Rodwell

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Not an employee unfortunately - contractual obligations are totally different to employee obligations. If I decided I didn't want to play any part in the main business of my employer but am happy to sit in the background and do as little as possible, I'd be sacked. He will be fulfilling each contractual obligation that he has in order to receive his salary and has stated that he doesn't want to play for us - but he will keep taking money and doing what he needs to. We can't sack him as he hasn't broken any rules (see Adam Johnson) but, if what cColeman said was true (about him not wanting to play) then surely we can fine him?

Gordon Taylor will no doubt back him to the hilt and say it's the club's fault!
As has been stated I am certain he will have been contractually obligated to fulfill a certain amount of PR for the club as orhets do and have done. Open him up to public (fans) ridicule.
 
Save on his fr:gging wages if they had managed to make his workplace intolerable a year ago. Something I’m sure could have been.

I guess the club would have to be careful as to what they did to make it intolerable. However , ( as has been suggested above) , selecting him as a substitute surely is only asking him to do his job , and then it’s the crowd not the club who make it intolerable
 
I guess the club would have to be careful as to what they did to make it intolerable. However , ( as has been suggested above) , selecting him as a substitute surely is only asking him to do his job , and then it’s the crowd not the club who make it intolerable
A nice thought, but we would probably fall foul of the duty of care regs on this one
 
Trying to look at Rodwells situation from neutrals perspective is difficult, as we are Sunderland fans and we just see a greedy twat who is bleeding the club dry. From his point of view he sees a contract that the club were please to offer him at the time. Now things have changed they want to change the deal....again, from his standpoint, not fair. Not knowing Rodwells personal finance or his situation, I would have thought he would have garnered much more credibility by accepting Sunderlands offer at the time they said he could have had a free transfer. I would hazard a guess now, he is not only a has been footballer, but very much tarnished goods...something his advisors will have to take full responsibility for. They very well may have wrecked his career for recommending him to hang on to this contract. Shameful
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorset
As has been stated I am certain he will have been contractually obligated to fulfill a certain amount of PR for the club as orhets do and have done. Open him up to public (fans) ridicule.
He would, but his advisors will have been aware of the torment and known all of the strings to pull to stop any of it happening! Sad reality of football. “In light of social media recently, our client wouldn’t feel safe to be put in front of x y or z. Therefore we request that the club doesn’t do this” then they claim that he couldn’t, and if the club does they sue when he gets murdered by a group of angry (albeit justified) Sunderland fans.
He’s done a few interviews (including that mega embarrassing one where he said that he’s still good enough for England) and another couple of minor ones for the internet journos which will probably keep his head above water on that side. I would imagine that he’s broken no rules and contractually fulfilled every obligation. If he hasn’t, the club are mugs for allowing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway
Trying to look at Rodwells situation from neutrals perspective is difficult, as we are Sunderland fans and we just see a greedy twat who is bleeding the club dry. From his point of view he sees a contract that the club were please to offer him at the time. Now things have changed they want to change the deal....again, from his standpoint, not fair. Not knowing Rodwells personal finance or his situation, I would have thought he would have garnered much more credibility by accepting Sunderlands offer at the time they said he could have had a free transfer. I would hazard a guess now, he is not only a has been footballer, but very much tarnished goods...something his advisors will have to take full responsibility for. They very well may have wrecked his career for recommending him to hang on to this contract. Shameful

People who are neutral will generally be devoid of the full facts given they're not emotionally invested. On the surface it's our own fault and I'd agree with that 100% but that doesn't explain the loathing from us, then you get lies he's spun and how his actions and ethics are the exact opposite to his professions and it becomes all to clear why we hate his ****ing guts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FTM Dave
Surely there must be a way that we can sack this bar-steward....has he not refused to play for us?

Would take the chance of an Industrial Tribunal outcome on this one after sacking him. I'm quite sure that a lot of the info that would come out he wouldn't want out in the public domain. So let's sack the f*cker and roll the dice. What do we have to lose?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makemstine Roger
I view this differently to most about this parasite, seemingly.

Most seem to think that his career is over, or will be when his contract runs out or we pay him off earlier, but I think that when the time comes somebody will take him 'on trial' at a club that's higher up the leagues than we are, and he could well prove himself to be capable at that higher level :emoticon-0112-wonde

He's only 27 now, and will only be 28 this time next year when we'll be rid of him, and we'd be even more disgusted if that did happen, but I consider that to be a real possibility . . . . the ****ing parasitic twat :undecided:
I view this differently to most about this parasite, seemingly.

Most seem to think that his career is over, or will be when his contract runs out or we pay him off earlier, but I think that when the time comes somebody will take him 'on trial' at a club that's higher up the leagues than we are, and he could well prove himself to be capable at that higher level :emoticon-0112-wonde

He's only 27 now, and will only be 28 this time next year when we'll be rid of him, and we'd be even more disgusted if that did happen, but I consider that to be a real possibility . . . . the ****ing parasitic twat :undecided:

It's not so much his ability that's in question mate, it's his attitude and injury record. Either way you toss it up, he's still a parasite who at the moment is going nowhere and unless the new owners offer him a get out figure, he will remain and see out his contract.
 
We can forget him, or re-rehabilitate him. I favour the first option, but the second might be the best for the clubs bank balance.
 
Sorry Bart it not that he has done us over as muuch he is STILL DOING US OVER. We should have been more active a year ago. However the money he is leeching out of the club must stop. I hope the new Regime tell him to eff off - see you on court, after getting him to technically to break his contract.
 
Why are we wasting energy discussing this parasite on our Forum.

If I had my way I'd close the thread down.

He's done us over - let's just fecking move on and forget all about the c u n t.

Bart

Juat ask to be a mod Bart and the power will be yours!

Ask and ye shall receive.
 
I went onto Sky to have a look at what it cost to get the cricket for the summer (not paying the prices they are quoting on principle, I hate the fact that home tests used to be terrestrial and now I would have to pay to watch them, 13 years and still never have one more year will not kill me).

Anyway I saw this picture and it made me chuckle/ wince:

You must log in or register to see images


FFS Sky if you want people to sign up for the 18/19 season could you pick a worse person than him?!?!
 
I went onto Sky to have a look at what it cost to get the cricket for the summer (not paying the prices they are quoting on principle, I hate the fact that home tests used to be terrestrial and now I would have to pay to watch them, 13 years and still never have one more year will not kill me).

Anyway I saw this picture and it made me chuckle/ wince:

You must log in or register to see images


FFS Sky if you want people to sign up for the 18/19 season could you pick a worse person than him?!?!

Is that Belgium v England?
 
I guess the club would have to be careful as to what they did to make it intolerable. However , ( as has been suggested above) , selecting him as a substitute surely is only asking him to do his job , and then it’s the crowd not the club who make it intolerable
I don't want Rodwell anywhere near the SoL on match days. We want positivity from the crowd this season rather than a chorus of boos every time this oxygen thief is sent to warm up.
 
I don't want Rodwell anywhere near the SoL on match days. We want positivity from the crowd this season rather than a chorus of boos every time this oxygen thief is sent to warm up.

To be honest, **** or not I'd quick get irritated if the crowd were booing my teammate constantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nads