Await the posts saying here we are a much bigger club and ignoring the fact they want paying.
Await the posts saying here we are a much bigger club and ignoring the fact they want paying.Aberdeen get 25% as well.
Just searched and appears champ clubs linked Millwall & PNE
Has Chaplin been officially announced as purchased by the club yet?
That an agreement had been made, but I was on about an official announcement by the club, considering it's a significant fee. You'd imagine the club would want to officially announce his permanent signing.He was when he signed the original loan deal
That an agreement had been made, but I was on about an official announcement by the club, considering it's a significant fee. You'd imagine the club would want to officially announce his permanent signing.
I'm happy he's ours and intend to fully back the lad in the stands, he's young and Robins system right now is shit for Chaplin.I think Grendel is saying that the 'permanant' announcement WAS made back when he joined us. All the remains, I presume, is for us to transfer the money. As someone once sang, Chaplin is "signed, sealed, delivered, he's ours". Unfortunately.
Think it will be clubs above us, Pompey using the Chaplin fee.
It's a lot considering he's out of contract in the summer!
Guess he knows tisdale. Are mk Dons likely to go up?The Sun journalist Alan Nixon reckons it could be a surprise where Stockley ends up. Someone asked him if it was MK Dons and he responded, that they had made the player a very good offer.
They have every chance to be fair and Tisdale knows him well, I would be surprised though as he can prob move up the leagues and MK will need to sell firstGuess he knows tisdale. Are mk Dons likely to go up?
I think Grendel is saying that the 'permanent' announcement WAS made back when he joined us. All the remains, I presume, is for us to transfer the money. As someone once sang, Chaplin is "signed, sealed, delivered, he's ours". Unfortunately.
We announced we were going to ve signing him permanently in January. Therefore still a loan til then. Jesus can people not grasp basic understanding on here.Except Portsmouth refused to let him play against them as he is officially their player. They can’t have it both ways.
We announced we were going to ve signing him permanently in January. Therefore still a loan til then. Jesus can people not grasp basic understanding on here.
So had we done the same with mcnulty for example you would be happy for us to allow him to play against us? We havent been shafted because we knew the rules when we signed him.I’m not even campaigning not to sign him but why can’t you understand that we’ve been shafted twice here by the selling club. Other clubs in their position (eg Millwall iirc) allowed their loaned players to play against them, Portsmouth and Jackett 1) refused to let him leave until the perm window had shut in August and 2) then announced the week before our game with them that they wouldn’t let him play against us.
Nothing wrong with suggesting that City ought not to have rolled over to have their tummy tickled in the autumn or cd push for something now.
So had we done the same with mcnulty for example you would be happy for us to allow him to play against us? We havent been shafted because we knew the rules when we signed him.
It would be ethically wrong to back out of the agreement with Portsmouth now. :emoji_thinking:Has Chaplin been officially announced as purchased by the club yet?
No because millwall were given permission we werent. The rules are the parent club decide if a LOAN player can play against them. As chaplin was on LOAN they chose this option. At which point are you goung to accept this?Rules that didn’t apply to Millwall?
And Robins clearly didn’t know the rules either as he repeatedly claimed he cd play bs Portsmouth in the league but wouldn’t be able to should we be drawn against them in the Cup.
Exactly. It's agreed on an individual deal-by-deal basis, not based on some generic rule set by the FL or FA.No because millwall were given permission we werent. The rules are the parent club decide if a LOAN player can play against them. As chaplin was on LOAN they chose this option. At which point are you goung to accept this?
No because millwall were given permission we werent. The rules are the parent club decide if a LOAN player can play against them. As chaplin was on LOAN they chose this option. At which point are you goung to accept this?
I think they can during the loan period. He is not"bought" until JanuaryExcept Portsmouth refused to let him play against them as he is officially their player. They can’t have it both ways.
As JCH and Chaplin have both been Loan to Buy deals I am not sure that method is the best
No matter what system anyone uses Chaplin has to score with some of the chances he has missed and be more clinicalI'm happy he's ours and intend to fully back the lad in the stands, he's young and Robins system right now is shit for Chaplin.
didn't we pay a "substantial" loan fee for him though?JCH wasn't to buy, it was to sign him on a free at the end.
Just for the record, he’s now scored 5 goals, but they include 2 pens and a free kick, in 20 appearances, so I’d say he’s more of a 1 goal in 10 matches type of player. I’m not saying he’s shit, but I’d suggest he’s not worth £500,000.hard to believe isn't it that Robins spent all summer chasing Chaplin around and what has it got us so far,4 goals out of what 19/20 appearances,his basically a 1 goal in 5 games man.
If has you say Pompey may be using the money we paid for Chaplin to go and get Jayden stockley (if they are of course,) who has conned who here.I have a feeling Portsmouth played Robins and had him just where they wanted him,he came across to them as desperate for Chaplin and they used that to there advantage,just an opinion of course.
JCH wasn't to buy, it was to sign him on a free at the end.
Just for the record, he’s now scored 5 goals, but they include 2 pens and a free kick, in 20 appearances, so I’d say he’s more of a 1 goal in 10 matches type of player. I’m not saying he’s shit, but I’d suggest he’s not worth £500,000.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?