Current Player #30 Owen Dale

[Northstandboy]

Player Stats (Click Below)

​

 

[Northstandboy]

Exactly , we have one line of information, no details or any idea of who said what.

True, but JS would not mention something unless it has credibility.

 

[Manorlounger]

So you do understand, then. You just think it’s OK to break them.

I don't see that it should exist at all. If one party wants a contractually binding clause, put it in the contract.

 

[LeftSideLarry]

That’s a different point, but it has no bearing on whether or not we should act against the spirit of the agreement we made in good faith.

 

[Johnf]

I suppose you can understand Blackpool not wanting Owen to play against them just a few days after joining us. Obviously don’t want him embarrassing them

 

[holdsteady]

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.

Something is either a contractual obligation or isn't in this case, if it isn't then absolutely no reason not to play Dale if we want to.

 

[WuTang]

I agree 100%. Unprofessional.

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.

Unless we play Blackpool, cos gentlemens agreement init?

 

[RgYellows]

That’s a different point, but it has no bearing on whether or not we should act against the spirit of the agreement we made in good faith.

Who says we made it in good faith? Maybe we are petty, vindictive bastards. f**k em.

 

[Marked Ox]

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.

Don't think they can put in the contract due to the regulations/rules so would have to be a 'gentleman's agreement' outside the legal agreement.

 

[AbsoluteZero]

Don't think they can put in the contract due to the regulations/rules so would have to be a 'gentleman's agreement' outside the legal agreement.

Exactly this. It used to be quite common with transfers in the past that a clause was inserted in the written sales contract stating they couldn't play in games against the selling team. So my understanding is that it was banned from doing this and this restriction in the contract was no longer allowed. That brings in the gentleman's agreement outside of the written contract, but if this is released as being in place it becomes contractual so would still be banned and both clubs likely to get in trouble. The key was to just shut your mouth and OD didn't play for whatever reason they stated, but that cat's out the bag so it will be interesting to see what they do because not playing him looks a bit obvious now. The easy way to get around it is he is on the bench with no intention of coming onto the pitch, so takes up a subs spot and restricts our matchday options but avoids a charge for breach of the rules.

 

[Malc]

Maybe he's just injured

 

[Hook]

Blackpool local rag suggests that no such gentleman's agreement is in place that prohibits Dale's involvement on Saturday. If he doesn't play, likely some other reason for his absence.

 

[MJB]

Blackpool local rag suggests that no such gentleman's agreement is in place that prohibits Dale's involvement on Saturday. If he doesn't play, likely some other reason for his absence.

Owen Dale's eligibility status for weekend's game between Blackpool and Oxford United amid social media rumour

Blackpool could come up against a familiar face when they welcome Oxford United to Bloomfield Road this weekend.

www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk

 

[Swaby39]

Perhaps it will be something in between - he can only come off the bench and for a maximum 20 mins!

Still laughable. We need the points. Get him on the field.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

If the club have been idiotic enough to enter into some sort of gentleman's agreement then they probably have to stick by it (unfortunately). If we start going back on what you said, we'll lose trust as to when we might choose to ignore something else we have agreed!

I am hoping that Jerome was mistaken.

 

[westyorkshireexile]

I'm simply wondering who these mythical gentlemen are.

 

[mooro]

Maybe he's just injured

Perhaps he has a slight knock, but given the outrage that followed our last young exciting prospect of a signing potentially missing a couple of weeks out of a 2.5 year contract, the club thought they'd come up with a different reason for our new exciting prospect of a signing to miss a game.....

 

[captainox]

Blackpool local rag suggests that no such gentleman's agreement is in place that prohibits Dale's involvement on Saturday. If he doesn't play, likely some other reason for his absence.

Not quite.

They say "BBC Radio Oxford have reported there could be a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ which could stop the attacker featuring this weekend, but this was not an official part of the deal."

Not an official part of the deal i.e. not written in as a clause - exactly what a 'gentleman's agreement' is .

 

[Golden Dr Otto]

If the club have been idiotic enough to enter into some sort of gentleman's agreement then they probably have to stick by it (unfortunately). If we start going back on what you said, we'll lose trust as to when we might choose to ignore something else we have agreed!

I am hoping that Jerome was mistaken.

If it’s the difference between signing a player we want or not then it’s not idiotic I’d have said. We’ve factored in what it’s worth to us.

If there’s an agreement we should stick to it as football is a small world where word spreads.

I doubt such a deal exists though

 

[uptheus]

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.

It would be good to know why we agreed to it.

 

[Marked Ox]

It would be good to know why we agreed to it.

One possible reason, to get the deal completed.