Bolton Players Refused to play for the club!

PHIL Parkinson has revealed that some of his players refused to play the final game of the season against Nottingham Forest.

Wanderers concluded a dismal campaign with a 1-0 defeat at the City Ground with a line-up lacking the likes of Ben Alnwick, Sammy Ameobi and Luca Connell.

The club have just nine senior players contracted to next season and it is understood that Pawel Olkowski has already handed in his notice after going unpaid during March and April. The defender can walk away from the club for free this week and Parkinson has confirmed that other players have now joined the Polish full-back in cancelling their contracts.

Wanderers had to name 10 players involved in their last game against Blackburn Rovers to avoid an EFL fine but the Bolton boss admitted he struggled for volunteers.

“I have been in football for more than 30 years and some of the things that have happened this season are happening to me for the first time,” he told The Bolton News.

“There are some players who have put in their two-week notice, I think some of that has been out in the media, and there are other lads who have offers from elsewhere who, naturally, didn’t want to play.

“We also had some genuine injuries with David Wheater, Jason Lowe, Luke Murphy and Mark Beevers.

“We were left with a bare 18 but I think they showed good character, and that is important.”

Asked if he could have forced players to face Forest, the manager added: “Firstly the lads who put their notices in – if they play and get injured, they are not insured. You have to respect that.

“Those who might move on elsewhere didn’t want to play, which we have had to deal with, but I want to concentrate on those who did, and I thank them for that.”

Wanderers handed a professional debut to Ronan Darcy and a first league appearance for midfielder Jack Earing.

“Given everything that has gone on I am proud of the way the players coped and I think that was recognised by the fans at the end, who were magnificent,” Parkinson added.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/17620623.bolton-players-refuse-to-play-against-forest-phil-parkinson/?ref=mr&lp=2

I wouldn't be turning up to work if they weren't paying me. Simple.

It’s time Marc Iles was sacked from the BN considering he can’t write a proper bloody article.

Personally, I think its a disgrace that they put the club in such a difficult position. I'm assuming the players who refused to play will have their pay stopped for the games(s) concerned. They could have continued, and saved the club a great deal, instead they went on strike, even though they knew, one way or another, they would be paid.

gloswhite wrote:Personally, I think its a disgrace that they put the club in such a difficult position. I'm assuming the players who refused to play will have their pay stopped for the games(s) concerned. They could have continued, and saved the club a great deal, instead they went on strike, even though they knew, one way or another, they would be paid.

Couldn’t agree more Glos.

A shame the majority of footballers these days are wankers.

gloswhite wrote:Personally, I think its a disgrace that they put the club in such a difficult position. I'm assuming the players who refused to play will have their pay stopped for the games(s) concerned. They could have continued, and saved the club a great deal, instead they went on strike, even though they knew, one way or another, they would be paid.

Those managing the club have created this situation. Both by not paying staff and by not communicating to them.

gloswhite wrote:Personally, I think its a disgrace that they put the club in such a difficult position. I'm assuming the players who refused to play will have their pay stopped for the games(s) concerned. They could have continued, and saved the club a great deal, instead they went on strike, even though they knew, one way or another, they would be paid.

It shows the hypocrisy of it all to me.

Follow this logic - 

1 - The players go on strike because they haven't been paid.
2 - Yet they know they will be
3 - So some of them quit the club
4 - Yet know by quitting the club they've terminated their employment so won't be!

Now are they hard up - so they need their wages on time, or are they financially ok, so they don't (just so long they get them eventually)?

If they are so hard up - then why quit the club now - they can't be paid until someone else signs them (at least they are earning their thousands whilst they are here even they have to wait for it), if they aren't that hard up, then why go on strike as they know they will be paid eventually?

Vela's been here 17 years - loves the club he says - yet is one of the first to jump ship apparently.

Hypocrites.

Sluffy wrote:It shows the hypocrisy of it all to me.

Follow this logic - 

1 - The players go on strike because they haven't been paid.
2 - Yet they know they will be
3 - So some of them quit the club
4 - Yet know by quitting the club they've terminated their employment so won't be!

Which suggests despite your demonising, they're actually more bothered about just getting their heads down and playing football. Why stay at a club with this much chaos?

T.R.O.Y wrote:

Sluffy wrote:It shows the hypocrisy of it all to me.

