or not cant believe liverpool didnt put some clause in torres transfer not allowing him to play against them on sunday as you can just see ashbee netting the winner or do we want him to play
I wasn't aware that you could really request that clause.. in a loan move maybe but when they've dished out ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã50m you can hardly say he can't play. Anyway, Torres had a ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã50m buyout clause and therefore that money upfront is all they had to offer for Liverpool to have no choice but to accept. In Ashbee's case, despite it being a free transfer I can't see there being such a clause in a permanent transfer
Yeah, my understanding is that you can only insert that clause in a loan deal, not a transfer. Which means he's bound to play, score, have a fight with Barmby and then get sent off. I'll probably applaud all of the above if he does.
to be honest i hope he plays because obviously nige knows his weaknesses thats why he didnt play him at least all the boo boys will be able to boo him for a good reason this time
If you sell a player on a permanent, then you can't prevent him playing against you, Torres is expected to start against Liverpool at the weekend and Ash will start against us. If he plays like he did against Barnsley in his opening game, it might be a good thing, he had a complete mare apparently.
That clause only applies in the summer window if Liverpool have failed to make the CL for the following season. With permanent transfers you can't insist they don't pla but there's nothing anybody can do if there's a gentleman's agreement that they won't play, or if a club then plays them despite the agreement. Chelsea rejected Liverpool's request for one, we may have asked Preston for one since we were letting them have Ashbee a few months earlier than we needed to.
Those sort of agreements are no longer allowed, the FA investigated Man United and Everton after Tim Howard was not played against Man United, having just transferred on a permanent to Everton, as any demand from Man United that Howard was not played, would be a breech of FA and Premier League rules.
I didn't say demand, I said request. There's nothing that could be done to us or Preston if there's been a verbal agreement between the two clubs that in return for letting him join now instead of in the summer that Preston won't play him against us. Similarly if we'd agreed that and then Preston played him anyway there's nothing we could do about it.
I suppose there could be an 'off the record' arrangement, but I'd be more that happy to put money on the fact that Ash will be playing against us on Sat 12th.
I hope Ash plays, I hope Brownie gives them a team talk in the middle of the pitch when we are 4-0 up and I hope Pearson sings this is the best trip he's ever been on at the end of the game. UTT
Even if there is such an agreement in place, it's not gonna be held by Phil "I'll piss everyone off" Brown. Gotta love the guy really, even more so now he's not our problem to deal with.
Exactly this has happened many times before. Take the opening day of 2011. Fryatt was our player but we couldn't play him because Leicester (quite within their rights) prevented us from doing. Equally, this time in 2007. We'd just signed Nathan Doyle from Derby and ***an had gone the other way, they were 2 seperate deals but both included clauses preventing us from playing Doyle and them from playing ***an. Though if my memory serves me well, I think we arranged a deal with Derby after this to allow us both to cancel the clauses allowing us both to play our new players. ***an was suspended anyway so they still couldn't play him, a right brainwave from AP and PB
Personally I'd prefer he didn't play .Not because he might score or play a blinder I just think because he will kick anything above grass level and could cause us long term injury problems. I don't doubt he has one or two less popular ex team mates and he has a definite nasty streak when on the field.
