Stevo985 Posted May 21, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 21, 2019 23 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said: I can't see how essentially making yourself unavailable for selection is not gross misconduct. Did he actually do that though? I know it's reported that he missed training a couple of times. But having a bad attitude and being so shit that nobody wants to pick you doesn't equate to gross misconduct unfortunately. Unless he actually refused to play, which I'm not sure he did, then we're stuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveAV1 Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Dave J said: TRO - you haven't really said anything differently to me. Although I would argue - you lean towards Bruce's slant of this sorry saga. McCormack is not a victim imo TRO - but to this day I believe Bruce has to show up here - that he is far from Blameless imo again. Bruce gambled that by going public about RMC, he would force him to tow the line and pull his weight. It was a mistake and for that Bruce has to take the blame. If it had worked he would have proclaimed from the rooftops how his brilliant man management had turn Ross’s career around. But it didn’t work, so he has to take responsibility Collectively those who were responsible for signing him clearly didn’t do any proper due diligence. But up to his public dressing down he had enjoyed a relatively successful career, to the extent that he was apparently work £12m and a lucrative contract. He’d clearly had problems in the past but they had been successfully managed by his previous clubs. If Bruce hadn’t gone public, no matter how frustrated he was with the player, we would still have had a chance to unload him. In the January window there’s always struggling PL clubs, desperate for a striker with a decent record to pin their survival hopes on. Bruce made him toxic and so impossible to sell. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 46 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Did he actually do that though? I know it's reported that he missed training a couple of times. But having a bad attitude and being so shit that nobody wants to pick you doesn't equate to gross misconduct unfortunately. Unless he actually refused to play, which I'm not sure he did, then we're stuck. If rumours are to be believed, surely turning up every day wreaking of alcohol would be gross misconduct? I know it would be in my job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 3 new pages on Ross McCormack eh? Everyone's really bored aren't they 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junxs Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 4 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said: If rumours are to be believed, surely turning up every day wreaking of alcohol would be gross misconduct? I know it would be in my job. If that was true he'd be sacked already, so clearly it isn't. Where did you hear these rumours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, Junxs said: If that was true he'd be sacked already, so clearly it isn't. Yes this is a key point really. We will be loathe to pay a player for doing **** all if we can help it. So if he has done anything that the lawyers can say is breaking a contract, we'd have done that months ago. We haven't so I can only conclude much of the rumours are just that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 On 20/05/2019 at 13:55, PaulC said: Only thing I would do is force him to train with the kids. Make his life as miserable as possible. Otherwise he can let us tear up his contract. If he is a bad egg we should not let him near our youth players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, VILLAMARV said: 3 new pages on Ross McCormack eh? Everyone's really bored aren't they Pity they couldn't have set up a game, while we are waiting. Edited May 21, 2019 by TRO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave J Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 7 hours ago, DaveAV1 said: Bruce gambled that by going public about RMC, he would force him to tow the line and pull his weight. It was a mistake and for that Bruce has to take the blame. If it had worked he would have proclaimed from the rooftops how his brilliant man management had turn Ross’s career around. But it didn’t work, so he has to take responsibility Collectively those who were responsible for signing him clearly didn’t do any proper due diligence. But up to his public dressing down he had enjoyed a relatively successful career, to the extent that he was apparently work £12m and a lucrative contract. He’d clearly had problems in the past but they had been successfully managed by his previous clubs. If Bruce hadn’t gone public, no matter how frustrated he was with the player, we would still have had a chance to unload him. In the January window there’s always struggling PL clubs, desperate for a striker with a decent record to pin their survival hopes on. Bruce made him toxic and so impossible to sell. Good post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted May 21, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 21, 2019 I predict a Graham Fenton style surprise performance in the final. Oh wait... No I don't. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Willard Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 We sent him to Australia hoping he would refuse to go so we could sack him. Unfortunately the guys playing by the rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) On 20/05/2019 at 12:52, Adbo9 said: Unfortunately there are two parties in a contract, and unless he is doing something thats a sackable offence then hes entitled to sit on it.............. the fact is, why would he take a pay off now, as if he waits a week, it might be a completely different pay off if we win the golden egg on monday Is it really that difficult to get rid of a player? Genuine question, would love to know how these contracts work. See it seems to be really easy to sack a manager and there are countless examples of managers being sacked despite doing an objectively 'good job' (but somehow not deemed good enough by owners etc). Why is it that much harder to get rid of a player? Surely it should be straight forward to tear up a players contract at any point, with