|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 14:31:03 GMT
Sorry....are you saying that both clubs could not have agreed Ireland not playing against them in order for Stoke to take over the contract? I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club? ALL loan players between Premier League clubs CANNOT play against their parent club. It is a Premier League Rule. It was up to Villa and Stoke to agree whether Ireland could play or not if the loan was converted to a transfer. But If the agreement was that he could not (as in this case) then this had to be put as a clause into the contract between Villa and Stoke and a copy had to go to the Premier League. Simples. But Stoke were never in a position to INSIST that Ireland could play unless Villa were happy about that. I agree....just wondering what was rubbish about my original post then? We seem to agree? I never said Stoke could "Insist", only that is was likely it was agreed and suited both parties. I stand to be corrected as ever...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 15:09:57 GMT
This latest bout of incompetence is written in black and white, sadly. Agreed 100%. Still can't believe we agreed to this deal. Back to the original question,surely the match wouldn't go ahead as Villa obviously know about the deal? If it did go ahead then surely it would be a fine and points deduction?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 22, 2014 15:12:15 GMT
I think a winner from his replacement palacios should do it. I like it! If you were to draw up a short list of things which won't happen that would be at the top of it. Palacios almost never scored a goal even when he was good
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 15:12:58 GMT
We had no choice other than to walk away and give up on Guidetti.
According to Hughes in todays Sentinel, it's in the contract rather than it being a gentlemens agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 22, 2014 15:21:09 GMT
Sorry....are you saying that both clubs could not have agreed Ireland not playing against them in order for Stoke to take over the contract? I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club? ALL loan players between Premier League clubs CANNOT play against their parent club. It is a Premier League Rule. It was up to Villa and Stoke to agree whether Ireland could play or not if the loan was converted to a transfer. But If the agreement was that he could not (as in this case) then this had to be put as a clause into the contract between Villa and Stoke and a copy had to go to the Premier League. Simples. But Stoke were never in a position to INSIST that Ireland could play unless Villa were happy about that. Lakeland, you are sometimes good on these kind of things but the above is misleading at best. >>loan players between Premier League clubs CANNOT play against their parent club. It is a Premier League Rule. True but irrelevant noise here, we bought Ireland in January. >>It was up to Villa and Stoke to agree whether Ireland could play or not if the loan was converted to a transfer. No, it wasn’t up to Villa and Stoke to agree anything to do with who Ireland does and does not play against once he becomes our player. It should not have ever been an agenda item
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Mar 22, 2014 15:32:49 GMT
I'm still annoyed in our promotion season Sheffield Wednesday got away with playing too many loanees. The FA make it us as they go along, I refuse to believe anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 22, 2014 15:35:56 GMT
ALL loan players between Premier League clubs CANNOT play against their parent club. It is a Premier League Rule. It was up to Villa and Stoke to agree whether Ireland could play or not if the loan was converted to a transfer. But If the agreement was that he could not (as in this case) then this had to be put as a clause into the contract between Villa and Stoke and a copy had to go to the Premier League. Simples. But Stoke were never in a position to INSIST that Ireland could play unless Villa were happy about that. Lakeland, you are sometimes good on these kind of things but the above is misleading at best. >> loan players between Premier League clubs CANNOT play against their parent club. It is a Premier League Rule. True but irrelevant noise here, we bought Ireland in January.
>>It was up to Villa and Stoke to agree whether Ireland could play or not if the loan was converted to a transfer. No, it wasn’t up to Villa and Stoke to agree anything to do with who Ireland does and does not play against once he becomes our player. It should not have ever been an agenda item Not irrelevant Gods. I was replying to the gavroberts comment that "I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club" So I pointed out that in Premier League loans it was ALL not MOST. As to your second point, I would imagine the conversation went like this: Stoke, "Can we convert Ireland's loan into a permanent deal please." Villa, "Yes we'll agree to that - providing that we can insert a clause into the contract between the two clubs stating that he can't play against us in March. Otherwise we would be disadvantaged by agreeing to your proposal." Stoke, "What if we don't agree?" Villa, "Then he stays on his season long loan and you'll have to wait until the summer to sign him when he is out of contract." Obviously the discussion lasted a lot longer than that (if you remember it took a week or so) but I reckon the above précis is pretty much the gist of Villa's position.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Mar 22, 2014 15:43:46 GMT
What a complete and utter waste of a thread!
