Ross McCormack

[Dave J]

On 04/03/2019 at 09:47, bannedfromHandV said:

Nah nor me, really wish we'd extended that olive branch a bit further......

The issue I take with you and others re: McCormack BFHV is this.

Its really very easy to call out McCormacks playing  achievements since Bruce bombed him out. Clearly it's not difficult to highlight how his career has nosedived since this point in time.

i very much doubt you will find a villa fan - who expects to see him in a Villa shirt once more. This however does not change my view that Bruce could and should have handled the situation better  right from the start.

But no - in typical old school style - he threw him under the bus along with £12 million pounds of club money ( great foresight this ).

Finally the olive branch that you and @Stevo985 love to ridicule - could have played a role in McCormack's rehabilitation - although I acknowledge that following McCormacks return from his first stint in Oz and subsequent spell of gardening leave - the olive branch was literally a twig.

Yes McCormack needs to take  a very  long hard look at himself - but don't fool yourself that Bruce walks away from this - with his head held high.

[Vive_La_Villa]

30 minutes ago, Dave J said:

The issue I take with you and others re: McCormack BFHV is this.

Its really very easy to call out McCormacks playing  achievements since Bruce bombed him out. Clearly it's not difficult to highlight how his career has nosedived since this point in time.

i very much doubt you will find a villa fan - who expects to see him in a Villa shirt once more. This however does not change my view that Bruce could and should have handled the situation better  right from the start.

But no - in typical old school style - he threw him under the bus along with £12 million pounds of club money ( great foresight this ).

Finally the olive branch that you and @Stevo985 love to ridicule - could have played a role in McCormack's rehabilitation - although I acknowledge that following McCormacks return from his first stint in Oz and subsequent spell of gardening leave - the olive branch was literally a twig.

Yes McCormack needs to take  a very  long hard look at himself - but don't fool yourself that Bruce walks away from this - with his head held high.

Bruce is a piece of work. We all know that. 

[Stevo985]

I might start charging for autographs

[Robbie09]

11 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Bruce is a piece of work. We all know that. 

I don’t agree that Bruce is a piece of work. I’ve been in his company a number of times socially before and during his stint as our manager. Whilst the situation could arguably have been handled differently the bulk of the blame lies with the player and not the manager.

[bannedfromHandV]

12 hours ago, Dave J said:

The issue I take with you and others re: McCormack BFHV is this.

Its really very easy to call out McCormacks playing  achievements since Bruce bombed him out. Clearly it's not difficult to highlight how his career has nosedived since this point in time.

i very much doubt you will find a villa fan - who expects to see him in a Villa shirt once more. This however does not change my view that Bruce could and should have handled the situation better  right from the start.

But no - in typical old school style - he threw him under the bus along with £12 million pounds of club money ( great foresight this ).

Finally the olive branch that you and @Stevo985 love to ridicule - could have played a role in McCormack's rehabilitation - although I acknowledge that following McCormacks return from his first stint in Oz and subsequent spell of gardening leave - the olive branch was literally a twig.

Yes McCormack needs to take  a very  long hard look at himself - but don't fool yourself that Bruce walks away from this - with his head held high.

Well he's also had a number of other Managers during that time with his loan spells away from us but hey ho, guess everyone else is wrong too.

[Taxahunter]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Well he's also had a number of other Managers during that time with his loan spells away from us but hey ho, guess everyone else is wrong too.

I guess they didnt have the same amount of money invested in a player and therefore was the line of what to do and what not to do a bit shorter than if you have an investment to take care of.

[Dave-R]

I think clubs should be protected from what we could easily call the McCormack blight. To many a PLAYER join a club only for something to go wrong and the club ends up paying the price. I don't agree with a club being so financially burdened and players not doing anything in there parent club and still collecting wages. I think after so long of no play time due to being cast out or an injury that's never going to see you make a comeback again till your contract expires, the player should be made to move on. Taking a knock on your wages should be a thing, you officially signed to do a job, but never did fulfil your obligations as a footballer for the club who signed you, it shouldn't mean your that protected.

It's something that so desperately needs to change in football.