the penalty for that being compensation (which would presumably reflect the amount 'owed' up until the contracted expiry date). Edited May 22, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted May 22, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: Is it really that difficult to get rid of a player? Genuine question, would love to know how these contracts work. See it seems to be really easy to sack a manager and there are countless examples of managers being sacked despite doing an objectively 'good job' (but somehow not deemed good enough by owners etc). Why is it that much harder to get rid of a player? Surely it should be straight forward to tear up a players contract at any point, with the penalty for that being compensation (which would presumably reflect the amount 'owed' up until the contracted expiry date). The amount it would cost to pay them off, I guess? When you sack a manager, it gives you the opportunity to bring another manager in so there's a need to do it and paying their contract is worth it. If we sack Ross, we will still have to pay the remainder of his contract and then he could get a job elsewhere. If we've got to pay his wages anyway, might as well pay them with him sitting in our reserves rather than playing for another team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 22, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2019 19 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: Is it really that difficult to get rid of a player? Genuine question, would love to know how these contracts work. See it seems to be really easy to sack a manager and there are countless examples of managers being sacked despite doing an objectively 'good job' (but somehow not deemed good enough by owners etc). Why is it that much harder to get rid of a player? Surely it should be straight forward to tear up a players contract at any point, with the penalty for that being compensation (which would presumably reflect the amount 'owed' up until the contracted expiry date). I guess it's the cost of paying them off vs the reward. We don't gain anything financially from sacking a player or a manager if we have to pay off their entire contract, which I assume is what we have to do. But the difference is sacking a manager and replacing him with another can literally change the entire fortunes of a club. It has a massive effect on results and the potential advantage is huge. Sacking a player makes no difference really. Unless that player is a totally toxic influence, negatively affecting people at the club, I'm not sure they'd ever see the financial hit as worth it. I'm just speculating though. I'd also be interested to know if there was more to it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyexists Posted May 22, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2019 At least we know now that this was all Steve Bruce’s fault. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 31 minutes ago, PieFacE said: The amount it would cost to pay them off, I guess? When you sack a manager, it gives you the opportunity to bring another manager in so there's a need to do it and paying their contract is worth it. If we sack Ross, we will still have to pay the remainder of his contract and then he could get a job elsewhere. If we've got to pay his wages anyway, might as well pay them with him sitting in our reserves rather than playing for another team. This takes me back to my original point though, should we get promoted he gets a pay rise and bonus, termination now could be quite a lot cheaper (obviously assuming we go up). A lot of people here are making the argument that you can't just get rid of players like that, which is my question, why can't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted May 22, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2019 Just now, Dr_Pangloss said: This takes me back to my original point though, should we get promoted he gets a pay rise and bonus, termination now could be quite a lot cheaper (obviously assuming we go up). A lot of people here are making the argument that you can't just get rid of players like that, which is my question, why can't you? Yeah it's a fair point. If he is due a huge wage rise in the event of promotion, then it's certainly something to consider doing now. Though, I have no idea if they could legally do it given how close to promotion we are right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Made In Aston Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 I read that if we get promoted McCormack receives a pay rise. It's mind blowing that a player that has not featured for the club, in any shape or form for the best part of 3 years, profits from being an unprofessional little scroat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 22, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said: This takes me back to my original point though, should we get promoted he gets a pay rise and bonus, termination now could be quite a lot cheaper (obviously assuming we go up). A lot of people here are making the argument that you can't just get rid of players like that, which is my question, why can't you? Yeah that's a fair point. Obviously there is a financial benefit to getting rid of him if his wages go up if he stays. But that raises another question. Would he still be entitled to some extra money if we did that? Otherwise surely more teams would do that when they got promoted as I'm sure there are plenty of similar clauses knocking around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thug Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 I’m pretty sure if we paid him off now, then we went up, his lawyers would be knocking again to claim what he’s owed if we went up. Hes not stupid. We can’t sack him unless he does something sackable. And if we offered to buy out his contract, he’d probably want full whack, including any bonuses etc. No point. just let the clock run down. Our only hope is is that he gets bored, and wants to play elsewhere, and accepts some kind of compromise deal. That’s why it’s never a good idea to sign these ‘marquee’ players in the twilight of their careers. if things go tits up.. they’ve no motivation at all to reach a compromise. a young player would have to think of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts