do you think long term injured players should be paid in..

full ?

i.e if some one signs for a team and breaks his leg or has an extremely bad injury that keeps him out for a full season, should they still be paid in full ?

Yes. Just like everyone else gets sick pay.

of course they should

full ?

i.e if some one signs for a team and breaks his leg or has an extremely bad injury that keeps him out for a full season, should they still be paid in full ?

Yes.

Its a signed contract. Unless something stats in the contract that you wont be paid after so many months injuired or half pay etc. then that person should be paid in full.

i think they should but some people think why should they get paid 30,40,50 k upwards just to sit at home for a few months

Yes. Just like everyone else gets sick pay.

You don't necessarily get full pay long term though. 6 months full pay then statutory sick in my place.

Of course they fecking should if injury was sustained in work

You might have a good case if not sustained in work though.

I dont get full pay if I am on long term sick.

Yes

Yes. Just like everyone else gets sick pay.

You don't necessarily get full pay long term though. 6 months full pay then statutory sick in my place.

Very few injuries are longer than 6 months.

Not many jobs have such a high risk of injury either.

Yes. Just like everyone else gets sick pay.

You don't necessarily get full pay long term though. 6 months full pay then statutory sick in my place.

Very few injuries are longer than 6 months.

Not many jobs have such a high risk of injury either.

The question was about being out for a season though. Agree about the risk though but also that its all about the contract. Since when do football contracts mirror anything in the real world anyway.

As they say in the racing world a dog is only as good as its last race.
Eg pay a grand for a open class dog, next race he breaks a hock, tough same with horses but the better ones are usually insured, maybe that goes for football players to.

No.

They should get 75% if they earn over a certain amount/certain age which is enough for their needs and then 25% should go to grassroots football. This would be a fairer distribution to be honest.

Some will disagree but footballers who are on over £40,000 after tax should get £30,000 and £10,000 per week of their injury should go to grassroots. This would help the youth level so much.

No.

They should get 75% if they earn over a certain amount/certain age which is enough for their needs and then 25% should go to grassroots football. This would be a fairer distribution to be honest.

Some will disagree but footballers who are on over £40,000 after tax should get £30,000 and £10,000 per week of their injury should go to grassroots. This would help the youth level so much.

this

No.

They should get 75% if they earn over a certain amount/certain age which is enough for their needs and then 25% should go to grassroots football. This would be a fairer distribution to be honest.

Some will disagree but footballers who are on over £40,000 after tax should get £30,000 and £10,000 per week of their injury should go to grassroots. This would help the youth level so much.

but thats just like giving money to charity, just becuase they are injured, if thats what you think why shouldnt they give 25% all the time?

Of course they should.

It's not their fault they got injured so why should they be punished for something out of their control.

No.

They should get 75% if they earn over a certain amount/certain age which is enough for their needs and then 25% should go to grassroots football. This would be a fairer distribution to be honest.

Some will disagree but footballers who are on over £40,000 after tax should get £30,000 and £10,000 per week of their injury should go to grassroots. This would help the youth level so much.

but thats just like giving money to charity, just because they are injured, if thats what you think why shouldnt they give 25% all the time?

Because losing 25% whilst being sidelined is no big problem. Yes they have recovery to go through but they don't have the added pressures of being on the pitch and having to perform. Its not as if £30,000 per week is hard to live off is it?

If it was all the time there would be no incentive to reach the top level in this country and they would go to Spain or Germany to earn money whereas if its only during injury spells then its not as bad. Take the Micheal Johnson example, he was earning loads at Man City to drink and not recover from his injury. If 25% of his wages were taken they could have went towards youngsters who still had ambition to achieve.

No.

They should get 75% if they earn over a certain amount/certain age which is enough for their needs and then 25% should go to grassroots football. This would be a fairer distribution to be honest.

