|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 13:41:27 GMT
99% of people on this thread are, apologies if you didn't. What do you think happened then?[/quote] "What do you think happened then?" I don't know. You don't. That's the whole fucking point. You're blaming people when you haven't got a clue. Why aren't you having a pop at those blaming Greg Dyke then? I dunno maybe our new recruitment team are just unlucky eh?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 21, 2013 13:42:49 GMT
Don't You think it's a wee bit of a coincidence? The speech will be their mind, all the bollocks about protecting the young English players will be (You only had to watch the Germany game the night before to see it in action). Robbie Rogers-in Tim Ream-in Geoff Cameron-in Brek Shea-in All had less caps, all had as good a argument for playing over here as Agudelo. Then Dyke speech happens and there's a big media whip up of "Johnny foreigners are killing the English game" and a talk of toughening the permit rules. And then suddenly we can't one for someone who in theory should walk appeal. Some fucking coincidence if it is one. Or they looked at our record with other USA players? It shouldn't come into it. And if it does I'd say it's one for one to use American parlance. Cameron worked, Shea hasn't yet but it can easily be put down to mitigating factors like injury. Edu was already over here so I wouldn't count him as being relevant to the US market, he shows how shit the Scottish market is imo. I won't mention who I blame that on, You'll shout at me and tell me I can't mention his name!
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Nov 21, 2013 13:47:08 GMT
Don't You think it's a wee bit of a coincidence? The speech will be their mind, all the bollocks about protecting the young English players will be (You only had to watch the Germany game the night before to see it in action). Robbie Rogers-in Tim Ream-in Geoff Cameron-in Brek Shea-in All had less caps, all had as good a argument for playing over here as Agudelo. Then Dyke speech happens and there's a big media whip up of "Johnny foreigners are killing the English game" and a talk of toughening the permit rules. And then suddenly we can't one for someone who in theory should walk appeal. Some fucking coincidence if it is one. Or they looked at our record with other USA players? So it may have been Dykes speech then? That's your current line. And how pray are you pinning that on Cartwright, et al?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Nov 21, 2013 13:48:42 GMT
Why aren't you having a pop at those blaming Greg Dyke then? I dunno maybe our new recruitment team are just unlucky eh? Because at least their is some evidence to blame Dyke. There is no evidence to blame our recruitment team for this. If there is, then please tell us.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Nov 21, 2013 13:55:03 GMT
High praise indeed, O ruler of la-la land. To everybody else, you know the phrase 'you couldn't make it up'? Momo's never heard of it. Why would you bring Pulis into it unless you were an idiot? Not only are you single-minded to the point of idiocy, you also can't parse a normal English sentence. I merely used the word 'pulis-drooling' as a catch-all word to describe you and the other mono-maniac tazi. At no point did I blame Pulis, or say that you blamed Pulis, or refer to Pulis in any other way. It seems like your blind hatred of 'men in suits' has blinded you to anything resembling common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 21, 2013 13:57:58 GMT
Without wishing to read through 13 pages of this discourse what's the headline here?
a)Agudelo is probably still coming after a regulation appeal b)Agudelo may come after an appeal which could go either way c)We are knackered on this one and need to move on
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Nov 21, 2013 13:59:21 GMT
Without wishing to read through 13 pages of this discourse what's the headline here? a)Agudelo is probably still coming after a regulation appeal b)Agudelo may come after an appeal which could go either way c)We are knackered on this one and need to move on Thanks. c) Oh, and it's the current management team's fault, absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Nov 21, 2013 14:00:29 GMT
Without wishing to read through 13 pages of this discourse what's the headline here? a)Agudelo is probably still coming after a regulation appeal b)Agudelo may come after an appeal which could go either way c)We are knackered on this one and need to move on Thanks. c)
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 21, 2013 14:02:52 GMT
Yikes I only put c) in for a laugh
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 21, 2013 15:03:31 GMT
Am I the only one who can't help feeling that had it been Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc etc etc there would have been no issue. Maybe we don't grease enough palms.... If it was Moyes then I GUARANTEE it wouldn't have been a problem mate... Dyke's a ManUre fan!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 21, 2013 15:09:55 GMT
Without wishing to read through 13 pages of this discourse what's the headline here? a)Agudelo is probably still coming after a regulation appeal b)Agudelo may come after an appeal which could go either way c)We are knackered on this one and need to move on Thanks. It's C. Although if I'm reading some of the (more?) knowledgeable posters correctly we could sign him but immediately loan him out to a non-UK club and wait until he gets more caps/playing time and then apply again. I think.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 15:17:05 GMT
Because at least their is some evidence to blame Dyke. There is no evidence to blame our recruitment team for this. If there is, then please tell us. There is no evidence to blame Dyke. It was a speech not a change in terms of reference which has to be documented.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 15:18:45 GMT
D). Cheers, Tone.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 21, 2013 15:19:17 GMT
