The truth about Royston...

[Royal Lady]

I agree with E-P.

[wingnut]

Ok but you are asserting its a factor and I've not seen anything from the club that says they can't afford to pay him. As I said, it also doesn't explain why he has to train with the stiffs.

I'm with PieEater here - not really expecting the source of any of our questions to be the club in an official capacity. And I don't think training with the U21's is particularly important in this discussion: it fits the story with the story that we want to force him out but doesn't affirm any of the proposed reasons over another (wages, performances, conduct or a combination of the three).

Fair enough. I've nothing on any of those reasons and no particular axe to grind here. Fwiw, I think Roy has not appeared to be significantly worse than any of our wing options on the rare occasions he's played but I've also not seen anything to justify (what we believe to be) his infl8ed wages either.
But, we've had contractual disputes before (Salako) and resolved those without completely freezing out the player and turned around poorly performing players too. So, on balance, I'm more inclined to believe there's something else going on here other than not playing well and contractual disputes.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Keen, mate - just what I'm getting at: wondered if I had missed something or whether it's all just conjecture.

[Royal Lady]

If he'd done something really awful wouldn't we be within our rights to just terminate his contract?

[Extended-Phenotype]

If he'd done something really awful wouldn't we be within our rights to just terminate his contract?

Yeah. Drugs, alcohol, missing training or games, and any misconduct deemed to impair duty, is breach of contract.

[Royal Lady]

Seems strange that we haven't then really, doesn't it? I mean, it's not like anybody is banging the door down to sign him from us, so if we just let him go, we'd not be losing anything per se money-wise and would be gaining on the saving of his wages?

[Ian Royal]

Seems strange that we haven't then really, doesn't it? I mean, it's not like anybody is banging the door down to sign him from us, so if we just let him go, we'd not be losing anything per se money-wise and would be gaining on the saving of his wages?

You'd have to have cast iron evidence and if it's an ongoing problem evidence that you'd addressed it properly through your disciplinary procedure or his lawyer could take you to the cleaners.

[Royal Lady]

Seems strange that we haven't then really, doesn't it? I mean, it's not like anybody is banging the door down to sign him from us, so if we just let him go, we'd not be losing anything per se money-wise and would be gaining on the saving of his wages?

You'd have to have cast iron evidence and if it's an ongoing problem evidence that you'd addressed it properly through your disciplinary procedure or his lawyer could take you to the cleaners.

Oh cast iron evidence is it now? Well, maybe we don't have any because it doesn't exist. And if it DOES exist, then whoever has not followed the disciplinary procedure to get him out lawfully, has cost the club money in his ongoing wages. Or maybe it's a petulant manager who didn't want to sign him in the first place and now TSI have gone, has frozen him out to prove a point - albeit very stupidly. Who knows eh?

[floyd__streete]

Why not figure it all out for us then eh, Miss Marple

[Royal Lady]

Well if he's such a "rude boy", bad boy, terrible influence in the dressing room, on the pitch, fights on the training ground, smokes, drinks night before a game, etc etc - then that is surely enough for the powers that be at RFC to coll8 evidence, give him warnings, etc and then termin8 his contract.

Either all these things that people on here reckon happened, did NOT happen or they did happen and someone at the club should be held to account for seemingly not following the disciplinary process correctly, in order to termin8 his contract without fear of reprisals from any lawyers. So, I'm asking, which one is it?

[PieEater]

Why does it have to be either or? I think it's most likely somewhere in between.

He could be on a final warning and we're waiting for him to oxf*rd up again.

[Royal Lady]

Just going by the know-it-alls on here who have mentioned all the things I put in my above post, I would have thought he'd have had his third and final warning by now if that is the case - if not, he's not been as bad as people on here have made out has he?

But, no one can provide any evidence - so until I hear some cast iron evidence, I'm erring on the side of caution and not apportioning all the blame on Drenthe here.

[PieEater]

What sort of "cast iron" evidence are you looking for?

How about the "cast iron" evidence that he's been banned from mixing with the first team? No doubt that's just because Adkins doesn't like him

[Extended-Phenotype]

What sort of "cast iron" evidence are you looking for?

How about the "cast iron" evidence that he's been banned from mixing with the first team? No doubt that's just because Adkins doesn't like him

As we lack evidence, I will join the conjecture, play devils advocate and suggest it equally could be that, Drenthe's reaction to what he believes unfair treatment (evidence for which comes from his own mouth) has been deemed disruptive. i.e. his conduct is a byproduct rather than the catalyst.

Just a thought.

[2rAy1]

Bit late, but got told interesting stuff about Royston. Apparently a car full of foreigners turned up at Hogwood asking for money from him. Happened a while back. No idea what the money was for though.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

EP - I have clearly provided some evidence & you are choosing to glaze over / ignore it.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

And it was from his time at Reading....

[Extended-Phenotype]

EP - I have clearly provided some evidence & you are choosing to glaze over / ignore it.

Soz mate, genuinely missed it. Will investigate.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Cool, ta Pie - got it.

Evidence 1 - Looking on Instagram I can’t seem to tell what the time/date is the photos of him sat with his friends having a drink and sharing a shisha (not looking for a fight here but shisha is that legal, commonplace stuff you get in many restaurants and bars throughout the UK that’s made from fruit, right?) so dunno if that’s the night before a game as you say.

Evidence 2 – “told by someone who works at the club”. Ok, well you can see my problem here. I could say I was told by someone he didn't, then where would we be?


So hearsay and some photos of him having a drink is the evidence? That’s honestly fine, just wanted to know.

[Royal Lady]

Surprised there's no fans with pitchforks demanding his head on a stick after all this "evidence".