Inglorius Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Because of the **** they put him through - they said they wanted him, they could have given him a contract so he was settled, but they didn't. We did. Come home Chrissy! Still think your vitriol is being directed at the wrong parties; we instigated the whole process of allowing our top goal scorer to go out on loan not Fulham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 I can't be bothered to listen to it, but apparently there's talk of legal action against Derby in an interview with Fulham's Tony Khan! "Listening to the interview with Tony Khan it seems that Martin can´t be held responsible for the situation. Khan mentioned illegal activities that did not involve Fulham nor Martin. There is some form of litigation directed towards McClaren & Derby." http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cottagetalk/2017/03/04/cottage-talk-exclusive-interview-with-tony-khan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 15 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: I can't be bothered to listen to it, but apparently there's talk of legal action against Derby in an interview with Fulham's Tony Khan! "Listening to the interview with Tony Khan it seems that Martin can´t be held responsible for the situation. Khan mentioned illegal activities that did not involve Fulham nor Martin. There is some form of litigation directed towards McClaren & Derby." http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cottagetalk/2017/03/04/cottage-talk-exclusive-interview-with-tony-khan They can definitely get stuffed.....They initially maybe had the high moral ground but they clearly have no common sense whatsoever..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: I can't be bothered to listen to it, but apparently there's talk of legal action against Derby in an interview with Fulham's Tony Khan! "Listening to the interview with Tony Khan it seems that Martin can´t be held responsible for the situation. Khan mentioned illegal activities that did not involve Fulham nor Martin. There is some form of litigation directed towards McClaren & Derby." http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cottagetalk/2017/03/04/cottage-talk-exclusive-interview-with-tony-khan From 22.50 in. Fulham have no problem with Chris Martin's conduct, neither does their manager, but there is ongoing litigation from Fulham alleging illegal activity involving a 3rd party. They won't forget the immoral way they were treated, and neither will the Khan family! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irobinson Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 **** em - hes not playing for them in the play offs And he's back with us next season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, reveldevil said: From 22.50 in. Fulham have no problem with Chris Martin's conduct, neither does their manager, but there is ongoing litigation from Fulham alleging illegal activity involving a 3rd party. They won't forget the immoral way they were treated, and neither will the Khan family! WTF! Immoral? He's our player that they've loaned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve How Hard? Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, reveldevil said: From 22.50 in. Fulham have no problem with Chris Martin's conduct, neither does their manager, but there is ongoing litigation from Fulham alleging illegal activity involving a 3rd party. They won't forget the immoral way they were treated, and neither will the Khan family! Cancel the french polishers. The Wardrobes coming back unblemished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 The bloke conducting the interview sounded a lot like @AmericanRam, hope they didn't get him as part of the loan deal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gypsy Ram Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, reveldevil said: The bloke conducting the interview sounded a lot like @AmericanRam, hope they didn't get him as part of the loan deal! Did he warn Liverpool to keep their hands of William Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, Gypsy Ram said: Did he warn Liverpool to keep their hands of William Hughes. I think we need a new one, telling Citizen Khan to do one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnigmaRam Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 I just hope Fulham don't go up, could make it a difficult Decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barnsley ram Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 3 hours ago, EnigmaRam said: I just hope Fulham don't go up, could make it a difficult Decision no it would be a easy descision he would be hopeless in the premiership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 ⭐️Most C'ship goals since 14/15 43⚽️ ?CHRIS MARTIN? 42⚽️ McCormack & Gray 40⚽️ Murphy & Rhodes 37⚽️ Wells 35⚽️ Wood & Ince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 9 hours ago, barnsley ram said: no it would be a easy descision he would be hopeless in the premiership What like Troy Deeney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irobinson Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 it just irks me - who warranted a deal like Martins to Fulham? Don't we have advisers, legal bods etc or anyone with common sense on deal making and working out a what if scenario - if it goes pear shaped? He was recalled on Sat - and he scored for Fulham - they are now above us! beggars belief - that our centre forward is shooting them potentially into the playoffs - and we didn't have a recall or any say in the matter - although we have given him a new contract - so he gets paid more! Chelsea always recall their players - if there is a problem - as do other teams Someone on that Board (never mind Pearson) is accountable for all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramarena Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 24 minutes ago, irobinson said: it just irks me - who warranted a deal like Martins to Fulham? Don't we have advisers, legal bods etc or anyone with common sense on deal making and working out a what if scenario - if it goes pear shaped? He was recalled on Sat - and he scored for Fulham - they are now above us! beggars belief - that our centre forward is shooting them potentially into the playoffs - and we didn't have a recall or any say in the matter - although we have given him a new contract - so he gets paid more! Chelsea always recall their players - if there is a problem - as do other teams Someone on that Board (never mind Pearson) is accountable for all this. Hindsight is interesting isn't it. Maybe Pearson was desperate to get him out and Fulham would have refused a recall option if it was included and the board bit the bullet to get the deal done as Pearson didn't think Martin had a future at Derby. Remember we agreed a transfer fee as well as a loan fee. Regarding Chelsea, they are usually loaning out youth players that are no-where near their first-team, so it's a different scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, Ramarena said: Remember we agreed a transfer fee as well as a loan fee. it was very weak though given that the player had not signed a similar contract. the deal always left us in the worst position. I agree at the time I thought it was a done deal but somebody made a mess of this even without the benefit of hindsight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRBee Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 34 minutes ago, Ramarena said: Hindsight is interesting isn't it. Maybe Pearson was desperate to get him out and Fulham would have refused a recall option if it was included and the board bit the bullet to get the deal done as Pearson didn't think Martin had a future at Derby. Remember we agreed a transfer fee as well as a loan fee. Regarding Chelsea, they are usually loaning out youth players that are no-where near their first-team, so it's a different scenario. No hindsight required for some of us as we never lost faith in Martin at the time and still haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 14 hours ago, reveldevil said: From 22.50 in. Fulham have no problem with Chris Martin's conduct, neither does their manager, but there is ongoing litigation from Fulham alleging illegal activity involving a 3rd party. They won't forget the immoral way they were treated, and neither will the Khan family! Oh no! I'm devastated that we've made an enemy of the powerful and influential Khan family. What are they going to do, put up an ugly statue of Mel outside their ground? Bunch of chancers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 14 hours ago, reveldevil said: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cottagetalk/2017/03/04/cottage-talk-exclusive-interview-with-tony-khan From 22.50 in. Fulham have no problem with Chris Martin's conduct, neither does their manager, but there is ongoing litigation from Fulham alleging illegal activity involving a 3rd party. They won't forget the immoral way they were treated, and neither will the Khan family! Do you know anything about this @OwenB87, something for RD to ask when we play Fulham?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.