Accrington break gentlemans agreement

[antn1.b]

Weve cocked up big time on the way down with letting players go as recently as the ridiculous decision to let Holmes leave. so its refreshing to see something half being done about it shady or otherwise. Matt ritchie probably has to be the stand out. Think Cotterill released him saying he wasn't good enough for our then league 1 side. Although being told your not good enough could well have been the inspiration thats put him on his path to where he is now.

 

[EricSabin]

surprised at a few of the comments on here, i dunno if people have missed the point or if i feel different to the OP, but i just thought it lacked class thats it, end of. oh well. Don't really care bocco aint all that anyway, and not bothered about him playing against us, just gamesmanship.

Any of you lot talking about our former financial problems can jog on anyway, the fans have put this right as best as possible and shouldn't be the ones facing flak for that.

Agree with the second half wholeheartedly

 

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Weve cocked up big time on the way down with letting players go as recently as the ridiculous decision to let Holmes leave......

I watched your game at Argyle in November 2014. Despite you losing 3-0, I thought Ricky Holmes was by far the stand out player on the park of both teams. Couldn't believe it in the January when you let us have him...

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

In fairness I'd have been annoyed if not using Atangana had cost us. Deal was done pre Nolan, if I had been Nolan I'd have said fuck it and played him.

 

[AboveWater]

I watched your game at Argyle in November 2014. Despite you losing 3-0, I thought Ricky Holmes was by far the stand out player on the park of both teams. Couldn't believe it in the January when you let us have him...

still annoys me to this day. awford fell out with him after using him as a scapegoat for our poor form at the time, big blow.

 

[Vanni]

I'm with WAP. The 'gentleman' in gentleman's agreement says it all really.

Accrington can forget about getting another Pompey player then, and I wouldn't be surprised if other clubs refuse to loan them players after this.

 

[EricSabin]

I'm with WAP. The 'gentleman' in gentleman's agreement says it all really.

Accrington can forget about getting another Pompey player then, and I wouldn't be surprised if other clubs refuse to loan them players after this.

I would, be massively surprised if that happened.

 

[Carver]

So Portsmouth let some of their best players go for free to rival clubs? No wonder they can't get out of this league.

Which players do you currently have who have been labelled as not good enough? We don't mind signing a couple.

 

[antn1.b]

So Portsmouth let some of their best players go for free to rival clubs? No wonder they can't get out of this league.

Which players do you currently have who have been labelled as not good enough? We don't mind signing a couple.

How does Matt tubbs sound?

 

[Carver]

How does Matt tubbs sound?

Nah I'd rather we signed someone better from a higher league.

 

[antn1.b]

Shame I can't see Eastleigh working out for him

 

[Richard Cranium]

I though gentlemens agreements only occurred in the Conference. Tinpot as fuck. Besides are you surprised it was broken, John bloody Coleman?

 

[AboveWater]

So Portsmouth let some of their best players go for free to rival clubs? No wonder they can't get out of this league.

Which players do you currently have who have been labelled as not good enough? We don't mind signing a couple.

if you were to spend enough time on pompey forums/twitter you would see all of our current squad called not good enough at some time or another...

 

[miagsygas]

I'm actually with Pompey on this. Okay, not contractual, but an agreement is an agreement and should be held to account in my opinion.

I wonder if plucky little underdogs Accrington helped big bad Pompey sign a player and Pompey turned their back on an agreed term would the reaction on here be the same?

 

[WAP]

Glad to see a few of you on here feel the same way.

You'd have thought after all we've helped Accrington this season financially (hosted an FA cup game vs them) they'd have been abit more professional. If we got them in the playoffs or playoff final that would be interesting. I heard from someone that the gate receipts are shared for the final so they'll be rubbing their hands together if we did meet again.

 

[Grecian O'Grecian]

Glad to see a few of you on here feel the same way.

You'd have thought after all we've helped Accrington this season financially (hosted an FA cup game vs them) they'd have been abit more professional. If we got them in the playoffs or playoff final that would be interesting. I heard from someone that the gate receipts are shared for the final so they'll be rubbing their hands together if we did meet again.

That was good of you.

The only thing about this I don't understand is why Leyton or Cambridge went along with the agreement. Although, it's exactly the sort of thing our soft club/manager would insist upon doing.

 

[BeesKnees]

If pompey had wanted to stop this player from appearing against them then they could have retained his registration and loaned him out for the season.
I find the whole concept of expecting to have a say on a player you no longer own wrong, regardless of which club. A gentlemens agreement is just another way of saying dodgy deal.

 

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Agreed that there isn't statute that says that a gentlemens agreements should be honoured however a hand shake, which may have influenced Pompeys judgement in letting the player go, should have been. Yes, we are all having a pop at Pompey as it was an unwritten agreement, but things like that go on all of the time in 'real life' and in my opinion it should have been honoured.
Accrington have set themselves up to not be trusted or able to sign a player, who has been to their overall benefit, in similar circumstances in the future. Unfortunately they have disresepected themselves and the previous fine tradition of their club within the business of football.
I would have been pissed off if they had done a similar trick to us, irrespective of the match result.

 

[George Reilly's Hairpiece]

If two parties enter freely into an agreement they should honour it.

That said, it's complete bollocks that Portsmouth are doing favours here. They are trying to gain an advantage by stopping a player playing against them. Why was this not put in writing rather than a "gentleman's agreement"? In business, where there is a verbal rather than written agreement, it invariably is because there is no legal basis for that type of agreement.

 

[BeesKnees]

If two parties enter freely into an agreement they should honour it.
That said, it's complete bollocks that Portsmouth are doing favours here. They are trying to gain an advantage by stopping a player playing against them. Why was this not put in writing rather than a "gentleman's agreement"? In business, where there is a verbal rather than written agreement, it invariably is because there is no legal basis for that type of agreement.

I agree, however I dislike these agreements being entered into. Portsmouth gain far more from it than Accrington, Cambridge or Orient. Plus everyone else in the division is also disadvantaged. Portsmouth get to play against weakened sides while other teams have to play against full strength, to me that's dodgy practice and should be stopped.

Hopefully what Accrington have done makes other clubs reconsider whether they should agree to these 'agreements'. I also think a manager who on matchday needs cover should not be ignoring a perfectly suitable player the club are paying wages for because of something like this.

 

[Urban]

If you want something to happen, you get it signed sealed and confirmed, no gentlemen agreement. Football is a competition and means business - you do what you need to do, especially when there is so much money on the line. Accrington haven't cheated, they've not broken any laws or rules - Portsmouths fault. Don't trust any of your rivals!

 

[Habbinalan]

If pompey had wanted to stop this player from appearing against them then they could have retained his registration and loaned him out for the season.
I find the whole concept of expecting to have a say on a player you no longer own wrong, regardless of which club. A gentlemens agreement is just another way of saying dodgy deal.

I'm more than happy with the agreement we reached with Pompey - including the non-appearance - and that we stuck to it. It benefitted both parties and was freely agreed. I'm sure our standing with Pompey and other clubs is not built on such issues but can't imagine breaking the agreement would have fitted with the way our Chairman, Chief Exec or Manager set their stall out. I see that as good business that will benefit us in the longer term, not being sanctimonious.

I think it sensible for loan players (or assistant managers) not to be allowed to play against their parent clubs in important matches - it removes the chance of perceived conflicts of interest, whether they exist or not.

I'm also happy that tosser Coleman further sullied his and his club's standing by breaking the agreement - folk know where they stand with him.

Jimmy Dunne has been an important part of our best performances since January. If we had taken him on loan, with restrictions on playing against Pompey, we would have been worse off. The release and signing means that he is not one of the maximum of 5 loan players that we can have in a match day squad. It's why the release and signing of Jimmy Spencer from Notts County, rather than a loan, was key.

52.2.1 A maximum of 5 loan Players (Standard, International, Emergency or Youth) can be named in the Players listed on a team sheet for any individual match played under the auspices of The League. This figure shall include any additional loan of a goalkeeper approved by The League under the provisions of Regulation 54.

Our regular first 11 would have 3 or 4 loanees (2 fullbacks, Ledson and a winger, now Ishmael) for most matches, without Dunne, Spencer or (loan converted to transfer) Williamson - restricting options significantly for the last part of the season.

 

[BeesKnees]

Simple solution is to prevent loans to teams in the same league and therefore remove any hint of conflict of interest.

Habbinalan proves the point that Portsmouth are benefiting indirectly by other teams having to play a stronger Cambridge side while they do not.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Surely any of these agreements are entered into on the understanding that they aren't enforceable, but that if broken means no future deal or favour will be considered.

So there we go, just don't deal with Accy again. No point making too big a deal over it? I'm sure Pompey have more important issues to think about?

 

[AboveWater]

So there we go, just don't deal with Accy again. No point making too big a deal over it? I'm sure Pompey have more important issues to think about?

Does it get more important than rommy bocco i ask you this?

 

[jacobncfc]

You'd have thought after all we've helped Accrington this season financially (hosted an FA cup game vs them).

Funniest thing i've read on here in ages tbf.

 

[AboveWater]

Funniest thing i've read on here in ages tbf.

head in hands

 

[Stanleyfan]

Coleman responds...
http://accringtonstanley.co.uk/2016/03/coleman-boco-pompey/

 

[AboveWater]

Coleman responds...
http://accringtonstanley.co.uk/2016/03/coleman-boco-pompey/

The plot thickens

 

[WAP]

Funniest thing i've read on here in ages tbf.

It wasn't written to be taken completely serious. I missed an lol on the end.