davieG Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Think he meant Leeds are getting his services for next to nothing because we are still paying the majority of his wages, so in a way we are paying Leeds to play our player. Well it's all guess work either way but I doubt they're getting him for nothing a better assumption would be that if his wages are 40k / week which we're supposedly paying I would assume we would at least get from Leeds what their nominal week wage is say 15-20K which is a plus for us which can be used to pay for our loanees. But all guesswork.
Babylon Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Think he meant Leeds are getting his services for next to nothing because we are still paying the majority of his wages, so in a way we are paying Leeds to play our player. Perhaps there is a tacit agreement between the clubs that they may get him permanent in the close season. We are not paying Leeds. They are paying us wages for a player who wouldn't even be in the bench.
singinpete Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Mills did nothing to warrant the captaincy in the first place. He isnt good enough to get into our defence based on current form. Cant imagine Nige is thrilled about the fact that he earns so much more than some of the players showing decent form of late. Could be an attempt to see if any unrest is eased in the squad (if there is any) while he's gone, or to give Mills a chance to find form ooor maybe Nige has his eye on a swap deal come the summer. If he's not playin here he might aswel be making mistakes in someone elses defence, and if we get any injury worries we can bring back a match fit player.
Captain... Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 I still don't get this idea that loaning DJ Campbell to blackpool was a mistake, if we had lost out in the playoffs to Blackpool then maybe, but we didn't we lost to Cardiff, that is why we didn't go up and DJ Campbell had no bearing on that. Secondly do you think Balckpool could have afforded to pay for DJ what they did if they hadn't been promoted? Likewise Leeds, if we want to sell Mills next season, he needs to be seen to be playing well, that is not going to happen if he is training with the reserves. If Leeds do get promoted then hopefully they will buy him off us for something close to what we paid for him. If by some minor miracle we finish seventh and Leeds finish sixth ahead of us on goal difference and Mills scored in the last minute of their final game* to secure 6th spot it will be Mills' fault but not because he went to Leeds but because of the points that he and the rest of the team threw away earlier this season. Credit NP for dealing with it quickly, and watch out for Mar 31st where Leeds will face Watford and that useless lump Iwelumo will dominate Matt Mills again, Watford will beat Leeds and we will overtake them. *Which will be impossible as the last game of the season will be against us, but you know what I mean.
Guest Col city fan Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Just heard on the Football League Show that Reading have the second meanest defence in the division. Obviously not missed Mills too much then?
Out Foxed Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Just heard on the Football League Show that Reading have the second meanest defence in the division. Obviously not missed Mills too much then? hull city in first with 25 reading 27 bham 30
Happy Fox Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Bert says confirmation will happen either Monday or Tuesday
Dan Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 hull city in first with 25 reading 27 bham 30 24 of Hull's were down to Pearson, the 1 they conceded was a complete fluke and the Man Utd backroom staff who love Hull have promised it won't happen again, it's true, just ask Hull.
Haydos Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 We are not paying Leeds. They are paying us wages for a player who wouldn't even be in the bench. How much?
demon_dog Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 It sounds to me as if Mills was guilty of what in any other walk of life would be a sackable offence due to his vile rant at Pearson. An apology from Mills under these circumstances would apparently seem to be unacceptable as he had simply gone too far. But being a professional footballer means you seemingly cannot simply be sacked. So what option does Pearson have? Either stick him in the reserves to fester and rot, losing potential sell on value, still being around the club to give off bad vibes. Or do you send him somewhere away from the club until the transfer market reopens. Pearson has clearly done the best option available to him under the circumstances. We do not know if any one else was interested in taking him on loan. As far as the management are concerned, he is gone out of the way and it doesn't matter who to. This way he cannot cause any disruption within the squad. (It also acts to send a message to the others, step out of line and we can get rid of you if we want.) He will probably never play for LCFC again, certainly not while Pearson is here. Hopefully we can cut our losses during the summer by moving him on. The big question as many on here have stated is "Who will take him on such a high wage" If he wants to play regular first team football then he must be prepared to take a big cut in wages I would imagine. Certainly time will tell.
anglodan Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 It sounds to me as if Mills was guilty of what in any other walk of life would be a sackable offence due to his vile rant at Pearson. Vile rant? Does anyone actually know what happened. Or is it the ususal speculation?
NewburyFox Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Vile rant? Does anyone actually know what happened. Or is it the ususal speculation? Bert quoted someone inside the club, who described it as "a vile and appalling rant."
Jace Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 It sounds to me as if Mills was guilty of what in any other walk of life would be a sackable offence due to his vile rant at Pearson. An apology from Mills under these circumstances would apparently seem to be unacceptable as he had simply gone too far. But being a professional footballer means you seemingly cannot simply be sacked. So what option does Pearson have? Either stick him in the reserves to fester and rot, losing potential sell on value, still being around the club to give off bad vibes. Or do you send him somewhere away from the club until the transfer market reopens. Pearson has clearly done the best option available to him under the circumstances. We do not know if any one else was interested in taking him on loan. As far as the management are concerned, he is gone out of the way and it doesn't matter who to. This way he cannot cause any disruption within the squad. (It also acts to send a message to the others, step out of line and we can get rid of you if we want.) He will probably never play for LCFC again, certainly not while Pearson is here. Hopefully we can cut our losses during the summer by moving him on. The big question as many on here have stated is "Who will take him on such a high wage" If he wants to play regular first team football then he must be prepared to take a big cut in wages I would imagine. Certainly time will tell. A professional footballer is subject to conduct and discipline from their employer the same as any other employee in the European Union.
Mission Unlikely Promotion Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 24 of Hull's were down to Pearson, the 1 they conceded was a complete fluke and the Man Utd backroom staff who love Hull have promised it won't happen again, it's true, just ask Hull.
Captain... Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 A professional footballer is subject to conduct and discipline from their employer the same as any other employee in the European Union. The difference is that players are assets to the club, so by sacking them, in this case Mills we are writing off 3-4 million of outlay, we can't sell him at the moment because of the transfer window, which I am not a fan of, and in 2013 we won't even be able to loan out players outside the transfer window if the FA/FIFA (I am not sure which brain trust came up with this one) have their way. If we do sack him we would have to pay him off as well as sacrificing what ever we would recoup in transfers.
Jace Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 The difference is that players are assets to the club, so by sacking them, in this case Mills we are writing off 3-4 million of outlay, we can't sell him at the moment because of the transfer window, which I am not a fan of, and in 2013 we won't even be able to loan out players outside the transfer window if the FA/FIFA (I am not sure which brain trust came up with this one) have their way. If we do sack him we would have to pay him off as well as sacrificing what ever we would recoup in transfers. I know I'm not saying sack him what I'm saying is 'But being a professional footballer means you seemingly cannot simply be sacked.' is complete bullshit
Maybes Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Hopefully use him as bait for Snodgrass come the end of the season.
unreachable Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 I know I'm not saying sack him what I'm saying is 'But being a professional footballer means you seemingly cannot simply be sacked.' is complete bullshit Are we straying into Dennis Wise territory here? He was sacked. Although his "resale" value was negligible and we'd signed him on a free transfer.I'm not sure that Mills would have to be paid off if a court found his dismissal to be fair.
Happy Fox Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 Hopefully use him as bait for Snodgrass come the end of the season. As much as I would love this to happen he will most likely end up in the prem.
Maybes Posted 26 February 2012 Posted 26 February 2012 As much as I would love this to happen he will most likely end up in the prem. I agree. More said in hope than expectation.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.