DJ Barry Hammond Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 Have a look at our squad list - he's still listed? I wonder if we're paying his (or part of) wages? Seems a little silly, I know the loans only for 3 months, but this is wasting supporters money.
Kent Fox Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 Absolutely right. Just because he had a heart attack and very nearly died in our colours... FFS! Come on!! Only the heartless, cruel or galactically stupid would stop paying him! He nearly died playing for us - the least we can do is pay him. The most might be to buy him - he was ok, wasn't he?
Lord Nibblington Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 Have a look at our squad list - he's still listed? I wonder if we're paying his (or part of) wages? Seems a little silly, I know the loans only for 3 months, but this is wasting supporters money. Frankly, a bigger waste of supporters money seems to have gone on Gary Megson.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 26 September 2007 Author Posted 26 September 2007 Absolutely right.Just because he had a heart attack and very nearly died in our colours... FFS! Come on!! Only the heartless, cruel or galactically stupid would stop paying him! He nearly died playing for us - the least we can do is pay him. The most might be to buy him - he was ok, wasn't he? Why's that the least we can do? He'd get paid by Sunderland if we didn't? It's not as if we're sacking or releasing him with no job - we're just sending him back to Sunderland?
Brainy Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 I wonder if we're paying his (or part of) wages? Does it really matter?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 26 September 2007 Author Posted 26 September 2007 Does it really matter? Don't you find it a tad strange - I suppose I'm also wondering if someone thinks he'll play again soon?
JoeyB Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 Frankly, a bigger waste of supporters money seems to have gone on Gary Megson, Couldnt of said it any better but you forgot: Alan maybury Rab(i drive a bentley f*** you all) Douglas
Brainy Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 I don't find it 'strange'. I see your point but it seems like you're saying he's wasting our money being on the wage bill. He's just like any other playing on loan recovering from injury.
demon_dog Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 Have a look at our squad list - he's still listed? I wonder if we're paying his (or part of) wages? Seems a little silly, I know the loans only for 3 months, but this is wasting supporters money. Are you for real! Of course he's still on the books and Milan is paying him, (with a little help from supporters money) If we have a player in on loan and he gets injured we don't kick him out, we continue to employ him.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 26 September 2007 Author Posted 26 September 2007 Are you for real!Of course he's still on the books and Milan is paying him, (with a little help from supporters money) If we have a player in on loan and he gets injured we don't kick him out, we continue to employ him. Why not? I think you'll find loads of clubs do it - if the player can't play for you again within the loan period he goes back to his own club to receive treatment etc.
Kent Fox Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 I think you should stop now, big Al. If you have a player in your squad, loanee or bought, and they get injured, you pay them. Simple as. You don't stop just because he had a heart attack. How would that make us look?
sdb Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 you don't just tell someone who's nearly died to bugger off. he was wearing our colours and doing a duty for our club so we should respect that. plus he's contracted to us for a certain period. we're doing the right thing in sticking by the poor guy - he's one of us, for the time being at least. and we've a multi million pound owner in charge. deary deary me!
demon_dog Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 Why not? Its the same with the majority of clubs with loan players. Injured while playing on a 3 month contract, injury only lasts say 2 weeks, therefore the player stays. Don't know what proportion of his wages we're paying. If he is able to continue playing professional football then he would be a decent buy. The exception to all of this of course is if the club he came from recalls him as urgently needed cover. Then the loan period automatically comes to an end.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 26 September 2007 Author Posted 26 September 2007 I think you should stop now, big Al.If you have a player in your squad, loanee or bought, and they get injured, you pay them. Simple as. You don't stop just because he had a heart attack. How would that make us look? I think it's strange - he's no doubt lives in Sunderland, I don't know who would have insured him in a loan agreement - but his primary employer is Sunderland? Sure, give him a lump sum from us for the three months? But I would have thought the loan would have been terminated.
Lord Nibblington Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 Why not? I think you'll find loads of clubs do it - if the player can't play for you again within the loan period he goes back to his own club to receive treatment etc. This isn't really the same as a pulled hamstring is it? There's serious questions as to if Clarke will play again. Thus I don't think paying him for the next month is going to financially cripple us.
Simon Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 I cannot believe that there is a serious debate going on about this. The lad almost died playing for this club and you wanna thank him by packing him back off to Sunderland? What is this obsession with money these days? The least you could do is spell his name correctly: CLARKE.
Jimmy Posted 26 September 2007 Posted 26 September 2007 he has a point had he borke his leg he would of gone back to Sunderland and the loan terminated, its normal that if a loan player gets injured and is out for longer then the loan that they return to their parent club, this is different though especially with all the recent deaths in football ...
lookwhaticando Posted 27 September 2007 Posted 27 September 2007 If we terminated the loan, he'd merely be picking up his paycheck from Sunderland - his parent club to whom he is contracted. It's Sunderland who's actually making money out of us... we pay Sunderland for part of Clarke's wages. To Clarke, it doesn't matter if he stays with us or goes back to his parent club... his wages won't change. It does seem a little 'odd' that he's still with us, considering what happened to him... but he did say he hoped to be training by the end of this month, so perhaps there's hope that his playing days aren't yet over. And if they're not over, he might as well remain on loan with us. Who knows? If he is able to resume playing, we might take him on a longer loan (since he proved kinda handy). Besides... there's been some good publicity coming out of the whole Clarke incident... perhaps that's why Mandaric has kept him around.
wirralsimon Posted 27 September 2007 Posted 27 September 2007 To be honest we don't know what (if any) discussions have taken place between the clubs. If the intention would be to sign him in January if it looks like he will be able to resume playing then it makes sense to keep him here. It is also possible the clubs have come to a financial arrangement over his wages to allow him to stay without playing. Simon
Mighty Muzzy Posted 27 September 2007 Posted 27 September 2007 A contract is a contract at the end of the day. Would you like your employment to be torn up the moment you experience a health scare?
BigGibbo Posted 27 September 2007 Posted 27 September 2007 Have a look at our squad list - he's still listed? I wonder if we're paying his (or part of) wages? Seems a little silly, I know the loans only for 3 months, but this is wasting supporters money. If you have a heart attack I hope you get sacked Clarke may play for us again even if he can't thats his intention
Sir Fynwy Posted 27 September 2007 Posted 27 September 2007 His wages will most probably be being payed by either City or Sunderlands player insurance, this will continue until either it is decided that he has to retire (with a final insurance payout) or he returns to playing. This is very unlikely to be costing Milan any of his money but even if it was the initial question is a totally pathetic one, a players life is worth a bit more than a few quid out of our owners pocket.
David O'Leary Posted 27 September 2007 Posted 27 September 2007 Absolutely right.Just because he had a heart attack and very nearly died in our colours... FFS! Come on!! Only the heartless, cruel or galactically stupid would stop paying him! He nearly died playing for us - the least we can do is pay him. The most might be to buy him - he was ok, wasn't he? Hopefully there was no pun intended there
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.