We knew there was a chance we'd be playing them if both sides won their respective cup replays...quite probably we never thought we'd win at Carrow Road so didn't think it would arise!
[cite]Posted By: Ledge[/cite]the Matt Spring thing is botox - Can't believe we agreed to this.
Is Sheff Utd wanted him that badly why did they not sign him.
Firstly, Matt Spring has a decent Championship pedigree - so we've signed a player who has already proved experienced and effective for other clubs at this level.
Surely he can't be properly included in the list of loan players - it was always a permant transfer; the 'emergency loan' element was only so that he could play our next game while his registration was being finalised by the FA.
Secondly, Sheff Utd has in the main been building the quality of their squad, unlike Charlton's financial policy of depleting theirs.
Maybe he was no better player than Sheff Utd has already, and as they have an abundance of midfield players themselves, that didn't guarantee him a regular starting place.
Nevertheless, despite missing through injury earlier in the season, he still made 13 appearances for Sheff Utd scoring 1 goal.
Finally, he was on a season long loan from Luton to Sheff Utd. It wasn't Sheff Utd that sent him back to Luton.
Luton has capitalised by selling an asset at a time of their financial desperation, the player evidently wanted a permanent contract - and a move back south closer to his roots no doubt appealed for family reasons.
We've signed an experienced Championship level player here, with the character that Parky's been talking about.
He also scored a cracking goal at Wednesday, a goalscoring midfielder, so maybe he is the type of player we need ?
Oggy you are making out I am not happy with the Spring signing - I never said that at all I think he's a decent signing - what I was saying was how the hell can Sheff Utd demand he can't play against us when he is not even their player - bet you a pound to a pile of shite we didn't do that with Fulham and Bouazza.
Perhaps the terms of the loan agreement between Luton and Sheff U said Luton had to give Sheff a week or more's notice to recall him. We probably wanted to do the deal quicker to get him in for Notts Forest and beyond. Sheff U said okay, we'll wave our right to hang onto him for next week or two as long as you agree not to play him in the cup against us should that fixture arrise.
If we were midtable or Bailey wasn't suspended for the Notts game perhaps we'd say have said you can't dictate to us like that so we'll bide our time and sign him in a fortnight. Trouble is, we're plum bottom, sinking fast and were a bit short on senior midfielders for a crunch game, so we agreed to Sheff's demands to get him in asap, probably under the perfectly reasonable logic the upcoming league games were much much more important than the cup game against Sheff U that may well not have come about anyway.
I have no idea if thats the reality but I don't think it takes massive amount of imagination to see how/why we ended up agreeing to such a clause.
Surely, by Spring not being allowed to play, you are being influenced by a 3rd party?
i.e a 3rd party is influencing your team selection for this weekend.
West ham were fined £5.5m for having the POTENTIAL of having our team selection influenced by a 3rd party.
Yet the same team that are suing us for this are influencing your team selection (like they did when kabba transferred to watford permanently)
Yet more hypocrisy from Sheff U. Fairness in football my a*se!!!
West ham were fined £5.5m for having the POTENTIAL of having our team selection influenced by a 3rd party.
Yet the same team that are suing us for this are influencing your team selection (like they did when kabba transferred to watford permanently)
Yet more hypocrisy from Sheff U. Fairness in football my a*se!!!
...................
In life you get what you negotiate and there's nothing wrong or illegal in the deal that Charlton struck with the Blades. However to lie about who actually holds the registration of a player and who controls when he can be transferred is illegal.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]
In life you get what you negotiate and there's nothing wrong or illegal in the deal that Charlton struck with the Blades. However to lie about who actually holds the registration of a player and who controls when he can be transferred is illegal.
Quite right, it is against the rules to not control when one of your players can be transferred. This is 3rd party influence.
Without wanting to get into the Tevez saga again (you are wrong in what you said for what its worth, west ham held tevez registration but not his economic rights - hence why MSI had to pay us to release his registration in order for him to sign for Man U). I am confident the latest inquiry by the FA/PL will back up what I just said.
My point was, Sheff U have gone on and on about fairness in football. They claim tevez should not have been a WHU player in the final games of the season. Their whole arguement boiled down to the 3rd party influence rule, one they have broken themselves in both Steve Kabba's permanent transfer from themselves to Watford, and now by stopping your own contracted player from playing against them this weekend.