Reason 1.) He won't play.
Reason 2.) He won't play.
Reason 3.) He won't play.
Simple enough?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 22, 2014 16:07:55 GMT
Lakeland, you are sometimes good on these kind of things but the above is misleading at best. >> loan players between Premier League clubs CANNOT play against their parent club. It is a Premier League Rule. True but irrelevant noise here, we bought Ireland in January.
>>It was up to Villa and Stoke to agree whether Ireland could play or not if the loan was converted to a transfer. No, it wasn’t up to Villa and Stoke to agree anything to do with who Ireland does and does not play against once he becomes our player. It should not have ever been an agenda item Not irrelevant Gods. I was replying to the gavroberts comment that "I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club" So I pointed out that in Premier League loans it was ALL not MOST. As to your second point, I would imagine the conversation went like this: Stoke, "Can we convert Ireland's loan into a permanent deal please." Villa, "Yes we'll agree to that - providing that we can insert a clause into the contract between the two clubs stating that he can't play against us in March. Otherwise we would be disadvantaged by agreeing to your proposal." Stoke, "What if we don't agree?" Villa, "Then he stays on his season long loan and you'll have to wait until the summer to sign him when he is out of contract." Obviously the discussion lasted a lot longer than that (if you remember it took a week or so) but I reckon the above précis is pretty much the gist of Villa's position. Fair enough on the first point and apologies. On the rest you may be right about the jist of the dialogue but the undertone is that it is a perfectly normal piece of business, the way transfers are done, which it patently is not.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 16:11:23 GMT
Not irrelevant Gods. I was replying to the gavroberts comment that "I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club" So I pointed out that in Premier League loans it was ALL not MOST. As to your second point, I would imagine the conversation went like this: Stoke, "Can we convert Ireland's loan into a permanent deal please." Villa, "Yes we'll agree to that - providing that we can insert a clause into the contract between the two clubs stating that he can't play against us in March. Otherwise we would be disadvantaged by agreeing to your proposal." Stoke, "What if we don't agree?" Villa, "Then he stays on his season long loan and you'll have to wait until the summer to sign him when he is out of contract." Obviously the discussion lasted a lot longer than that (if you remember it took a week or so) but I reckon the above précis is pretty much the gist of Villa's position. Fair enough on the first point and apologies. On the rest you may be right about the jist of the dialogue but the undertone is that it is a perfectly normal piece of business, the way transfers are done, which it patently is not. It's not normal at the moment because it's a new rule. I'd imagine it will become accepted practice fairly shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 22, 2014 16:11:23 GMT
What a complete and utter waste of a thread! Reason 1.) He won't play. Reason 2.) He won't play. Reason 3.) He won't play. Simple enough? I wonder if a discussion message board is ever going to really work for a 'black and white' man like yourself
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 22, 2014 16:15:51 GMT
Not irrelevant Gods. I was replying to the gavroberts comment that "I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club" So I pointed out that in Premier League loans it was ALL not MOST. As to your second point, I would imagine the conversation went like this: Stoke, "Can we convert Ireland's loan into a permanent deal please." Villa, "Yes we'll agree to that - providing that we can insert a clause into the contract between the two clubs stating that he can't play against us in March. Otherwise we would be disadvantaged by agreeing to your proposal." Stoke, "What if we don't agree?" Villa, "Then he stays on his season long loan and you'll have to wait until the summer to sign him when he is out of contract." Obviously the discussion lasted a lot longer than that (if you remember it took a week or so) but I reckon the above précis is pretty much the gist of Villa's position. Fair enough on the first point and apologies. On the rest you may be right about the jist of the dialogue but the undertone is that it is a perfectly normal piece of business, the way transfers are done, which it patently is not. I think I am right in saying that this sort of deal only became legal last summer. So there certainly won't be any precedents for it. This may be the first time it has happened because it was explicitly ruled out until this season. The reason, apparently is to try to encourage some of the bigger clubs (with huge squads many of whom never play)to sell some of them on and the sweetener is that they can refuse the deal unless they can bar the player from playing against them - ie it is "sort of" being brought into line with the loan rule. I don't agree with it, but then I don't agree with a lot of things.
