Gareth Barry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rodgers has done a very good managerial job at Liverpool in my opinion and I feel it's a bit 'dog in manger-ish' to say otherwise.
RM has also done a very good managerial job at Everton.

Now we've cleared that up....
 
deipnosophist said:
Rodgers has done a very good managerial job at Liverpool in my opinion and I feel it's a bit 'dog in manger-ish' to say otherwise.
RM has also done a very good managerial job at Everton.

Now we've cleared that up....
Click to expand...

could just be a one-season wonder for liverpool - we'll see next season
 
tomrose9 said:
First post, hello! I've been saying all season that if we were able to get Barry on a 3 year deal and sign Lukaku then I'd be delighted. We've got Gibson and Kone coming back as well who are great players. We'd have more than enough cover then.
Click to expand...


hello and welcome.

3 years is too much for my liking. 2 and then 1 year rolling.
 

Christiffa25 said:
As much as I rate Barry you don't offer a 33 yr old a 3 year deal. 2 yr deal..jobs a good en!
Click to expand...
Fair point mate, but I think we are all still pretty glad to have a 36 year old Diston still in the side? Barry's game isn't built around speed/pace but is more about positional sense, reading of the game and the ability to spread the ball quickly. I don't think he would lose that in three years. I agree that two years might be preferable but if it took the offer of a three year contract to make him stay then I, for one, would be happy enough with that. Key signings must be Barry and Lukaku with others coming back from injury in the new season (Kone, Gibson, Oviedo etc). Have the feeling that we won't keep Deulofeu though unless Barcelona can overturn their transfer embargo.
 
ijjysmith said:
I'd imagine it carries over to the next game mate as technically he couldn't play anyway.

Don't know for certain though.
Click to expand...

It certainly does count.
There is absolutely no rule whatsoever saying that a loanee can't play against his parent club, in fact that would be against the FA's rules as it would count as interference in the selection at an another club if it were to appear in the contract.
There can however be a gentleman agreement based around the parent club preferring the loanee not to play against them which would be respected. If it wasn't respected the parent club would become displeased and possibly even recall the player soon after for another reason. Technically it would be down to Bobby, but Managers know which side their bread is buttered, he won't play.

This means that Barry is 100% available for selection but won't be selected, therefore it would count as one of his banned games if he were to be banned.
 
SpurtingLesbian said:
It certainly does count.
There is absolutely no rule whatsoever saying that a loanee can't play against his parent club, in fact that would be against the FA's rules as it would count as interference in the selection at an another club if it were to appear in the contract.
There can however be a gentleman agreement based around the parent club preferring the loanee not to play against them which would be respected. If it wasn't respected the parent club would become displeased and possibly even recall the player soon after for another reason. Technically it would be down to Bobby, but Managers know which side their bread is buttered, he won't play.

This means that Barry is 100% available for selection but won't be selected, therefore it would count as one of his banned games if he were to be banned.
Click to expand...

I thought there was PL rule that stopped loan players from PL clubs playing against their parent club?

I don't think it's down to 'gentlemans agreements' is it? As it's universally applied in the EPL.
 

Foot Long Hot Dog said:
I thought there was PL rule that stopped loan players from PL clubs playing against their parent club?

I don't think it's down to 'gentlemans agreements' is it? As it's universally applied in the EPL.
Click to expand...

Yeah there is a rule stating loaned player can't play against their parent clubs, it used to be upto the parent clubs choice whether they'd allow them to play or not, as was the case when we initially loaned Howard, but the PL had a rule change about 3-4 years back.

Personally I think it should revert back because I think it gives clubs like Chelsea or Man City an unfair advantage over their rivals.
 
Last edited:
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
I thought there was PL rule that stopped loan players from PL clubs playing against their parent club?

I don't think it's down to 'gentlemans agreements' is it? As it's universally applied in the EPL.
Click to expand...

Sorry, yup, you're right, didn't realise there was a difference between League and Cup when it comes to Loans.
*gets job as Sunderland Club Secretary*

In the Premier League, players on loan are not permitted to play against the team which holds their registration (section 7.2 of rule M.6). Loanees are, however, allowed to play against their 'owning' clubs in cup competitions, unless they have played for their owning club in that cup during that season.
Click to expand...

Still think it counts though as injured players can be 'suspended' for matches they can't play in.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top