We don't deserve Owen's compensation money.

[Dave]

Patronistastic!

[juniatmoko]

The main point for me is that the release of players for international football is governed by a set of regulations and certain insurance provisions are in place. You can't try and change it retrospectively when it just so happens that a valueable player suffers a long-term injury. The same rules should apply to all.

 

This extra 150T seems strange. You wonder whether Freddie's just using it as an excuse to prevent him playing for England.

 

yes you right... but no insurance is on 100% replacing the loss. in any kind of way NUFC still suffer.

 

Well every club with international players suffers from time to time. Just because in this case, we're suffering more than others doesn't mean the rules should change retrospectively to suit us.

 

so it's fair? ahhh come on... FA got profit also from international players... got profit also from NUFC each season.

 

If it's not fair, then lobby for a change in the rules. But you can't change the rules in retrospect.

 

No club likes to release their players for international duty, because of the risk of injury. There needs to be rules governing this area, or else international football will die, or at best become an irrelevant sideshow.

 

Grrr... what do you think fat fred doing right now if not lobbying???.... ffs.... who said fat fred can change the rule????

 

at some point Fat Fred might be lose in this case. But a good chairman is at least do whatever the best he can do for the club...

 

some fans are really don't get it perhaps they'll be happy if fat fred just sit behind the desk... then just enjoy eating 3 hot dog at the same time

[Howaythelads]

The main point for me is that the release of players for international football is governed by a set of regulations and certain insurance provisions are in place. You can't try and change it retrospectively when it just so happens that a valueable player suffers a long-term injury. The same rules should apply to all.

 

This extra 150T seems strange. You wonder whether Freddie's just using it as an excuse to prevent him playing for England.

 

yes you right... but no insurance is on 100% replacing the loss. in any kind of way NUFC still suffer.

 

Well every club with international players suffers from time to time. Just because in this case, we're suffering more than others doesn't mean the rules should change retrospectively to suit us.

 

so it's fair? ahhh come on... FA got profit also from international players... got profit also from NUFC each season.

 

If it's not fair, then lobby for a change in the rules. But you can't change the rules in retrospect.

 

No club likes to release their players for international duty, because of the risk of injury. There needs to be rules governing this area, or else international football will die, or at best become an irrelevant sideshow.

 

Grrr... what do you think fat fred doing right now if not lobbying???.... ffs.... who said fat fred can change the rule????

 

at some point Fat Fred might be lose in this case. But a good chairman is at least do whatever the best he can do for the club...

 

some fans are really don't get it perhaps they'll be happy if fat fred just sit behind the desk... then just enjoy eating 3 hot dog at the same time

 

Some just want to slate him no matter what he does. It's the way of it on this forum.

[Howaythelads]

If we can ask the FA for compensation because our player got injured whilst playing for England, then couldnt the FA ask us for compensation if a key England international player got injured for a club?

 

The "we pay their wages" arguement is irrelevant to an extent because the FA could argue that they contribute to a player's income because on increased sponsorship deals and media coverage/reputation due to the players' England performances. And surely they get bonuses when playing for England.

 

And what happens if as a result of this, the FA start paying a basic wage to England internationals based on a fee per callup? Theyd have even more right to ask for compensation if a player gets injured for a club.

 

It could get a bit silly. Shepherd knew he was injury prone (unless hes an absolute idiot, but then he did think Souness would be the man to bring us trophies ), and knew he was an England international, when we signed him, so why should he complain when Owen gets injured playing for England?

 

You've been listening to Talksport, haven't you son? I heard this in the car, it's almost word for word what one of the Talksport wankers was on about. Like you, they spout mainly s****.

 

A player is EMPLOYED by a club, they are RELEASED to represent their country. The suggestion that a player injured while playing for their club could result in a compensation claim by the FA is total bollocks, so I'm not surprised you're putting this forward.

 

No, I dont listen to TalkSport, "father".

 

Anyway, if youre right, then fair enough. If you could read properly, I was asking a question, not making a statement. Although reading is a hard skill for the mentally challenged, so you are forgiven my child.

