Guest WestEndRiot Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/sebreadyforliverpool100809.html Have to say i've never heard this one before. Coincidence that the FA make this ruling when Spurs are having a bit of a defensive injury crisis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gash Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 But he was already sold before then, what a load of toss! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/sebreadyforliverpool100809.html Have to say i've never heard this one before. Coincidence that the FA make this ruling when Spurs are having a bit of a defensive injury crisis? That's absolutely disgusting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I don't see how the game against West Brom should count against his suspension seeing as he wasn't available for selection... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCW1983 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Thats shocking ! Just makes a mockery of the whole game, pathetic, really pathetic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think that their argument is that the suspension is carried on from last season so the 2nd half of the suspension would therefore.. actually no, it makes no sense. I tried but no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/sebreadyforliverpool100809.html Have to say i've never heard this one before. Coincidence that the FA make this ruling when Spurs are having a bit of a defensive injury crisis? It's all wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 That is such a fucking joke man Makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Who cares really as long as we got the money for him. Makes no difference to us, we're not even in the same division. Maybe "Stevie G" will even do one of his trademark lunging tackles on him and put him out for a while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 They will regret when Torres destroy's him on sunday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/sebreadyforliverpool100809.html Have to say i've never heard this one before. Coincidence that the FA make this ruling when Spurs are having a bit of a defensive injury crisis? How on earth does that work then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/articles/sebreadyforliverpool100809.html Have to say i've never heard this one before. Coincidence that the FA make this ruling when Spurs are having a bit of a defensive injury crisis? Have the FA actually made a ruling on this? it doesnt even say that they even stepped in and changed the law in this occasion. The article just explains why he can play ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Seems to imply that's always been the rules. How far do you think we need to look to find that rule not applying to a different team? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 On an Inter forum they have like a section of "Current Players" and "Former Players" threads etc With all these players going in and out i don't think it would be such a bad idea. Like Bassong has his thread in the "Current Squad" and when he now has moved the admins move the thread to the "Former Players" section. Dave? Not a fan of splitting the forum like that. What would this serve other than splitting the discussion into different sections of the forum as opposed to different threads? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Seems to imply that's always been the rules. How far do you think we need to look to find that rule not applying to a different team? If you believe that, how about you search for it and prove it? rather than suggest it is a rule which only applies to a few teams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 On an Inter forum they have like a section of "Current Players" and "Former Players" threads etc With all these players going in and out i don't think it would be such a bad idea. Like Bassong has his thread in the "Current Squad" and when he now has moved the admins move the thread to the "Former Players" section. Dave? That's either a good idea or a shit idea, depending on user activity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Wait, does that mean a team could end up playing games without any of them counting towards their new player's ban and have to sit him in the stands until his old team play a game? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 That's just bollocks; complete bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 All depends what time the paperwork was completed. We all saw him posing in the shirt but if the paperwork didn't actually go through until after 7pm on Saturday night then I can't see the problem. However, if they had the paperwork done then surely it's Bassong who's suspended for the game, regardless of who he plays for? All pretty irrelevant as far as we're concerned though, nothing much to get too worked up at. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 All depends what time the paperwork was completed. We all saw him posing in the shirt but if the paperwork didn't actually go through until after 7pm on Saturday night then I can't see the problem. However, if they had the paperwork done then surely it's Bassong who's suspended for the game, regardless of who he plays for? All pretty irrelevant as far as we're concerned though, nothing much to get too worked up at. Aye, really would have made no sense for Spurs to 100% finalise the transfer before we'd played West Brom when they know that if they wait a day or two he can get his suspension out of the way. Though I'm not particularly arsed either way like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 That's just bollocks; complete bollocks. That's a bit harsh on Djmattis tbf. It wasn't the cleverest idea but just take it easy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Actually makes a bit of sense, I guess. If he isn't registered for Spurs by the deadline for our game, then he's almost "locked" into our club until our game has passed, like any new signing wouldn't be about to play if he missed the deadline. As they're counting him as our player, he is technically suspended, thus being over suspension when the paperwork came into effect from (I assume) monday morning. Highly bollocks based on a load of technicalitys really. Spurs obviously knew exactly what they were doing by getting him when they did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Actually makes a bit of sense, I guess. If he isn't registered for Spurs by the deadline for our game, then he's almost "locked" into our club until our game has passed, like any new signing wouldn't be about to play if he missed the deadline. As they're counting him as our player, he is technically suspended, thus being over suspension when the paperwork came into effect from (I assume) monday morning. Highly bollocks based on a load of technicalitys really. Spurs obviously knew exactly what they were doing by getting him when they did. I'm sure they announced that he'd signed before the Saturday match tho with him posing in their shirt. I'd understand if he hadn't signed officially til then and I was expecting them to do that.. this is just a slap in the face almost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fraser Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Appreciate that Kinnear is a manager but his touchline ban was carried over for years! This is bent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now