collapse collapse

Please donate to help keep this site going.

Recent Topics

April 09, 2021, 07:47:47 PM by dave.woodhall | Views: 490 | Comments: 8

1967: Preston North End and...
April 03, 2021, 09:55:59 PM by dave.woodhall | Views: 1285 | Comments: 25



“Mental pain is...
April 01, 2021, 01:09:36 PM by dave.woodhall | Views: 242 | Comments: 0

In the fifties it used to be t...
March 30, 2021, 12:00:59 AM by dave.woodhall | Views: 413 | Comments: 5

Over the years, Villa Park has...
March 26, 2021, 01:56:48 PM by dave.woodhall | Views: 526 | Comments: 9

On the principle that if you c...

Follow us on...

Author Topic: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.  (Read 393508 times)

Offline Ad@m

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10252
  • GM : 21.03.2022
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2910 on: January 20, 2021, 09:27:21 AM »
Nor should they be.

Why ever not?

Because they haven't done anything wrong. If we were selling a player to a team we were playing a week later I'd be wanting an agreement that he couldn't play so you don't end up looking stupid if he scores.

If West Ham didn't want him to play against them the only other option was to prevent him moving till the end of the month. So he misses more games. Nobody benefits there.

This sort of thing has being going on for years and is basically harmless.

You don't think it impairs the integrity of a competition when players are sold on condition they can only play against certain teams?!

Offline Risso

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 62653
  • Location: Leics
  • GM : 01.03.2022
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2911 on: January 20, 2021, 09:32:11 AM »
Nor should they be.

Why ever not?

Because they haven't done anything wrong. If we were selling a player to a team we were playing a week later I'd be wanting an agreement that he couldn't play so you don't end up looking stupid if he scores.

If West Ham didn't want him to play against them the only other option was to prevent him moving till the end of the month. So he misses more games. Nobody benefits there.

This sort of thing has being going on for years and is basically harmless.

You don't think it impairs the integrity of a competition when players are sold on condition they can only play against certain teams?!

The Premier League certainly do, and that's why they're investigating.

Offline Lastfootstamper

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7229
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Greater Birmingham
  • GM : 02.01.2021
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2912 on: January 20, 2021, 09:43:31 AM »
Quote
This sort of thing has being going on for years
Where? Who? When?

Offline cdbullyweefan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 48248
  • Location: Yardley Massive
  • I still hate Bono.
    • Every time you click this link, a child in Africa dies.
  • GM : 27.01.2022
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2913 on: January 20, 2021, 09:44:16 AM »
Nor should they be.

Why ever not?

Because they haven't done anything wrong. If we were selling a player to a team we were playing a week later I'd be wanting an agreement that he couldn't play so you don't end up looking stupid if he scores.

If West Ham didn't want him to play against them the only other option was to prevent him moving till the end of the month. So he misses more games. Nobody benefits there.

This sort of thing has being going on for years and is basically harmless.

You don't think it impairs the integrity of a competition when players are sold on condition they can only play against certain teams?!

If you're talking about an agreement between teams about a match played a week later, no. This has been done loads of times.

I'd rather the league looked into genuine corruption, like the number of penalties awarded to its most marketable team.

Offline Martin Carruthers

  • Member
  • Posts: 109
  • Location: Sandwell, unfortunately
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2914 on: January 20, 2021, 09:58:51 AM »
You'd have thought they'd have said something bland about him not having had much chance to train with them rather than admitting they broke the rules. Appreciate that'd mean they'd have to delay his debut until after West Ham. And it is the bitters.

Offline Lastfootstamper

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7229
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Greater Birmingham
  • GM : 02.01.2021
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2915 on: January 20, 2021, 10:24:31 AM »
Nor should they be.

Why ever not?

Because they haven't done anything wrong. If we were selling a player to a team we were playing a week later I'd be wanting an agreement that he couldn't play so you don't end up looking stupid if he scores.

If West Ham didn't want him to play against them the only other option was to prevent him moving till the end of the month. So he misses more games. Nobody benefits there.

This sort of thing has being going on for years and is basically harmless.

