Comment deleted by Site Moderator
He didnt refuse to play, he told Simon that he was not match fit due to lack of pre-season HENCE why his performances were below par. He was sick of getting booed off due to underwhelming performances, brought about by his situation. Grayson told him he was not happy with this request and mugged him off!
I understand at the beginning of season he wasn't fit and it showed. But he had been fit for weeks (but not selected) when played against Leceister, then didn't want to be considered against Burnley. Didn't want to be selected, is this more acurate Mike? Still why should my money be used to pay him?
I heard he was due to get married, but his fiance called it off. He asked for some time off training to sort thing out, which SG gave him, as a result he became unfit, when SG played him unfit, he played badly and got booed. AOB blamed SG for his poor performances, and booing from fans due to SG playing him unfit.
As for getting rid, Bates said a player was due to leave, but it relied upon the other club getting rid of one of their players, which didn't happen, therefore the deal fell through, perhaps this was AOB
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Proud if you're account is right, AOB has no beef
with SG. If as a manager, he cared enough about
AOB to give him time off, then AOB has no right
to throw Grayson under the bus. In my opinion.
I agree, we need shut.
Bates has every right to be upset on this one.
Mike,I very much doubt you have any proof of that and as Grayson said on lutv that AOB did not want to play for club again I doubt leeds would have to pay him anything.AOB would have put his side across in papers if what Grayson had said publicly was not true.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
completely agree lufc batty, SG allowed him time off, you don't thank him by acting like he has done
That's a lot of money for doing nowt.
Where can I sign up for that gig?
Players have all the power. Look at Tevez at Man City on £200k a week to spend time at home whilst they try to get a move for him. O'Brien will be paid, and although it hasn't been announced, I think the max players usually are fined is 2 weeks wages if broke club/contract conditions due to PFA's stance in these matters.
I realize the club can't say too much. But, if this is true,
it would help SG and Bates' cause if it came out.
Cas, is it true that AOB is the fly in the ointment
in the dressing room also? The instigator.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
If he refuses to play, he isn't untitled to get paid and wouldn't get paid
But it's not has straight forward has that and thats why he's still getting paid
As Cas said originally, that's a lot of dead money we could be throwing at someone who could actually defend, and pass, maybe head it a bit, or even score the odd goal.
AoB is not refusing to play, he refused to play against Burnley for personal reasons, Grayson then said he would never play for the club again.
It is Grayson that refuses to play him, not the other way around. And I still think he has lost the dressing room.
If AOB has said he won't ever play for the club again, the club would be in it's right to sack.
The fact they havent suggests that's not the case
In this day and age, AOB could've robbed Ken at
knifepoint and still have the player's union defending
his right to do so. So, who knows what the truth is?
Either way, a player on a significant wage, is not playing games....down the drain.
The PFA defend players and I understand this. But players can be in disagreement with clubs and I bet if we tried to sack him he'd look to have his full contract paid. Problem is he could have stated he wasn't mentally fit to play in the game due to the abuse he got from fans. SG has now refused to pick him. On this basis he will be getting paid as long as he turns up to train and meet any other obiligations.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I bet it's safe to say Ken and Simon wish Cardiff
had upped their offer and he'd been their headache.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Someone tell me realistically,Who else would be desperate to sign the old cart horse?
Sign in if you want to comment
When will we get rid of O'Brien??
Page 1 of 2
posted on 14/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/1/12
He didnt refuse to play, he told Simon that he was not match fit due to lack of pre-season HENCE why his performances were below par. He was sick of getting booed off due to underwhelming performances, brought about by his situation. Grayson told him he was not happy with this request and mugged him off!
posted on 14/1/12
I understand at the beginning of season he wasn't fit and it showed. But he had been fit for weeks (but not selected) when played against Leceister, then didn't want to be considered against Burnley. Didn't want to be selected, is this more acurate Mike? Still why should my money be used to pay him?
posted on 14/1/12
I heard he was due to get married, but his fiance called it off. He asked for some time off training to sort thing out, which SG gave him, as a result he became unfit, when SG played him unfit, he played badly and got booed. AOB blamed SG for his poor performances, and booing from fans due to SG playing him unfit.
As for getting rid, Bates said a player was due to leave, but it relied upon the other club getting rid of one of their players, which didn't happen, therefore the deal fell through, perhaps this was AOB
posted on 14/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/1/12
Proud if you're account is right, AOB has no beef
with SG. If as a manager, he cared enough about
AOB to give him time off, then AOB has no right
to throw Grayson under the bus. In my opinion.
I agree, we need shut.
Bates has every right to be upset on this one.
posted on 14/1/12
Mike,I very much doubt you have any proof of that and as Grayson said on lutv that AOB did not want to play for club again I doubt leeds would have to pay him anything.AOB would have put his side across in papers if what Grayson had said publicly was not true.
posted on 14/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/1/12
completely agree lufc batty, SG allowed him time off, you don't thank him by acting like he has done
posted on 14/1/12
That's a lot of money for doing nowt.
Where can I sign up for that gig?
posted on 14/1/12
Players have all the power. Look at Tevez at Man City on £200k a week to spend time at home whilst they try to get a move for him. O'Brien will be paid, and although it hasn't been announced, I think the max players usually are fined is 2 weeks wages if broke club/contract conditions due to PFA's stance in these matters.
posted on 14/1/12
I realize the club can't say too much. But, if this is true,
it would help SG and Bates' cause if it came out.
posted on 14/1/12
Cas, is it true that AOB is the fly in the ointment
in the dressing room also? The instigator.
posted on 14/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/1/12
If he refuses to play, he isn't untitled to get paid and wouldn't get paid
But it's not has straight forward has that and thats why he's still getting paid
posted on 14/1/12
As Cas said originally, that's a lot of dead money we could be throwing at someone who could actually defend, and pass, maybe head it a bit, or even score the odd goal.
posted on 14/1/12
AoB is not refusing to play, he refused to play against Burnley for personal reasons, Grayson then said he would never play for the club again.
It is Grayson that refuses to play him, not the other way around. And I still think he has lost the dressing room.
posted on 14/1/12
If AOB has said he won't ever play for the club again, the club would be in it's right to sack.
The fact they havent suggests that's not the case
posted on 14/1/12
In this day and age, AOB could've robbed Ken at
knifepoint and still have the player's union defending
his right to do so. So, who knows what the truth is?
posted on 14/1/12
Either way, a player on a significant wage, is not playing games....down the drain.
posted on 14/1/12
The PFA defend players and I understand this. But players can be in disagreement with clubs and I bet if we tried to sack him he'd look to have his full contract paid. Problem is he could have stated he wasn't mentally fit to play in the game due to the abuse he got from fans. SG has now refused to pick him. On this basis he will be getting paid as long as he turns up to train and meet any other obiligations.
posted on 14/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/1/12
I bet it's safe to say Ken and Simon wish Cardiff
had upped their offer and he'd been their headache.
posted on 14/1/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/1/12
Someone tell me realistically,Who else would be desperate to sign the old cart horse?
Page 1 of 2