Current Player #30 Owen Dale

ZeroTheHero said:
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!
Click to expand...
This was my line of thinking as well. If the player is so good that Blackpool fear for him playing against them, why are they selling him to a rival club? Makes no sense at all. Gentlemen's agreement? Tosh. Blow it out your a**e. He plays.
 
The only way we’ll know who got the better of the deal is through OD’s performances for us. Not in one game at BFC but for his entire career with us. If we look back on 200 appearances full of pace, assists and goals, we’ll certainly have forgotten about this issue.

People want to bash the management, and there are many reasons to do so, but this isn’t the hill I’ll choose to die on.
 
Just a thought but maybe it’s better not to play OD v Blackpool? After all, they know him inside out and can nullify him, plus he’ll be viewed as surplus to their requirements hence they sold him to us. On the flip side, a player will often get hyped up for a game against his former club and give an extra 10%. Plus he’ll be useful in giving Des the low down on their strengths & weak points.
 
LeftSideLarry said:
You always strike me as a principled sort of chap, Manorlounger, so I’m surprised you’d see the club break its word.
Click to expand...
The only principle here being that the club have bought the services of this player. They entered into a contract to purchase. If, within that contract, there exists a clause prohibiting the player's participation, then fine. That's a principle. This "Gentlemen's agreement" is non binding and seeks to place a limitation on how the club makes use of the services defined by that contract. That, to me, is tosh. (No doubt, he will have picked up a slight knock from Saturday and will be unable to play!)
 
On the positive side, this must mean that Dale is really, really, REALLY good!
 
Manorlounger said:
The only principle here being that the club have bought the services of this player. They entered into a contract to purchase. If, within that contract, there exists a clause prohibiting the player's participation, then fine. That's a principle. This "Gentlemen's agreement" is non binding and seeks to place a limitation on how the club makes use of the services defined by that contract. That, to me, is tosh. (No doubt, he will have picked up a slight knock from Saturday and will be unable to play!)
Click to expand...
You realise that by definition an agreement isn’t a one way thing?
 
A pity nobody told the player himself, who was looking forward to playing against his old team and would no doubt be really fired up for it.
Yet another example of the club being rolled over for the benefit of some other team (the Stuart Findlay case being another example)
“Oh no, sorry …. Goodwin can’t play against Cheltenham- they asked us for a gentleman’s agreement…”
 
LeftSideLarry said:
You realise that by definition an agreement isn’t a one way thing?
Click to expand...

Stick it in the contract and make it legally binding then.
You could argue that BFC’s side have been negligent if they were that keen on this clause, but failed to have it included in the engrossment. Is that our problem? No.

OUFC have no obligation to do as BFC because something was verbally muted during negotiations. We need the points, the player wants to play (see his interview) and we have no legally obligation not to play him.

It really is that straight forward.
 
ECYellow said:
Stick it in the contract and make it legally binding then.
You could argue that BFC’s side have been negligent if they were that keen on this clause, but failed to have it included in the engrossment. Is that our problem? No.

OUFC have no obligation to do as BFC because something was verbally muted during negotiations. We need the points, the player wants to play (see his interview) and we have no legally obligation not to play him.

It really is that straight forward.
Click to expand...
We don't know the full facts.
This is all speculation.
I wouod guess that it isn't as straight forwards as many are suggesting.
 
Joey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Be good to see that side of Des. A nasty, almost selfish streak. Nothing illegal about it and what are Blackpool going to do besides not take our word for it next time?

Blackpool of all clubs as well, who left it until closing hours of the window to trigger a release clause. Again, nothing illegal about it, merely a faux pax. Didn’t stop them, though, did it.
 
Foley said:
We don't know the full facts.
This is all speculation.
I wouod guess that it isn't as straight forwards as many are suggesting.
Click to expand...

A signed contract is a legally binding agreement.

Should BFC have wanted a specific clause included, it should go into the signed contract. Jerome has confirmed on the DUB, that isn’t the case here.

A verbal agreement can be misinterpreted anyway in which one chooses.

I’m struggling to understand what isn’t straightforward, based on what we know. Owen Dale/OUFC have no legal obligation that means we can’t use our commodity on Saturday.
 
ECYellow said:
A signed contract is a legally binding agreement.

Should BFC have wanted a specific clause included, it should go into the signed contract. Jerome has confirmed on the DUB, that isn’t the case here.

A verbal agreement can be misinterpreted anyway in which one chooses.

I’m struggling to understand what isn’t straightforward, based on what we know. Owen Dale/OUFC have no legal obligation that means we can’t use our commodity on Saturday.
Click to expand...
It isn’t legally binding.

But what sort of club do you want us to be? One that’s respected in the industry or one that the industry knows isn’t to be trusted.

We agreed to it. They didn’t impose it after the event.
 
In UK law a verbal agreement is legally binding if both sides acknowledge its existence, or if it can be proven to have been agreed. eg a conversation is recorded or followed up with an email outlining the terms of the verbal agreement that has been made, without denial or pushback from the receiving party.

Given the local media is broadcasting that this agreement is in place, presumably having been told this by the club, then there is already evidence and acknowledgement of its existence in the public sphere, let alone anything further that may exist privately. Therefore it’s as binding as anything written down and accompanied by a signature.

It’s not a great look to have agreed to such a request, IMO, but it absolutely isn't the case that it can be freely and easily ignored without consequence. Whether Blackpool would pursue it rather than simply getting the right a**e is the real question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Owen James - Goal of the Year
Replies
0
Views
1K
Marked Ox
M
Sarge
General Owen James 'call up'
Replies
2
Views
2K
AbbeyOx
AbbeyOx
Itsthehopethatkillsyou
Owen James and the dearth of strikers....
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
Itsthehopethatkillsyou
Itsthehopethatkillsyou
Back
Top Bottom