Wheater

[peanuts2]

Another deppressing embaresing shit show from our spitefull childish owners one suspects this is not the first nor will it be the last time they used this method to push people out .once proud family club dragged even further through the mire .#Abdallahout 

[BJBlue]

17 minutes ago, League one forever said:

That’s not quite right. 
 

The government would pay 80% up-to £2500 a month on furlough, with the club paying the further 20%. 

 

The club said that’s what would happen. Then they changed their mind and said they wouldn’t pay the top up. (How did they get away with that??) DW said then we were told their wage would be cut by 70%, but that can’t be right. He is missing his 20% from the club, and quite rightly would be pissed. But the other 50% can only be because his wage far superior seeded the maximum monthly allowance. Which he has no right to whinge about, and the club with no money coming in have no obligation to pay. So to be honest-  you can see both sides. 
 

Having said that- his treatment after the initial disagreement is a disgrace. 
 

 

You're right that he shouldn't whinge when he's on stupid money but I think whether you are on £500 a week or £5000 a week, you have every right to object to being told you will be taking a steep paycut. I don't think I'd say he's whinged about it. The club had every right to offer what they did (although it's not good that they initially told them it would only be 20%) and he had every right to not be happy with it. As you say, it's what happened after that wasn't OK. 

[nzlatic]

Probably the least important part of the story is what caused the dispute. The important bits are the failure to even attempt to resolve the dispute, the lying to the fans and the cruel and spiteful treatment of the club captain. 
 

This isn’t an isolated incident and this behaviour is the main cause for us languishing at the bottom of the football league with season ticket sales through the floor. 
 

All those “at the top” need to go if this club is ever going to recover. An absolute disgrace. 

[League one forever]

13 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

Probably the least important part of the story is what caused the dispute. The important bits are the failure to even attempt to resolve the dispute, the lying to the fans and the cruel and spiteful treatment of the club captain. 
 

This isn’t an isolated incident and this behaviour is the main cause for us languishing at the bottom of the football league with season ticket sales through the floor. 
 

All those “at the top” need to go if this club is ever going to recover. An absolute disgrace. 

Come off it NZ,

 

The dispute provides the whole context, how on earth can you say what caused it isn’t that important. Is where the ill feeling began, everything that followed was a consequence of it. 
 

Rightly or wrongly lots of other players agreed to what the club did/proposed, is Wheater a special case that should be treated differently to the rest of the squad at that time? Of all the players, it’s fair to assume he had the broadest shoulders to burden any furlough cuts, but he didn’t want to and/or felt aggrieved. 
 

There is very little to defend about the club these days, but on this matter alone. I can understand why the club felt aggrieved- (that doesn’t excuse their subsequent behaviour by the way) 

[al_bro]

KE told him that AL wanted an amicable conclusion (I think when they offered to pay him off) and offered him the next manager's job!! He didn't want it (I wonder why).

 

From his calculation, he wasn't really on silly money for a player of his standing. £2k a week is about 70%, as the maximum furlough payment was £2.5k a month. 

[Dave_Og]

1 hour ago, Oldham82 said:

He gone wont be back cannot even be bothered to listen to it, move on people forget him

It's nothing to do with him - we know there'll be another one along at some stage

[Dave_Og]

32 minutes ago, League one forever said:

Of all the players, it’s fair to assume he had the broadest shoulders to burden any furlough cuts, but he didn’t want to and/or felt aggrieved. 
 

 

 

No, that's not fair at all unless you have full list of each of their commitments

[nzlatic]

41 minutes ago, League one forever said:

Come off it NZ,

 

The dispute provides the whole context, how on earth can you say what caused it isn’t that important. Is where the ill feeling began, everything that followed was a consequence of it. 
 

Rightly or wrongly lots of other players agreed to what the club did/proposed, is Wheater a special case that should be treated differently to the rest of the squad at that time? Of all the players, it’s fair to assume he had the broadest shoulders to burden any furlough cuts, but he didn’t want to and/or felt aggrieved. 
 

There is very little to defend about the club these days, but on this matter alone. I can understand why the club felt aggrieved- (that doesn’t excuse their subsequent behaviour by the way) 

For me it’s only relevant if you’re looking to justify the actions of the club. I think they’re unjustifiable. All I’m looking at is how the club handled the situation with David Wheater, and they handled it in a similar way to many previous senior players who it seems AL didn’t fancy paying wages to any more. 

 

Disputes in business are common but there appears to be no serious attempt here by the club to resolve this dispute, just their standard practice of treating someone like shit in the hope they walk away or take a pay off. In the process they took the fans for mugs too, again standard practice by them. 
 

Wheater will be one of many in the lower leagues on that sort of money, has this happened to any other player at any other club?

