you don't either, but don't let that stop you from pulling down the club/players, No one expects anything less from you.
I recall a similar amount of abuse / concern for Ryan Williams when he had injury problems, but he recovered sufficiently to be a regular in the Rotherham side last year to gain promotion out of the 1st division, not sure if he has made the side regularly this year or not, but I dont think he is injured. Perhaps some players have a run of bad luck, which they eventually get over and contribute well to the team. Perhaps we should have stuck with Ryan longer instead of 'cutting our losses'
Spot on. I think we all want Woodrow in the team, as we are lacking a bit of pace up front. All managers are a bit coy about injuries, but clearly the Woodrow situation has become a bit of a standing joke, with him constantly being 2 weeks away. We were all delighted when Isgrove signed for us, but we've hardly seen him due to injury & when we have he's been a disappointment. Memories of Chris Lumsden...
I just find it laughable that people would defend privileged footballers to the point where they turn them into victims. Lloyd Isgrove is not a victim. He's a very lucky boy to have a job that pays him so well for so little - regardless of attendance or performance. As I say, in the real world people with cancer can be legally dismissed.
This is the real world, he's not a character in a book or movie. He chose and worked hard enough to be good at a career that would offer him those benefits if needed and he now needs it. I don't believe in dragging people down to the lowest common denominator. Fine, be angry that people working in other jobs who get cancer are treated like that but they aren't getting that sick pay whether Lloyd does or not. Put your effort and anger into getting justice for them, not trying to turn people against someone getting what his contract says he is due.
That's of course true but I think in this case the difference is that a footballer is working in an industry where there's a high likelihood that at some point he will get injured. It happens all the time. It's difficult to comment further because I don't know the nature of Lloyd Isgrove's injuries, but it would be morally totally unfair to dismiss him on capability grounds if he had been injured in the course of doing his job. Regardless of what the law says. I for one think he's a very good player, when fit, and I hope he is back playing soon.
Utter ***** that, Conan. It has nothing to do with cancer patients or what "real world people" get paid. I'm not defending him because there's nothing to defend in the first place: he's not shirking responsibility or slacking off, he's injured. Some players are more prone to injuries than others. It's the same in any sport at any level and I can only imagine he'd much rather be playing every week. I ask again, what do you expect him to do? What would you do in his position? I agree that if he can't get back to full fitness then the club should be letting him go at the earliest opportunity. What I don't agree with is your bitter dislike of him as a professional for reasons out of his control.
It would be catastrophic for an employer to sack someone for a cancer that was caused by doing the work for the company wouldn’t you say.
Imagine this crazy scenario. Isgrove gets fit for the new year and injects a serious amount of pace into the team at a crucial part of the season and therefor contributes to the club being promoted. At the same time, our other injured players get fit and provide healthy competition throughout the squad. This on top of an already top 3 squad and another transfer window to come with funds available. I’m not ready for slitting my wrists quite just yet if it’s all the same.
I like your optimism & that might happen. Isgrove needs to prove he is worthy of a place. When he signed he would have been straight on the team sheet. Now he needs to work, as other players have the shirt.
I thought we did have experts in sports science at the club? Hedges had a fractured cheekbone at one part and pinnock broke his toe in training after he got motm v Preston scored against reading to earn us a point and the scored the winner at Sunderland then got injured. I don't know about the rest but those 2 injurys are just unlucky and unavoidable. People taking the piss out of Woodrow would be the 1st ones moaning if he was rushed back and aggravated the same injury.
How much does someone have to earn that they're no longer worthy of sympathy? 20k? 30k? 50k? 100k? Someone at our place went off for nearly a year for medical reasons. He must have been on 52k ish. He still got paid in full. It's the right thing to do. Was I wrong for wishing him well? If a Google employee passes away while employed, Google pays the spouse or partner of the deceased 50% of their salary for the next 10 years, plus $1000 per month to each child under 19 (23 if a full-time student). Idiots, they should just cut their losses.
People like your mate take as much as they can for as long as they can. He's basically taken the piss out of everyone.
He got a year's sick pay? Did he own the company or summat? I have never heard of anyone getting that much sick pay. Google's turnover is more than most football club's. I think they can afford it.
It's not all that uncommon in Tech companies. Good people are hard to come by, it works out better for everyone for the company to lose the 50ish k and have a good employee come back to work after the absence. It's an American company, so they save a fortune on employing us over here, anyway, due to not having to pay the fortune they spend on medical/dental/vision insurance, a 401k and other benefits like gym membership etc. for the US employees.