 

I don't think there is a member of this forum who knows so little as you do about football who attempts to come across as knowing so much.  Your posts appear to be from some kind of bible of clichés or the obvious.

 

The post I mentioned earlier is almost verbatim something I heard on the radio, yet you deny listening to Talksport. Clever how you do that, like.  mackems.gif

[Dave]

Delete/edit/repost-tastic!

 

[tmonkey]

If we can ask the FA for compensation because our player got injured whilst playing for England, then couldnt the FA ask us for compensation if a key England international player got injured for a club?

 

The "we pay their wages" arguement is irrelevant to an extent because the FA could argue that they contribute to a player's income because on increased sponsorship deals and media coverage/reputation due to the players' England performances. And surely they get bonuses when playing for England.

 

And what happens if as a result of this, the FA start paying a basic wage to England internationals based on a fee per callup? Theyd have even more right to ask for compensation if a player gets injured for a club.

 

It could get a bit silly. Shepherd knew he was injury prone (unless hes an absolute idiot, but then he did think Souness would be the man to bring us trophies ), and knew he was an England international, when we signed him, so why should he complain when Owen gets injured playing for England?

 

You've been listening to Talksport, haven't you son? I heard this in the car, it's almost word for word what one of the Talksport wankers was on about. Like you, they spout mainly s****.

 

A player is EMPLOYED by a club, they are RELEASED to represent their country. The suggestion that a player injured while playing for their club could result in a compensation claim by the FA is total bollocks, so I'm not surprised you're putting this forward.

 

No, I dont listen to TalkSport, "father".

 

Anyway, if youre right, then fair enough. If you could read properly, I was asking a question, not making a statement. Although reading is a hard skill for the mentally challenged, so you are forgiven my child.

 

I don't think there is a member of this forum who knows so little as you do about football who attempts to come across as knowing so much.  Your posts appear to be from some kind of bible of clichés or the obvious.

 

The post I mentioned earlier is almost verbatim something I heard on the radio, yet you deny listening to Talksport. Clever how you do that, like.  mackems.gif

 

What the fuck are you on about you utter spaz?

 

I dont listen to Talksport, or any radio show, for that matter, so what exactly are you attempting to achieve by claiming I do like the prick that you are?

[Howaythelads]

Delete/edit/repost-tastic!

 

 

 

It's fun behaving like a juvenile, ain't it.....

[Howaythelads]

If we can ask the FA for compensation because our player got injured whilst playing for England, then couldnt the FA ask us for compensation if a key England international player got injured for a club?

 

The "we pay their wages" arguement is irrelevant to an extent because the FA could argue that they contribute to a player's income because on increased sponsorship deals and media coverage/reputation due to the players' England performances. And surely they get bonuses when playing for England.

 

And what happens if as a result of this, the FA start paying a basic wage to England internationals based on a fee per callup? Theyd have even more right to ask for compensation if a player gets injured for a club.

 

It could get a bit silly. Shepherd knew he was injury prone (unless hes an absolute idiot, but then he did think Souness would be the man to bring us trophies ), and knew he was an England international, when we signed him, so why should he complain when Owen gets injured playing for England?

 

You've been listening to Talksport, haven't you son? I heard this in the car, it's almost word for word what one of the Talksport wankers was on about. Like you, they spout mainly s****.

 

A player is EMPLOYED by a club, they are RELEASED to represent their country. The suggestion that a player injured while playing for their club could result in a compensation claim by the FA is total bollocks, so I'm not surprised you're putting this forward.

 

No, I dont listen to TalkSport, "father".

 

Anyway, if youre right, then fair enough. If you could read properly, I was asking a question, not making a statement. Although reading is a hard skill for the mentally challenged, so you are forgiven my child.

 

I don't think there is a member of this forum who knows so little as you do about football who attempts to come across as knowing so much.  Your posts appear to be from some kind of bible of clichés or the obvious.

 

The post I mentioned earlier is almost verbatim something I heard on the radio, yet you deny listening to Talksport. Clever how you do that, like.  mackems.gif

 

What the f*** are you on about you utter spaz?

