Current Player #30 Owen Dale

[Northstandboy]

Player Stats (Click Below)

​

 

[MJB]

It says so much about the lack of goodwill towards the management at the club that people are so very unhappy about this.

Agreements such as this one happen all the time, particularly when the next meeting between the clubs is fairly close.

That said, they’ve brought it upon themselves.

They absolutely have brought this upon themselves.

In the player's own interview on signing, he's asked about how much he's looking forward to the upcoming game against his now former club. He sounds bang up for it.

Left hand, meet right hand.

 

[Coffin dodger]

We may have got a significant discount on him if we promised he wouldn't play against them.
And at least he can't get injured.

 

[ECYellow]

It says so much about the lack of goodwill towards the management at the club that people are so very unhappy about this.

Agreements such as this one happen all the time, particularly when the next meeting between the clubs is fairly close.

That said, they’ve brought it upon themselves.

Nope, i'm sorry but it's absolute tosh.

We purchased the player. It isn't a loan, he is ours to do as we see fit with him (on a football level, i might add!). Had the club agreed to some ridiculous clause and it was a contractual obligation of the transaction, while it would be odd, it would be legally binding and there would be nothing that we could do.

However, a gentleman's agreement is not legally binding and we are amidst of a pretty poor run with every point extremely valuable. We keep hearing Des bleating about players that are missing, yet the club are willing to go out of their way to see one of the only fit wingers that we have, not play against a promotion rival!

Worth also bearing in mind that this deal was done on 29.01.24 (announced later, granted). At the time, all of the wingers that were unavailable then, remain unavailable now. There are no new injuries in the attacking wide areas and so the club, upon agreeing to a 'gentleman's agreement' at that time, knew full well that they'd be gambling on the fitness of injured players being available to come back in for the Blackpool game. It is mind boggling that the club would hamstring itself like this. Seriously, why would they?

 

[LeftSideLarry]

Nope, i'm sorry but it's absolute tosh.

We purchased the player. It isn't a loan, he is ours to do as we see fit with him (on a football level, i might add!). Had the club agreed to some ridiculous clause and it was a contractual obligation of the transaction, while it would be odd, it would be legally binding and there would be nothing that we could do.

However, a gentleman's agreement is not legally binding and we are amidst of a pretty poor run with every point extremely valuable. We keep hearing Des bleating about players that are missing, yet the club are willing to go out of their way to see one of the only fit wingers that we have, not play against a promotion rival!

Worth also bearing in mind that this deal was done on 29.01.24 (announced later, granted). At the time, all of the wingers that were unavailable then, remain unavailable now. There are no new injuries in the attacking wide areas and so the club, upon agreeing to a 'gentleman's agreement' at that time, knew full well that they'd be gambling on the fitness of injured players being available to come back in for the Blackpool game. It is mind boggling that the club would hamstring itself like this. Seriously, why would they?

Us: Can we have OD for £x?

Them: Yes, but in the understanding that he cannot play against us next week. We don’t want to take a risk that he might materially affect the game in your favour. It’s a bad look for us.

Us: We can’t agree to that. We’ll look bad in front of our supporters.

Them: No deal then.

Us: We’d rather have him for all but one of the games than none of them. OK, it’s a deal.

As for breaking the agreement, is that how you want OUFC act? Football’s very small industry and our ever decreasing reputation would soon take another hit.

If we all loved Tim, Des and the gang at the moment, no one would bat an eyelid at this turn of events.

 

[Bicester Yellow]

They absolutely have brought this upon themselves.

In the player's own interview on signing, he's asked about how much he's looking forward to the upcoming game against his now former club. He sounds bang up for it.

Left hand, meet right hand.

Tends to suggest they’ve asked after him signing and we’ve agreed to it. Pathetic.

 

[MJB]

Tends to suggest they’ve asked after him signing and we’ve agreed to it. Pathetic.

