BigfinLatic Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) Why would we put a clause in his loan deal to stop him playing against us when we have no intention of him coming back? Better the devil (or half-hearted big lummox) you know, right? And who says he'll even be on our books by then anyway? Exactly - couldnt care less, would rather have him playing against us than someone we dont know.... who cares if he does score against us - he aint our player any more, and we have no intention of getting him back - the fact sheridan said that he could play is a stamp of authority, why the hell should we be bothered about him coming back??? He is just another decidedly average player who may score against us - but probably wont.... Edited December 7, 2007 by BigfinLatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Technically, FIFA/UEFA can only dictate on when a player moves between clubs. They can't dictate to us when we rip up a player's contract. What the implications are on his registration at either Oldham or Walsall are of that I'm not sure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Being a pedant, the answer is FIFA/ UEFA (or whoever is in charge of instigating the transfer window). What he said... Players will naturally raise their game when playing against former teams and trying to prove a point. It's absurd that we're allowing him to play against us. After all, it's not like Walsall wouldn't have taken him if we'd said that he couldn't play in one game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Tell you what - if he scores against us I'll buy you a pint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 What he said... Players will naturally raise their game when playing against former teams and trying to prove a point. It's absurd that we're allowing him to play against us. After all, it's not like Walsall wouldn't have taken him if we'd said that he couldn't play in one game. You are missing the point - the message was in the fact we said he could. Its not walsall we were making the statement to, it was Ricketts and the players in the team - you act like he did and you have no future here - as far as Shez and we are concered he is no longer our player - saying he could play would indicate we still give a damn about him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leezyverpunk Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 cant wait to see the crowd reaction when they announce he is playing. he hasnt been one of the most loved players at latics has he. boo's maybe? Yes I will have a pint of cider please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 You are missing the point - the message was in the fact we said he could. Its not walsall we were making the statement to, it was Ricketts and the players in the team - you act like he did and you have no future here - as far as Shez and we are concered he is no longer our player - saying he could play would indicate we still give a damn about him... Allowing him to play in the cup games was enough of a sign that he was out. Granted, he probably won't score against us, as some never failed to mention when he was here...his goalscoring record is poor. Yet, I still maintain he was harshly judged as his all round contribution was impressive. Anyway, that's all in the past now, but it seems daft to allow him to have the chance to net against us, especially when he'll be itching to score on the back of how he was treated by some sections of the crowd here. At least I've got myself a pint if he does though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Isn't it League rules that a player cannot play against his parent club whilst being on loan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoytonBlueLad Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Isn't it League rules that a player cannot play against his parent club whilst being on loan? As Lags says it happened when Allott and Innes were on loan to Chesterfield. Thing is, we had Reeves on loan too. He wasn't allowed to play though! Or was it part of the deal that brought him permanent? Anyway it was crazy for us to do it and it backfired then. I wouldn't let it happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetruelatics Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I think the rules have changed about loan players,i dont think the club are able to stop him playing against us. Didn`t a team in the prem get done for stopping one of their players playing against them while on loan to another prem club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simpo Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 It is Premier League rules that a player can't play against his parent club. Ex. Danny Guthrie not being allowed to play for Bolton against Liverpool last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.