Chelsea legend Alan Hudson hits 'rock bottom' in homeless hostel

Hudson now survives on disability benefits of £100 a week and a paltry £300-a-month pension.
fecking hell I know a lot of people worse of than that. I know it's not exactly a lot of money but still he's not going to starve and there's other options open than living in a homeless shelter, dramatized story or what.
 
He should be eligible for housing benefit depending on his income and savings, if any. Don't entirely understand why he is in a hostel.
 
i agree some horrible things have happened him in his life but you dont have to look far to find tragedy. im sure all of us even have experienced hardships. assuming the accomodation, while sounding basic and a little undignified, is paid for £700 a month is a huge amount of what is essentially disposable income. take out in and around 250 on food and he has absolutely no excuse for "not having a change of clothes". one day in the pub spared and youd have about 3 changes of clothes bought. this is sad, but far from one of those appalling stories we see from time to time.
 
SER19 said:
i agree some horrible things have happened him in his life but you dont have to look far to find tragedy. im sure all of us even have experienced hardships. assuming the accomodation, while sounding basic and a little undignified, is paid for £700 a month is a huge amount of what is essentially disposable income. take out in and around 250 on food and he has absolutely no excuse for "not having a change of clothes". one day in the pub spared and youd have about 3 changes of clothes bought. this is sad, but far from one of those appalling stories we see from time to time.
Click to expand...


Some of the stuff in this story are not adding up. If his hardship is correct, cannot imagine he is having to contribute or not much anyway, to his housing costs. As you say he should be able to buy some clothes, even if cheap ones or from charity shops, like a lot of other people have to. If he does have any saving left, why is he living there. He needs to stop feeling the world has got it in for him. His accident is sad, but no sadder than some poor soldier who lost limbs and has had to get on with life.
 
id be shocked if it wasnt himself that phoned up the papers looking to make a few hundred pounds
 
Rowem said:
Do you only sympathise with people based on their income?

I have sympathy for him based on the frustration, fear, anger, remorse and pain that he's clearly going through.

One thing I HATE in modern society is the obsession with blame, and the idea that people who make mistakes are not worthy of sympathy.

You've also gone a bit Monty Python there: "You call that rock bottom? Let me tell you, when I was at rock bottom..."

It's not a fecking competition.
Click to expand...
This post is flawless, especially the bolded part.
You've expressed all I wanted to say, and better than I'm capable of, so no point in me adding anything but cheers for a truly great post.
 
Ah, the usual posters are occupying their well-trodden moral high ground, I see. I actually do have some sympathy for him because it's not nice to see anyone in a horrible situation, but frankly it doesn't matter one jot whether random anonymous people on the internet feel sympathy for him or not. I'm sure the posters on here getting outraged by the lack of sympathy are doing something tangible to help this guy, right? Because they wouldn't be arrogant enough to adopt a sense of self-superiority because they feel sympathy for him, without actually helping in any way, would they?

I mean, acting indignant because other people aren't sympathising, whilst at the same time doing the grand summation of feck all to help makes any expressed sympathy on your own part utterly worthless. Until your sympathy can feed and clothe him then it's worth nothing, so don't be so smug about possessing it.
 
Count Orduck said:
Ah, the usual posters are occupying their well-trodden moral high ground, I see. I actually do have some sympathy for him because it's not nice to see anyone in a horrible situation, but frankly it doesn't matter one jot whether random anonymous people on the internet feel sympathy for him or not. I'm sure the posters on here getting outraged by the lack of sympathy are doing something tangible to help this guy, right? Because they wouldn't be arrogant enough to adopt a sense of self-superiority because they feel sympathy for him, without actually helping in any way, would they?

I mean, acting indignant because other people aren't sympathising, whilst at the same time doing the grand summation of feck all to help makes any expressed sympathy on your own part utterly worthless. Until your sympathy can feed and clothe him then it's worth nothing, so don't be so smug about possessing it.
Click to expand...


You've read some lines on a screen and it's you that has interpreted smugness and outrage. It'd be easy for someone else to read your post and interpret smugness and outrage in there. Both interpretations are presumably wrong. It's not a good weapon to use in a reasoned debate, although it can be highly effective unfortunately.

For the record I disagree with the notion that expressed sympathy is worthless without direct assistance. I won't go into the reasons why, as I wouldn't want to appear self-righteous or smug now, would I? ;)
 
Rowem said:
You've read some lines on a screen and it's you that has interpreted smugness and outrage. It'd be easy for someone else to read your post and interpret smugness and outrage in there. Both interpretations are presumably wrong. It's not a good weapon to use in a reasoned debate, although it can be highly effective unfortunately.

