Quote from: The Sound of Villadelphia on October 11, 2011, 05:52:28 PMIt's not just about the physical demands, the club are rightly asking "their stars to develop a greater affinity with the club and community".30 miles takes in places like Coventry, Sandwell and Wolverhampton. It's a load of nonsense, and probably against employment law anyway.
It's not just about the physical demands, the club are rightly asking "their stars to develop a greater affinity with the club and community".
Quote from: Risso on October 11, 2011, 06:55:28 PMQuote from: The Sound of Villadelphia on October 11, 2011, 05:52:28 PMIt's not just about the physical demands, the club are rightly asking "their stars to develop a greater affinity with the club and community".30 miles takes in places like Coventry, Sandwell and Wolverhampton. It's a load of nonsense, and probably against employment law anyway.Bollocks to employment laws, why should certain players be relieved of their civic (club) duties, whether it be visiting kids in hospitals, Acorns, etc just because they prefer to live 100 miles away? Considering how much they're paid, it's not to much to ask them to contribute to the local community on behalf of the club.
Anyway, how on earth would they enforce it. Are the club going to tag them and monitor where they actually sleep?
Anyway, how on earth would they enforce it. Even if a player agreed to the condition, how do you define "live"? What's to stop a player having a house close by and another in London or Alderley Edge? Are the club going to tag them and monitor where they actually sleep?
Anyway, I reckon the only way to enforce this kind of employment condition is to mobilise eco warriors and shame players into reducing their carbon footprints.