[sne]

11 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

I think clubs should be protected from what we could easily call the McCormack blight. To many a PLAYER join a club only for something to go wrong and the club ends up paying the price. I don't agree with a club being so financially burdened and players not doing anything in there parent club and still collecting wages. I think after so long of no play time due to being cast out or an injury that's never going to see you make a comeback again till your contract expires, the player should be made to move on. Taking a knock on your wages should be a thing, you officially signed to do a job, but never did fulfil your obligations as a footballer for the club who signed you, it shouldn't mean your that protected.

It's something that so desperately needs to change in football.

Lex Winston Bogarde

[Vive_La_Villa]

9 hours ago, Robbie09 said:

I don’t agree that Bruce is a piece of work. I’ve been in his company a number of times socially before and during his stint as our manager. Whilst the situation could arguably have been handled differently the bulk of the blame lies with the player and not the manager.

Bruce is a piece of work for his behaviour to engineer the sacking and leave us in the shit. 

Dont know enough to comment on his treatment of McCormack but it wouldn’t suprise me if after falling out with him there was no coming back. 

You don’t mess with Bruce.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, Dave-R said:

I think clubs should be protected from what we could easily call the McCormack blight. To many a PLAYER join a club only for something to go wrong and the club ends up paying the price. I don't agree with a club being so financially burdened and players not doing anything in there parent club and still collecting wages. I think after so long of no play time due to being cast out or an injury that's never going to see you make a comeback again till your contract expires, the player should be made to move on. Taking a knock on your wages should be a thing, you officially signed to do a job, but never did fulfil your obligations as a footballer for the club who signed you, it shouldn't mean your that protected.

It's something that so desperately needs to change in football.

This is flawed. Very flawed as an idea, isn't it?

Here's a scenario. We sign a new player or give a young player his first contract. He starts well, then 2 or 3 games in, he breaks his leg badly playing against another side, or in training. You say "I don't agree with ..players not doing anything .. and still collecting wages..after so long of no play time due to ...an injury that's never going to see you make a comeback..the player should be made to move on. Taking a knock on [his] wages.. it shouldn't mean you're ..protected. This is madly unfair - player gets injured doing his job and you say "soz mate, bye. No wages, see ya" That's terrible, surely?

Now if a player breaches their contract, then employment law allows a club to deal with that. In practice, they mainly tend to try to help players who go off the rails, because they're valuable assets. Gazza, say, or Paul McGrath. People with problems need help, not thrown out.

Clubs need to assess and understand players' backgrounds and histories and medical state before they sign them. If they do that properly, then the risk of it going wrong is low, or they at least accept a risk with a talented but "colourful" player.

Imagine a valuable player gets injured or goes wonky for one of the reasons you say. Imagine they are got rid of. Imagine then the loss of their value, due to them being potted is something that means the club fails FFP and is docked points and misses out on promotion...

It's not as simple as you make it sound, is it? Imagine we'd sacked off Paul McGrath and missed out on his genius. Imagine he'd spiralled downwards without help that he was given.

A very few players take the absolute mick, and here I sympathise, but mainly, no.

[Dave-R]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

This is flawed. Very flawed as an idea, isn't it?

Here's a scenario. We sign a new player or give a young player his first contract. He starts well, then 2 or 3 games in, he breaks his leg badly playing against another side, or in training. You say "I don't agree with ..players not doing anything .. and still collecting wages..after so long of no play time due to ...an injury that's never going to see you make a comeback..the player should be made to move on. Taking a knock on [his] wages.. it shouldn't mean you're ..protected. This is madly unfair - player gets injured doing his job and you say "soz mate, bye. No wages, see ya" That's terrible, surely?

Now if a player breaches their contract, then employment law allows a club to deal with that. In practice, they mainly tend to try to help players who go off the rails, because they're valuable assets. Gazza, say, or Paul McGrath. People with problems need help, not thrown out.

Clubs need to assess and understand players' backgrounds and histories and medical state before they sign them. If they do that properly, then the risk of it going wrong is low, or they at least accept a risk with a talented but "colourful" player.

Imagine a valuable player gets injured or goes wonky for one of the reasons you say. Imagine they are got rid of. Imagine then the loss of their value, due to them being potted is something that means the club fails FFP and is docked points and misses out on promotion...