For the record I disagree with the notion that expressed sympathy is worthless without direct assistance. I won't go into the reasons why, as I wouldn't want to appear self-righteous or smug now, would I? ;)
Click to expand...

True enough, but I'm always irritated by the expressed incredulity in these circumstances when not everyons is falling over themselves to be the first to put on a sad face and wring their hands. And whilst sympathy is not always worthless without direct assistance, I'd say the vast majority of those who say how sympathetic and sorry they are -- and then feel good about themselves for doing it, and judge others for not doing so -- will then go on to do nothing about the problem itself. And in that situation, the sympathy is so lacking in usefulness as to be meaningless.
 
Count Orduck said:
Ah, the usual posters are occupying their well-trodden moral high ground, I see. I actually do have some sympathy for him because it's not nice to see anyone in a horrible situation, but frankly it doesn't matter one jot whether random anonymous people on the internet feel sympathy for him or not. I'm sure the posters on here getting outraged by the lack of sympathy are doing something tangible to help this guy, right? Because they wouldn't be arrogant enough to adopt a sense of self-superiority because they feel sympathy for him, without actually helping in any way, would they?

I mean, acting indignant because other people aren't sympathising, whilst at the same time doing the grand summation of feck all to help makes any expressed sympathy on your own part utterly worthless. Until your sympathy can feed and clothe him then it's worth nothing, so don't be so smug about possessing it.
Click to expand...


I take it you don't post often in the CE Forum?
 
I have the feeling this thread will go on until Chelsea have gone through another six managers...
 
DomesticTadpole said:
That's why it's a good thing if they can get their coaching badges or if like Rio they have lots of interest outside football. Some unfortunately cannot cope without football. You wonder if there was something that clubs could do to prepare footballers for when they retire, maybe going in for further education. Just something to keep give them something to focus on.
Click to expand...

Or simply don't quit school. Almost all the Icelandic professional stayed in school til 20. Many have university degrees as well.

I don't sympathize with that. Not knowing what to do when your career is over. Like he says, loads of free time while you're playing. Easy enough to enroll and get yourself a degree in something your interested in.
 
Snow said:
Or simply don't quit school. Almost all the Icelandic professional stayed in school til 20. Many have university degrees as well.

I don't sympathize with that. Not knowing what to do when your career is over. Like he says, loads of free time while you're playing. Easy enough to enroll and get yourself a degree in something your interested in.
Click to expand...


I agree actually, I think young players think it will never end, when it could end tomorrow. Some players just seem to live for today, as I mentioned before coaching is something they could do, or be a sort of entrepreneur like Rio. Physio side might work for some. You wonder what Wayne will do when he's finished.
 
Rowem said:
You've read some lines on a screen and it's you that has interpreted smugness and outrage. It'd be easy for someone else to read your post and interpret smugness and outrage in there. Both interpretations are presumably wrong. It's not a good weapon to use in a reasoned debate, although it can be highly effective unfortunately.

For the record I disagree with the notion that expressed sympathy is worthless without direct assistance. I won't go into the reasons why, as I wouldn't want to appear self-righteous or smug now, would I? ;)
Click to expand...


I am sure that on the link Steve J posted or in the comments in the Sunday Mirror, that he was given a match day role and cocked it up. So maybe he isn't the easiest guy to help. Some people want help, but are then ungrateful when it is given.
 
Feel some sympathy for him. I'll be doing feck all for him, and I'll sleep ok at night knowing that, but yeah, hope he gets himself sorted. I feel no more sympathy for him because he's a famous footballer than I do for any other random old drunk bum, mind.

The platry sum he's on, though, is no less than the sum many families in Britain struggle to house, clothe and feed their children on. They don't often get articles highlighting their plight, though.
 
Osgood got him a job doing hospitality at Chelsea and he punched a punter. He is a chronic pisshead who has become very bitter to his old club. We didn't used to treat ex-players well under Bates, but that is something which has thankfully changed under Abramovich with many being brought back into the fold.
 
“All I have is my laptop, a shaving bag and my crutches. I haven’t even got a change of clothes."
Click to expand...

At least he has his priorities right - perhaps he's even reading this (I really do hope he has a wifi enabled laptop the poor soul).

