Jump to content

Wigan Athletic Players Not Paid (Again)


JfR

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, hintonsboots said:


It all sounds familiar.

 

The EFL has spent the past 48 hours in dialogue with the club in an attempt to find a positive outcome to the issue but as of 09:00 BST Friday morning the required funds have not been deposited."

In a statement, Wigan chairman Talal al Hammad said an "eight-figure sum" will land in the club's account "imminently", to ensure "financial stability" until the end of next season.

£8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KBB said:

Am I remembering correctly that when shinnie went to them during our fire sale admin phase their owner/chairman gave it the bigun to their fans about how they got him for 50k and picked our pocket. Could be wrong.

We took two players off them for virtually nothing when they went into admin. If i was him i'd have done the same if i'd got one back over on our s****y dealings

Edited by GenBr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, REDCAR said:

Minus 8 points isn’t a season killer but will give them a big handicap.

With them saying that they are going to reduce the playing wage budget by 65% this season then you tend to think that will hurt their chances - then again the owners there have been saying lots of things that don’t happen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GenBr said:

We took two players off them for virtually nothing when they went into admin. If i was him i'd have done the same if i'd got one back over on our s****y dealings

 

The Season had finished. Wigan had been relegated. The players didn't want to stay for a League One campaign (see the actions of Byrne when we went down) and Wigan wanted / needed the players off the wage bill. We obliged. Not really sure how that's 'shitty' tbh.

When they took Shinnie it was mid season, we didn't want rid of him, nor did he want to leave.

I'm not sure I'd call their actions shitty either tbh, but it's not really a like-for-like situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kokosnuss said:

 

The Season had finished. Wigan had been relegated. The players didn't want to stay for a League One campaign (see the actions of Byrne when we went down) and Wigan wanted / needed the players off the wage bill. We obliged. Not really sure how that's 'shitty' tbh.

When they took Shinnie it was mid season, we didn't want rid of him, nor did he want to leave.

I'm not sure I'd call their actions shitty either tbh, but it's not really a like-for-like situation.

We took advantage of their situation and got 2 players on the cheap. Same as they did with Shinnie. Try and twist it however you like, but our actions were s****y. I have no issue with what they did with shinnie though - you reap what you sow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GenBr said:

We took advantage of their situation and got 2 players on the cheap. Same as they did with Shinnie. Try and twist it however you like, but our actions were s****y. I have no issue with what they did with shinnie though - you reap what you sow

Suppose the difference between 's*****' and 'good business sense' is which side of the deal you're on.

It appears fairly like for like to me. Hardly expect people to pay extra for something to be 'nice'. Especially seeing how both clubs have ended up with no money.

Decent club...hope they turn it around but it ain't looking good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they have a last minute buyer previous to this one or another one who was some sort of invisible billionaire, South east Asian type of investor/gambler, Put a person who didn't exist under an assumed name who ran them into the ground...with approval from those saviours in the EFL.

I wouldn't hold much hope, This looks like gamesmanship or cheating as we call it, 2 directors resign as wages again not been paid so I guess another 4 points in the minus column on it's way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/05/2023 at 12:28, Chester40 said:

Suppose the difference between 's*****' and 'good business sense' is which side of the deal you're on.

It appears fairly like for like to me. Hardly expect people to pay extra for something to be 'nice'. Especially seeing how both clubs have ended up with no money.

Decent club...hope they turn it around but it ain't looking good!

We didn't 'pay extra for something to be nice' though, did we? We did exactly what some are moaning about and gouged the hell out of them on player values.

I think in cases where the 'seller' is in admin, a tribunal should set a fair market value to ensure that clubs (like Derby) who are already suffering, are not getting dry-humped into oblivion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

We didn't 'pay extra for something to be nice' though, did we? We did exactly what some are moaning about and gouged the hell out of them on player values.

I think in cases where the 'seller' is in admin, a tribunal should set a fair market value to ensure that clubs (like Derby) who are already suffering, are not getting dry-humped into oblivion.

Get what you're saying, but if you force sales to be at market value, you are equally hindering the ability to get money in quickly to stay afloat. If it's either accept £1m and stay in business, or the value to remain at £5m and have no one willing to pay that for the player, then I think they'd want to take the £1m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...