|
|
|
Post by thedeadlyshart on Mar 22, 2014 16:16:50 GMT
We signed Ireland permanently in order to get guidetti on loan, and Ireland can't play against villa because they don't want the embarrassment of a player that was out of favor coming back and scoring on them. Wouldn't it be fantastic if guidetti scores against them though?
|
|
|
Post by staffsvilla on Mar 22, 2014 16:21:15 GMT
We signed Ireland permanently in order to get guidetti on loan, and Ireland can't play against villa because they don't want the embarrassment of a player that was out of favor coming back and scoring on them. Wouldn't it be fantastic if guidetti scores against them though? i'd rather ireland played as he's fooking shit
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Mar 22, 2014 16:26:07 GMT
This latest bout of incompetence is written in black and white, sadly. Agreed 100%. Still can't believe we agreed to this deal. Back to the original question,surely the match wouldn't go ahead as Villa obviously know about the deal? If it did go ahead then surely it would be a fine and points deduction? We agreed to it because it made no bloody difference and it allowed us to get someone else in.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 22, 2014 16:27:27 GMT
We signed Ireland permanently in order to get guidetti on loan, and Ireland can't play against villa because they don't want the embarrassment of a player that was out of favor coming back and scoring on them. Wouldn't it be fantastic if guidetti scores against them though? i'd rather ireland played as he's fooking shit He's not shit, he may have been for villa I don't know, but he's really not shit.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 22, 2014 16:29:51 GMT
Fair enough on the first point and apologies. On the rest you may be right about the jist of the dialogue but the undertone is that it is a perfectly normal piece of business, the way transfers are done, which it patently is not. I think I am right in saying that this sort of deal only became legal last summer. So there certainly won't be any precedents for it. This may be the first time it has happened because it was explicitly ruled out until this season. The reason, apparently is to try to encourage some of the bigger clubs (with huge squads many of whom never play)to sell some of them on and the sweetener is that they can refuse the deal unless they can bar the player from playing against them - ie it is "sort of" being brought into line with the loan rule. I don't agree with it, but then I don't agree with a lot of things. I wonder how far it could go? I presume the selling team under the new legislation could not stipulate a basket of clubs (beyond themselves) against whom the player they sell could not play? I think I have answered my own question, that can't be the case, it would be a nonsense, it could distort the whole league. Although as it stands it slighty distorts the league in my eye.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Mar 22, 2014 16:38:45 GMT
Agreed 100%. Still can't believe we agreed to this deal. Back to the original question,surely the match wouldn't go ahead as Villa obviously know about the deal? If it did go ahead then surely it would be a fine and points deduction? We agreed to it because it made no bloody difference and it allowed us to get someone else in. Exactly. Can't see what all the mither is about. If we'd kept him on loan he wouldn't be able to play and we wouldn't have had Guidetti to bring in to replace him either. So actually we are slightly better off.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Mar 22, 2014 16:40:31 GMT
We signed Ireland permanently in order to get guidetti on loan, and Ireland can't play against villa because they don't want the embarrassment of a player that was out of favor coming back and scoring on them. Wouldn't it be fantastic if guidetti scores against them though? i'd rather ireland played as he's fooking shit If he's so shit why are you frightened of him playing against you?
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Mar 22, 2014 16:48:31 GMT
Their word against ours, surely? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 17:17:45 GMT
Agreed 100%. Still can't believe we agreed to this deal. Back to the original question,surely the match wouldn't go ahead as Villa obviously know about the deal? If it did go ahead then surely it would be a fine and points deduction? We agreed to it because it made no bloody difference and it allowed us to get someone else in. That's fair enough but it has made a difference as neither he or Adam can play tomorrow. I simply do not believe that the whole deal hinged on us agreeing not to let Ireland play against them as Villa were desperate to get him off their wage bill.
|
|
|
Post by thedeadlyshart on Mar 22, 2014 17:19:13 GMT
We signed Ireland permanently in order to get guidetti on loan, and Ireland can't play against villa because they don't want the embarrassment of a player that was out of favor coming back and scoring on them. Wouldn't it be fantastic if guidetti scores against them though? i'd rather ireland played as he's fooking shit You should be more scared of Ireland than guidetti. But I don't expect you to understand since you are a villan.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Mar 22, 2014 17:37:20 GMT
If it is in the contract then I don't understand how the contract could be endorsed by the FA.
