Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

The striking seniors


jules_darby

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Escobarp said:

Any business that goes into admin unless it has a pre-pack could be liquidated? 

As such this would mean that no footballer could play whilst in admin due to insurance issues? 

There is evidently something amiss here and a story will come out I’m just not sure it’s this one personally 

Insurance could be sought and obtained on a game by game basis if necessary.

Also James Weir played who is a non academy player and as such wouldn't be covered via the academies insurance scheme as the rest of the players would be (if this was the case?) - so very unlikely to be an insurance issue for the strike imo.

Similarly it can't have anything to do with PFA advise as such - Weir played - so to did Ameobi for Forest (came on as a sub).  Weir came after the strikes/non payments whilst Ameobi was part of the strikes/non payments.  There's no consistency in actions.

Again similarly the 'strikers' from yesterday played against Wycombe - and the payment situation was the same then as yesterday.

Top of my head I can only think of two possible reasons, the first being that the 'five' thought they were due some 'balance' of monies that didn't materialise through the week(?), or Bassini's spanner in the works could, if successful, potential lead to the club being chucked out of the league/ Liquidated, in which case any arrears of money they have with the club (if any - hasn't it all been sorted?) would mean they become 'unsecured creditors' and potentially receive nothing, rather than their current football creditors status and receive 100% of their outstanding wages.

Either way - insurance permitting (in which the club should have communicated something if they couldn't play because of it) there doesn't seem anything on the face of things why they didn't make themselves available for the match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Has Gary O'Neil got a club yet?

No. You wonder if he’s waiting in the wings.

Regardless of which side you sit on with the seniors striking I think too much has gone on to salvage. Get them moved on for ours and their sakes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tomski said:

No. You wonder if he’s waiting in the wings.

Regardless of which side you sit on with the seniors striking I think too much has gone on to salvage. Get them moved on for ours and their sakes. 

Potentially he'd be a fantastic player to reintroduce if we're planning on playing a lot of the kids moving forward. He'd probably play in League 1 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone saying the seniors can get stuffed for not playing...how can you say that when you don't have a clue why they didn't play? 100% of senior players either chose to, or were prevented from playing. So you are suggesting we just happen to have the weakest, morally corrupt players in the entire country. That's unlucky on Parkys part to have signed them. Let's only sign players in future that guarantee to play when the club is in admin, when not receiving wages correctly for upto a year. So that's maybe 2% of professional players we can look at as potential signings? Whilst our competitors are free to go for anyone that's any good? That's going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
5 hours ago, birch-chorley said:

I was of the impression that whilst they have had some money they are still owed at least two months 

I've heard the recent payment was from the date of the administrators taking control. Anything before that date is still owed.

32 minutes ago, Francis Fogarty said:

And could they have set up a picket line hoping for support ?

Could you imagine a picket line outside the player's entrance? They'd have got dog's abuse from the fans and the picket would be to try and convince those kids who played to join them on their strike; otherwise, what would be the point of the picket?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The logical explanation is they got some money last week and agreed to play following assurances the rest would follow on completion which would be before Coventry

So, they're pissed off the promose wasn't kept so chose not to play this time

Up to us to decide if that's justified

I don't think it is, partly because they are being paid from a PFA loan that we can't access until takeover completes..at least that's my understanding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the interesting one is Weir as he’d be considered a senior player under any other situation. Which suggests it is something to do with last season, except they were paid up to date (including back dated) last week.  

From yesterday’s performance, I think there’s only Lowe who would have added to it as a cool head in the middle but we’re going to need fresh bodies. 

There again, there’s plenty of 17 year old lads running about in 6 a side leagues every night so maybe they don’t need as much rest as we think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter

It was suggested to me yesterday that the deductions for repaying the initial PFA loans were taken out and this annoyed them.

Don't know about this, or weather it was paid directly to the players by the PFA and not via the club.

It would need to be repaid at some point I presume, so God knows what the score is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

Anyone saying the seniors can get stuffed for not playing...how can you say that when you don't have a clue why they didn't play? 100% of senior players either chose to, or were prevented from playing. So you are suggesting we just happen to have the weakest, morally corrupt players in the entire country. That's unlucky on Parkys part to have signed them. Let's only sign players in future that guarantee to play when the club is in admin, when not receiving wages correctly for upto a year. So that's maybe 2% of professional players we can look at as potential signings? Whilst our competitors are free to go for anyone that's any good? That's going to work.

Bore off 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, MickyD said:

I've heard the recent payment was from the date of the administrators taking control. Anything before that date is still owed.

Could you imagine a picket line outside the player's entrance? They'd have got dog's abuse from the fans and the picket would be to try and convince those kids who played to join them on their strike; otherwise, what would be the point of the picket?

That was my point Mick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnnyrotten said:

OK, apologies.

Nothing more than self preservation for the missing seniors. Which is fine but don’t expect folk to feel sorry for them. Shithouse behaviour unless it’s drastically different to the reason not wanting to be injured so they can move on. 

Olkowski got rinsed for resigning. At least he had to the balls to do what’s best for his family. Rather than wait all summer get some payment and resign. 

Edited by Big E
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big E said:

Nothing more than self preservation for the missing seniors. Which is fine but don’t expect folk to feel sorry for them. Shithouse behaviour unless it’s drastically different to the reason not wanting to be injured so they can move on. 

Olkowski got rinsed for resigning. At least he had to the balls to do what’s best for his family. Rather than wait all summer get some payment and resign. 

I respect anyones considered opinion, no problem with different views to mine, not sure why you didn't say that in 1st place. But for what it's worth, Olkowski was the first to chuck his toys out of the pram, he showed not 1 ounce of loyalty, he couldnt leave quick enough. On a scale of 1 to 5, he is a 1, McGennis is a 2, the other seniors are a 3 and the kids 5. I'd have them all back apart from Olkowski and McGennis, because they've been put in a position nobody else has been put in and I feel for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

I respect anyones considered opinion, no problem with different views to mine, not sure why you didn't say that in 1st place. But for what it's worth, Olkowski was the first to chuck his toys out of the pram, he showed not 1 ounce of loyalty, he couldnt leave quick enough. On a scale of 1 to 5, he is a 1, McGennis is a 2, the other seniors are a 3 and the kids 5. I'd have them all back apart from Olkowski and McGennis, because they've been put in a position nobody else has been put in and I feel for them.

He was in a different country with a young family and no income. He got out and sorted himself out which is apparently whats important when you hear the players. these have stayed around knowing they would be allowed all of the money as football creditors then started sulking again after getting some of the money. 

Honestly folk defending the rest but moaning about him is amazing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Big E said:

He was in a different country with a young family and no income. He got out and sorted himself out which is apparently whats important when you hear the players. these have stayed around knowing they would be allowed all of the money as football creditors then started sulking again after getting some of the money. 

Honestly folk defending the rest but moaning about him is amazing. 

I thought they had all (or most) tried to hand in their notice but they were refused? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.