Also I can't keep noticing his "semi" in the first picture.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
A lot seem to have trouble with gambling and drink, too much time on their hands, same as now. Also seem to get a lot of hanger-ons who give them bad advise. At least most of us know who our true friends are. Footballers must be always wondering.
Click to expand...

Ive lost count of the amount of footballers that mention how much free time they have on their hands as if its a curse. Are they really that uneducated that they cannt think of anything else to do with their time and almost limitless funds other than drink and gamble.

What I and Im sure most of the posters here wouldn't give for even a few hours a week, never mind a day to be able to relax and indulge a hobby, read a good book, watch a movie, play a video game, play golf, go to an art gallery or museum or any number of other things we would all love to be doing instead of working flat out, worrying about kids/mortgages/job security etc and these dimwits bleat on about Oh its so hard to fill the day boo hoo.
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
Ive lost count of the amount of footballers that mention how much free time they have on their hands as if its a curse. Are they really that uneducated that they cannt think of anything else to do with their time and almost limitless funds other than drink and gamble.

What I and Im sure most of the posters here wouldn't give for even a few hours a week, never mind a day to be able to relax and indulge a hobby, read a good book, watch a movie, play a video game, play golf, go to an art gallery or museum or any number of other things we would all love to be doing instead of working flat out, worrying about kids/mortgages/job security etc and these dimwits bleat on about Oh its so hard to fill the day boo hoo.
Click to expand...


It's a curse if you don't have the sense to do something useful with it. Trouble is the club wrap them in cotton wool. Where most men would be doing DIY, gardening, playing golf or other sports, the clubs won't let them during the season or even during their playing career. That leaves them with drinking and gambling.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
It's a curse if you don't have the sense to do something useful with it. Trouble is the club wrap them in cotton wool. Where most men would be doing DIY, gardening, playing golf or other sports, the clubs won't let them during the season or even during their playing career. That leaves them with drinking and gambling.
Click to expand...
You will forgive me for having very little sympathy Im sure. :)
 
They weren't wrapped in cotton wool in Hudson's day. He has since said that he preferred being at Arsenal and Stoke, so I don't know why he only mentions Chelsea with regards to help.

Probably cos we are the richest and he wants a bung to go and piss up the wall.
 
I thought he played his best football at Stoke where he was the main man operating just in front of the back 4 and running games.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
It's a curse if you don't have the sense to do something useful with it. Trouble is the club wrap them in cotton wool. Where most men would be doing DIY, gardening, playing golf or other sports, the clubs won't let them during the season or even during their playing career. That leaves them with drinking and gambling.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a player is allowed to put up a shelf or mow the lawn. And they're always playing golf. They're generally only banned contractually from doing dangerous things like Skiing and riding motorbikes.

The problem for me is modern football in general. Young lads who haven't made it think they have and waste what money they get on cars, birds, booze and anything else. That's especially the case when they're not particularly bright, are surrounded by the wrong people and think that it'll all last forever.

Clubs have a responsibility to try and educate players and to provide the right advice. I know of a couple of local players up here, ex-Premier League (but not big stars, nor long term top level players) from the same club who invested their money in property and both have great pensions which being footballers, they can draw at 35. They're set up.

That said, give young lads money, a bit of local celebrity and you can guarantee a good proportion will blow it in. That's just what young lads do.
 
I'm always intrigued as to why fans think clubs should help out in situations like this. If you fall on hard times does an ex employer have some kind of a moral obligation to help?
 
RedRover said:
I'm pretty sure a player is allowed to put up a shelf or mow the lawn. And they're always playing golf. They're generally only banned contractually from doing dangerous things like Skiing and riding motorbikes.

The problem for me is modern football in general. Young lads who haven't made it think they have and waste what money they get on cars, birds, booze and anything else. That's especially the case when they're not particularly bright, are surrounded by the wrong people and think that it'll all last forever.

Clubs have a responsibility to try and educate players and to provide the right advice. I know of a couple of local players up here, ex-Premier League (but not big stars, nor long term top level players) from the same club who invested their money in property and both have great pensions which being footballers, they can draw at 35. They're set up.

That said, give young lads money, a bit of local celebrity and you can guarantee a good proportion will blow it in. That's just what young lads do.
Click to expand...


Robbie Fowler had the right idea about property. I believe he bought loads of houses. At least he is thinking about what is a good investment. Trouble is some just want to invest in get rich quick schemes and are then at risk of being fleeced.
 
JazzG said:
I'm always intrigued as to why fans think clubs should help out in situations like this. If you fall on hard times does an ex employer have some kind of a moral obligation to help?
Click to expand...