If Aston Villa retain some control over a former player then this is a very slippery slope which is open to abuse by the clubs who are owned by multi billionaires selling their reserve players (who are a lot better than most) but specifying they can't play against their former club for 2 or 3 years
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Mar 22, 2014 17:39:02 GMT
We agreed to it because it made no bloody difference and it allowed us to get someone else in. That's fair enough but it has made a difference as neither he or Adam can play tomorrow. I simply do not believe that the whole deal hinged on us agreeing not to let Ireland play against them as Villa were desperate to get him off their wage bill. Thing is he was already pretty much off the wage bill, with us paying his wages (%) while on loan so I don't think they were really that desperate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 17:47:55 GMT
That's fair enough but it has made a difference as neither he or Adam can play tomorrow. I simply do not believe that the whole deal hinged on us agreeing not to let Ireland play against them as Villa were desperate to get him off their wage bill. Thing is he was already pretty much off the wage bill, with us paying his wages (%) while on loan so I don't think they were really that desperate. From what I've heard he was on summat around £90000 a week there so I should imagine we would have been paying no more than 50% of that,so it was still a fair chunk that Villa would have been contributing. I reckon they were pretty desperate to get shut of one of their top earners who wasn't ever going to figure in Lamberts plans again. Of course I could be totally wrong and be talking a right load of shit but it just dunna sit rate with may
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 19:34:23 GMT
Lakeland, you are sometimes good on these kind of things but the above is misleading at best. >> loan players between Premier League clubs CANNOT play against their parent club. It is a Premier League Rule. True but irrelevant noise here, we bought Ireland in January.
>>It was up to Villa and Stoke to agree whether Ireland could play or not if the loan was converted to a transfer. No, it wasn’t up to Villa and Stoke to agree anything to do with who Ireland does and does not play against once he becomes our player. It should not have ever been an agenda item
Not irrelevant Gods. I was replying to the gavroberts comment that "I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club"
So I pointed out that in Premier League loans it was ALL not MOST.[/u][/b] [/quote] Apologies...i thought emergency loan players could play
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 22, 2014 19:38:46 GMT
Not irrelevant Gods. I was replying to the gavroberts comment that "I assume you are OK with the fact that most loan players do not play against their parent club"
So I pointed out that in Premier League loans it was ALL not MOST. [/u][/b] [/quote] Apologies...i thought emergency loan players could play [/quote] No probs
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 20:06:36 GMT
This latest bout of incompetence is written in black and white, sadly. why on earth is it incompetence? villa were running scared that ireland would come back and haunt them[understandable] so they insisted on the clause or they wouldnt aggree to the signing. it amazes me how many so called stokies try to stick the boot into the clun???????
|
|
|
Post by pretzel on Mar 22, 2014 21:09:53 GMT
I'm still struggling with this. Does Ireland still belong to Villa and if not why would we have signed a contract? If I leased or rented a car that belonged to someone else I would sign a contract. If I bought it off him I wouldn't, I certainly can't see how, in law, the previous owner could tell me not to park it outside his house
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 21:19:54 GMT
I'm still struggling with this. Does Ireland still belong to Villa and if not why would we have signed a contract? If I leased or rented a car that belonged to someone else I would sign a contract. If I bought it off him I wouldn't, I certainly can't see how, in law, the previous owner could tell me not to park it outside his house But if you really, really wanted the car, and the only way you could get it was if you promised not to park it in front of the previous owner's house just for the the next time you were in his city, would you honestly walk out on the deal. Particularly as buying the car was the only way you could get a date with the posh bird you've fancied for ages. What would you do?
|
|