Robert to Portsmoth - stupid Stipulation

Mitch Connor

Part of the transfer deal included a ban on Robert playing against us at either SJP or Fratton Park - from the newcastle evening chronicle.

i think that is ridiculas - i can understand the reasons behind it when the player was loved at the club (Cole at Newcastle), is returning very soon (Cole at Machester United - it was the next game wasn't it?) or is on loan.

Robert was not loved, did not leave the club in the lurch, and will not be in the position to play against newcastle at SJP or Fratton Park within the next two months at least.

you either transfer a player or not, and as long as not security risk is evident, surely any such stipulation is (a)anti-competitive and/or (b) unfairly restrictive in terms of ability to work freely.

Both clubs are as guilty as the other.

Draupnir

Id imagine its because Newcastle know how good he is at free kicks and long shots so they dont want him banging in a few crackers against them. Simple as that.

Mitch Connor

yes - that is probably the reason - or at least part of it. I think it is ridiculas they are allowed to do this though. its a disgrace and DOES give newcastle an unfair advantage over every other premieirship team.

Bannor

It could well be for the protection of the player - he wasn't liked by senior members of the playing staff.

SteM

This is a BS stipulation. I can sort of understand it if you're sending a player on loan to a club but the FA should stamp out this sort of sh1t now before it becomes more common.

DamoRed

It should only be allowed when a player is on loan. If he is sold, then they should have no right whatsoever to dictate the players inclusion or exclusion for any match.

if there's a security issue, whether for the players interest or not, that's up to Portsmouth, not Newcastle. If he doesn't wish to play against them when the time comes, he can say so to the press, as he was fond of doing at other times. Or have some 'convenient injury'. it's not like he's left them with any bad feeling. Some liked him, some didn't. Most are indifferent, I'd say.

Time to stamp this out. But of course the FA or the Premier League will keep their heads up their collective arses and do nothing, as usual. While the situation could continue to almost farcical proportions.

Alternatively, it could be all just paper talk!


Damo

DoctorEdgeWild

Seems a very strange stipulation - especially in the case of a player like Robert. To be honest, I think the SJP faithful would be happy to see him line out and give him a bit of abuse.

If it is a security issue, then surely it is the responsibility of his new employers. Its not as if he will be giving the low down on Souness' tactical masterplans. Or lack of them.

~Rebel~

Robert is actually only on loan with view to permanent move, so its pretty normal practice (in fact didn't the FA make it compulsary last season?) that he can't play former club while only out on loan.


Source; http://www.football365.com/news/story_155201.shtml

Portsmouth chairman Milan Mandaric has revealed French winger Laurent Robert is only at Fratton Park on loan, despite the club announcing a permanent deal last week.

Reports of his arrival on the club's official website stated Robert, 30, had signed a three-year deal, moving from Newcastle for "an undisclosed fee".

But it now appears Alain Perrin has signed his mercurial countryman only temporarily until the end of next season, with an option to make the move permanent - which explains Newcastle's announcement that the player will not be allowed to face them.

Mandaric told the BBC Sport website: "It's a two-part deal. We have taken him now and if all goes well we will sign him permanently."

It was the possibility of a long-term contract which persuaded Robert to head further south and spurn the advances of Bolton.

Mitch Connor

~Rebel~ wrote:

Robert is actually only on loan with view to permanent move, so its pretty normal practice (in fact didn't the FA make it compulsary last season?) that he can't play former club while only out on loan.


Source; http://www.football365.com/news/story_155201.shtml

saw this yesterday - why was this not announced first off? i thought that might have been the case when i first heard about the stipulation so i checked teamTalk, and it said Robert had signed a three year deal. Just another case of the world trying to make me look stupid. damn their hides.

~Rebel~

Tauren wrote:

saw this yesterday - why was this not announced first off? i thought that might have been the case when i first heard about the stipulation so i checked teamTalk, and it said Robert had signed a three year deal. Just another case of the world trying to make me look stupid. damn their hides.

Yeah it was a weird one..especially as he's taking a loan deal over getting a pretty lucretive contract (as far as i know) with bolton right now..Alain Perrin must have said some great things! Unless of course he's just expecting Souness to get fired this year so he can renage(sp?) on Pompey permanent contract and head back to Newcastle with a new boss. Tho thats a Lot of speculation!

besty

the barcodes are probably just trying to avoid a repeat of what happened with lua lua

~Rebel~

Wasn't it made an FA rule last season anyway that a player on loan couldn't play against his parent club anyway? Remember Diouf couldn't play against the pool even tho they hadn't added any such stipulation, pretty sure the FA enforced it..

Mitch Connor

yeah it is a rule - but it was not announced that it was a loan deal at first, it was announced as a permenent transfer, even yesterday their were conficting comments as to whether it was a permenent move or not(Mandric said it was a loan, peter storrie said it was permenent). FA have said today it is indeed a loan deal.