 

I dont listen to Talksport, or any radio show, for that matter, so what exactly are you attempting to achieve by claiming I do like the prick that you are?

 

mackems.gif

 

Rather this tripe than you trying to babble on about football.

[Dave]

PMs are good.

[Howaythelads]

PMs are good.

 

I agree, just sent you one.

[tmonkey]

If we can ask the FA for compensation because our player got injured whilst playing for England, then couldnt the FA ask us for compensation if a key England international player got injured for a club?

 

The "we pay their wages" arguement is irrelevant to an extent because the FA could argue that they contribute to a player's income because on increased sponsorship deals and media coverage/reputation due to the players' England performances. And surely they get bonuses when playing for England.

 

And what happens if as a result of this, the FA start paying a basic wage to England internationals based on a fee per callup? Theyd have even more right to ask for compensation if a player gets injured for a club.

 

It could get a bit silly. Shepherd knew he was injury prone (unless hes an absolute idiot, but then he did think Souness would be the man to bring us trophies ), and knew he was an England international, when we signed him, so why should he complain when Owen gets injured playing for England?

 

You've been listening to Talksport, haven't you son? I heard this in the car, it's almost word for word what one of the Talksport wankers was on about. Like you, they spout mainly s****.

 

A player is EMPLOYED by a club, they are RELEASED to represent their country. The suggestion that a player injured while playing for their club could result in a compensation claim by the FA is total bollocks, so I'm not surprised you're putting this forward.

 

No, I dont listen to TalkSport, "father".

 

Anyway, if youre right, then fair enough. If you could read properly, I was asking a question, not making a statement. Although reading is a hard skill for the mentally challenged, so you are forgiven my child.

 

I don't think there is a member of this forum who knows so little as you do about football who attempts to come across as knowing so much.  Your posts appear to be from some kind of bible of clichés or the obvious.

 

The post I mentioned earlier is almost verbatim something I heard on the radio, yet you deny listening to Talksport. Clever how you do that, like.  mackems.gif

 

What the f*** are you on about you utter spaz?

 

I dont listen to Talksport, or any radio show, for that matter, so what exactly are you attempting to achieve by claiming I do like the prick that you are?

 

mackems.gif

 

Rather this tripe than you trying to babble on about football.

 

More amusing is your inability to defend the signing of Duff, and consequently resorting to "omg you know fuck all about footy LOL you are inferior to me ROFL" tripe yourself.

[Howaythelads]

More amusing is your inability to defend the signing of Duff, and consequently resorting to "omg you know f*** all about footy LOL you are inferior to me ROFL" tripe yourself.

 

 

It's not a lack of ability to defend the signing of Duff, it's more to do with there being no reason to defend the signing of Duff. Why would anybody need to defend the signing of Duff?

 

 

[Cajun]

More amusing is your inability to defend the signing of Duff, and consequently resorting to "omg you know f*** all about footy LOL you are inferior to me ROFL" tripe yourself.

 

 

It's not a lack of ability to defend the signing of Duff, it's more to do with there being no reason to defend the signing of Duff. Why would anybody need to defend the signing of Duff?

 

 

 

Because it was a poor signing.

[Howaythelads]

More amusing is your inability to defend the signing of Duff, and consequently resorting to "omg you know f*** all about footy LOL you are inferior to me ROFL" tripe yourself.

 

 

It's not a lack of ability to defend the signing of Duff, it's more to do with there being no reason to defend the signing of Duff. Why would anybody need to defend the signing of Duff?

 

 

 

Because it was a poor signing.

 

Quantify the statement otherwise your contribution means very little. You know, explain to me why it was a poor signing.

[Cajun]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

[Dragon55544]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

Didnt FS say there was money available but Roeder fuck about to much and missed out on his targets, Like the Huth and Woodgate situation.

[Cajun]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

Didnt FS say there was money available but Roeder fuck about to much and missed out on his targets, Like the Huth and Woodgate situation.