More likely to be that the Comms Manager wasn't informed of the situation when conducting the interview.

The only means of communicating signings remember, since the club decided to ban external media interviews for this kind of thing. So not only are we restricting a standard communications channel, we're even managing to f**k up our own in-house attempt at making an announcement.

Even more baffling would be if the player himself wasn't informed of the situation on signing (as the video suggests might be the case).

 

[Swaby39]

If we all loved Tim, Des and the gang at the moment, no one would bat an eyelid at this turn of events.

That’s a big if.

If that were the case, it would mean things were going swimmingly. The majority would therefore accept this was probably the only way the deal could be done and that all other avenues had been explored - because we don’t get bent over by anybody and this was the olayer we wanted at all costs. We also don’t do anything so brave (stupid) without a contingency plan… If only, right?

The trouble is history suggests something entirely different and leads you to believe this is us being had, at our own cost, again. Our execs kissed goodbye to the benefit of the doubt some time ago.

 

[Joey]

I really hope this isn't true but wouldn't be shocked if it wasn't. After we signed Goodwin someone said it would be soley up to Cheltenham when it got announced and I wrote

Exactly.

I heard that Charlton actually offered more than us but wanted to announce it straight away, whereas we agreed that Cheltenham could dictate when the announcement was even once the contract is signed and he's our player and nothing to do with Cheltenham.

I was completely taking the P**s and yet it seems here we are getting dictated to what we can do with our own players. If true it's yet another showing of weak leadership, hopefully Des just plays him at the weekend if we need him, and it certainly looks as if we might. f**k what Blackpool want, he's our player.

 

[Marked Ox]

Us: Can we have OD for £x?

Them: Yes, but in the understanding that he cannot play against us next week. We don’t want to take a risk that he might materially affect the game in your favour. It’s a bad look for us.

Us: We can’t agree to that. We’ll look bad in front of our supporters.

Them: No deal then.

Us: We’d rather have him for all but one of the games than none of them. OK, it’s a deal.

As for breaking the agreement, is that how you want OUFC act? Football’s very small industry and our ever decreasing reputation would soon take another hit.

If we all loved Tim, Des and the gang at the moment, no one would bat an eyelid at this turn of events.

Yep. I'd rather not have the club be known like Blackpool for breaking agreements (ironically one was Owen Dale).

 

[billyturleyscurlywurly]

My issue isn’t with the gentleman’s agreement.

My issue is why wasn’t this said in the Owen Dale signs news article so it would’ve all blown over by now? Why’s it taking Jerome from BBC Radio Oxford to tell us today.

Why is Dale saying he’s looking forward to playing in the Reading derby followed by the trip to Blackpool in his ifollow interview?

Communciation

 

[YellowsForLife]

We did it with Macca

 

[Yellow River]

My issue isn’t with the gentleman’s agreement.

My issue is why wasn’t this said in the Owen Dale signs news article so it would’ve all blown over by now? Why’s it taking Jerome from BBC Radio Oxford to tell us today.

Why is Dale saying he’s looking forward to playing in the Reading derby followed by the trip to Blackpool in his ifollow interview?

Communciation

But, but Timmy says the club over communicates.

 

[uptheus]

Not sure why you are all getting worked up about this, he is probably injured like all of our January signings anyway

No truer word than one said in jest!

 

[East Stand Fan]

I haven't really been following this today but external gentleman's agreements in modern day should not happen and should have absolutely no weight. This isn't the 1980's or a under-the-table deal with Harry Redknapp or Big Sam. I could understand Blackpool making it a formal contractual requirement that he can't play against them if it meant the transfer was concluded - this is pretty rare though as permanent transfers don't usually come with this attached, only loans. Any private nonsense between club officials that is off the record should not be allowed and I'd be embarrassed for both clubs if this has materialised. I'm not sure the EFL or PFA would take too kindly bit business being concluded this way even if it is within two agreeable parties.

