No.33 your time is up....

[Southend Pier]

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 ?[/QUOTE

If I'm allowed to wade in - Simplest answer is uaually the right one ? As far as that person's own personal view is concerned then maybe yes. But not necesarrily a definitive answer to the whole saga. Like a lot of things in life its a game of speculation and mind games.Frustrating that as I like things to be more honest and frank. But it is not for us to know in truth. My personal opnion is that I don't know because I'm not privy to any of the details. But even if he starts or is benched tomorrow it'll still be a speculation debate. If hes a sub Phil may say it was HIS decision likewise if he continues to be in the starting 11.

 

[Southend Elvis]

Debate is what it's all about, unfortunately I take anything someone says with a pinch of salt..... it's not in a court of law, so what's going to happen if not true.
Didn't Ferguson tell everyone the truth about injuries when England were playing friendlies... of course he didn't, he told us what we needed to know so his players could be excused duty.... happens all over the show.
For me I will carry on believing what I think happens....... that is until we are top of the league, and promoted ... then I don't care.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Debate is what it's all about, unfortunately I take anything someone says with a pinch of salt..... it's not in a court of law, so what's going to happen if not true.
Didn't Ferguson tell everyone the truth about injuries when England were playing friendlies... of course he didn't, he told us what we needed to know so his players could be excused duty.... happens all over the show.
For me I will carry on believing what I think happens....... that is until we are top of the league, and promoted ... then I don't care.

Good post; however a belief that "TRUTH" is paramount in a court of law is not a black/white matter either; and is a lot to do with acting, oral dexterity, unsaid/heard factors, and people being better at hearing and reading what they are waiting/listening for.
Mr Brown and Fergie have ideas and certain motivations in mind when they make their judgements and we can only guess at some of the targets & aims.

 

[Southend Elvis]

When your in this game, and so many people hang on every word you say, you have to give answers that cause as little grieve as possible. RM does it every time the Echo ask him about FF, he always paint's a great picture when the truth is ... well who knows.
Managers do just that they Manage, that's from what happens on the field and off it, so coming out and saying in this instant "Yes we had to have clauses in the loan agreement, cause we can't afford to pay his wages" or " I'd never agree to having clauses in loan agreements"... I know which one the fans would want to hear, the latter.
Di Cannio got canned for saying one of his players played crap (the truth), when he should have kept quite, and said it all behind closed doors.. it's just what good managers do.... hopefully we have a "Good" manager

 

[Southend Elvis]

Can tell anyone tell me why Woodrow was used yesterday, was he needed? Haven't heard anything about that yet, not proof but any game your winning surely you don't change unless someone is flagging or injured?

 

[mrsblue]

Can tell anyone tell me why Woodrow was used yesterday, was he needed? Haven't heard anything about that yet, not proof but any game your winning surely you don't change unless someone is flagging or injured?

Maybe just maybe if Woody does not get any game time the club are penalised financially ?:winking:

 

[Southend Pier]

Maybe just maybe if Woody does not get any game time the club are penalised financially ?:winking:

As I said on Friday the debate on this will continue. Whether he started or was benched.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Oh for goodness sake! :facepalm:

 

[chapperzUK]

So a team is away and 1-0 up with 25-odd minutes to go they bring on a quicker, younger striker.

I'll let you figure that one out ...

 

[Beefy]

Can tell anyone tell me why Woodrow was used yesterday, was he needed? Haven't heard anything about that yet, not proof but any game your winning surely you don't change unless someone is flagging or injured?

This is a wind-up yeah?

 

[Southend Elvis]

I'm just pointing out, these agreements happen, which some of you disagree with. I won't mention it again cause it winds some people up:winking:

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

I'm just pointing out, these agreements happen, which some of you disagree with. I won't mention it again cause it winds some people up:winking:

Do you know that for a fact, because all I've seen so far from you on this thread is conjecture?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Do you know that for a fact, because all I've seen so far from you on this thread is conjecture?

And not just conjecture but something denied by the manager.

 

[South Bank Hank]

I'm just pointing out, these agreements happen, which some of you disagree with. I won't mention it again cause it winds some people up:winking:

It's not your conjecture that these agreements could happen, it's your absolute certainty that it's evident in Woodrow's case that is painful. Even despite the necessary climb down from your original assertion that Woodrow actually had to START, you're still applying dismal logic to prove only what you've already concluded while ignoring anything that disproves it. If Woodrow fails to start on Friday, will you claim that the contract only applies to weekend games?

 

[Jam_Man]

I'm just pointing out, these agreements happen, which some of you disagree with. I won't mention it again cause it winds some people up:winking:

You stated he had to start, he clearly doesnt and the manager has even stated it would be ridiculous to even have such a clause.

Thompson doesnt even seem to have to play.So why doesnt he have a clause and Woodrow does?

Your theory seems rather flawed.

 

[Beefy]

You guys are forgetting the smoking gun that is a substitution being made when winning despite a player not being injured or dead on his feet. Which only happens in pretty much every game in which one side is winning.

 

[Jam_Man]

You guys are forgetting the smoking gun that is a substitution being made when winning despite a player not being injured or dead on his feet. Which only happens in pretty much every game in which one side is winning.

Indeed, said it before the game that if he was a substitute he would come on at some point as strikers are always substituted.

Some people get so wrapped up in their little conspiracies they cant see the wood from the trees.

 

[Southend Elvis]

Prem striker v championship defender.. Different agreements. I'm glad some of you know what goes on behind closed doors, I'm making my point by what I can see, now next game should he get any time on the pitch, as so far when he's been on we have either lost or conceded

 

[Jam_Man]

Prem striker v championship defender.. Different agreements. I'm glad some of you know what goes on behind closed doors, I'm making my point by what I can see, now next game should he get any time on the pitch, as so far when he's been on we have either lost or conceded

Your agreements seem to change with the wind.

He is always going to get minutes on the pitch, he is our 3rd best striker and strikers ALWAYS get substituted.

As for even suggesting he has any bearing on us conceding, thats laughable. I wasnt there but Im pretty sure Corr would have come back to defend.

 

[mrsblue]

Some of you seem to doubt any secret clauses exist whether the bloke must have pitch time in every game.

He has featured in every game,
He must be on a decent wage at Fulham which Southend are unable to contribute toward,
Fulham want him to have 1st team experience that is a given,

Most of us do not care if he plays or is on the bench or even slices the oranges at half time,Would it not be wiser if the doubters thought "yeah maybe Phil has to play him"?,regardless of what the manager has stated in public.