No.33 your time is up....

[londonblue]

Does this now put the ridiculous notion to bed?

Of course it doesn't. People are never going to believe it because they've invested so much energy arguing otherwise.

 

[chapperzUK]

Does this now put the ridiculous notion to bed?

 

[Southend Elvis]

Wait and see boys, if Fred gets dropped.... the argument still stands. Only if the Kid doesn't come on at all will i believe there's nothing in the deal.. Managers always tell us the truth when their judgement is called into question?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Cauley Woodrow will be on the bench tomorrow.That should put the rumour to bed.

 

[Southend Elvis]

And at least the question was asked, so the Zone works!

 

[mrsblue]

I wonder why Phil actually mentioned it and appeared very defensive as well,Let us see if the player in question gets zero pitch time.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I wonder why Phil actually mentioned it and appeared very defensive as well,Let us see if the player in question gets zero pitch time.

Nah,he'll be super sub and come on and score for us.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Does this now put the ridiculous notion to bed?

That quote doesn't actually say that there isn't such a clause, only that Brown would not agree to such a clause.

A subtle, but significant difference.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

That quote doesn't actually say that there isn't such a clause, only that Brown would not agree to such a clause.

A subtle, but significant difference.

Aha, a fellow conspiracy theorist.Don't think there's too much mileage in this one though.

 

[Jam_Man]

Wait and see boys, if Fred gets dropped.... the argument still stands. Only if the Kid doesn't come on at all will i believe there's nothing in the deal.. Managers always tell us the truth when their judgement is called into question?

You started this thread saying he had to start, now you are dumbing it down to appearances, which will no doubt never happen as he is likely to get game time because its rare not to substitute a striker.

Why isnt Thompson playing every game?

Eastwood wont be dropped, so Woodrow will. That will disprove theres any clause to say he has to start a game.

Just making a subs appearance wont indicate there is a clause, it would be pointless demanding a player plays 7 minutes at the end of a game. If Brown says theres no clause then there isnt one, he has no reason to lie.

 

[Jam_Man]

That quote doesn't actually say that there isn't such a clause, only that Brown would not agree to such a clause.

A subtle, but significant difference.

The comment says "And he refuted suggestions that Woodrow had to start in attack, due to the terms of the loan agreement with the Cottagers. "

So whilst the quote doesnt say it the article does say he denies it, it just doenst quote him verbatim.

 

[mrsblue]

Would Fulham lend us their player WITHOUT clauses in that deal?,Why would Phil even bother to deny it?Would Jol say yeah take my player and stick him on the bench if you want?.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The comment says "And he refuted suggestions that Woodrow had to start in attack, due to the terms of the loan agreement with the Cottagers. "

So whilst the quote doesnt say it the article does say he denies it, it just doenst quote him verbatim.

So you're asking me to trust the Echo's accuracy AND what Phil Brown says. This is a bit far-fetched isn't it? What next, should I believe what Ron says?


Anyway, I'm not sure the League would allow clauses saying a player has to start. What they may allow is clauses saying that wages will be covered if a player is selected. Here the club wouldn't be obliged to pick the player, but the manager might feel under pressure to pick the player which would produce the same effect that people were complaining about.

 

[mrsblue]

So you're asking me to trust the Echo's accuracy AND what Phil Brown says. This is a bit far-fetched isn't it? What next, should I believe what Ron says?


Anyway, I'm not sure the League would allow clauses saying a player has to start. What they may allow is clauses saying that wages will be covered if a player is selected. Here the club wouldn't be obliged to pick the player, but the manager might feel under pressure to pick the player which would produce the same effect that people were complaining about.

Way I see it.

 

[Jam_Man]

Would Fulham lend us their player WITHOUT clauses in that deal?,Why would Phil even bother to deny it?Would Jol say yeah take my player and stick him on the bench if you want?.

Yes they would. Same as other loans we have had that didnt start every game. Just being in the first team squad for us is better than being in the youths there for the experience alone.

Why would Phil deny it? Because it was a question asked by the echo and there is no truth in it ?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Yes they would. Same as other loans we have had that didnt start every game. Just being in the first team squad for us is better than being in the youths there for the experience alone.

Why would Phil deny it? Because it was a question asked by the echo and there is no truth in it ?

He hasn't denied it.

The Echo have interpreted his comments as him denying it.

 

[Jam_Man]

He hasn't denied it.

The Echo have interpreted his comments as him denying it.

And you are interpreting his comments in another way, based on just a couple of sentences in a paper.

The article clearly says he isn't contractually obliged to start with him because it would be in his words "ridiculous", and however you want to weave around the wording that's the message given by Brown.

You can read other things into that, but the simplest answer is usually the right one, there is no clause saying he has to start.

Thats enough for me which Im sure will be confirmed when he doesnt start tomorrow.

PS As Ive said before, and which people are completely ignoring, why if these clauses are put in because it would be pointless sending players here otherwise is Thompson not starting every game ?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

but the simplest answer is usually the right one.

Ok.How come we've lost our last four league games?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

And you are interpreting his comments in another way, based on just a couple of sentences in a paper.

The article clearly says he isn't contractually obliged to start with him because it would be in his words "ridiculous", and however you want to weave around the wording that's the message given by Brown.

You can read other things into that, but the simplest answer is usually the right one, there is no clause saying he has to start.

Thats enough for me which Im sure will be confirmed when he doesnt start tomorrow.

PS As Ive said before, and which people are completely ignoring, why if these clauses are put in because it would be pointless sending players here otherwise is Thompson not starting every game ?

I'm interpreting his comments based on their clear meaning in English.

He may have been sloppy with his usage of language or he may have actually been very precise with his use of language. Whilst I have my suspicious about which it is I'm going to keep my mind open to the possibility of it being the other rather than taking it as indisputable fact.

 

[chapperzUK]

Ok.How come we've lost our last four league games?

The opposition team have scored more goals in the matches than we did. Can't say that isn't simple and correct :smiles: