Current Player #30 Owen Dale

Considering we wanted a permanent and not a loan - we would be bemoaning the same situation as much as we want to rub Blackpool's nose in it. Let's see.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
PottersRightBoot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Has there ever been another publicised example of such an agreement?

If it's not idiotic, I would argue it's naive and weak.
 
Don’t think we were so vexed when Forest Green sold Simon Clist to us, we apparently had a gentleman’s agreement for him not to play against us a few weeks later. I’m sure there have been others since.

Because things aren’t great on / off the pitch I just think everyone is a bit wound up at the mo and this has just become the next thing to be angry about.
 
No idea why people are so annoyed about this. If indeed this agreement exists, would people really rather we didn't have Dale at all than we have him but he misses one game? Because that is presumably the choice. Yeah it would be disappointing if he misses a game, but that's about it. It's a pretty minor thing really
 
There are plenty of things to be critical of at OUFC while Ferguson and Williams fail to show good leadership.
A gentleman’s agreement is not one of them, and we certainly shouldn’t be breaking it.

However the way the supporters eventually found out about it, leaves a lot to be desired, and symbolises how the current CEO treats supporters, his lack of understanding what it is to be an Oxford United supporter, and his views on communication.

How difficult would it have been to simply mention the agreement between the two clubs when the signing was first made public?

No doubt Buckingham will be pushed forward to explain how the agreement came about while Williams hides in his office.
 
Interesting that nobody seemingly told Owen Dale about this “agreement.”
Perhaps the players are treated as contemptuously as we, the fans, are.
After all, we’re all idiots, aren’t we, Tim?
 
Yellow River said:
How difficult would it have been to simply mention the agreement between the two clubs when the signing was first made public?
Click to expand...

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.
 
tonyw said:
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.
Click to expand...
If he doesn’t play, I wonder what the likelihood is that Dale will be “ill” on Friday.

Just a 24 hour bug, of course 😂
 
tonyw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Going all conspiracy theory, maybe the club quietly let Jerome know this so it became 'public' and therefore he has to be involved. Therefore giving Blackpool back some for their reneging on deals or being Muppets when trying to buy Cam Bran/recalling Thorniley.

I don't believe this but I would genuinely laugh if he played and was important in us beating them, therefore really irritating Blackpool. And all because it became public.
 
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
 
Symp59 said:
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
Click to expand...

But I think the EFL decision on Blackburn is only about their loan of Duncan McGuire (which didn't go through because it ended up being stretched out to the last minute, and then some numpty in their administration pressed the wrong button).

As far as I know, we didn't even start the paperwork for Leonard.....so I don't see how we would have a case to let him come to us outside of the transfer window?
 
tonyw said:
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.
Click to expand...
You could of course get round that quite easily by naming him on the bench then not using him...
 
  • React
Reactions: m
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