Lambert story in the echo

[Smirking_Saint]

Sorry guys to bring this up, i have heard a lot of bad noises from many of you about this supposed story in the echo.

 

I didn't get the echo yesturday (in fact i never do)

 

Can someone fill me in with what it was that caused the upset please ??

[John B]

Sorry guys to bring this up, i have heard a lot of bad noises from many of you about this supposed story in the echo.

 

I didn't get the echo yesturday (in fact i never do)

 

Can someone fill me in with what it was that caused the upset please ??

 

Dont know but was it the rumour he was going to Newcastle which I thought the Echo said was highly unlikely and quoted Hughton

[Toadhall Saint]

There was a large piece in the Echo on Weds I think. I thought it was a bit OTT even giving reasons why he should got to the geordies - lets just say (yet again) I was none too happy with the gist of the story - it was as if they were trying to unsettle him. Of course this is just my opinion and others will have a different one no doubt.

[Joensuu]

The Echo have an agenda against the club. Boycott?

[Turkish]

usual crap from the echo. A double page space filler based on nothing but a rumour. Hope they were embarassed that the same day they printed it Houghton came out and said there was no truth in the rumour. Reasons why he should go and stay. Gave more reasons as to why he should go though, including a bizarre one that Newcastle players are well supported by their fans and well paid. Thats right, because we didn't treble his wages when he came and the fans hate him here dont they. The article wasn't worth the two pages it was written on, which is often the case these days with the echo.

[Thedelldays]

it seems to me the echo are going down hill....fast

[Third Division South Days]

The Echo have an agenda against the club. Boycott?

 

I think the number of readers realising this is growing. The Echo and the sports journalists can be the only losers.

[Third Division South Days]

Dont know but was it the rumour he was going to Newcastle which I thought the Echo said was highly unlikely and quoted Hughton

 

Did you read the article?

[Toadhall Saint]

I think the number of readers realising this is growing. The Echo and the sports journalists can be the only losers.

 

I get it delivered everyday and TBH I'm thinking about cancelling and just buying it as and when.

[saintrich]

It was well over the top.. but I guess it worked if it sold more papers...

[Smirking_Saint]

I don't see why anyone ever buys the echo, especially from us posting on here. TBH we get match reports (that i feel are more reliable as more people post) all the rumours that you get in the echo.

 

The echo is a sh*tty little paper that i only ever read round the parents if there are no other papers to hand.

 

Sorry, i know Danny posts on this site and it is not a dig at him, just at the editors to be honest, and if they printed that about Lambert i would imagine it was out of nothing more than spite.

 

Local papers should get behind the team, not unsettle it, and they are hardly talking their way back into St Marys doing things like that.

 

Cheers guys, rant over

[Ciaran]

usual crap from the echo. A double page space filler based on nothing but a rumour. Hope they were embarassed that the same day they printed it Houghton came out and said there was no truth in the rumour. Reasons why he should go and stay. Gave more reasons as to why he should go though, including a bizarre one that Newcastle players are well supported by their fans and well paid. Thats right, because we didn't treble his wages when he came and the fans hate him here dont they. The article wasn't worth the two pages it was written on, which is often the case these days with the echo.

 

It also gave the same amount of space to the reasons he should stay....

[Turkish]

It also gave the same amount of space to the reasons he should stay....

 

The point is that there as no story. It was based on a rumour which had no substance to it and was denied the very day they printed it. If you read the article the reason they gave for him to stay , that he is playing well here and happy, whereas most of the rest of it leaned towards what he would gain by leaving. Was a **** article, as usual.

[ottery st mary]

Echo is going downhill fast is very apt with the weather.....

Made up nonsense.....Newcastle had no interest and never even attempted an enquiry.....

 

Hughton has enough strikers with Beckford on his way....

 

 

Rumour...Yes made up by the Echo....

Definitely Murray tactics....Childish and Disrespectful

 

COYRs

[John B]

Echo is going downhill fast is very apt with the weather.....

Made up nonsense.....Newcastle had no interest and never even attempted an enquiry.....

 

Hughton has enough strikers with Beckford on his way....

 

 

Rumour...Yes made up by the Echo....

Definitely Murray tactics....Childish and Disrespectful

 

COYRs

 

I dont want to get in trouble again but

 

I thought the Mirror had the story First

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Newcastle-boss-Chris-Hughton-keeping-tabs-on-Southampton-striker-Rickie-Lambert-article281653.html

 

and the Echo were responding to it

[ottery st mary]

I dont want to get in trouble again but

 

I thought the Mirror had the story First

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Newcastle-boss-Chris-Hughton-keeping-tabs-on-Southampton-striker-Rickie-Lambert-article281653.html

 

and the Echo were responding to it

 

 

Now look here John.....Join in with the spirit of the thread.

 

The Mirror is also on a downward spiral and allegedly keeps giving Mr Murray false rumours.......Just ask Alistair and Tony:smt047

[instinct]

It seemed like they were persuading him to go! saying he was already quite old, could be his last big chance, especially as he could get injured so he would be tempted to take the big money move, newcastle fans give good support etc

[CanadaSaint]

Made up nonsense.....Newcastle had no interest and never even attempted an enquiry.....

 

Hughton has enough strikers with Beckford on his way....

 

I dont want to get in trouble again but

 

I thought the Mirror had the story First

 

and the Echo were responding to it

 

Perhaps there was something there but it turned out like a shortened version of the Ward situation - Club goes for two similar players, gets their first choice, drops interest in their second choice. (Big maybe there, I know)

 

The Echo desperately needs a good link with the Club and there's no way they would have done this spitefully. In fact, I suspect they'd bend over backwards not to p*ss Cortese off again.

[John B]

Now look here John.....Join in with the spirit of the thread.

 

The Mirror is also on a downward spiral and allegedly keeps giving Mr Murray false rumours.......Just ask Alistair and Tony:smt047

 

Now I like Alistair he is a Burnley Supporter

[ottery st mary]

Perhaps there was something there but it turned out like a shortened version of the Ward situation - Club goes for two similar players, gets their first choice, drops interest in their second choice. (Big maybe there, I know)

 

The Echo desperately needs a good link with the Club and there's no way they would have done this spitefully. In fact, I suspect they'd bend over backwards not to p*ss Cortese off again.

 

I blame Ray Ransom and Rupert for everything that goes wrong:D

and John B;)

[John B]

Perhaps there was something there but it turned out like a shortened version of the Ward situation - Club goes for two similar players, gets their first choice, drops interest in their second choice. (Big maybe there, I know)

 

The Echo desperately needs a good link with the Club and there's no way they would have done this spitefully. In fact, I suspect they'd bend over backwards not to p*ss Cortese off again.

 

 

I think Cortese needs the Echo on his side as well but we dont want the Echo to be a mouthpiece for the club do we?

 

Never thought Lambert would go not good enough but I am surprised that it was a similar situation to Ward's and Newcastle offered him a contract

Edited 15 January, 2010 by John B

[proevosaints]

I swear people are blind to both football rules and whats been posted numerous times.

 

A player cannot play for more than two teams in one season, now considering he wouldnt be allowed to play for newcastle as hes already played for us and bristol rovers i think its safe to say newcastle never even considered him.

So please lets all move on

[CanadaSaint]

I swear people are blind to both football rules and whats been posted numerous times.

 

A player cannot play for more than two teams in one season, now considering he wouldnt be allowed to play for newcastle as hes already played for us and bristol rovers i think its safe to say newcastle never even considered him.

So please lets all move on

 

You're right. I completely forgot about that because he joined us at the start of the season, but he'd already played for Rovers. Just once, I think, but that was enough.

 

Then again, perhaps Newcastle made the same mistake.

[Smirking_Saint]

I swear people are blind to both football rules and whats been posted numerous times.

 

A player cannot play for more than two teams in one season, now considering he wouldnt be allowed to play for newcastle as hes already played for us and bristol rovers i think its safe to say newcastle never even considered him.

So please lets all move on

 

I hate to say it but, perhaps you have fallen into this category ??

 

The rules are actually to do with player registrations, any player is able to go on loan regardless of the amount of teams he has played for.

 

Therefore, lambert would be able to go to newcastle on loan with a view to a permanent deal. I am sure if things really went down this route then newcastle would be able to play around the rules, as this seems to happen far to often in football.

[Third Division South Days]

I swear people are blind to both football rules and whats been posted numerous times.

 

A player cannot play for more than two teams in one season, now considering he wouldnt be allowed to play for newcastle as hes already played for us and bristol rovers i think its safe to say newcastle never even considered him.

So please lets all move on

 

If he definitely can't play for any other club this season then the Echo piece is even more discraceful. They really are a joke they don't know whose injured at the club, players penalty points rules and now how many clubs you can play for in a season.

Edited 15 January, 2010 by Third Division South Days

[Third Division South Days]

I understand that it is a FIFA ruling that no player can play for more than 2 clubs in a season. Apparently Spuds have appealed direct to FIFA for special dispensation for Jamie O'hara who is not allowed to continue at Fratton and cannot be loaned out again because of the two club rule. Assume FIFA rules would apply to L1.

[Smirking_Saint]

I understand that it is a FIFA ruling that no player can play for more than 2 clubs in a season. Apparently Spuds have appealed direct to FIFA for special dispensation for Jamie O'hara who is not allowed to continue at Fratton and cannot be loaned out again because of the two club rule. Assume FIFA rules would apply to L1.

 

I may be wrong then, apologees if so, but i heard somewhere that loans do not count, it is merely a matter of player registrations.

[Ciaran]

I understand that it is a FIFA ruling that no player can play for more than 2 clubs in a season. Apparently Spuds have appealed direct to FIFA for special dispensation for Jamie O'hara who is not allowed to continue at Fratton and cannot be loaned out again because of the two club rule. Assume FIFA rules would apply to L1.

 

The rule is three clubs on permanent deals. Loans do not count. That's how we signed Rasiak in 2006, after he played for Derby and Spurs in the same season. We brought him in on loan and signed him permanently at the end of the season.

 

That's what would have to happen in this instance. The O'Hara thing is people getting the rule muddled up.

[Third Division South Days]

I may be wrong then, apologees if so, but i heard somewhere that loans do not count, it is merely a matter of player registrations.

 

Wish I new how to do these link things but there is an article today printed in todays Portsmouth news.

[hutch]

The O'Hara thing is that O'Hara, Spuds & Pompey all want to extend the loan at Pompey, but the PL won't allow it because of the embargo. It's got nothing to do with the number of clubs he's played for.

[Ciaran]

The rule is three clubs on permanent deals. Loans do not count. That's how we signed Rasiak in 2006, after he played for Derby and Spurs in the same season. We brought him in on loan and signed him permanently at the end of the season.

 

That's what would have to happen in this instance. The O'Hara thing is people getting the rule muddled up.

 

To clear up the O'Hara thing, that is a different case as it involves two loans and that is where the rules are getting muddled, as far as I know.

[John Smith]

I'm sorry, but The Echo seem to do nothing but scream like little children when their toys have been taken from them. They should be supportive of this club and IN NO WAY destabilize ANY of our players. I really do believe that the editors in charge are Pompey fans trying to get their kicks and take their minds off their own issues.

 

I'm sorry but The Echo should be making better use of those two page spreads, like what is Mr Lowe up to nowadays.

[Third Division South Days]

The O'Hara thing is that O'Hara, Spuds & Pompey all want to extend the loan at Pompey, but the PL won't allow it because of the embargo. It's got nothing to do with the number of clubs he's played for.

 

Sorry to disagree as I understand it FIFA rules state that a player cannot play for 3 different clubs in a season in competitive matches, Whether its loan or registered. Spurs are having to appeal to FIFA because they want to loan O'hara out again. Apparently several clubs are interested in taking him

[Third Division South Days]

The rule is three clubs on permanent deals. Loans do not count. That's how we signed Rasiak in 2006, after he played for Derby and Spurs in the same season. We brought him in on loan and signed him permanently at the end of the season.

