Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Afobe v Stoke (Merged)


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Ofcourse.  It's the rules

Thanks, didn’t appreciate that it’s a given, thought it was something negotiated between the two clubs involved.

Just taken a look at the EFL rules re loan players and rule 58.4 actually says that a player will not be permitted to play against his parent club, however, it then goes onto say that if the parent club give written consent this rule can be over-ruled! 

Edited by Jerseybean
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

Thanks, didn’t appreciate that it’s a given, thought it was something negotiated between the two clubs involved.

Just taken a look at the EFL rules re loan players and rule 58.4 actually says that a player will not be permitted to play against his parent club, however, it then goes onto say that if the parent club give written consent this rule can be over-ruled! 

Correct, but we seem to be the only country that has this rule. Players loaned out in Spain, Germany, Italy etc always seem to play against their parent club. If you've loaned out a player with a view to moving him on I see no point in stopping him playing, nor if he's loaned with a view to get him games. I would scrap the rule. If the opposing manager doesn't want to play him because of doubts about his intensity in such a game that's a different matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure his parent club would ensure that he can't play against yhem just like we ensured that Pato can't play against us.

I agree with the OP that suggested a forward 3 of Andi, Nic and Kasey.

That, along with say Josh and Adam behind them and a back 5 of whoever we can muster with Jay, Bailey and Tomas all on the treatment table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

Thanks, didn’t appreciate that it’s a given, thought it was something negotiated between the two clubs involved.

Just taken a look at the EFL rules re loan players and rule 58.4 actually says that a player will not be permitted to play against his parent club, however, it then goes onto say that if the parent club give written consent this rule can be over-ruled! 

Lets be serious here, with the way he's playing for us if you were Stoke would you let him play against you.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this has been brought up as I've been thinking the same thing. I too assumed it's a given that he won't be allowed to play for us but because nothing was mentioned in any of the articles when he signed for us, that's what made me wonder. If you compare it to when Pato was loaned out to Derby, one of the first things specified was the fact that "Paterson will not be eligible to play against Lee Johnson’s side when the teams meet in the 2019/20 season" whereas nothing with Benik. Also, with the fact there is an option to purchase him at the end of the season, I wondered if that had any bearing on the rules....

Edited by GeoTheCiderHead
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Not sure i's the rules, always use to be a gentleman agreement. You weren't allowed to put an actual clause in the deal. 
Amounts to the same thing though.

Nah. Loan deals is the rules.  Permanent deals you can't insist either way,  nor have a gentleman's agreement. Big furore a few years ago when Tim Howard moved from United to Everton and a gentleman's agreement was in place that he couldn't play the game between the two teams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Nah. Loan deals is the rules.  Permanent deals you can't insist either way,  nor have a gentleman's agreement. Big furore a few years ago when Tim Howard moved from United to Everton and a gentleman's agreement was in place that he couldn't play the game between the two teams. 

Yeah, checked after I posted, though I'm sure it must have changed . They can only play against their Parent club with written permission, not sure who would actually do this, always a chance he'd come back to bite you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He definitely won't be eligible v Stoke.

A Plan B might be Palmer behind Weimann, kind of a 4-4-1-1.

Plenty of ways to work it- could have the same back 4, maybe Brownhill-Nagy-Massengo-Eliasson ie bringing back the 4-4-1-1 of 2 seasons ago. Bit asymmetrical.

Or could go with O'Dowda-Brownhill-Nagy/Massengo-Eliasson with obviously Palmer-Weimann in the 1-1. O'Dowda can come inside, 3 centrally in certain phases- Weimann can pull wider higher up the pitch, overloads possible.

Or even:

                   Bentley

         Moore Baker Williams 

Hunt Brownhill Massengo Nagy Rowe

                Palmer

               Weimann

Versatility aplenty, Brownhill can pull right to help with doubling up if 2 v 1, Weimann can pull left in order to in theory help Rowe, can also come inside to help to outnumber as and when, though with a packed middle it may not be necessary. It's imperfect but with the number of absentees solutions will be a bit mix and match.

*Subject to injuries, hitches in recovery etc.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

He definitely won't be eligible v Stoke.

A Plan B might be Palmer behind Weimann, kind of a 4-4-1-1.

Plenty of ways to work it- could have the same back 4, maybe Brownhill-Nagy-Massengo-Eliasson ie bringing back the 4-4-1-1 of 2 seasons ago. Bit asymmetrical.

Or could go with O'Dowda-Brownhill-Nagy/Massengo-Eliasson with obviously Palmer-Weimann in the 1-1. O'Dowda can come inside, 3 centrally in certain phases- Weimann can pull wider higher up the pitch, overloads possible.

Or even:

                   Bentley

         Moore Baker Williams 

Hunt Brownhill Massengo Nagy Rowe

                Palmer

               Weimann

Versatility aplenty, Brownhill can pull right to help with doubling up if 2 v 1, Weimann can pull left in order to in theory help Rowe, can also come inside to help to outnumber as and when, though with a packed middle it may not be necessary. It's imperfect but with the number of absentees solutions will be a bit mix and match.

*Subject to injuries, hitches in recovery etc.

Alternatively LJ might just replace Afobe with Semenyo. That’ll piss Famara off even further 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Yeah, checked after I posted, though I'm sure it must have changed . They can only play against their Parent club with written permission, not sure who would actually do this, always a chance he'd come back to bite you.

Chelsea allowed their loanees at Derby to play against them in the EFL Cup last season.  Not sure, but maybe Cup ok, league not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Chelsea allowed their loanees at Derby to play against them in the EFL Cup last season.  Not sure, but maybe Cup ok, league not.

Yep Cups are different. The site I read it on said as standard in the Prem loanees don't play against parent clubs but can, if agreed in cups. The EFL there is a clause in the loan contract that has to be triggered to let a player play against his own club. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steve Watts said:

Nah. Loan deals is the rules.  Permanent deals you can't insist either way,  nor have a gentleman's agreement. Big furore a few years ago when Tim Howard moved from United to Everton and a gentleman's agreement was in place that he couldn't play the game between the two teams. 

Didn`t we do the same when we sold Christian Roberts to Swindon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...