Steve0 5,517 Posted January 5, 2013 difference is they weren't (alledgedly) tapped up Can you prove Swindon have done anything against the rules in this situation with Hans and Troy? Thought not! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essaitch 24 Posted January 5, 2013 Can you prove Swindon have done anything against the rules in this situation with Hans and Troy? Thought not! Well even Troy has admitted he's agreed terms with Swindon, what more proof do you want?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hans fan 1,001 Posted January 5, 2013 Can you prove Swindon have done anything against the rules in this situation with Hans and Troy? Thought not! no but i said alledged you can't see past your nose Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted January 5, 2013 Well even Troy has admitted he's agreed terms with Swindon, what more proof do you want?? Show me! no but i said alledged you can't see past your nose That's twice you've said that today - I think it's you who is blinkered - stalemate ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sully 274 Posted January 5, 2013 Show me! That's twice you've said that today - I think it's you who is blinkered - stalemate ! Plenty saw what he put he twitter before hastily deleting it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
500cc 309 Posted January 5, 2013 What facts are these? A story in the local paper from Peterborough is from one side - I'll wait for the claims to be corroborated or disputed by the other parties! Fair point. The problem is that Janet Mahoney has been directly quoted by the paper. If this is not true she needs to do something fairly quickly as rightly or wrongly this will now be treated as Peterborough's view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spencebel 181 Posted January 5, 2013 Her name is Julie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,474 Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) What facts are these? A story in the local paper from Peterborough is from one side - I'll wait for the claims to be corroborated or disputed by the other parties! And then you'll come to a balanced decision without bias. Will look forward to it! Good to see that we were not allegedly denying Andersen a living as you kept saying (I think the Coventry part probably also applied to Iversen? ) “Coventry were prepared to buy Hans on a full transfer if they were able to tempt him to ride for them in 2013, but Hans also turned that move down" & “We have subsequently put two offers to Hans, both of which he has chosen to decline." - perhaps that will be clarified at your end? What's that supposed to mean? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way by the way. I'm just not sure what angle you're coming from. Balanced and sensible without the emotive language! Edited January 5, 2013 by Crump99 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
g13webb 4,254 Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Good to see that we were not allegedly denying Andersen a living as you kept saying (I think the Coventry part probably also applied to Iversen? ) “Coventry were prepared to buy Hans on a full transfer if they were able to tempt him to ride for them in 2013, but Hans also turned that move down" & “We have subsequently put two offers to Hans, both of which he has chosen to decline." - perhaps that will be clarified at your end? When I read the rules on loaned out riders, I am of the impression, at the end of each loaned stint, the parent club has first option on that rider next year. If that parent club doesn't take up that option, then the Club the rider was loaned to has second option of that rider.... So where does the RULES say that Peterboro' can offer the said rider to another club (COVENTRY) before they have given the loan club the opportunity to have him back....... Is that not braking the rules ????? Edited January 6, 2013 by GRW123 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woz01 3,589 Posted January 6, 2013 When I read the rules on loaned out riders, I am of the impression, at the end of each loaned stint, the parent club has first option on that rider next year. If that parent club doesn't take up that option, then the Club the rider was loaned to has second option of that rider.... So where does the RULES say that Peterboro' can offer the said rider to another club (COVENTRY) before they have given the loan club the opportunity to have him back....... Is that not braking the rules ????? No because Coventry were willing to buy them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
em1500uk 190 Posted January 6, 2013 Balanced and sensible without the emotive language! Thanks for that. Sorry for being a bit dim I just wasn't sure if it was meant as an arsey comment or whether it was meant to be a compliment of sorts. I find it hard to tell online! I do think you have to watch what you say on here anyway as you never know who might be reading and I personally don't want to make myself look like a complete idiot! I try and be fair and reasonable and think outside of my own box. There's always several sides to one story. But sadly not everyone on here thinks like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
g13webb 4,254 Posted January 6, 2013 No because Coventry were willing to buy them. Probably so, but surely, according to the said rules, Swindon should've had first option to buy......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woz01 3,589 Posted January 6, 2013 Probably so, but surely, according to the said rules, Swindon should've had first option to buy......... I understand that Swindon only wanted to loan Hans originally? Could be wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,687 Posted January 6, 2013 When I read the rules on loaned out riders, I am of the impression, at the end of each loaned stint, the parent club has first option on that rider next year. If that parent club doesn't take up that option, then the Club the rider was loaned to has second option of that rider.... So where does the RULES say that Peterboro' can offer the said rider to another club (COVENTRY) before they have given the loan club the opportunity to have him back....... Is that not braking the rules ????? No, he was not offered to coventry on a loan basis, it was a full transfer or maybe swap for Harris. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barney Rabbit 727 Posted January 6, 2013 When I read the rules on loaned out riders, I am of the impression, at the end of each loaned stint, the parent club has first option on that rider next year. If that parent club doesn't take up that option, then the Club the rider was loaned to has second option of that rider.... So where does the RULES say that Peterboro' can offer the said rider to another club (COVENTRY) before they have given the loan club the opportunity to have him back....... Is that not braking the rules ????? Maybe you can point us to where you read these rules because I was under the impression that these particular 'rules' are in a handbook available to promoters and other officials rather than in the rules of the sport available to all on the SCB website. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
