SPA Players Unhappy

Not trying to be a WUM, but can someone explain why the Pats players holding the club to ransom this week are not very nice people and the PFAI are accused of sinking low, but when it comes to Galway United, it is the club that is scum and the players and PFAI are dead right to hold the club to ransom? It seems to me that in both instances, the clubs just don't have the cash. Yes I know one is in relaiton to bonuses and the other is simple wages, but if the cash is not there, the cash is not there - Pats players slammed for not putting interests of club first, but United players praised for the same thing

Your dead right WB. A lot of sheep here just going with the flow.

From what I can make out, players have lost earnings due to taking time off work for euro trips. Playing football part time should not cost you money. All clubs (not just SPA) should have agreements in place to cover this scenario. And Pats should cough up here.

As for the cancelled holidays issue, I think the fault lies with the FAI. The mid-season break should not come during the European dates, it should be earlier. But the Super Cup took priority I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by WoodquayBoy

Not trying to be a WUM, but can someone explain why the Pats players holding the club to ransom this week are not very nice people and the PFAI are accused of sinking low, but when it comes to Galway United, it is the club that is scum and the players and PFAI are dead right to hold the club to ransom? It seems to me that in both instances, the clubs just don't have the cash.

I suppose Galway have signed contracts to give the players money and aren't paying (can't pay), whereas the Pat's players don't seem to have any contractual basis for demanding the money. Also, I don't think the Galway players threatened to boycott a game?

I don't think anyone's put Galway United out as scum though. Leeson maybe, but not the club.

Originally Posted by sullanefc

From what I can make out, players have lost earnings due to taking time off work for euro trips. Playing football part time should not cost you money. All clubs (not just SPA) should have agreements in place to cover this scenario. And Pats should cough up here.

Pats made an offer, the players rejected it. They had previously accepted the same offer for Iceland. It seems their argument is based on the round we played in, rather than the amount of money they lost. Not all players work either. They are also part of the 'compensation' claim

No one has ever said that the players shouldn't be compensated.

Originally Posted by SkStu

they could probably only sack them for breach of contract or something like that which would just compound the situation and is a lose/lose for Pats. There is no way they would be successful in a claim for damages against the players or something else in my opinion.

The simple fact of the matter is, as i stated not so long ago, the vast majority of players are absolute c**ts and the PFAI is willing to sink as low as necessary.

Being held to ransom is low. I feel sorry for all Pats fans in all this, except Dodge.

Players have to look after number 1 at the end of the day. The more noise they attracted the more likely they were going to get their way.

That aside, that last line is absoloutely class.

Originally Posted by Dodge

Pats made an offer, the players rejected it. They had previously accepted the same offer for Iceland. It seems their argument is based on the round we played in, rather than the amount of money they lost. Not all players work either. They are also part of the 'compensation' claim

No one has ever said that the players shouldn't be compensated.

But did they have to take extra time off for the long trip to Kazakhstan? The more time off, the more compensation, no?

No, they didn't have to take more time off. The amount requested was double that for Iceland (apparently)

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I suppose Galway have signed contracts to give the players money and aren't paying (can't pay), whereas the Pat's players don't seem to have any contractual basis for demanding the money. Also, I don't think the Galway players threatened to boycott a game?

I don't think anyone's put Galway United out as scum though. Leeson maybe, but not the club.

Not to boycott a game, but being held to ransom in a different way - next year's licence. And plenty of people have shot United down as a disgrace that shouldn't be allowed operate without understanding/recognising/accepting the difference between the organisation that got us into this mess, and the fan-run committee now working their backsides off to try and get us out of it

In fairness I don't remember anyone (bar the odd Sligo/Dundalk fan) being too criticial of Galway in anything but honoring contracts.

From memory it was practically unanimous in support for the new board, and against Leeson

Originally Posted by Dodge

No, they didn't have to take more time off. The amount requested was double that for Iceland (apparently)

Not sure about this bit. They have to leave a day earlier to get to Kazakhstan.

Originally Posted by sullanefc

Your dead right WB. A lot of sheep here just going with the flow.

From what I can make out, players have lost earnings due to taking time off work for euro trips. Playing football part time should not cost you money. All clubs (not just SPA) should have agreements in place to cover this scenario. And Pats should cough up here.

As for the cancelled holidays issue, I think the fault lies with the FAI. The mid-season break should not come during the European dates, it should be earlier. But the Super Cup took priority I'm afraid.

Sorry folks, but while I have sympathy for the players it is not that simple - SPA are not responsible for the draw (which - travel wise - was horrendous) so why are they more accountable than FAI (who nominated SPA as Irish representative). Secondly, there are two seperate issues here (1) legitimate out of pocket expenses incurred (which, surely noboby begrudges the players) and (2) a "new" bonus which was not part of their T&Cs. Very different issue in my view and a very different debate.

The fact is that there is no "standard" bonus scheme for european games, perhaps there should be but that should be addressed by the PFAI BEFORE the season begins (if their members want one) not by threatening to strike in the middle of a european tie.
Really, should not have to explain it but the difference between the SPA case and Galway is that GU are not honouring contracts they entered into with players which nobody has claimed is the case with SPA

Where is this at now? I thought we'd know by 10.00am ... is it still ongoing?

Originally Posted by A face

Where is this at now? I thought we'd know by 10.00am ... is it still ongoing?

Talks to continue this morning to try and (hopefully) resolve the matter.

Originally Posted by sullanefc

Not sure about this bit. They have to leave a day earlier to get to Kazakhstan.

But they arrived a day later (ie they had a day more in Iceland before the game)

Originally Posted by A face

Where is this at now? I thought we'd know by 10.00am ... is it still ongoing?

Neither the club, nor the PFAI mentioned anything about 10am. Only the PFAI's lawyer

From what I've been told a) an agreement has been reached, its being signed by chairman today and b) game was never in doubt

It's a completely different to Galway - it's not a question of honouring contracts. Only people who don't try and get to the facts of each case would even suggest that it's always PFAI bad, clubs good and vica versa. Not that I think the PFAI are particularly effective at representing their members best interests, as with every union the people in elected positions generally represent their members views (or else they wouldn't get elected!).

However, I'm a bit surprised that compensation for time off wasn't in the contracts. I believe it was an issue for us last season, with the number of Friday night away games (which lead to us switching to Friday nights in the last series). But it seems that waters have been muddied even on that, if some of the above posts are to believed. Maybe it would be right that compensation for losses, that can be verified, should be in the contract? That'd be reasonable for the PFAI to look for, imo, no matter how cackhanded they're going about it.

But that'd mean that the much vaunted 'standard PFAI contract' wasn't the panacea they tried to make out it was.

And in fairness to the PFAI, they've released one statement on this. Everything else is just conjecture by the lawyer (who although leaving his geo-tagged location on for his tweets showing him to be in Dublin 2, calimed he was out of the country on holidays). It'll all come out soon enough

Good news IF agreement has been reached. As I said previously this is far from unique circumstances and SHOULD have been raised by the PFAI before this.

Despite the PFAI affiliation to the biggest trade union in Ireland they appear incapable of any negotiation strategy apart from threat(s) and dragging issues through the media. Amazing that the FAI has not addressed this issue (PFAI tactics) and the negitive publicity it attracts to the LOI. Once again the actual match itself is secondary to an outside issue.

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Good news that agreement has been reached

To be clear, nobody has announced anything yet

Originally Posted by Dodge

But that'd mean that the much vaunted 'standard PFAI contract' wasn't the panacea they tried to make out it was

Who'd have thunk it!