I think most clubs do try to keep old players involved with clubs, but some players have moved around that much, which club should help them? It appears Chelsea did try to help him and he blew it. Some people are beyond help.
 
A football club is more than an employer. That is the beauty of football clubs, at their best they can represent a family.

I'm still perplexed as to why it's only Chelsea who should be helping fund his alcoholism. He had as many appearances for Stoke and he is far more complimentary about them.
 
I can understand if someone has given years of service to a club that they should try to keep them involved with that club, however players move around all the time now, sometimes it is the clubs choice, sometimes it is just a player who wants a big pay day. Does anyone who if Alan Hudson moved because Chelsea wanted to sell or if he wanted to move. If the latter, why does he think Chelsea owe him something.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Robbie Fowler had the right idea about property. I believe he bought loads of houses. At least he is thinking about what is a good investment. Trouble is some just want to invest in get rich quick schemes and are then at risk of being fleeced.
Click to expand...

He was very shrewd - or more likely, took good advice. I read that he was worth £30 or so million and that was years ago.

I know a current PL footballer vaguely (he's a friend of a friend) and he's got a few businesses going and has his mates employed in them. One of them seems to be pretty succesful. He's a nice lad, sensible and seems to have his head screwed on right.

Interestingly, he told me about a player at his club (Championship at the time) who turned down a £9k a week contract because he thought he could get more - he had six months to run. He got injured, a young player took his place. He tried to accept the £9k, the club withdrew the offer and offered him £3k p/w. He left on a point of principle and now gets £2k a week in a lower league. It has cost him at least £1 million. Madness.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
I think most clubs do try to keep old players involved with clubs, but some players have moved around that much, which club should help them? It appears Chelsea did try to help him and he blew it. Some people are beyond help.
Click to expand...

It's not that he's beyond help, it's just that he clearly just wants more money to waste. If Chelsea want to help him, they should pay for some alcoholism rehab, but anything else isn't really what he needs, it'll just be more money he can spend at the pub.
 
TheRisingSun said:
A football club is more than an employer. That is the beauty of football clubs, at their best they can represent a family.

I'm still perplexed as to why it's only Chelsea who should be helping fund his alcoholism. He had as many appearances for Stoke and he is far more complimentary about them.
Click to expand...


You are right, not sure Alan Hudson has accepted he has a drink problem, in his word he is a social drinker.
 
RedRover said:
He was very shrewd - or more likely, took good advice. I read that he was worth £30 or so million and that was years ago.

I know a current PL footballer vaguely (he's a friend of a friend) and he's got a few businesses going and has his mates employed in them. One of them seems to be pretty succesful. He's a nice lad, sensible and seems to have his head screwed on right.

Interestingly, he told me about a player at his club (Championship at the time) who turned down a £9k a week contract because he thought he could get more - he had six months to run. He got injured, a young player took his place. He tried to accept the £9k, the club withdrew the offer and offered him £3k p/w. He left on a point of principle and now gets £2k a week in a lower league. It has cost him at least £1 million. Madness.
Click to expand...


It's nice if they can keep in with old friends that keep their feet on the ground. It's when they are in with a bad lot and seem to have a lot of fair weather friends who disappear when times get bad. That's when you find out who your real friends are.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
I think most clubs do try to keep old players involved with clubs, but some players have moved around that much, which club should help them? It appears Chelsea did try to help him and he blew it. Some people are beyond help.
Click to expand...

Some players are worth keeping on after their playing days are over and some aren't. You can't just keep everyone on indefinitely, also off the pitch players aren't what fans think they are either.

TheRisingSun said:
A football club is more than an employer. That is the beauty of football clubs, at their best they can represent a family.

I'm still perplexed as to why it's only Chelsea who should be helping fund his alcoholism. He had as many appearances for Stoke and he is far more complimentary about them.
Click to expand...

A good employer can be like family as well, I think fans get too emotionally caught up about things. I don't think anyone should have to help fund his alcoholism. Fair play if they do but nobody should have to look for him.
 
Everything about this is pretty sad. You've got a lot of terrible things happening to Hudson that are beyond his control on top of other problems which are in his control but which he won't take responsibility for.
 
Wonder Pigeon said:
Everything about this is pretty sad. You've got a lot of terrible things happening to Hudson that are beyond his control on top of other problems which are in his control but which he won't take responsibility for.
Click to expand...
A very nice way of putting this in perspective, Pigeon. I would have pressed the 'Like' button if I had the chance to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.