Squad size, Evans has a bit to do before the window shuts

[PhilK66]

Dalglish was fearsome when Liverpool manager. I overheard a player at the time being interviewed.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

Dunno about anyone else, but I’ve always thought there’d be a heap of bawling goes on around most football clubs. Nothing new.

The John Sitton documentary imho was pretty much the norm for football coaches in a lot of sports. Fergie was well known for giving players the “hair dryer”. I think Cloughie had a similar reputation. Warnock and Ternent allude to that kind of thing happening all the time. A lot of AFL and Rugby League coaches over here are said to be very “vocal”. Although a lot are having to change their ways in today’s climate.

OSK, yep, that`s true. But i`m not sure you got my drift, the message was in the next sentence. Never mind.
Moving on, oh yeah, Stan Ternent, now there was a quality manager.

 

[sunnyinkent]

Scally owns the club , Evans was employed to make decisions, and he has mad them, all this whistle blower stuff is pathetic.

 

[kettners]

Are we sure that Garmston and Oldaker weren't away having a trial somewhere, it's always easy to think the worst of our club but we don't know what goes on behind closed doors.

Your ‘assuming’ I’m employed by the
No they weren’t on trial any where else

 

[kettners]

Scally owns the club , Evans was employed to make decisions, and he has mad them, all this whistle blower stuff is pathetic.

So let’s hear your meaningful insights into what is and has been going on. Do you have anything to contribute that we can discuss? You just seem to rubbish others contributions ?

 

[sunnyinkent]

I believe I’ve only rubbished your claims , you said Jarvis was imminent, why would you put that on a forum, if as you like to make people believe you work for the club presumably you get wages, why jeopardise that with your narcissistic views? Very interesting conversation best postponed until another day.

 

[shotshy]

The thing is Kettners, these guys are on short term contracts.

It's my business to know a little about such things.

The individuals have a choice to make.
They can stay and see out the full length of their contract - like Winston Bogarde did at Chelsea or they can move on to look for alternative employment.

The choice is 100% theirs because they have the legal contract, signed, I assume, by both parties.

SE seems to have made it clear to the players that he doesn't think that their future lies at GFC.
That is his job to do that.

The ultimate decision is then down to them.

Stay and pick up the wage cheque or move on.

Given their age, I'd suggest that taking a punt elsewhere would be the best thing to do.

Both of these individuals have been given a fair crack of the whip to cement a first team place.
Both have failed to do that.
So, taking the emotion out of the equation, they have become surplus to requirement.

 

[Captainreblue]

The thing is Kettners, these guys are on short term contracts.

It's my business to know a little about such things.

The individuals have a choice to make.
They can stay and see out the full length of their contract - like Winston Bogarde did at Chelsea or they can move on to look for alternative employment.

The choice is 100% theirs because they have the legal contract, signed, I assume, by both parties.

SE seems to have made it clear to the players that he doesn't think that their future lies at GFC.
That is his job to do that.

The ultimate decision is then down to them.

Stay and pick up the wage cheque or move on.

Given their age, I'd suggest that taking a punt elsewhere would be the best thing to do.

Both of these individuals have been given a fair crack of the whip to cement a first team place.
Both have failed to do that.
So, taking the emotion out of the equation, they have become surplus to requirement.

Basically forcing someone under contract out the door or treating them differently to other professionals (training with the kids) would be deemed as constructive dismissal in any other line of work, just because a manager doesn't fancy them.

For some reason in football employment law isn't implemented. Players just get bullied into moving on.

 

[alphabet_king]

The thing is Kettners, these guys are on short term contracts.

It's my business to know a little about such things.

The individuals have a choice to make.
They can stay and see out the full length of their contract - like Winston Bogarde did at Chelsea or they can move on to look for alternative employment.

The choice is 100% theirs because they have the legal contract, signed, I assume, by both parties.

SE seems to have made it clear to the players that he doesn't think that their future lies at GFC.
That is his job to do that.

The ultimate decision is then down to them.

Stay and pick up the wage cheque or move on.

Given their age, I'd suggest that taking a punt elsewhere would be the best thing to do.

Both of these individuals have been given a fair crack of the whip to cement a first team place.
Both have failed to do that.
So, taking the emotion out of the equation, they have become surplus to requirement.

I think you are missing the point that Kettbers is Garmstons dad. ?

 

[alphabet_king]

Basically forcing someone under contract out the door or treating them differently to other professionals (training with the kids) would be deemed as constructive dismissal in any other line of work, just because a manager doesn't fancy them.

For some reason in football employment law isn't implemented. Players just get bullied into moving on.

Its not just football. Its generally most contract based work where you ultimately lose most employment rights. Okay so the law is stil there, but in reality its unenforcable and no one in their right mind really enforces it.

I work as a contractor and half the stuff that goes on, you simply cant complain or youll lose out. So you either move on or put up with it and accept it as part of the territory. It would be a stupid/bored/rich person to decide to take on the system, as youd probably not get a contract again.