Some will disagree but footballers who are on over £40,000 after tax should get £30,000 and £10,000 per week of their injury should go to grassroots. This would help the youth level so much.

but thats just like giving money to charity, just because they are injured, if thats what you think why shouldnt they give 25% all the time?

Because losing 25% whilst being sidelined is no big problem. Yes they have recovery to go through but they don't have the added pressures of being on the pitch and having to perform. Its not as if £30,000 per week is hard to live off is it?

If it was all the time there would be no incentive to reach the top level in this country and they would go to Spain or Germany to earn money whereas if its only during injury spells then its not as bad. Take the Micheal Johnson example, he was earning loads at Man City to drink and not recover from his injury. If 25% of his wages were taken they could have went towards youngsters who still had ambition to achieve.

You know Michael Johnson personally, do you? Otherwise you've just assumed a lot of that.

Why not add in the mental issues that he suffered? Or the depression?

I'm not defending him, just feel that if you're going to use an example, you should tell the full story, not just the bits that help your point come across better.

full ?

i.e if some one signs for a team and breaks his leg or has an extremely bad injury that keeps him out for a full season, should they still be paid in full ?

Pmsl. The thought of a footballers on ssp

Yea promise them the world when whilst signing them up then ditch them as soon as the s**t hits the fan seriously how long would you think this practice would last? and any agent worth his salt would make sure any contract was bullet proof especially in a sport were these occurences are an occupational hazzard .

No.

They should get 75% if they earn over a certain amount/certain age which is enough for their needs and then 25% should go to grassroots football. This would be a fairer distribution to be honest.

Some will disagree but footballers who are on over £40,000 after tax should get £30,000 and £10,000 per week of their injury should go to grassroots. This would help the youth level so much.

So do you believe that when you go on the sick long term, that 25% of your pay goes to a charity or would you want the full pay?

Ridiculous statement, if their contract states they get full pay then, they get full pay.

Might be a dull question, but don't the clubs take out some sort of insurance policy on players for just this sort of thing? For example, one of your top players gets a bad injury, the policy covers a chunk of their wage so the club can hire a replacement?

For what its worth, injured players should be paid in full imo...

I firmly believe United should not have paid Rio Ferdinand when he was banned for failing to provide a drug sample.

Cannot believe they paid him pfull pay when he wasnt able to do his job through his own fault.

Then he had the cheek to hold them to ransom over a new contract.

I firmly believe United should not have paid Rio Ferdinand when he was banned for failing to provide a drug sample.

Cannot believe they paid him pfull pay when he wasnt able to do his job through his own fault.

Then he had the cheek to hold them to ransom over a new contract.

couldnt agree more and its something ill always remember about rio! cant quite believe he had the cheek to reject a contract after what the club did for him.

I firmly believe United should not have paid Rio Ferdinand when he was banned for failing to provide a drug sample.

Cannot believe they paid him pfull pay when he wasnt able to do his job through his own fault.

Then he had the cheek to hold them to ransom over a new contract.

I agree with this as it was his own doing.

Might be a dull question, but don't the clubs take out some sort of insurance policy on players for just this sort of thing? For example, one of your top players gets a bad injury, the policy covers a chunk of their wage so the club can hire a replacement?

For what its worth, injured players should be paid in full imo...

Interesting question though as if it was the case then the club would receive a fair chunk of their outlay enabling them to go out and pay big bucks (permanent/loanee) to fill the void obviously in Maynards case this would of been a great help and would mean the transfer budget was still a large amount.

Of course they should.

If a club wanted to do this they would just offer them a pay as you play deal.

No decent player is going to take this tho knowing they can get a full contract at another club.

I do agree with Polo on Ferdinand though.

Of course they should be paid full.

If you was injured in work what would you do?

Yes. Just like everyone else gets sick pay.

Well not everyone gets paid in full,working people go the sick and they dont get paid in full only ssp

Of course they should be paid full.

If you was injured in work what would you do?

The point was long term injuries. I doubt many people on civvy street get paid after 6 months sick