I hope Rodwell dies a slow painful death and every sh*te he has comes out like a raggy pineapple. He isnt a bloke he's a c*nt.
noooo, cos his **** would smell nice, a raggy carrion flower would be better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amorphophallus_Wilhelma.jpg
Yup agreed. Far superior idea. At least with his 40% pay cut next season we might, just might, get rid of him once and for all.
I think we all have a view on the moralistic aspect of this mate. At the same time, it's the clubs fault that the contract was constructed as it was. Tbf, as others have said on here, I don't blame him for holding to a contract. Its going to make his family financially secure for a couple of generations to come. Most of us would probably do the same. My problem isn't with him, he knows he's hated so why the **** should he stick his head over the parapet. They'll do a deal in the summer and he'll be gone. My problem is the contract the club signed up to and the fact he can still legally refuse to honour his side of the contract and yet be entitled to his weekly wage. How footballers can have privileged contracts that the man on the street would kill to have is beyond me. I honestly still don't understand how that could be allowed to occur. Won't work still get paid.
I dont think he can. A decent barrister would rip that to shreds in a court of law imo. I think SAFC have been embarrassed themselves enough without doing it over this.
As long as he turns up for training and does as he's told then he's entitled to be paid, unfortunately.
So why not put him on the bench? We are virtually relegated so surely the fans giving him grief cannot do the club any harm but can terrify that b*stard.
He’s not refusing, he’s not asking and Coleman won’t invite him so it’s a stand off and the biggest losers are the poor sods who might get paid off to help the club cover his wage. Agree that it’s the club to blame for giving him such a lucrative contract when he was on a downward trajectory with Citeh.
Didn’t he say Jack has said to Bains he doesn’t want to be at the club and he hasn’t been to see him and CC’s stance is he only want players who want to play? It’s a subtle difference but if Rodders isn’t asked he can’t refuse. Maybe CC should have called his bluff and named him in a match day squad? Mind I think Jack has a lot to answer for - he’s meant to be a pro but he’s behaving like a spoiled brat.
We can all keep looking for reasons, excuses, alibi's or whatever, but if he really wanted to play? He'd be playing.
Agree with that - end of the day he’s an unprofessional, spineless waste of space who’s been a complete flop.
Is he refusing to play or doing the bare minimum in training which leaves him out of contention? I think if we could sack him we would. Wouldn't surprise me if things were a little more grey and not as black and white as we think.
Sad reality is that “contract law” differs from employment law. He’s contracted to us for another year and a bit. Adam Johnson broke the law and lied to everyone except Maggie about it so the club were within their right by contractual law to terminate his contract. Rodwell hasn’t broken any laws we know of but is training even if he’s unwilling to play. Pretty sure his agent is telling the line of “he feels like he’d be victimised” or something as most on social media have stated they’d rather he dropped dead than played for us. He therefore has his “reason” for not wanting to play so he can sit and earn his millions with no consequences.
Can we please get back on track with this thread, which is supposed to be about takeovers. There is a separate thread for that arsehole Rodwell and surely one is quite enough. I see new comments on here and think that there is news about our much needed takeover only to be disappointed to see that were still talking about the worst player ever to wear the shirt of our once great club. Just saying..........