Because at least their is some evidence to blame Dyke. There is no evidence to blame our recruitment team for this. If there is, then please tell us. There is no evidence to blame Dyke. It was a speech not a change in terms of reference which has to be documented. It doesn't have to be documented does it? That's the beauty of how this system works, it's as clear as mud and things like that could easily influence the panel. To blame it completely on that speech is probably daft but it's still some coincidence. And to think that it couldn't affect the decision at all is just naive imo.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 15:19:23 GMT
Why would you bring Pulis into it unless you were an idiot? Not only are you single-minded to the point of idiocy, you also can't parse a normal English sentence. I merely used the word 'pulis-drooling' as a catch-all word to describe you and the other mono-maniac tazi. At no point did I blame Pulis, or say that you blamed Pulis, or refer to Pulis in any other way. It seems like your blind hatred of 'men in suits' has blinded you to anything resembling common sense. You used the word Pulis on a thread which up to that point hadn't mentioned Pulis because only an idiot could equate the two. Well done idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 15:21:17 GMT
Without wishing to read through 13 pages of this discourse what's the headline here? a)Agudelo is probably still coming after a regulation appeal b)Agudelo may come after an appeal which could go either way c)We are knackered on this one and need to move on Thanks. It's C. Although if I'm reading some of the (more?) knowledgeable posters correctly we could sign him but immediately loan him out to a non-UK club and wait until he gets more caps/playing time and then apply again. I think. exaclty what Chelsea have done with Cuevas and what Arsenal did with Campbell simply because the WP rules abroad are nothing like as stringent as ours are. the problem we now face though is that if they ARE sticking to the rules and being far less lenient at appeal, then that means the "Bigger clubs" who can afford all the top players (those that will fit the WP criteria) are fine and dandy whereas the "Smaller teams" will be forced to take the dregs....so all the young, up and coming players (who don't yet meet the criteria) will go abroad and then the likes of Man utd. etc. will snap them up when they meet the FA's rules. basically when Dyke talks about pushing English youth forwards what he's actually saying is that the smaller clubs will do ALL the work in nurturing young english players through....meanwhile the bigger clubs will still spend shitloads on the top non-EU players who CAN get work permits and then when we've trained some good english youngsters up we'll lose them to bigger clubs as well as they'll move on up the ladder if they're half decent....so the big clubs get bigger and continue their success whilst the sides who are battling to maintain their Prem status will be forced to take on and play young english players because they can't afford the good players who need WPs.....the big clubs get bigger, the small clubs do all the donkey work for the england set up!
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 21, 2013 15:21:58 GMT
So after singing "There's only NON Agudelo" this Saturday and getting it out of our system, do we have any strikers on the radar.... I mean ANY at all...... anywhere ??
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 15:42:10 GMT
There is no evidence to blame Dyke. It was a speech not a change in terms of reference which has to be documented. It doesn't have to be documented does it? That's the beauty of how this system works, it's as clear as mud and things like that could easily influence the panel. To blame it completely on that speech is probably daft but it's still some coincidence. And to think that it couldn't affect the decision at all is just naive imo. Well terms of reference are issued prior to the hearing. This coupled with the fact that Dyke's tightening proposals were due to be put before the Premier League shareholders meeting means one of two things. a) There have been no changes to criteria b) We have been unlucky to be the first to be 'punished' but were fully aware that less exceptions were to be made and didn't have a strong enough case. New era same old recruitment shit.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 21, 2013 15:48:34 GMT
It doesn't have to be documented does it? That's the beauty of how this system works, it's as clear as mud and things like that could easily influence the panel. To blame it completely on that speech is probably daft but it's still some coincidence. And to think that it couldn't affect the decision at all is just naive imo. Well terms of reference are issued prior to the hearing. This coupled with the fact that Dyke's tightening proposals were due to be put before the Premier League shareholders meeting means one of two things. a) There have been no changes to criteria b) We have been unlucky to be the first to be 'punished' but were fully aware that less exceptions were to be made and didn't have a strong enough case. New era same old recruitment shit. But it's not the same old shit is it? We've won two of these before (with less of a case) with the same bloke (Scholes) heading the party. Like Rob, I can't see what more they could have done.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 15:50:24 GMT
Well terms of reference are issued prior to the hearing. This coupled with the fact that Dyke's tightening proposals were due to be put before the Premier League shareholders meeting means one of two things. a) There have been no changes to criteria b) We have been unlucky to be the first to be 'punished' but were fully aware that less exceptions were to be made and didn't have a strong enough case. New era same old recruitment shit. But it's not the same old shit is it? We've won two of these before (with less of a case) with the same bloke (Scholes) heading the party. Like Rob, I can't see what more they could have done. But these flabbergasted quotes don't stack up do they. The criteria either hasn't been tightened or it has and we fully knew!
