ercallshrew
Midland League Division One
Perfect72
Posts: 437
|
Post by ercallshrew on Mar 13, 2011 12:48:05 GMT 1
fair enough maybe its a pointless inquest over robinson but what worries me is what if all the fuss that we just forgot to put in the clause cos we were busy is just a smokescreen , what if its a issue of GT having an issue with jake and sending him out on loan to teach him a lesson and the arrogance that your no concern to us.....well that worked well.........GT hasnt come out and said fair enough i made a mistake, just " if he hadnt scored someone else would have "........well if this is a issue and with jake out of contact at the end of the season whats the chances of him coming back , slim i think unless theres some pride swallowing .......maybe im wide of the mark and its just a simple case like they say of stfc being a shambles.....
|
|
|
Post by Barthez2104 on Mar 13, 2011 13:20:29 GMT 1
When the loan was done the forst thing you look at is, do we have to play them? If the answer is yes the first thing you put in is a caluse that he doesn't play against us.
And that is down to Turner and nobody else.
All this, it was a busy day is aload of old crap.
|
|
|
Post by Bordershrew on Mar 13, 2011 14:07:20 GMT 1
well letting him play yesterday cost us 3 points Yep fully agree. They could have started with just Robbo on the pitch and won as well. We lost, he played, no-one knows the outcome if he hadn't of played but my guess is we'd of been beaten by most teams on that performance, we were shocking with 11 men as well as 10. Awful post.
|
|
|
Post by eclipsechaser on Mar 13, 2011 15:19:55 GMT 1
Surely the clause ' He cannot play against his parent club ' should always be the first to be put into the contract as standard .
|
|
|
Post by keithyshrew25 on Mar 13, 2011 15:32:44 GMT 1
This, like the clipart, is rapidly becoming a boring topic. Robinson is gone and I'm sure there will be valid reasons why they shipped him out. They messed up on the contract but as long as the learn from their mistake I think we can put this one to bed.
As more 'laughing stock of the league' - I think you'll find most clubs don't actually care that much about what we get up to, and even if they did there's far bigger messes in the league than us
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 15:59:59 GMT 1
Surely the clause ' He cannot play against his parent club ' should always be the first to be put into the contract as standard . This should be a League/FA rule never mind optional. Added to that, it should not be allowed that a player can be loaned to a team in the same league. This would stop clubs like Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea et al picking the opposition team for them.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Mar 13, 2011 18:55:49 GMT 1
I've heard from more than one source that it was the fault of an employee of the Club who was unfamiliar that such clauses are common practice.
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Mar 14, 2011 10:02:31 GMT 1
It is hard to describe it as a "fault", if it is someone who has not received the correct tuition/guidance, from someone with experience.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 14, 2011 10:13:41 GMT 1
Even if not included in the contract itself you’ve heard many times in the past of a “gentlemen’s agreement” between the two managers not for the player to play. So I’m sure something could have been done to stop him playing. But as folk have mentioned elsewhere, it was never a loan this, seems he’s out of the club for good (under Turner anyhows). Looks as though that’s certainly how the manager sees it. But even so, he dropped a bollox in allowing him to play. It does make us look daft and no mistake. Just hope we don’t come across him in the play-offs…
|
|
|
Post by Stewie Shrew on Mar 14, 2011 10:26:44 GMT 1
Just had a flash back to about 1990, when Wayne Clarke was on loan to us from Birmingham and was allowed to play for us against them and Im sure he scored a hat trick....could be wrong though lol
|
|
|
Post by texmexshrew on Mar 14, 2011 11:19:23 GMT 1
He didnt beat us on his own, but its niave to believe Turner was being anything other than diplomatic or protective of the clubs cock up. He is well versed in the loan market as we know. No doubt this issue rests on the shoulders of the new club secretary, but she cant be accountable for what sounds like a Simpson-esque shambles of a display on the pitch on Saturday from those wearing the town shirts.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Mar 14, 2011 11:26:46 GMT 1
Even if not included in the contract itself you’ve heard many times in the past of a “gentlemen’s agreement” between the two managers not for the player to play. So I’m sure something could have been done to stop him playing. But as folk have mentioned elsewhere, it was never a loan this, seems he’s out of the club for good (under Turner anyhows). Looks as though that’s certainly how the manager sees it. But even so, he dropped a * in allowing him to play. It does make us look daft and no mistake. Just hope we don’t come across him in the play-offs… You mean like the gentlemans agreement we had to not pick challis against Telford but promptly did
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Mar 14, 2011 12:32:33 GMT 1
He didnt beat us on his own, but its niave to believe Turner was being anything other than diplomatic or protective of the clubs cock up. He is well versed in the loan market as we know. No doubt this issue rests on the shoulders of the new club secretary, but she cant be accountable for what sounds like a Simpson-esque shambles of a display on the pitch on Saturday from those wearing the town shirts. Not sure she'd have been in post when it happened! And if she wasn't, possibly thats where the problem came from
|
|
|
Post by texmexshrew on Mar 14, 2011 15:25:59 GMT 1
Club site states she was in position as Acting Secretary at the time.....;-)
Like I said, this is just one issue - the manager, with his vast experience of the loan market (as criticised on here when he was HUFC manager) should have foreseen this. Saturdays game wasnt lost because of this though was it, we should be looking beyond Robinson as the reason we were thumped so comprehensively.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Mar 14, 2011 15:51:32 GMT 1
In fairness to all at the club though - it was a very late transfer - didn't Mr. Robinson tweet that he had two missed calls from the manager during the day and he wasn't going to reply to them - that in itself would have delayed things me thinks.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Mar 14, 2011 16:34:56 GMT 1
Even if not included in the contract itself you’ve heard many times in the past of a “gentlemen’s agreement” between the two managers not for the player to play. "A gentleman's agreement is not worth the paper it's written on" - Sam Goldwyn.
|
|
|
Post by southshropblue on Mar 14, 2011 17:51:07 GMT 1
anyway its not completely impossible Robinson could play against us in the play offs or is it?
|
|
|
Post by suttonshrew on Mar 14, 2011 18:01:34 GMT 1
FFS why has everything got to have a scapegoat. As GT said if he hadnt scored someone else would have and to blame the club sec is insane.
From my understanding Torquay would have sorted the contract out for Robbo with GT as he was going to them, it was up to us to sort out the contracts for the 5 players we signed so given how busy everyone was and how late it was im not suprised things like that were not discussed. would we rather have got the clause put in or signed Davis, Gradison and Rowe???
Saturday we got beaten by the better side on the day grow up and accept it!!
|
|
|
Post by Myddleshrew on Mar 14, 2011 18:39:02 GMT 1
Its done move on, I reckon that Torquay side without Robinson would of beat us any how
|
|