[League one forever]

19 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

No, that's not fair at all unless you have full list of each of their commitments

Nah, sorry Dave. Comparing you’re top  earner and captain with a kid or squad filler isn’t the same. It’s quite naive.  Someone on more money should be able to handle things better than someone who is on a lot less. In fact, one may argue you could be looking at captain to lead on this, but sadly not. 

[al_bro]

24 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

 

No, that's not fair at all unless you have full list of each of their commitments

True. All the belittling was affecting him mentally (his doctor gave him something to help him sleep and feel happy). It was also affecting his family and parents, who were worried about him.

[League one forever]

11 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

For me it’s only relevant if you’re looking to justify the actions of the club. I think they’re unjustifiable. All I’m looking at is how the club handled the situation with David Wheater, and they handled it in a similar way to many previous senior players who it seems AL didn’t fancy paying wages to any more. 

 

Disputes in business are common but there appears to be no serious attempt here by the club to resolve this dispute, just their standard practice of treating someone like shit in the hope they walk away or take a pay off. In the process they took the fans for mugs too, again standard practice by them. 
 

Wheater will be one of many in the lower leagues on that sort of money, has this happened to any other player at any other club?

I’m not looking to justify any actions of the clubs. I’ve said twice the treatment after is disgrace. 
 

Why are you looking to absolve Wheater of any blame in the original dispute?

 

Whose wages did AL just stop paying because he fancied it??  He engineered moves away yes, but didn’t just stop paying- he would of been taken to court- and lost.

 

It looks like he pulled paying 20% of the top up, but that was to everyone not just Wheater. The further reductions weren’t AL just not paying, he was doing what he what he is legally entitled to do and placing his players on fulough, and because of high football wages it would of been a big cut for a lot of them. The majority saw that, and while it was kick in the teeth they accepted it and moved on. Wheater didn’t. 
 

Player v club disputes happen all the time at clubs up and down the country. The only exclusive thing at thing at Latics, is happens more regularly. 

[al_bro]

4 minutes ago, League one forever said:

Nah, sorry Dave. Comparing you’re top  earner and captain with a kid or squad filler isn’t the same. It’s quite naive.  Someone on more money should be able to handle things better than someone who is on a lot less. In fact, one may argue you could be looking at captain to lead on this, but sadly not. 

He must have been on far more earlier in his career and no doubt well paid at Bolton. Therefore he had already taken a sizeable pay cut when he joined us. Had everything been handled properly he would probably have accepted it.

[League one forever]

Just now, al_bro said:

He must have been on far more earlier in his career and no doubt well paid at Bolton. Therefore he had already taken a sizeable pay cut when he joined us. Had everything been handled properly he would probably have accepted it.

He wasn’t on his own AL, they didn’t make his case unique. All the squad faced the same terms. Why can some see the bigger picture and accept it. (However hard at the time) and others think it’s unfair and go to the PFA? Which I haven’t heard any action being brought on the club by the way. . 

[Pidge]

7 minutes ago, League one forever said:

Nah, sorry Dave. Comparing you’re top  earner and captain with a kid or squad filler isn’t the same. It’s quite naive.  Someone on more money should be able to handle things better than someone who is on a lot less. In fact, one may argue you could be looking at captain to lead on this, but sadly not. 

Actually Dave is right.  With a bigger wage comes bigger commitments. Eg bigger car payment, bigger mortgage maybe private school fees etc. The “kid or squad filler” will be furloughed on his full income if the club tops up 20%. So no liability’s. But captain is now having to find possibly thousands a month out of savings etc. Not easy

[nzlatic]

7 minutes ago, League one forever said:

I’m not looking to justify any actions of the clubs. I’ve said twice the treatment after is disgrace. 
 

Why are you looking to absolve Wheater of any blame in the original dispute?

 

Whose wages did AL just stop paying because he fancied it??  He engineered moves away yes, but didn’t just stop paying- he would of been taken to court- and lost.

 

It looks like he pulled paying 20% of the top up, but that was to everyone not just Wheater. The further reductions weren’t AL just not paying, he was doing what he what he is legally entitled to do and placing his players on fulough, and because of high football wages it would of been a big cut for a lot of them. The majority saw that, and while it was kick in the teeth they accepted it and moved on. Wheater didn’t. 
 

Player v club disputes happen all the time at clubs up and down the country. The only exclusive thing at thing at Latics, is happens more regularly. 

I’m not passing judgment on what Wheater did. I don’t care what he did or whether he was right or wrong. I’m looking at what the club did about it, and they acted like complete wankers. Again. It’s what they do and it’s why we are where we are.

