[Kosh]

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:40 am  

Standee wrote:

and that doesn't surprise me in the slightest

Never had you down as an unrealistically sentimental optimist.

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:00 pm  

Kosh wrote:

I was more amused at the idea that anyone would think that two professional RL players with no links to the area would care about the club any more than was required by their job. On the one hand we have people banging on about how the club needs to operate with less sentiment and on the other we apparently expect pro players to 'care' about the club.

Both Long and Gleeson have fulfilled their contractual obligations and when on the pitch have put in the required effort. Judging by Long's Twitter feed he still follows us, wants us to win, and respects his team-mates. Not sure what else people expect TBH.

I totally agree although I would expect all members of the squad to attend every first team game home and away unless they have a very good reason not to. I'm pretty sure that this is not always the case.

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:06 pm  

Kosh wrote:

I was more amused at the idea that anyone would think that two professional RL players with no links to the area would care about the club any more than was required by their job. On the one hand we have people banging on about how the club needs to operate with less sentiment and on the other we apparently expect pro players to 'care' about the club.

Both Long and Gleeson have fulfilled their contractual obligations and when on the pitch have put in the required effort. Judging by Long's Twitter feed he still follows us, wants us to win, and respects his team-mates. Not sure what else people expect TBH.

I'm sorry but how has Gleeson fulfilled his contractual obligations??

[Kosh]

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:18 pm  

VerbalKint wrote:

I'm sorry but how has Gleeson fulfilled his contractual obligations??

By training and playing while fit to do so. In what way do you think he's failed to fulfil them, and why do you imagine he's still an employee if he hasn't?

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:27 pm  

Kosh wrote:

By training and playing while fit to do so. In what way do you think he's failed to fulfil them, and why do you imagine he's still an employee if he hasn't?

Because in today's PC world you can't question mental illness, the degree to which someone might be mentally ill or their capacity to work while mentally ill. While I have no idea what Gleeson's situation is the club are not helping by saying at first its a stress related illness then calling it compassionate leave, these are two completely different things.

I just hope the club are regularly in contact with him, have taken their own medical advice and have set a timetable for his treatment and return to work. People are saying that we should treat mental illness like physical illness, well if he had a broken leg he would have a treatment schedule and a timetable to return.

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:38 pm  

Kosh wrote:

By training and playing while fit to do so. In what way do you think he's failed to fulfil them, and why do you imagine he's still an employee if he hasn't?

My point about Long was that , OK he's not the captain now but he was employed as a leader and his off the field influence was bigged up almost as much as what he was going to do on it. That being the case his duties in my view are wider than just the average squad player. One imagines he hasn't taken a pay cut whilst unable to play so why aren't we as an organisation making the best out of a bad job and using his influence , experience etc. I'm not blaming him or expecting him to suddenly have become a dyed in the wool FC supporter but I do think we should have used his time and our money better. Either we've just not bothered or his contract didn't reflect the role spun to us and he's working to the letter of it.

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:49 pm  

ChrisH wrote:

My point about Long was that , OK he's not the captain now but he was employed as a leader and his off the field influence was bigged up almost as much as what he was going to do on it. That being the case his duties in my view are wider than just the average squad player. One imagines he hasn't taken a pay cut whilst unable to play so why aren't we as an organisation making the best out of a bad job and using his influence , experience etc. I'm not blaming him or expecting him to suddenly have become a dyed in the wool FC supporter but I do think we should have used his time and our money better. Either we've just not bothered or his contract didn't reflect the role spun to us and he's working to the letter of it.

Is it possible that a decision has already been made that he's not getting a new contract and as he won't be playing again this season he's been told its not necessary for him to attend work?

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:53 pm  

Nobeerineasthull wrote:

Is it possible that a decision has already been made that he's not getting a new contract and as he won't be playing again this season he's been told its not necessary for him to attend work?

he is still getting paid, he should be attending work.

he was bad news from the minute we signed him, and has only heaped more troubles on the club.

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:58 pm  

Standee wrote:

he is still getting paid, he should be attending work.

he was bad news from the minute we signed him, and has only heaped more troubles on the club.

Aren't those two sentences a bit contradictory? If he's bad news, why do you want him turning up for work?

I was merely hypothosising that if he's going he could in effect be on garden leave and that, for whatever reason, the club dont want him around on a day to day basis.

Re: Gleeson : Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:03 pm  

Standee wrote:

he is still getting paid, he should be attending work.

he was bad news from the minute we signed him, and has only heaped more troubles on the club.

So he should be attending work while on compassonaite/sick leave????/

I was off for 12 weeks last yr and on full pay and was told to keep away from work.....wheres the difference?