You don't think it impairs the integrity of a competition when players are sold on condition they can only play against certain teams?!

If you're talking about an agreement between teams about a match played a week later, no. This has been done loads of times.

I'd rather the league looked into genuine corruption, like the number of penalties awarded to its most marketable team.

Name one of these times, cos I'm struggling to recall one where someone's turned out in a competitive game for their new side and then had to miss a subsequent one against their ex. If you don't want them playing against you in a week, waiting a week before completing the deal would seem the more above board way to do it.

Offline cdbullyweefan

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 48248
  • Location: Yardley Massive
  • I still hate Bono.
    • Every time you click this link, a child in Africa dies.
  • GM : 27.01.2022
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2916 on: January 20, 2021, 10:30:04 AM »
Blose with Robbie Savage. Though Blackburn went back on the agreement and picked him anyway. Which Albion didn't, fair play to them.

Who gains from him signing later? That just means a player who wants to play misses more matches. Not sure why anyone benefits from that.

This is a benign agreement and far less suspect than, say, the Villa/Albion deals for Curtis Davies and Luke Moore which involved delayed payments so as to minimise tax payments as I recall.

If any other club but Albion (or Blose) was involved nobody on here would care.

Offline Somniloquism

  • Member
  • Posts: 16903
  • Location: Back in Brum
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2917 on: January 20, 2021, 11:20:37 AM »
Blose with Robbie Savage. Though Blackburn went back on the agreement and picked him anyway. Which Albion didn't, fair play to them.

Who gains from him signing later? That just means a player who wants to play misses more matches. Not sure why anyone benefits from that.

This is a benign agreement and far less suspect than, say, the Villa/Albion deals for Curtis Davies and Luke Moore which involved delayed payments so as to minimise tax payments as I recall.

If any other club but Albion (or Blose) was involved nobody on here would care.

Blose played Blackburn in April after the signing in January and Savage didn't play. I suspect he bottled it rather then any agreement. (or probably on a yellow ban).

Offline Damo70

  • Member
  • Posts: 28718
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2918 on: January 20, 2021, 11:51:33 AM »
I was looking through their 'Hall Of Shame' of managerial appointments in more recent times. The phrase "scattergun approach" springs to mind. One little nugget of knowledge I wasn't aware of was the fact Cyrille Regis and Allan Evans were in joint control for one game back in March 2000. They won the game so they had a 100% win record.

Offline rjp

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 915
  • Location: Leicester
  • GM : 03.05.2021
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2919 on: January 20, 2021, 12:04:39 PM »
Regulation 17 apparently states: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables another party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches."

That's the rule they've probably broken.

Offline Ads

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32781
  • Location: The Breeze
  • GM : 04.04.2022
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2920 on: January 20, 2021, 12:28:08 PM »
Relegate them both.

Offline Dr Butler

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5395
  • Location: Duxford, Cambridge.
  • GM : 06.08.2021
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2921 on: January 20, 2021, 03:16:23 PM »
Relegate them both.

not harsh enough Ads....I say wipe both clubs off the face of the Earth.

FTA and Kit Stealers

UTV
The Doc

Offline johnny from donny

  • Member
  • Posts: 997
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2922 on: January 26, 2021, 10:27:45 PM »
Quote
This sort of thing has being going on for years
Where? Who? When?
Off the top of my head, Andy Cole and Keir Gillespie when Newcastle and Manchester United played each other a few days after the transfer. I could be wrong though.

Offline Russ aka Big Nose

  • Member
  • Posts: 764
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2923 on: January 30, 2021, 03:58:29 PM »
Amazing stat posted on Twitter by WhoScored.com, the Fulham goal today means none of the last 22 goals scored at the Hawthorns have been scored by West Brom!

They are 'kin awful. Shame. :D

Offline aj2k77

  • Member
  • Posts: 9916
Re: The All-New Patronise The Plucky Little Neighbours Thread.
« Reply #2924 on: January 31, 2021, 10:00:55 AM »
Shit, and they spent £50m, remember that next time one of them wants to play the poverty card. Back to playing Rotherham and being the bigger boy next year.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal