away with it if you had a great record and they thought the sun shone out your arse before doing that, if they instead wanted you gone then believe me you'd be gone and even a phonecall to ACAS would only result in them laughing at you for being a fucking prat.

 

Much though I hate to say it, I think sunderland are in the right here. Though clearly I still hope they get taken to the cleaners and sued for millions.

 

I haven't seen his contract, but presumably there is no clause that says "if you don't turn up to training then you are sacked". If that was the case how come players do it all the time? You're comparing football to everyday work life and as has been proven a million fucking times it's nowhere near the same. 

 

Professional sports/normal employment have never and will never be the same, its a completely unique industry. How come players aren't sacked for refusing to play then? If its the same?

Not quite. Clubs would be loath to sack players because then they cease to be an asset and players would Just take to not turning up in order to force a free move. In this circumstance I think the player has thought he'd easily get a move and suddenly found out nobody wants him, at least not on anywhere near the pay he was on there.

 

Another point that no-one seems to know here is the one related to the fact that Sunderland allowed the player to be away for a month to find a new club (without pay).  Was this arrangement to be that if he found a new club that he could just leave?  I really doubt that, Sun'lun must have put some sort of value on him.  If that value was set at such a level that it was an obstacle to the player securing a move then surely the club is partially culpable making the fact that they subsequently fired him something of a moot point whatever the reasoning they are giving for ending his contract. 

 

It is far more likely that they have reached an agreement with the player to terminate the contract, this could have involved a financial payment being made, and now just playing the big shot club owners saying they fired him.  In some ways a mutual termination of contract could be considered being fired in all but, words!

Link to post
Share on other sites
toontownman

toontownman

Posted
Posted

Donald clears up confusion

 

"Sunderland had been linked with a move for young Liverpool striker Liam Millar for most of the summer but despite Stewart Donald confirming our interest in the player during a Roker Rapport podcast back in July, no move had materialised and he continued to appear for Liverpool’s youth teams:

 

I don’t think it’s officially gone through.

 

He was someone that was on our list and we were expecting him to sign.

 

However in Stewart’s latest appearance on the podcast, which you can listen to HERE, Donald cleared up the confusion and admitted that the rumoured move for the Canadian international was only down to an error on his behalf:

 

Now, I might have got the wrong Liam when we were talking. When we were talking about a Liam, I was looking at a Liam on Merseyside and we were signing a lad from Liverpool and Everton (Jordan Hunter and Jack Bainbridge) and I’ve got my names confused there.

 

We were looking at a lad called Liam something and a lad called Miller something and when you said Liam Millar to me, I used the first name of one and the second name of the other.

 

So I’ve got that wrong."

 

Huh. So might have got it wrong might not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Howaythetoon

Guest Howaythetoon

Posted
Posted

Donald clears up confusion

 

"Sunderland had been linked with a move for young Liverpool striker Liam Millar for most of the summer but despite Stewart Donald confirming our interest in the player during a Roker Rapport podcast back in July, no move had materialised and he continued to appear for Liverpool’s youth teams:

 

I don’t think it’s officially gone through.

 

He was someone that was on our list and we were expecting him to sign.

 

However in Stewart’s latest appearance on the podcast, which you can listen to HERE, Donald cleared up the confusion and admitted that the rumoured move for the Canadian international was only down to an error on his behalf:

 

Now, I might have got the wrong Liam when we were talking. When we were talking about a Liam, I was looking at a Liam on Merseyside and we were signing a lad from Liverpool and Everton (Jordan Hunter and Jack Bainbridge) and I’ve got my names confused there.

 

We were looking at a lad called Liam something and a lad called Miller something and when you said Liam Millar to me, I used the first name of one and the second name of the other.

 

So I’ve got that wrong."

 

Huh. So might have got it wrong might not.

 

 

:lol:

 

That can’t be real man surely?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
huss9

huss9

Posted
Posted

Donald clears up confusion

 

"Sunderland had been linked with a move for young Liverpool striker Liam Millar for most of the summer but despite Stewart Donald confirming our interest in the player during a Roker Rapport podcast back in July, no move had materialised and he continued to appear for Liverpool’s youth teams:

 

I don’t think it’s officially gone through.

 

He was someone that was on our list and we were expecting him to sign.

 

However in Stewart’s latest appearance on the podcast, which you can listen to HERE, Donald cleared up the confusion and admitted that the rumoured move for the Canadian international was only down to an error on his behalf:

 

Now, I might have got the wrong Liam when we were talking. When we were talking about a Liam, I was looking at a Liam on Merseyside and we were signing a lad from Liverpool and Everton (Jordan Hunter and Jack Bainbridge) and I’ve got my names confused there.

 

We were looking at a lad called Liam something and a lad called Miller something and when you said Liam Millar to me, I used the first name of one and the second name of the other.

 

So I’ve got that wrong."

 

Huh. So might have got it wrong might not.

 

 

:lol:

 

That can’t be real man surely?!

 

that's made up man, howay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Howaythetoon

Guest Howaythetoon

Posted
Posted

Donald clears up confusion

 

"Sunderland had been linked with a move for young Liverpool striker Liam Millar for most of the summer but despite Stewart Donald confirming our interest in the player during a Roker Rapport podcast back in July, no move had materialised and he continued to appear for Liverpool’s youth teams:

 

I don’t think it’s officially gone through.

 

He was someone that was on our list and we were expecting him to sign.

 

However in Stewart’s latest appearance on the podcast, which you can listen to HERE, Donald cleared up the confusion and admitted that the rumoured move for the Canadian international was only down to an error on his behalf:

 

Now, I might have got the wrong Liam when we were talking. When we were talking about a Liam, I was looking at a Liam on Merseyside and we were signing a lad from Liverpool and Everton (Jordan Hunter and Jack Bainbridge) and I’ve got my names confused there.

 

We were looking at a lad called Liam something and a lad called Miller something and when you said Liam Millar to me, I used the first name of one and the second name of the other.

 

So I’ve got that wrong."

 

Huh. So might have got it wrong might not.

 

 

:lol:

 

That can’t be real man surely?!

 

that's made up man, howay.

 

It has to be, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn’t. Regardless, the context is no doubt spot on in some form :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stifler

Stifler

Posted
Posted

Not true.

I’m part of the Canadian Premier League discord chat. Through the summer the guys father came on and said that Sunderland offered him the chance to join them with a clause saying he must play in every game. When they looked at the contract the clause said every academy game and as he wanted to move to get first team football he rejected it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
loki679

loki679

Posted
Posted

You do get about a bit, Stiffy :lol:

 

It's bullshit, they had a chance to sign him and they fucked it up and rather than man up to it they're going on like a five year old going 'I didn't really mean it and I never wanted it anyway so nur.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tubestationatmidnight

Tubestationatmidnight

Posted
Posted

If they had just came 10th in the PL and had Rafa Benitez and 48,000 sell out crowds and we were in league 1 that would be there ultimate. Good as it could ever get for them. We wouldn't hear the end of it, they wouldn't care about pub league football and premier league is all that matters. Mind the gap etc etc

 

We have that yet we barely comment on them and have constant protests to try better the club.

 

Says it all about the different mentality, attitudes and ambition at both clubs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...