 

How much money though? We needed/need a couple of new centre backs, a left back, a right back and another striker. Ws there enough for all that AND £5m for Duff?

[Howaythelads]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

[Cajun]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

[Howaythelads]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

[Dragon55544]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

Didnt FS say there was money available but Roeder f*** about to much and missed out on his targets, Like the Huth and Woodgate situation.

 

How much money though? We needed/need a couple of new centre backs, a left back, a right back and another striker. Ws there enough for all that AND £5m for Duff?

 

TBF we did need a LW aswell because all we had was Zoggy. I think we would of had Bridge if the Cole deal was done earlier but thats no excuse for not getting players in. Im not sure how much money we had but i can remember FS saying there is money available

[Cajun]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

 

Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" shite!")

 

FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere!

 

If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected?

[Cajun]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

Didnt FS say there was money available but Roeder f*** about to much and missed out on his targets, Like the Huth and Woodgate situation.

 

How much money though? We needed/need a couple of new centre backs, a left back, a right back and another striker. Ws there enough for all that AND £5m for Duff?

 

TBF we did need a LW aswell because all we had was Zoggy. I think we would of had Bridge if the Cole deal was done earlier but thats no excuse for not getting players in. Im not sure how much money we had but i can remember FS saying there is money available

 

Nowhere near as much as we needed a quality left back, centre back and another striker though. We could probably do with another goalkeeper in the summer as Pav isnt up to it but I hope we don't spend a 3rd of our transfer fund on one!

[Howaythelads]

Because we didn't have £5m to spend on a left winger when there were so many important roles in the team that needed sorting first.

 

You won't ever agree to this though so there is no point getting into a debate. Everyone else can see it and you yourself probably can but won't admit to it.

 

You're basing an opinion on supposition, not fact.

 

Ok we had £50m to spend but Roeder decided he just needed one striker, one lanky old midfielder a left winger and a young stirker on loan.

 

You got me.

 

wtf are you on about?

 

The signing of Duff is not the reason why we didn't sign a LB or CB. As this is seemingly the reason you and others believe Duff was a poor signing, I'd say your conclusion is flawed because your logic is incorrect.

 

Well we should have spent time and money trying to sign a left back or centre back. No flawed logic in that (awaits the excuse that it was Campbells life long dream to play for Harry at Pompey etc etc... then the "just because Roeder didnt want to sign x,y and z doesnt mean he is wrong" s****!")

 

FACT is we signed a left winger and we didn't sign players in more vital positions. As much as you wish to excuse this the signing of Duff was a poor decision when as said the time and money could have been better spent elsewhere!

 

If my sister had just got run over by a car and I ran in the house to get her a plaster instead of calling an ambulance would my decision still be correct because at least I managed to stop the cut on her finger from getting infected?

 

I don't give a s**** about whether or not Campbell wanted to play for Portsmouth.

 

You don't grasp the unavoidable fact that ....

 

1. The manager chooses who he wants to buy and if that's not who you want the club to buy doesn't make the signing s****.

2. You can only sign a player who is available and who wants to join your club.

 

Signing Duff was a good signing because it is a good thing not to rely on a young player who has only had one decent season. You and others can bang on all you like about this but a good player became available at a good price for a position that is notoriously difficult to fill with any quality.

 

I would be unhappy with this signing if it was fact the signing was made instead of signing a striker, a LB or a decent CB, but that is simply not a known fact no matter how much you may want it to be. It's pretty common knowledge the club had bids in for various other players that for one reason or another did not happen. Those reasons are f*** all to do with the signing of Duff.

 

If hypothetically everyone on this forum agreed that this summer we need to sign (in this order) a LB, CB, CM, and a forward it does not mean that if we only get the CM and the striker that these signings are s*** because we didn't get the LB and CB as well.

 

The quality you want has to be available and has to want to join your club and that's the bottom line. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

 

[GM]

The circumstances surrounding Owen's injury, i.e. that we've had nigh on no return for our £17M outlay to date, do somewhat explain why the Chairman is pursuing this compensation with such vigour.

 

Still think FFS is a twat, but not because of this escapade.