 

[ECYellow]

Us: Can we have OD for £x?

Them: Yes, but in the understanding that he cannot play against us next week. We don’t want to take a risk that he might materially affect the game in your favour. It’s a bad look for us.

Us: We can’t agree to that. We’ll look bad in front of our supporters.

Them: No deal then.

Us: We’d rather have him for all but one of the games than none of them. OK, it’s a deal.

As for breaking the agreement, is that how you want OUFC act? Football’s very small industry and our ever decreasing reputation would soon take another hit.

If we all loved Tim, Des and the gang at the moment, no one would bat an eyelid at this turn of events.

Do you know how utterly underhand and archaic that sounds?

Any ‘top 30’ aspiring organisation wouldn’t work in that way. It’s tinpot and it’s not actually worth anything.

Utterly bizarre.

 

[LeftSideLarry]

What are you talking about?

There’s nothing archaic there. It’s called negotiation. The world isn’t black and white.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Seems odd to me. We want to buy a player, they are happy to sell because presumably they don't think he is good enough to keep. You'd think they'd be happy if he were in the team to face them!

 

[ECYellow]

What are you talking about?

There’s nothing archaic there. It’s called negotiation. The world isn’t black and white.

I’m talking about signing a player (for a fee) and then having terms dictated to you by the selling club.

It just shouldn’t happen and we certainly shouldn’t be hearing about it via the local media!

If you purchase a car, would you ‘negotiate’ with the retailer and accept not using the car on a Saturday? Personally, I’d want to use what is mine, when I see fit and not when suits the person selling.

Perhaps it’s just me that thinks it’s a poor old state of affairs and the latest situation that can be filed under ‘cock ups’ under this Senior Management.

 

[LeftSideLarry]

It just shouldn’t happen and we certainly shouldn’t be hearing about it via the local media!

I agree 100%. Unprofessional.

If you purchase a car, would you ‘negotiate’ with the retailer and accept not using the car on a Saturday? Personally, I’d want to use what is mine, when I see fit and not when suits the person selling

Everyone should have a walk away position in any negotiation. Clearly, the stipulation made by BFC concerning Dale was acceptable to OUFC. My guess is that the inconvenience of missing him for one game, albeit an important one, was outweighed by the benefits if having him for all the others.

The question I’d ask anyone unhappy about this element of the deal is if BFC’s walk away threshold was this gentlemen’s agreement, would you rather OUFC had refused to agree and consequently not have OD for the other 16 games plus the (don’t laugh) Play-Off fixtures?

How well our negotiating team read the opposition we’ll never know, but I’m just glad to have Dale in a yellow shirt, even if the price was his absence on Saturday.

 

[Joey]

The question I’d ask anyone unhappy about this element of the deal is if BFC’s walk away threshold was this gentlemen’s agreement, would you rather OUFC had refused to agree and consequently not have OD for the other 16 games plus the (don’t laugh) Play-Off fixtures?

All well and good but how likely is that, realistically? To flip the argument on its head, would Blackpool really have walked away from the deal to get a fair chunk of money and some decent wages off the books because he might play against them for a game? Realistically the chance of the full 90 is slim as well. He doesn't fit their system so it's not like they had a massive use for him. Maybe someone else would have come in and had him but it's a hell of a risk. I don't know the ins and outs of what we paid or what he was earning but I don't think it would be unreasonable that the deal is worth a quarter of a million to Blackpool in terms of fee and saved wages. Are they goin to risk losing that for the sake of one game?

People would be a lot more open to giving the club some credit and/or forgiveness if they showed they deserve it. When so much of what they do is misjudged and when they do do anything visible they don't great impression of people who are out of their depth then it's hard to see the positives. It's very easy to believe Blackpool tried it on and we gave in, maybe that's not a fair reflection but I can only base that on what I've seen from them.

Personally I don't really care if we've got a gentlemen's agreement, just play him if we want to use him.