As a footnote, I think (may not be 100% right) that it was just a premier league rule we broke so it may not matter in this instance. But the only reason they got away with the kabba deal was because it was deemed a "gentlemans agreement" with nothing in writing (dispite it appearing on both clubs websites and in local rags), otherwise the PL would have acted. Doesn't stop them from being hypocrites of the highest order though.
Mortain - you've got more front than Dolly Parton :-)
IMO West Ham should have been automatically relegated for cheating end of. The majority of football fans, other than West Ham fans, I think would agree.The authorities bottled it disgracefully.
IMO had it been the other way round Sheff U would have been relegated.
[cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]Mortain - you've got more front than Dolly Parton :-)
IMO West Ham should have been automatically relegated for cheating end of. The majority of football fans, other than West Ham fans, I think would agree.The authorities bottled it disgracefully.
IMO had it been the other way round Sheff U would have been relegated.
Leave my moobs out of this!!!
As I said, I don't want to get dragged into the whole tevez thing again, but can you not see how Sheff U are influencing your team selection this weekend? If they felt that strongly about fairness in football, why do they insist on such terms in their transfers?
Exiled, in your analysis of Saturday's funtime, you've neatly forgotten the "contribution" of Soares and Murty who were very bad indeed. Hard to say whether they quite managed to reach Bassey's complete cluster of a game, but they were certainly in with that bunch.
I kind of agree with you that loans are not the root of all evil, it's probably more that the ones that we've had, are just awful. There's also probably a destabilising effect. If your boss gets a temp in to do your job, and they perform it at a level that is probably worse than you were capable of - and you are a popular part of the team - then I can see why it could destabilise others in the side, andmake them fearful for their own position. Either that or we've just been loaning in utter shite (Linvoy excepted).
Aaaarrrrgggh! Lost my post ...... so what did I do wrong ...?
I pressed preview - and then attempted to alter a spelling mistake, lol
Before you could say "Whooooosh!", the post disappeared into cyber-space, never to be seen again in it's eternal but fruitless journey of trying to find it's true destination.
Last time I try to post a considered point of view.
I'll stick to abusive one liners in future. I can remember them.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Aaaarrrrgggh! Lost my post ...... so what did I do wrong ...?
I pressed preview - and then attempted to alter a spelling mistake, lol
Before you could say "Whooooosh!", the post disappeared into cyber-space, never to be seen again in it's eternal but fruitless journey of trying to find it's true destination.
Last time I try to post a considered point of view.
I'll stick to abusive one liners in future. I can remember them.
[cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]Mortain - you've got more front than Dolly Parton :-)
IMO West Ham should have been automatically relegated for cheating end of. The majority of football fans, other than West Ham fans, I think would agree.The authorities bottled it disgracefully.
IMO had it been the other way round Sheff U would have been relegated.
Leave my moobs out of this!!!
As I said, I don't want to get dragged into the whole tevez thing again, but can you not see how Sheff U are influencing your team selection this weekend? If they felt that strongly about fairness in football, why do they insist on such terms in their transfers?
We can't discuss this without rehashing the Tevez arguement, but suffice to say there is a massive difference betweem 2 clubs making an agreement that a certain player can't play against them in one game, after being transferred to them. As opposed to,
:-A team's argueably best player, playing a substantial number of games, which any reasonable person would conclude, enabled them to avoid relegation, when he according to West Ham was their player, when everyone knows he was in fact not.
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]Exiled, in your analysis of Saturday's funtime, you've neatly forgotten the "contribution" of Soares and Murty who were very bad indeed. Hard to say whether they quite managed to reach Bassey's complete cluster of a game, but they were certainly in with that bunch.
I kind of agree with you that loans are not the root of all evil, it's probably more that the ones that we've had, are just awful. There's also probably a destabilising effect. If your boss gets a temp in to do your job, and they perform it at a level that is probably worse than you were capable of - and you are a popular part of the team - then I can see why it could destabilise others in the side, andmake them fearful for their own position. Either that or we've just been loaning in utter shite (Linvoy excepted).
Well I omitted Murty because I didn't think he was that bad, although only Sam, Shelvey and Randolph can really even begin to claim to have earnt their corn, imo. I did say this however:
[cite]Posted By: Exiled_Addick[/cite]Hudson, Fortune, Basey, Bailey and Gray were probably the 5 most ineffective players on the pitch on Saturday and not a loanee amoungst them, although I have to admit Soares was quite annoymous too.
