|
Post by Padz on Nov 6, 2018 12:48:53 GMT
If it was happening higher up the pyramid it would go down as the player being 'tapped up' , Hemel, even if you don't factor in the Deeney element have said to Rob we want to sign you, Rob has then had his contract terminated under some false pretences to then go and sign for Hemel, costing them absolutely nothing.
It's bullshit to put it bluntly, and i'm sure Jonah is not just feeling annoyed but also betrayed by the whole deal
|
|
|
Post by toocoulson4schoolson on Nov 6, 2018 13:15:30 GMT
I still don't think we can claim he left under false pretences.
"A change in personal circumstances for Rob has meant that committing to travelling to the club at least three times a week from his home in Bedford has become too much"
Bedford to Hemel is literally half the trip that Bedford to Oxford is. The move halves his travel - probably saving him 3 or 4 hours a week on the road.
"...especially with his new-born child and his recently opened business."
Reclaiming 3 or 4 hours a week might not seem a lot until you spend it with your newborn kid. Getting back home from training almost an hour earlier on a Tuesday night would feel like getting half your day back.
Nothing that he has said is contradicted by this move. If he had said he was quitting the game I would understand but people want to call him dishonest when he hasn't told a single lie.
Sure, it may well have been pre-arranged to a degree, but do you honestly think the move would have happened if we were demanding a fee? Rob has always come across as a good professional and all he has done wrong is decide to put his family ahead of a club that he owes nothing.
Players having to manage a balance between work, family, and football is a fact of life at this level. Plenty of players make moves to be closer/stay close to home and that benefits us as often as it costs us.
|
|
|
Post by OWHH on Nov 6, 2018 16:59:29 GMT
I certainly don't claim he left under false pretenses. His reason may be absolutely spot on, and Deany trying to better himself. However, as I've said, I do hope there was no clause violated. Mutual consent as has been stated before, May or maynot have strings attached. If there isn't any we need to have a look at our procedures in future. If you don't,you may end up with a number of players swaning off and joining the good old Tudors midseason, or whoever takes their fancy leaving us in the crapper.
Sad really..
|
|
|
Post by Rijs on Nov 6, 2018 22:30:10 GMT
I think we learnt more about the circumstances from the interview Jonah gave at Hampton on Saturday than from the carefully-worded club statement on the website on Friday. The clear implication was that Sinclair couldn't go on and wasn't willing to go on. If he has said it's just the travel, Jonah or the board could say they release him from the expectation that he'll train and play during the next few months. He could take a break as plenty of others have (including Luke Ruddick just recently). He could also be put on the transfer list. But if another team signs him without a fee, he is in breach of contract. I agree with OWHH that if players can just walk away with no penalty whenever it suits them, the whole system breaks down, to the detriment of the clubs. Contracts then become worthless and trust ebbs away.
Of course, if the player has been absolutely upfront and honest, and the manager just agrees to it, then fair enough: City are to blame, if blame is the right word, for the loss of their own income. But given the circumstances and the way it has been described, not to mention our heavy debts, I doubt very much that Jonah consciously let him go for no fee. I would think he does indeed feel betrayed when he reads, the next working day after the departure for personal reasons is announced, that his player has signed for his ex-assistant. The whole thing smells very bad.
|
|