 

That's what would have to happen in this instance. The O'Hara thing is people getting the rule muddled up.

 

Rasiak signed for Spurs from Derby 31 Aug 2005(transfer deadline day) as far as I can make out hid did not play for Derby before transfer. Loaned to Saints from Feb 2006. He only played competitive football for two clubs in that season so did not breach FIFA rules.

[Toadhall Saint]

Wish I new how to do these link things but there is an article today printed in todays Portsmouth news.

 

Go to the site copy the address from the address bar and go back to your post right click and select paste - think that should do it.

 

HTH

[Third Division South Days]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1243524/Tottenham-Jamie-OHaras-case-play-FIFA-Pompey-loan-deal-ends.html

 

Thanks TS

[Red&White]

It was well over the top.. but I guess it worked if it sold more papers...

 

Very short sighted, local papers need their football club the Echo has been kak for a long time now.

[Danny]

Rasiak signed for Spurs from Derby 31 Aug 2005(transfer deadline day) as far as I can make out hid did not play for Derby before transfer. Loaned to Saints from Feb 2006. He only played competitive football for two clubs in that season so did not breach FIFA rules.

 

I've just checked - In 2005/06, Rasiak played seven games for Derby, nine for Spurs and 13 for Saints.

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=30498

[Third Division South Days]

I've just checked - In 2005/06, Rasiak played seven games for Derby, nine for Spurs and 13 for Saints.

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=30498

 

Can't argue with that I wonder how old the FIFA rule is? Seems the daily Mail are quite clear that O'Hara is only eligible for Pompey or Spurs.

[Scummer]

Can't argue with that I wonder how old the FIFA rule is? Seems the daily Mail are quite clear that O'Hara is only eligible for Pompey or Spurs.

 

Yes it's possible they've changed the rules in the past 5 years.

[Toadhall Saint]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1243524/Tottenham-Jamie-OHaras-case-play-FIFA-Pompey-loan-deal-ends.html

 

Thanks TS

 

I always work on the premise of learning something new each day!

[Window Cleaner]

Yes it's possible they've changed the rules in the past 5 years.

 

Seems fit really. Why don't Spurs want him to play for err Spurs.

This rule stops clubs signing players just to keep them off the market (as Everton did in the 70s) and then just lending them out 4 or 5 times a season.

 

Now it would seem to me that someone was talking about Lancashire going out on loan again, but as he's already played for Saints and Grimsby this season that's a no-no then. As would be any loan move for a player whos figured for us and a loan club, like Thomson for example.Perhaps bart as well. All those blokes can't be moved out now if this ruling is followed.

[Danny]

Can't argue with that I wonder how old the FIFA rule is? Seems the daily Mail are quite clear that O'Hara is only eligible for Pompey or Spurs.

 

Right, I can see I'm going to struggle to convince my boss this is work, ;)however, the FIFA rules (October 2009):

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/66/98/97/regulationsstatusandtransfer_en_1210.pdf

 

Basically, they say, only two clubs can hold a player's registration (permanent transfer) in a season. Loans are permitted but the parent club will continue to hold the player's registration - hence loans are not part of the two club limit.

 

They also have the rules as they were in 2005, which after a quick glance, seem the same as the 2009 ones, which would mean the Rasiak example quoted above is still relevant.

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/50/02/49/status_transfer_en_25.pdf

 

Now, I really have to do some work!

[westofshannonsaint]

The O'Hara thing is that O'Hara, Spuds & Pompey all want to extend the loan at Pompey, but the PL won't allow it because of the embargo. It's got nothing to do with the number of clubs he's played for.

 

The rules are actually to do with player registrations, any player is able to go on loan regardless of the amount of teams he has played for.

 

Therefore, lambert would be able to go to newcastle on loan with a view to a permanent deal....

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/66/98/97/regulationsstatusandtransfer_en_1210.pdf

 

Quoted because their true