Coventry avoid squad crisis.... (2 Viewers)

[Nonleagueherewecome]

It's exactly how I was treated along with a few select others - you just put up and shut up in reality.

I didn't in a previous job, myself and 3 colleagues went elsewhere. I suppose it depends how much you like/tolerate your job.

 

---

[skyblueman]

Not necessarily, it would be down to the player to prove they weren't being played for that reason.

Constructive dismissal would be allowing the player to play but then refusing to play his bonus.

An employer must not, without reasonable or proper cause, conduct himself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and the employee

 

[Grendel]

An employer must not, without reasonable or proper cause, conduct himself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and the employee

I don't know what kind of bubble you live in but these sort of conversations happen every day in work places.

Employees usually can do very little. Yes they can take the employer to a tribunal but what does that actually achieve. It hardly makes that person an employment prospect for future companies.
The club has not bullied anyone the players have choices and they can move if they want. They have a very privileged lifestyle and get far more benefits than most. They are paid more than management, they dictate terms when their contracts diminish and if they like they can sit around all season do nothing and get paid.

 

[Grendel]

I didn't in a previous job, myself and 3 colleagues went elsewhere. I suppose it depends how much you like/tolerate your job.

Or be prepared to look long term. It's in a far healthier financial position now, rewards and benefits have been re-instated and increased.

 

[skyblueman]

Firmly in the real world Grendel - been dealing with this sort of thing for years in manufacturing businesses and you just can't treat employees like this - YES they are on a lot of money - they all are - but they were employed under a specific contract - the only thing I object to is the notion that they are being pressured into signing a new contract with different and less favourable terms - NO they cannot just move if they want - the club does not have to agree to sell them and if they left of their own accord they could be sued by the club for breach of contract - that's my only gripe here

 

[Grendel]

One of the people who leaked this said they would be placed on the transfer list. The truth is for most of these players they know that they are likely to still be better off with us.
The club is in financial strife and the players will have been presented with options and the option the club is proposing is fair in terms of the wage structure it is working to.

 

[skyblueman]

One of the people who leaked this said they would be placed on the transfer list. The truth is for most of these players they know that they are likely to still be better off with us.
The club is in financial strife and the players will have been presented with options and the option the club is proposing is fair in terms of the wage structure it is working to.

But wasn't the club in a bigger financial mess when they agreed these original contracts? The debt was still massive then and the wages bill bigger than the turnover - never mind the running costs rent etc. I think the only difference now is SISU have decided they do not want to fund the clubs losses since the relegation as they are now so far away from their original goal of getting us into the Premiership so they could sell us on for a tidy profit.

 

[Astute]

About 7 years ago I was told I was in for a paycut of just under 8k a year or I could take redundancy. I applied for redundancy as they were offering me nearly 40k to go and I could walk into a job paying just under what my new wage would be. They thhen offered me more money to stay All of it was within the law.
I then about a year later got a better paid job within the same company. All was well. but last year the terms of our final salary pension was changed. To change present contracted terms they needed to give a consultational period of 90 days. There was nothing we could do but go on strike. We have had to take it on the chin, leave or even do a different pension that all new starters have had since 1997. Nothing illegal done again, although when I signed a contract and the pension was part of it.

Could a player prove he wasn't playing as he would be due money for playing? Would it make any difference? Has he got it in his contract that he must play if fit?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

If you refused to play a player who refused to sign a contract on different terms to the one they already had that would be unfair

It wouldn't be 'unfair' playing a player who is willing to fight for the cause (winning) than a player who thinks he deserves to get paid for turning up, even if he performs poorly.

Personally, I think this would motivate the players more, they know if they win, they'll get just as much (maybe more) if they win, and get promoted, they'd earn more money etc.

To people who talk of the timing: This was around the Wrexham game they announced this which was over 3 weeks ago and only got to the press yesterday.

On the morale issue, a lot of our Starting XI are new signings so they know what's what and shouldn't have signed up if they disagreed with the club.

If the 4 are Murphy, Mcca, Clarke, Baker... Murphy, I do rate him, but Dunn is an able replacement, Mcca, replaceable, and he should sign as he is a Cov lad etc., Clarke would be a bitter blow but I think he'll sign + atleast Christie can replace and Baker, I can't see him starting and if he left and got replaced, I wouldn't be too fussed (I do think he could do well though)

I think people are making a mountain of a molehill out of this.