It's not as simple as you make it sound, is it? Imagine we'd sacked off Paul McGrath and missed out on his genius. Imagine he'd spiralled downwards without help that he was given.

A very few players take the absolute mick, and here I sympathise, but mainly, no.

I understand what your saying yes and you do make alot of sense with what you have said. This is why a club should be with in there rite to go there seperate way, if they feel they have exhausted all other options to help that player out.

A club signs a player on a 60k weekly wage for five years (and I'm thinking of it like this), something happens where that player plays only 6 months (example) out of a five year deal and that was early in his contract, wouldn't you say it's best the club ends that deal. Imagine the costs incurred by medical treatments, fees and so on when it's become apparent that player has cost the club an absoloute fortune, yet that club hasn't even seen one year of game time from there investment. In Mcormack and Richards case we've been dieing to find a solution to get them off the books because they have cost the club an arm and a leg. I'm not saying the solution I presented wasn't flawed but something obviously needs to be done as it is time and money in some situations wasted. What is important that it could never be abused though, so that when a club has exhausted all possibilities of bringing a player back into the fold that in the end tbey can actually relieve themselves of that burden if it's required.

I do see where you are coming from, it's just I feel that sometimes that clubs are backed into a corner with this, like there is no escape from it and it favours the player way to much.

Thankyou for your opinion, I enjoyed reading it.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Dave-R

[TRO]

40 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

I understand what your saying yes and you do make alot of sense with what you have said. This is why a club should be with in there rite to go there seperate way, if they feel they have exhausted all other options to help that player out.

A club signs a player on a 60k weekly wage for five years (and I'm thinking of it like this), something happens where that player plays only 6 months (example) out of a five year deal and that was early in his contract, wouldn't you say it's best the club ends that deal. Imagine the costs incurred by medical treatments, fees and so on when it's become apparent that player has cost the club an absoloute fortune, yet that club hasn't even seen one year of game time from there investment. In Mcormack and Richards case we've been dieing to find a solution to get them off the books because they have cost the club an arm and a leg. I'm not saying the solution I presented wasn't flawed but something obviously needs to be done as it is time and money in some situations wasted. What is important that it could never be abused though, so that when a club has exhausted all possibilities of bringing a player back into the fold that in the end tbey can actually relieve themselves of that burden if it's required.

I do see where you are coming from, it's just I feel that sometimes that clubs are backed into a corner with this, like there is no escape from it and it favours the player way to much.

Thankyou for your opinion, I enjoyed reading it.

I think its a case of some players have a genuine case and some just take the ****

[tinker]

On 04/04/2019 at 09:06, Robbie09 said:

I don’t agree that Bruce is a piece of work. I’ve been in his company a number of times socially before and during his stint as our manager. Whilst the situation could arguably have been handled differently the bulk of the blame lies with the player and not the manager.

What Bruce did with Ross would be like our owners saying he ( Bruce) was negligent and basically incompetent starting the season with one proven  central defender. An area of the pitch that should be his strong point turned out to be his weakest.

Ross was an asset and even if Bruce lost respect for the player he should have realised that attacking him publicly diminished the club's  'asset' and lessoned the chance of ridding himself of the burden of Ross and his wages . It was a foolish move from Bruce and if I owned the club I would have been furious with Bruce's actions . Idiotic 

[briny_ear]

Always “interesting” to see Ross trending back on the front page for absolutely no identifiable reason.

Is It just me or does this seem to happen mostly when the current squad is clearly doing well and we wouldn't touch a rehabilitee like RM with a barge pole? 

Edited April 7, 2019 by briny_ear

[HanoiVillan]

On 05/04/2019 at 21:45, tinker said:

What Bruce did with Ross would be like our owners saying he ( Bruce) was negligent and basically incompetent starting the season with one proven  central defender. An area of the pitch that should be his strong point turned out to be his weakest.

Ross was an asset and even if Bruce lost respect for the player he should have realised that attacking him publicly diminished the club's  'asset' and lessoned the chance of ridding himself of the burden of Ross and his wages . It was a foolish move from Bruce and if I owned the club I would have been furious with Bruce's actions . Idiotic 

It was hardly going to remain a secret, and he certainly wasn't appreciating in value while he was not even on the bench. 