Follow this logic - 

1 - The players go on strike because they haven't been paid.
2 - Yet they know they will be
3 - So some of them quit the club
4 - Yet know by quitting the club they've terminated their employment so won't be!

Which suggests despite your demonising, they're actually more bothered about just getting their heads down and playing football. Why stay at a club with this much chaos?

Eh???

They can't play football for anyone else - the seasons finished!!!

And they are off at their end of the season anyway as their contracts are up then!!!

Christ you're so desperate to start an argument with me you don't even bother to think what you're posting.

You said they won’t get paid if they terminate their contracts? Is that right?

If so it indicates they’re more bothered about getting on with playing football, and it’s the chaos that has caused the real issue for them.

Hope that’s more clear for you.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You said they won’t get paid if they terminate their contracts? Is that right?

If so it indicates they’re more bothered about getting on with playing football, and it’s the chaos that has caused the real issue for them.

Hope that’s more clear for you.

How can they get on with playing football when there is no football to be played???

The season is over.

Clubs have released their players for their summer holidays.

Even if they signed for another club there wouldn't be any football until the rest of the players return for pre-season.

So if it was the money they were bothered about, then they would simply stay under contract to the end of July, until their contracts expire.

And if it wasn't the money they were bothered about then why strike that it wasn't in their bank on a certain day - even though they didn't need it at that time?

That's the hypocrisy of it all.

They said they were striking because of the lack of communication from the owner, as they’re now giving up the opportunity to get the money that holds more weight. As does my view that that they’re fed up of the chaos and would prefer to go and play somewhere without the off field nonsense.

Olkowski has a year left on his deal by the way.

T.R.O.Y wrote:They said they were striking because of the lack of communication from the owner, as they’re now giving up the opportunity to get the money that holds more weight. As does my view that that they’re fed up of the chaos and would prefer to go and play somewhere without the off field nonsense.

Olkowski has a year left on his deal by the way.

Seems the only good thing that came out of all this was getting Olkowski's wages off our books for next season - hardly been a great success really has he?

They first said they were on strike in sympathy with those backroom staff who hadn't been paid either - until someone pointed out to them that sympathy strikes were illegal!

I'm not sure why you think 'not being at the club' having terminated their contracts lends more weight to the 'lack of communication' point they have 'struck' for, holds more weight than 'not being at the club' because they are now on their summer holidays - both amount to the same thing - they aren't at the club - and won't be coming back because they are out of contract!

Add to that it is extremely unlikely that Anderson will still be at the club anyway for the start of next season and it makes a total nonsense for the reasons they've given for their strike actions.

In fact the only thing they've done is left a legacy of sanctions against a club they will no longer be playing for and whose owner they clearly detest already having long gone before the results of their actions - likely to be points deduction and fine - hits the club, it's new owners and it's long suffering fans.

All because of what?

Bury's players hadn't been paid for two months as well -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48118508

...and Macclesfield for three!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48113251

Did their players strike?

Bury went on to win promotion and Macclesfield's pulled off the great escape by staying in the League with Notts County falling out instead!

What did our hero's do - caused the first ever game to be called off in advance because of what exactly - was it the money or wasn't it the money, was it in sympathy with non paid coaching staff, or not sympathy with non paid coaching staff, was it really because the owner wasn't talking to them, even though they were leaving the club for good in just a few weeks later and never be going to speak to him again anyway???

Doesn't make sense does it?

Gary O'Neil's been here all season, his half season contract wasn't renewed at first in January because there was no money, yet he's been our best player and clearly had no hesitation to play in the last games when clearly others refuse - and despite him being 35 years old and knowing any injury would in effect end his career.

Attitude cuts both ways you know and the lads at Bury and Macclesfield put the off field stuff to one side and put football and the fans first - with great effect too. 

Compare that to most of our lot!

T.R.O.Y wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Personally, I think its a disgrace that they put the club in such a difficult position. I'm assuming the players who refused to play will have their pay stopped for the games(s) concerned. They could have continued, and saved the club a great deal, instead they went on strike, even though they knew, one way or another, they would be paid.

Those managing the club have created this situation. Both by not paying staff and by not communicating to them.

The players knew that come what may, they would be paid. It would be interesting to see who refused to play, and for what reason, although I'm sure they would prefer to hide behind a veil of secrecy, knowing that the fans would be quite disgusted with them. It seems to me that player power, though welcome in some scenarios, can lead to some very serious, and far-reaching outcomes, if not used sensibly.