- Joined
- 5 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 8,708
ExactlyOne possible reason, to get the deal completed.
Why are the club being ‘idiotic’? Quite probably was a condition for the deal to go through in the first place.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.
Has there ever been another publicised example of such an agreement?Why are the club being ‘idiotic’? Quite probably was a condition for the deal to go through in the first place.
He’s a good player and will definitely add to our squad. Dale missing one game is really neither here or there.
Tim’s in his office these days, is he?No doubt Buckingham will be pushed forward to explain how the agreement came about while Williams hides in his office.
Least he can't get injured on Saturday!As others have said possible only way for get deal done
Some times in business this happens
Think some on here are being naive !!!
Don't be too sureLeast he can't get injured on Saturday!
Least he can't get injured on Saturday!
How difficult would it have been to simply mention the agreement between the two clubs when the signing was first made public?
If he doesn’t play, I wonder what the likelihood is that Dale will be “ill” on Friday.Because to have such an agreement would be against English Football League rules. The rules could not be very much clearer on this (see guidance under clause 49.273 in the EFL handbook):
"Clubs cannot have any form of agreement pursuant to which the Player is unable to play against the Club he has transferred from. Such clauses are only permissible in loan agreements in accordance with Regulation 55.8"
So if we announced that we had such an agreement, we'd be admitting to a rules breach and basically be begging the league to punish us (and Blackpool).
If we do have this gentleman's agreement - it's an illegal one. And, thanks to Jerome, the league is probably watching now. I would much rather P**s Blackpool off by ignoring it (and have Dale for the game) than risk the EFL's ire.
Because to have such an agreement would be against English Football League rules. The rules could not be very much clearer on this (see guidance under clause 49.273 in the EFL handbook):
"Clubs cannot have any form of agreement pursuant to which the Player is unable to play against the Club he has transferred from. Such clauses are only permissible in loan agreements in accordance with Regulation 55.8"
So if we announced that we had such an agreement, we'd be admitting to a rules breach and basically be begging the league to punish us (and Blackpool).
If we do have this gentleman's agreement - it's an illegal one. And, thanks to Jerome, the league is probably watching now. I would much rather P**s Blackpool off by ignoring it (and have Dale for the game) than risk the EFL's ire.
We have enough players to do the job ,sometimes you have to do a deal to get it over the line .Let's hope the Blackburn lad still ends up here ,waiting for the efl decision tomorrow
You could of course get round that quite easily by naming him on the bench then not using him...Because to have such an agreement would be against English Football League rules. The rules could not be very much clearer on this (see guidance under clause 49.273 in the EFL handbook):
"Clubs cannot have any form of agreement pursuant to which the Player is unable to play against the Club he has transferred from. Such clauses are only permissible in loan agreements in accordance with Regulation 55.8"
So if we announced that we had such an agreement, we'd be admitting to a rules breach and basically be begging the league to punish us (and Blackpool).
If we do have this gentleman's agreement - it's an illegal one. And, thanks to Jerome, the league is probably watching now. I would much rather P**s Blackpool off by ignoring it (and have Dale for the game) than risk the EFL's ire.