[Dave_Og]

16 minutes ago, League one forever said:

Nah, sorry Dave. Comparing you’re top  earner and captain with a kid or squad filler isn’t the same. It’s quite naive.  Someone on more money should be able to handle things better than someone who is on a lot less. In fact, one may argue you could be looking at captain to lead on this, but sadly not. 

You could argue it might affect a kid less as they probably don't have a mortgage, commitments related to their children etc.  No logic at all to thinking that just because someone is ten years or so older it's easier for them.

[Dave_Og]

10 minutes ago, League one forever said:

I’m not looking to justify any actions of the clubs. I’ve said twice the treatment after is disgrace. 
 

Why are you looking to absolve Wheater of any blame in the original dispute?

 

Whose wages did AL just stop paying because he fancied it??  He engineered moves away yes, but didn’t just stop paying- he would of been taken to court- and lost.

 

It looks like he pulled paying 20% of the top up, but that was to everyone not just Wheater. The further reductions weren’t AL just not paying, he was doing what he what he is legally entitled to do and placing his players on fulough, and because of high football wages it would of been a big cut for a lot of them. The majority saw that, and while it was kick in the teeth they accepted it and moved on. Wheater didn’t. 
 

Player v club disputes happen all the time at clubs up and down the country. The only exclusive thing at thing at Latics, is happens more regularly. 

Key words highlighted - can't make conclusions without knowledge

[nzlatic]

If I had to take that sort of %age pay cut now I’d have to sell my house. 
 

If the same happened when I was 20 I’d probably have to chose whether to go out on the piss on Friday or Saturday rather than both. 

[GlossopLatic]

15 minutes ago, League one forever said:

Nah, sorry Dave. Comparing you’re top  earner and captain with a kid or squad filler isn’t the same. It’s quite naive.  Someone on more money should be able to handle things better than someone who is on a lot less. In fact, one may argue you could be looking at captain to lead on this, but sadly not. 

 

If you can't compare the top earner with a kid you can't compare an 18 year old who lives with his parents with a 30 year old with a wife children and a mortgage.

 

The fault here lies 100% with Lemsagams who yet again show a complete lack of class or brains to deal with anything.

[GlossopLatic]

3 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

If I had to take that sort of %age pay cut now I’d have to sell my house. 
 

If the same happened when I was 20 I’d probably have to chose whether to go out on the piss on Friday or Saturday rather than both. 

 

Absolutely the assumption being made that just because he's the top earner he should just accept its nonsensical.

 

Even so Lemsagams should have atleast tried to come to compromise they didn't because that would require brain cells. 

[nzlatic]

3 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

Absolutely the assumption being made that just because he's the top earner he should just accept its nonsensical.

 

Even so Lemsagams should have atleast tried to come to compromise they didn't because that would require brain cells. 

That’s it. A compromise would almost certainly have been possible. Just like the situation with the Joe Royle stand. They’re incapable because they’re useless but also they’re petty and spiteful. Disastrous combination. 

[League one forever]

I honestly don’t know what you are all talking about. 
 

AL. Did. Not. Cut. ANYONES. Wages.

 

He placed his squad on furlough as he was perfectly entitled to do, which meant they had to take a cut on their wages because of their relatively high wages. A lot accepted it, a few didn’t.

 

Why? 
 

Was AL unfair when there is no coming in to place them on furlough? 

 

The inability for people to accept some balance is staggering.  For clarity, the owners are a disgrace. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to debate things, without it always being seen through that prism. 

[League one forever]

14 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Key words highlighted - can't make conclusions without knowledge

I was going off what Wheater said on the radio. 

[League one forever]

17 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

I’m not passing judgment on what Wheater did. I don’t care what he did or whether he was right or wrong. I’m looking at what the club did about it, and they acted like complete wankers. Again. It’s what they do and it’s why we are where we are.

 

I’m genuinely shocked by that post from someone as balanced as you normally are. Or at least able to see another view. 
 

I don’t care what A did, it’s all B fault.

 

 

 

 

[nzlatic]

4 minutes ago, League one forever said:

I honestly don’t know what you are all talking about. 
 

AL. Did. Not. Cut. ANYONES. Wages.

 

He placed his squad on furlough as he was perfectly entitled to do, which meant they had to take a cut on their wages because of their relatively high wages. A lot accepted it, a few didn’t.

 

Why? 
 

Was AL unfair when there is no coming in to place them on furlough? 

 

The inability for people to accept some balance is staggering.  For clarity, the owners are a disgrace. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to debate things, without it always being seen through that prism. 

You’re missing the point. The dispute starts when AL says wheater will be topped up then changes his mind and Wheater says he doesn’t accept it. My issue is with what the club does AFTER this.