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Nov 21, 2013 15:53:22 GMT
Not only are you single-minded to the point of idiocy, you also can't parse a normal English sentence. I merely used the word 'pulis-drooling' as a catch-all word to describe you and the other mono-maniac tazi. At no point did I blame Pulis, or say that you blamed Pulis, or refer to Pulis in any other way. It seems like your blind hatred of 'men in suits' has blinded you to anything resembling common sense. You used the word Pulis on a thread which up to that point hadn't mentioned Pulis because only an idiot could equate the two. Well done idiot. This is, of course, a thing that you never do, isn't it. You're an embarrassment to all idiots everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 21, 2013 15:54:41 GMT
But it's not the same old shit is it? We've won two of these before (with less of a case) with the same bloke (Scholes) heading the party. Like Rob, I can't see what more they could have done. But these flabbergasted quotes don't stack up do they. The criteria either hasn't been tightened or it has and we fully knew! Don't they? I'm as flabbergasted as them tbh. It makes no sense and I don't think the timing is coincidence. And like I said with the process how it is, it doesn't matter if they've tightened up or not, it's a judgmental thing. If that Dyke speech is in their head and I think it will be because of the media it got and the subsequent media on the state English is in then there's nothing we can do.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 15:59:40 GMT
You used the word Pulis on a thread which up to that point hadn't mentioned Pulis because only an idiot could equate the two. Well done idiot. This is, of course, a thing that you never do, isn't it. You're an embarrassment to all idiots everywhere. No I wouldn't bring up the ex manager on a thread where there can be absolutely no correlation between him and the issue at hand. For the record, I've always said recruitment was shite under Pulis, it just hasn't improved a jot under the new direction has it?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 16:01:33 GMT
But these flabbergasted quotes don't stack up do they. The criteria either hasn't been tightened or it has and we fully knew! Don't they? I'm as flabbergasted as them tbh. It makes no sense and I don't think the timing is coincidence. And like I said with the process how it is, it doesn't matter if they've tightened up or not, it's a judgmental thing. If that Dyke speech is in their head and I think it will be because of the media it got and the subsequent media on the state English is in then there's nothing we can do. But he was putting it to the shareholders meeting. So this hasn't happened and the rules haven't changed OR they have and we knew.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 16:07:09 GMT
Don't they? I'm as flabbergasted as them tbh. It makes no sense and I don't think the timing is coincidence. And like I said with the process how it is, it doesn't matter if they've tightened up or not, it's a judgmental thing. If that Dyke speech is in their head and I think it will be because of the media it got and the subsequent media on the state English is in then there's nothing we can do. But he was putting it to the shareholders meeting. So this hasn't happened and the rules haven't changed OR they have and we knew. to be fair though if the rules haven't changed then we had no reason not to pursue it...scores of players who don't meet the criteria get through on appeal (Willian didn't meet the elgibility criteria..even Popov didn't although i appreciate that probably wasn't why WE signed him) so why shouldn't we go for it in the way everyone else does (and usually succeed)? if the rules HAVE changed then, again, that isn't our fault as the agreements with the player and the pre-contract were drawn up in the summer which is well before Dyke made any kind of speech which may have affected the criteria... either way, given the fact that the deal was sorted back in the summer, there was NO reason whatsoever for the club to think there would be any issue
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 21, 2013 16:09:45 GMT
Don't they? I'm as flabbergasted as them tbh. It makes no sense and I don't think the timing is coincidence. And like I said with the process how it is, it doesn't matter if they've tightened up or not, it's a judgmental thing. If that Dyke speech is in their head and I think it will be because of the media it got and the subsequent media on the state English is in then there's nothing we can do. But he was putting it to the shareholders meeting. So this hasn't happened and the rules haven't changed OR they have and we knew. It doesn't matter though does it? If it's in the panel's head then they will make the decision with that mind. It doesn't need to be legislation because of how transparent the whole process is. They can make any old decision for any old reason. Based on history, he should have walked it.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 16:11:48 GMT
But he was putting it to the shareholders meeting. So this hasn't happened and the rules haven't changed OR they have and we knew. to be fair though if the rules haven't changed then we had no reason not to pursue it...scores of players who don't meet the criteria get through on appeal (Willian didn't meet the elgibility criteria..even Popov didn't although i appreciate that probably wasn't why WE signed him) so why shouldn't we go for it in the way everyone else does (and usually succeed)? if the rules HAVE changed then, again, that isn't our fault as the agreements with the player and the pre-contract were drawn up in the summer which is well before Dyke made any kind of speech which may have affected the criteria... either way, given the fact that the deal was sorted back in the summer, there was NO reason whatsoever for the club to think there would be any issue Alternatively, if the rules haven't changed then the appeal has failed on something other than the rambling of the ex director of the BBC or if they have changed we are unlucky but couldn't get a strong enough case together but rumours of being 'flabbergasted' are a little wide of the mark!
