wayne dismissal

dotty · wayne dismissal

Has anybody heard about Wayne being sent off for violent conduct whilst playing for a sunday league team recently. Why are players allowed to play for other teams risking injury and suspension. Any view anybody

socksy

I suppose at the end of the day(as they say), they're just a group of lads playing for fun. Us supporters see it as much more important than that though. Lots of us have followed City for many years and understand the history and appreciate the second chance we've been given with this resurrection. The club's precious to us and when we find out someone we'd really been looking forward to seeing in action for us again has been banned for an offence in a game that's meaningless to us, it's annoying.

When Wayne came back it was like a breath of fresh air, like a new signing. We'd waited ages to get him back, but now this. As I say, it's annoying, frustrating and sad. We'll lose him for a while and as we watch from the sidelines, wishing we had ever been blessed with enough skill to represent City, we'll wonder if he'll ever learn? What part of getting a long ban and a fine is fun?

ghost of hawk

excuse me , I was blessed with enough skill to play for the original super greens. I also however was blessed with lots of money to buy pies and mckewans so I was forced to put my career on hold whilst I thought my crippling eating disorder. And as most of you know I had an exemplary disciplinary record alongside my goalscoring record.Because when I played it was respect to the man/woman (no really) in black, and also there was no better feeling than rippling the onion bag with the winner in the dying seconds of a game when you've been kicked all around the park by some fat , gobby centre half for the previous 89 minutes.

14.11.05 · **14.11.05**

With regards to Wayne's dismissal. I was at the Kent Cup game your referring too and it was definitely not a sending off for violent conduct. It was quite simply a late challenge that both the opposition player and referee over-reacted too, not a punch, slap or headbutt in sight.

It may mean nothing to the City supporters but the lads at Waterfront may take a different view to that and it was a Kent cup fixture. The same Waterfront team that has Lawford, Lockhart, Seagers and Gower in as well.

Maybe the chinese whispers of local football shouldn't always be believed, peace.

ghost of hawk

socksy

That's fair enough and it's fair enough that City players play with their mates on a Saturday for nothing, then play with other mates on a Sunday for nothing. Maybe he was unfortunate, but the end result's the same. We'll miss him for a while, his City team mates will miss him for a while and his Waterfront team mates will miss him for a while (just as they did when he was banned for offences whilst playing for US) . As frustrating as it is for us, it's Wayne who's the victim cos he'll spend more time out of the game. A playing career's short enough anyway, so the less time spent injured or banned, the better. My original point was that our players are free to play for whoever they want and at the moment, City have no right to say otherwise.

14.11.05 · **14.11.05**

Not a stud up either or him leaning over the opposition telling him he had it coming.

Ive spoke to Wayne (who is obviously pissed off, more than most) and he has only received 21 days, which isnt too bad considering,starting Mon 17th Nov....so there you go.

socksy

That's good news really cos we won't lose him for the Uni match or the cup match. Hopefully he'll knock a few in on Saturday by way of a parting gift before his ban starts. As for the question at the top of the page, my nephew plays for a Sunday team and he took credit for a goal despite not even playing that week. The reason? The real scorer gets £250 a week to play for a higher division local side. So even with a contract and £250 a week in their pockets, you can't dampen the desire for lads to want to play with their mates.