A boring example in my line of work...Last year they told us we could only bill for 220 days a year. Which is fine, thats what was in our contract. But they then said we cannot work at xmas for 2 weeks, and this actually doesnt count as part of the 220, so this reduced billable days to 210. Meaning we had the equivalent of something like 38 non billable days (i.e. 38 days holiday), not even taking bank holidays into account. It was absolutely not enforcable by contract and we were all quite pissed off about it. but did anyone do anything about it? No. We moaned but sucked it up as it was easier to stay in the secure contract which is otherwise fine, than move on and make a stand. Certainly, no one was interested in taking the company to court over it. Is it fair? No. But it comes with the territory and its the risk contractors know up front and choose to take.

 

[kettners]

I believe I’ve only rubbished your claims , you said Jarvis was imminent, why would you put that on a forum, if as you like to make people believe you work for the club presumably you get wages, why jeopardise that with your narcissistic views? Very interesting conversation best postponed until another day.

The thing was Sunny - it looked pretty much nailed on at one point. The views are not meant to be narcissistic but meant to give a few inside pointers as to what goes on. We are all fans at the end of the day and we all like to hear what’s going on? Perhaps my views can be seen as too direct at times.

 

[sunnyinkent]

Yes both fans I agree.

 

[Captainreblue]

Its not just football. Its generally most contract based work where you ultimately lose most employment rights. Okay so the law is stil there, but in reality its unenforcable and no one in their right mind really enforces it.

I work as a contractor and half the stuff that goes on, you simply cant complain or youll lose out. So you either move on or put up with it and accept it as part of the territory. It would be a stupid/bored/rich person to decide to take on the system, as youd probably not get a contract again.

A boring example in my line of work...Last year they told us we could only bill for 220 days a year. Which is fine, thats what was in our contract. But they then said we cannot work at xmas for 2 weeks, and this actually doesnt count as part of the 220, so this reduced billable days to 210. Meaning we had the equivalent of something like 38 non billable days (i.e. 38 days holiday), not even taking bank holidays into account. It was absolutely not enforcable by contract and we were all quite pissed off about it. but did anyone do anything about it? No. We moaned but sucked it up as it was easier to stay in the secure contract which is otherwise fine, than move on and make a stand. Certainly, no one was interested in taking the company to court over it. Is it fair? No. But it comes with the territory and its the risk contractors know up front and choose to take.

It all depends on circumstance. In my line if work our union are really hot on discrimination of individuals, implementing new terms without due notice, ostrasing staff, and our employer generally trying to abuse their power without following the legal rules and process.

I just as all players are under the PFA they could seek there advise, but with the agents interest its probably easier to just move on.

 

[Vambogills]

There was a saying in management that goes something like - Look after the top 20% of your team as they will make the difference to your results with little input. Work hardest with the middle 60% to motivate and improve them. Try steadily to replace the bottom 20% who are not achieving your required levels and are unlikely to make the middle 60%.

SE seems to have replaced over 60% already. So I'm hoping we should be one hell of a team very soon!

 

[alphabet_king]

It all depends on circumstance. In my line if work our union are really hot on discrimination of individuals, implementing new terms without due notice, ostrasing staff, and our employer generally trying to abuse their power without following the legal rules and process.

I just as all players are under the PFA they could seek there advise, but with the agents interest its probably easier to just move on.

Not really sure theres unions per se in most contract work. Thats the point here. The players are lucky they have the pfa which is to an extent a union, but it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot really, most claim. You just have to look at this situation, and many others up and down the country to see the PFA are powerless. Clubs can do all sorts to piss you off withing the laws. Making players come to away games when you have no intention of playing them etc. Its all within the laws, and just part of the game of cat and mouse players and clubs have. Likewise players can do all sorts if they want to force a move. Just look at koscielny at arsenal and van dyke at saints etc.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

Thinking about the wisdom, or lack of it, in giving young players the chance to shine in L1, i was wondering how we compare.

Stats on the Transfer Market website indicate that so far in this new season 36 players younger than anyone in our starting eleven have been used by L1 clubs. The youngest person we have started being Ndjoli, at 20. Conversely, looking at older players making L1 appearances so far, of the 40 oldest players that have appeared, 2 of them are ours - Fuller & Marshall (position 11th and 34th respectively). I`m not trying to present forensic stats here and yes, it`s a tad early into the season. I guess the figures make us middle of the road-ish?

Several 16 and 17 yr old players have appeared so far in L1, the youngest being a right back who played the full 90 mins for Rochdale. Bolton have had several, for obvious reasons.

I`d like to see us try and get Ryan Edmundson (from Leeds - mentioned on other threads) in our line-up. anyone else think that we should be giving starts to a select few youngsters ?

 

[OneSirKeefy]

I`d like to see us try and get Ryan Edmundson (from Leeds - mentioned on other threads) in our line-up. anyone else think that we should be giving starts to a select few youngsters ?

I’d be all for giving good youngsters a go. But prefer they be our youngsters rather than developing loanees for others.

However, our own youngsters are unlikely to be ready to go straight into a L1 team, otherwise they’d probably be higher up the divisions. Brad Dack was our one main youngster used early, and I don’t think even he was regular at age 17 or 18 was he?

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

I’d be all for giving good youngsters a go. But prefer they be our youngsters rather than developing loanees for others.

However, our own youngsters are unlikely to be ready to go straight into a L1 team, otherwise they’d probably be higher up the divisions. Brad Dack was our one main youngster used early, and I don’t think even he was regular at age 17 or 18 was he?

Bradley made his debut at 18yrs old and, as I recall, it was pretty evident that he was going to be a very good player from that moment onward.