Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Im sure in the dark depths of this miserable board it may have been mentioned, but I fear if I read through every post in an attempt to find it, I may want to kill myself with all this doom and gloom here recently. So I will just ask the question, hoping someone can answer it. With Greg loaned to Watford (with a view to a permenant deal), when we play them, is he allowed to play against us? Im sure the answer is no, but just wanted to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Depends if we wrote it into the loan agreement or not. Knowing us, probably not........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Because the club didn't make a big deal about him not being allowed to play against us, I assume he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 August, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 August, 2008 If he is, you just know he will score! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Shearer Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 If he does end up playing against Saints then I will be very annoyed at the Club's stupidity but Danny has made a good point and its most likely he will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 If he does end up playing against Saints then I will be very annoyed at the Club's stupidity but Danny has made a good point and its most likely he will. Why will it be the clubs stupidity? Contracts are signed and sometimes you have to except the terms whether it's in your favour or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 That information was not disclosed so no one can answer your question with any certainty . It's seems to be common practice that loan players don't actually play against the club that holds their registration - and that's the closest you going to get to a proper answer . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 If he does end up playing against Saints then I will be very annoyed at the Club's stupidity but Danny has made a good point and its most likely he will. Blooming heck, will you be really annoyed or just annoyed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eesti matty Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 That information was not disclosed so no one can answer your question with any certainty . It's seems to be common practice that loan players don't actually play against the club that holds their registration - and that's the closest you going to get to a proper answer . I remember one of the last high profile cases involving a loan player scoring against his parent club and that was Lualua for the Skates against Newcastle in 2004. Bobby Robson was fuming about it after. I can't think of any other cases since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 I remember one of the last high profile cases involving a loan player scoring against his parent club and that was Lualua for the Skates against Newcastle in 2004. Bobby Robson was fuming about it after. I can't think of any other cases since then. Is "fuming" more or less bothered than being "annoyed"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eesti matty Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Is "fuming" more or less bothered than being "annoyed"? More! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true-saint-keit Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 That information was not disclosed so no one can answer your question with any certainty . It's seems to be common practice that loan players don't actually play against the club that holds their registration - and that's the closest you going to get to a proper answer . Some times it is left to the player's discression, Chris Lucketti is a good example, under the terms of his loan deal he was eligible to playfor us in the final game of last season, a match which potentially could have seen Sheff Utd into the play offs and us relegated. Lucketti opted to declare himself unavailable for the match to avoid a conflict of interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Shearer Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Why will it be the clubs stupidity? Contracts are signed and sometimes you have to except the terms whether it's in your favour or not. My point being that with any contract, you are going to haggle for it before it is drawn up - well I would. Watford needed a striker and they wanted Rasiak. Surely in that instance Saints would make a stand and say fine but he's not playing against us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Shearer Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 I didnt want to swear so went with very annoyed. But I'll take fuming as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Since Watford are paying his wages I would expect that if we insisted that he not play against us then he would not be available to play for Watford and we would receive less money one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Martini Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 My point being that with any contract, you are going to haggle for it before it is drawn up - well I would. Watford needed a striker and they wanted Rasiak. Surely in that instance Saints would make a stand and say fine but he's not playing against us? Unless Watford said: We'll give you a bit more cash. In which case we would have bitten their hand off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Shearer Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Unless Watford said: We'll give you a bit more cash. In which case we would have bitten their hand off. Who knows? Should have a rule similar to the Premiership's I guess on loan players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secret Site Agent Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Even if he was fit I doubt if he would. Trouble being split loyalties would be playing on his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Fandango Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Is "fuming" more or less bothered than being "annoyed"? They both pale into insignificance when compared to being "livid" and have some fair way to go before reaching "seething" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 He definitely can't play against us. My mate works for Watford and put the deal together and has confirmed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 He definitely can't play against us. My mate works for Watford and put the deal together and has confirmed it. Some people think he can't play full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huffton Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 I think I'm right in saying its actually an FA rule about loanees not being able to play against their parent club, but it can be overruled if both clubs are in agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 They both pale into insignificance when compared to being "livid" and have some fair way to go before reaching "seething" All good points but whereabouts does "I have had it up to here" slot in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 All good points but whereabouts does "I have had it up to here" slot in? Just before 'incandescent with rage' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 He definitely can't play against us. My mate works for Watford and put the deal together and has confirmed it. Damn, I was hoping he could, then it would be like playing against 10 men. We could have fielded a stunned slug and it could have marked him with ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Just before 'incandescent with rage' And 'apoplectic' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogs Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 I hope he can play,and gets a hat trick...ive got a fiver on him at 100 to 1 to be CCC top scorer. Incidently, i hope we thrash Watford 4-3!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiltshiresaint Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 Depends if we wrote it into the loan agreement or not. I don't think it does anymore - I thought they changed the rules a couple of seasons ago so that you couldn't play a player against the club that owns his registration? Maybe that was just the premier league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker268 Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 I can see Rasiak somehow beoming the championship top scorer or in the top few and he will suddenly find amazing form and be a whole new player, it would be just saints luck at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Paul Posted 21 August, 2008 Share Posted 21 August, 2008 It's against the Premier league rules to play against your "home" club. In the CCC it is about what's written in the terms. If you remember Lucketti could have played last game of the season, but decided not to. To let Rasiak play against us would be madness, in my opinion.I dont think for one minute the deal would have fallen through if we insisted on it, as it's a pretty standard clause nowadays. The only reason Sheff utd didn't put it in for Lucketti was because they were miles from the play offs and never thought they'd get near them....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Fandango Posted 22 August, 2008 Share Posted 22 August, 2008 And 'apoplectic' ? Ooh that's a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now