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Nov 21, 2013 16:16:40 GMT
Don't they? I'm as flabbergasted as them tbh. It makes no sense and I don't think the timing is coincidence. And like I said with the process how it is, it doesn't matter if they've tightened up or not, it's a judgmental thing. If that Dyke speech is in their head and I think it will be because of the media it got and the subsequent media on the state English is in then there's nothing we can do. But he was putting it to the shareholders meeting. So this hasn't happened and the rules haven't changed OR they have and we knew. So the panel was made up (taken from the other thread discussing this): "The panel will normally consist of representatives from the relevant football governing bodies together with up to three independent experts." Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/222702/#ixzz2lIUKlfcX...so that means that the FA would have a representative on the panel. It's not a big leap of faith to suggest that they may have been listening to the widely reported comments from Dyke is it, the Chairman of the FA? Supposition maybe? But at least it's based on some facts. As opposed to your complete and utter bollocks based upon your own agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 16:26:32 GMT
to be fair though if the rules haven't changed then we had no reason not to pursue it...scores of players who don't meet the criteria get through on appeal (Willian didn't meet the elgibility criteria..even Popov didn't although i appreciate that probably wasn't why WE signed him) so why shouldn't we go for it in the way everyone else does (and usually succeed)? if the rules HAVE changed then, again, that isn't our fault as the agreements with the player and the pre-contract were drawn up in the summer which is well before Dyke made any kind of speech which may have affected the criteria... either way, given the fact that the deal was sorted back in the summer, there was NO reason whatsoever for the club to think there would be any issue Alternatively, if the rules haven't changed then the appeal has failed on something other than the rambling of the ex director of the BBC or if they have changed we are unlucky but couldn't get a strong enough case together but rumours of being 'flabbergasted' are a little wide of the mark! i agree that while we can feel hard done to and bloody frustrated (given the scores of precedents set already by allowing players who don't fit the WP criteria through...includng Willian) that i suppose being flabbergasted is over the top although i still don't see that the club have done anything wrong at all in pursuing it. to be honest this is why i think it's ridiculous that the panel aren't giving any reasons behind their decision. as jeycov pointed out, unless they do then no-one (including other clubs) can have any way of knowing whether any future transfer for non-eu players is even worth bothering with in the first place. if they've decided to be less lenient and stick to their rules then they need to let every club know that so they don't wast their time looking at players they can't possibly get....if they HAVE changed the rules then, again they DEFINITELY need to make that public...to just say "We're denying it and not telling you why" is absolutely ludicrous for so many reasons.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 16:27:20 GMT
But he was putting it to the shareholders meeting. So this hasn't happened and the rules haven't changed OR they have and we knew. So the panel was made up (taken from the other thread discussing this): "The panel will normally consist of representatives from the relevant football governing bodies together with up to three independent experts." Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/222702/#ixzz2lIUKlfcX...so that means that the FA would have a representative on the panel. It's not a big leap of faith to suggest that they may have been listening to the widely reported comments from Dyke is it, the Chairman of the FA? Supposition maybe? But at least it's based on some facts. . There would be equal representation from the governing body and supposedly independent experts. Unless Dyke is angling for a full on showdown with the Premier League and directly influenced the panel, which I severely doubt, the requirements for exceptions haven't been tightened. As only two exceptions were granted this summer in the premier league perhaps our recruitment team have backed the wrong donkey? Supposition maybe? But at least it's based on some facts. As opposed to your complete and utter bollocks based upon your own agenda
|
|