ToffeeCup

Posts: 3,044

March 2012 Spurs had confirmed that Pienaar could not play before I posted in this thread.

So, when I said it was a no at the top of this thread....it was a no.

Give it up you stubborn old mule.

gwladysstreet

Posts: 125

March 2012 nothing to do with spurs, it's a rule, and can't be circumvented. it's there so there can be no question of a player's performance.

if a player signs on loan, he can't play against the team holding his registration.

if a loaned player subsequently signs a permanent deal, he still can't play against his former parent team (a la tim howard when he first came to the blues was unable to play v manure).

saha deal is a loan until the expiry of his current contract.

gwladysstreet

Posts: 125

March 2012

koolhandluke8 said:

i'll tell you now... they can play with the agreement/sanction of the "mother club"..it's because mainly...the fear of the loan player might "throw the game"

as rare as rockinghorseshit that it happens..

mainly happenned when it's a non st team player say a youngster..and they get permission to do it..

perhaps in the football league, not in the fa premier

AndyForsyth

Posts: 2,527

March 2012

koolhandluke8 said:

been racking me brains to remember this kids name but cant..Barnsley had a player from manu on loan and they let him play against them in the FA cup....but cant remember his name for the life of me..

-----------------

Daniel Nardiello?

koolhandluke8

Posts: 3,024

March 2012 yes thats the bleeder....

ToffeeCup

Posts: 3,044

March 2012

koolhandluke8 said:

hahaha wondered how long it would take before you...technically...cracked !!!!!

-----------------

wondered how long you'd keep up your pointless refusal to accept the fact that he couldn't play for Everton against spurs...

11blue

Posts: 4,685

March 2012 Pienaar can't play but Saha can.

ToffeeCup

Posts: 3,044

March 2012

koolhandluke8 said:

ToffeeCup said:

wondered how long you'd keep up your pointless refusal to accept the fact that he couldn't play for Everton against spurs...

I never once refused to accept..and indeed knew..he couldn't play against spurs...

My point was technically you were wrong in your answer ......

PS..I wondered how long it would take for you to respond to my response.. wondering how long it would take you to crack ..

-----------------

When I said he couldn't play, Spurs had not only stated he couldn't play, but Pienaar had been interveiwed and the contents of that interview had been published online in which he stated that he couldn't play.

Technically, they say some people who work in football are a bit thick. And looking at your posts on this subject, they might have a point...

ToffeeCup

Posts: 3,044

March 2012

koolhandluke8 said:

Come on TC admit it you were wrong....you sed no he couldn't play which is technically wrong!

Oh look a gentlemans agreement between daveyband Harry !! Just like I sed......

-----------------

If he'd have asked "Can Pienaar play against Spurs?" before Spurs stopped the player playing against Spurs, then technically you'd be right. Even though we all know that spurs wouldn't let him play as is the custom in the prem.

However, he asked  "Can Pienaar play against Spurs?" after Spurs has confirmed that he couldn't play and the player himself was quoted in the press saying that he couldn't play and that he 'fully understood why and that there would be no reprisals from him about it'

So techically, at the point he asked the question, you are wrong. The answer to the question is 'no, he can not play against Spurs'. For pitty sake...

ToffeeCup

Posts: 3,044

March 2012

koolhandluke8 said:

Come on TC admit it you were wrong....you sed no he couldn't play which is technically wrong!

Oh look a gentlemans agreement between daveyband Harry !! Just like I sed......

-----------------

So, not only were you wrong about Pienaar, your gentlemans agreement shtick went up sh*t creek too.