[tinker]

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It was hardly going to remain a secret, and he certainly wasn't appreciating in value while he was not even on the bench.

Rumours about players circulate all the time and rumours about Ross were in the air before we purchased him, the powers that be still sanctioned the purchase. I'm pretty sure if the manager of Fulham would have confirmed the rumours in a public interview then even our management team would have pulled back from the purchase. 

Bruce was wrong to slate Ross, he gave him nowhere to go and destroyed any chance of resale . It's was spiteful to Ross and negligent with our clubs money .......and idiotic . 

Edited April 7, 2019 by tinker

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, tinker said:

Rumours about players circulate all the time and rumours about Ross were in the air before we purchased him, the powers that be still sanctioned the purchase. I'm pretty sure if the manager of Fulham would have confirmed the rumours in a public interview then even our management team would have pulled back from the purchase. 

Bruce was wrong to slate Ross, he gave him nowhere to go and destroyed any chance of resale . It's was spiteful to Ross and negligent with our clubs money .......and idiotic . 

Right, but prior to when we purchased him, he was actually playing football. 

We couldn't play him, because he was in no fit state to play. That was his fault. I can basically agree that Bruce didn't do many favours by specifically talking about his gate, making him a national joke, though I'm sure it was borne out of frustration. But make no mistake, his value was plummeting and he'd have been impossible to sell anyway. He was well on the Micah Richards track by that point. 

[ciggiesnbeer]

Yeah, I dont enjoy calling our players names but this guy really did take up a massive chunk of our parachute money and piss it away just because he couldn't behave like the highly paid athlete he was.

Thats just plain unprofessional behaviour that has cost our club a lot of money and a far bigger opportunity cost.

 

 

 

[Stevo985]

12 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Right, but prior to when we purchased him, he was actually playing football. 

We couldn't play him, because he was in no fit state to play. That was his fault. I can basically agree that Bruce didn't do many favours by specifically talking about his gate, making him a national joke, though I'm sure it was borne out of frustration. But make no mistake, his value was plummeting and he'd have been impossible to sell anyway. He was well on the Micah Richards track by that point. 

Yeah I think I'd agree.

Bruce didn't cover himself in glory with this situation, but I think it's unfair to lay most of the blame at his door. It seems Ross was already on a downward slope when Bruce took over. We haven't seen bruce do this with other players who aren't performing and/or are contantly out on loan like Tshibola, Lansbury, Richards, Gollini etc which would suggest the McCormack situation is a particularly frustrating one.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Stevo985

[Villan_of_oz]

On 04/04/2019 at 06:22, Dave J said:

The issue I take with you and others re: McCormack BFHV is this.

Its really very easy to call out McCormacks playing  achievements since Bruce bombed him out. Clearly it's not difficult to highlight how his career has nosedived since this point in time.

i very much doubt you will find a villa fan - who expects to see him in a Villa shirt once more. This however does not change my view that Bruce could and should have handled the situation better  right from the start.

But no - in typical old school style - he threw him under the bus along with £12 million pounds of club money ( great foresight this ).

Finally the olive branch that you and @Stevo985 love to ridicule - could have played a role in McCormack's rehabilitation - although I acknowledge that following McCormacks return from his first stint in Oz and subsequent spell of gardening leave - the olive branch was literally a twig.

Yes McCormack needs to take  a very  long hard look at himself - but don't fool yourself that Bruce walks away from this - with his head held high.

I disagree with this, I was no fan of Steve Bruce as our manager. In any other work environment Ross would've worn out his welcome, despite his issues.

As someone who has battled depression nearly my whole life, I find Ross McCormack offensive......

This guy would have access to any services he required, and to be able to afford the best of whatever care he needed. The club I'm sure would've extended any help in any way they possibly could. 

I'm Ross I'm on this piss, taking the piss and being a toss but I'm depressed so everyone feel sorry for me.

Maybe I'm being harsh but I know what Ive gone through, and I've seen what many other people go through with no help and little assistance. 

It's an illness yes, but it's not a bloody excuse to be a complete word removed!

Edited April 8, 2019 by Villan_of_oz