Jack Rodwell

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, AyrTroopMajor said:

He has refused to play for Sunderland, it's not referenced in the article but Chris Coleman confirmed it.

Did he? Or did he simply peddle the club's latest PR line to make themselves look like the victims in the situation? 

If Rodwell refused to play for Sunderland then they could release him from his contract immediately. The fact that they haven't done so despite being desperate to offload the player means that we can assume that Rodwell hasn't 'refused to play for Sunderland' at all. And if Chris Coleman says he did then Chris Coleman is simply a liar doing his employer's bidding.  

Quote

Worth mentioning by the way that, while he's raking that wage in, Sunderland held an internal review recently and had to make a string of redundancies among the ordinary staff.

It's not really though, unless you're also going to mention the trip to New York that the first team squad took at the same time:

 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/21/sunderland-criticised-redundancies-new-york

But I guess 'Player sits on contract while fulfilling its terms - all Sunderland players enjoy massive perks within a failing business' wasn't enough of a shite clickbait story for Sportsbible, the floating turd of Internet journalism. 

[Latino Lover]

They played a paedo whilst under investigation and he probably kept them up so they don’t deserve any sympathy. 

[AyrTroopMajor]

12 hours ago, virginton said:

Did he? Or did he simply peddle the club's latest PR line to make themselves look like the victims in the situation? 

If Rodwell refused to play for Sunderland then they could release him from his contract immediately. The fact that they haven't done so despite being desperate to offload the player means that we can assume that Rodwell hasn't 'refused to play for Sunderland' at all. And if Chris Coleman says he did then Chris Coleman is simply a liar doing his employer's bidding.  

It's not really though, unless you're also going to mention the trip to New York that the first team squad took at the same time:

 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/21/sunderland-criticised-redundancies-new-york

But I guess 'Player sits on contract while fulfilling its terms - all Sunderland players enjoy massive perks within a failing business' wasn't enough of a shite clickbait story for Sportsbible, the floating turd of Internet journalism. 

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/906960/Sunderland-Jack-Rodwell-Chris-Coleman-Play-EFL-Championship

Is there really a huge difference between refusing to play and telling the manager he doesn't want to play, as is suggested in the article above?

The NY trip was an absolute farce, instigated by David Moyes because it apparently worked for his Everton team 10 years ago. 

[Thistle_do_nicely]

4 hours ago, AyrTroopMajor said:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/906960/Sunderland-Jack-Rodwell-Chris-Coleman-Play-EFL-Championship

Is there really a huge difference between refusing to play and telling the manager he doesn't want to play, as is suggested in the article above?

The NY trip was an absolute farce, instigated by David Moyes because it apparently worked for his Everton team 10 years ago. 

tbf that article isn't all that conclusive either. Rodwell claims to be happy to play and is making himself available vs. Coleman claiming the opposite. This bit was also interesting to me:

back of a fag packet maths : 18 months @ 4wks per month = 72 weeks

72 weeks X £70,000 = £5,040,000

Now that reads to me as the club offering him an immediate lump sum but doesn't specify the amount. Leaving aside taxes, it may well be, say, £3,000,000 to cancel his contract now which would give him the option of signing a new deal and earning a wage elsewhere, which he's turned down. I doubt he'd turn down a full pay-off on the remaining balance of his contract.

 

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, AyrTroopMajor said:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/906960/Sunderland-Jack-Rodwell-Chris-Coleman-Play-EFL-Championship

Is there really a huge difference between refusing to play and telling the manager he doesn't want to play, as is suggested in the article above?

There is a significant difference between what is 'suggested' in a Daily Express or SportsBible article and what is actually the case: which is why Sunderland are still paying Rodwell's contract in full despite obviously wanting to rip it up at the first possible opportunity. If he refused to play for the team then they'd bh shot of him; he hasn't and so they aren't.