Comments
think your right
Oggy you are making out I am not happy with the Spring signing - I never said that at all I think he's a decent signing - what I was saying was how the hell can Sheff Utd demand he can't play against us when he is not even their player - bet you a pound to a pile of shite we didn't do that with Fulham and Bouazza.
Have you been on the ole Cider ya carrot cruncher
If we were midtable or Bailey wasn't suspended for the Notts game perhaps we'd say have said you can't dictate to us like that so we'll bide our time and sign him in a fortnight. Trouble is, we're plum bottom, sinking fast and were a bit short on senior midfielders for a crunch game, so we agreed to Sheff's demands to get him in asap, probably under the perfectly reasonable logic the upcoming league games were much much more important than the cup game against Sheff U that may well not have come about anyway.
I have no idea if thats the reality but I don't think it takes massive amount of imagination to see how/why we ended up agreeing to such a clause.
i.e a 3rd party is influencing your team selection for this weekend.
West ham were fined £5.5m for having the POTENTIAL of having our team selection influenced by a 3rd party.
Yet the same team that are suing us for this are influencing your team selection (like they did when kabba transferred to watford permanently)
Yet more hypocrisy from Sheff U. Fairness in football my a*se!!!
As Nigel pointed out earlier.
How's that for an apology...?
;o)
Yet the same team that are suing us for this are influencing your team selection (like they did when kabba transferred to watford permanently)
Yet more hypocrisy from Sheff U. Fairness in football my a*se!!!
...................
In life you get what you negotiate and there's nothing wrong or illegal in the deal that Charlton struck with the Blades. However to lie about who actually holds the registration of a player and who controls when he can be transferred is illegal.
Quite right, it is against the rules to not control when one of your players can be transferred. This is 3rd party influence.
Without wanting to get into the Tevez saga again (you are wrong in what you said for what its worth, west ham held tevez registration but not his economic rights - hence why MSI had to pay us to release his registration in order for him to sign for Man U). I am confident the latest inquiry by the FA/PL will back up what I just said.
My point was, Sheff U have gone on and on about fairness in football. They claim tevez should not have been a WHU player in the final games of the season. Their whole arguement boiled down to the 3rd party influence rule, one they have broken themselves in both Steve Kabba's permanent transfer from themselves to Watford, and now by stopping your own contracted player from playing against them this weekend.
As a footnote, I think (may not be 100% right) that it was just a premier league rule we broke so it may not matter in this instance. But the only reason they got away with the kabba deal was because it was deemed a "gentlemans agreement" with nothing in writing (dispite it appearing on both clubs websites and in local rags), otherwise the PL would have acted. Doesn't stop them from being hypocrites of the highest order though.
IMO West Ham should have been automatically relegated for cheating end of. The majority of football fans, other than West Ham fans, I think would agree.The authorities bottled it disgracefully.
IMO had it been the other way round Sheff U would have been relegated.
Leave my moobs out of this!!!
As I said, I don't want to get dragged into the whole tevez thing again, but can you not see how Sheff U are influencing your team selection this weekend? If they felt that strongly about fairness in football, why do they insist on such terms in their transfers?
I kind of agree with you that loans are not the root of all evil, it's probably more that the ones that we've had, are just awful. There's also probably a destabilising effect. If your boss gets a temp in to do your job, and they perform it at a level that is probably worse than you were capable of - and you are a popular part of the team - then I can see why it could destabilise others in the side, andmake them fearful for their own position. Either that or we've just been loaning in utter shite (Linvoy excepted).
I pressed preview - and then attempted to alter a spelling mistake, lol
Before you could say "Whooooosh!", the post disappeared into cyber-space, never to be seen again in it's eternal but fruitless journey of trying to find it's true destination.
Last time I try to post a considered point of view.
I'll stick to abusive one liners in future. I can remember them.
;o)
HA HA...LOL!!!!
We can't discuss this without rehashing the Tevez arguement, but suffice to say there is a massive difference betweem 2 clubs making an agreement that a certain player can't play against them in one game, after being transferred to them. As opposed to,
:-A team's argueably best player, playing a substantial number of games, which any reasonable person would conclude, enabled them to avoid relegation, when he according to West Ham was their player, when everyone knows he was in fact not.
it's tradition ;-)
Well I omitted Murty because I didn't think he was that bad, although only Sam, Shelvey and Randolph can really even begin to claim to have earnt their corn, imo. I did say this however: