I'd have thought so

If a club borrowed say Lappin off us for 3 months then decide actually he's a bit s**te and they don't fancy him much I wouldn't have thought they could just return him. Article clearly says he is still on loan until Jan 1st so I presume we must be still paying his wages. Do remember in the prem when we had Bentley on loan and he got injured it was made pretty clear that we still had to pay his wages for the season.

It's all a bit Championship Manager to me where you shortlist your players at the start and bid for about 5 then you a sign a player but the player you really want agrees to come the next day so you sign him as well (wasn't Kennedy signed after Troy?). Didn't think football in the real world worked like that but seemingly it does!

Posted By: jonnym6 on November 9th 2008 at 21:40:47

Message Thread

Correct me if I'm wrong but (NCFC) - jonnym6, Nov 9, 19:16:48
- But are we still paying him? (n/m) (NCFC) - DrDublin, Nov 9, 19:19:40
  - I'd have thought so (NCFC) - jonnym6, Nov 9, 21:40:47
  - probably not (n/m) (NCFC) - pants, Nov 9, 19:24:39
    - i'd disagree with that - still better a shit loanee than a shit free transfer (NCFC) - blindasabat, Nov 9, 19:31:44
      - talking of players like that (NCFC) - camcan, Nov 9, 19:59:04
        
        hair? (n/m) (NCFC) - strap_on sally, Nov 9, 20:19:08

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.