RD saying that Fulham to probably take disciplinary action against our Chris Martin

[Day]

14 minutes ago, Colm said:

Remember when Liverpool wanted jordan Ibe back from us? We were planning to have him for the whole season, but they just took him even though he had a contract with us, those absolute barstards tapping up their own player.

Liverpool had a recall option on Ibe, we don't have one with Martin

[DEL]

1 minute ago, Colm said:

Good point but still

Yeah I do get what you're saying anyway. 

[Curtains]

So if Martin has to stay at Fulham until the end of the season but doesn't want to who wins out.  

Answer ....No one.  

The player loses out .

Fulham lose out .

Derby lose out.  

Senseless from Fulham. 

[Colm]

7 minutes ago, David said:

Liverpool had a recall option on Ibe, we don't have one with Martin

I know they did but if we take that out of the equation. "Parent club wants its player back from loan club" not sure why Fulham fans are so up in arms about it, he never signed a permanent contract for them. There was always a chance we'd want him back whether that be the end of the season or not.

[Colm]

10 minutes ago, curtains said:

So if Martin has to stay at Fulham until the end of the season but doesn't want to who wins out.  

Answer ....No one.  

The player loses out .

Fulham lose out .

Derby lose out.  

Senseless from Fulham. 

Yep they only way Fulham might gain from that happening is if we didn't make play offs because we dont have Martin and they did (without martin). Or if we both make the play offs and they win because we didn't have Martin lol. Either way it's stupid.

[Day]

12 minutes ago, Colm said:

I know they did but if we take that out of the equation. "Parent club wants its player back from loan club" not sure why Fulham fans are so up in arms about it, he never signed a permanent contract for them. There was always a chance we'd want him back whether that be the end of the season or not.

You can't just take a contract clause out of the equation, it's there, this is the situation, Derby can't pick up the phone and ask for Martin back. We just can't.

Fulham fans are up in arms as a player which is contracted to them is making himself unavailable for games claiming he's injured when he's not according to their manager. 

Now had Ibe been on loan till the end of the season, Liverpool had no recall option, Ibe made himself unavailable to play whilst Rodgers was blowing kisses from a far I would be pissed off.

If we wanted the chance to recall Martin we should have added the recall option in. We didn't, our fault. Now unless the 2 clubs can come to some kind of amicable agreement the whole thing has been a complete and utter **** up that we have to live with.

[eddie]

41 minutes ago, Colm said:

Remember when Liverpool wanted jordan Ibe back from us? We were planning to have him for the whole season, but they just took him even though he had a contract with us, those absolute barstards tapping up their own player.

Youth loans can be recalled.

Oh, if only Martin was 21.

[Colm]

4 minutes ago, David said:

You can't just take a contract clause out of the equation, it's there, this is the situation, Derby can't pick up the phone and ask for Martin back. We just can't.

Fulham fans are up in arms as a player which is contracted to them is making himself unavailable for games claiming he's injured when he's not according to their manager. 

Now had Ibe been on loan till the end of the season, Liverpool had no recall option, Ibe made himself unavailable to play whilst Rodgers was blowing kisses from a far I would be pissed off.

If we wanted the chance to recall Martin we should have added the recall option in. We didn't, our fault. Now unless the 2 clubs can come to some kind of amicable agreement the whole thing has been a complete and utter **** up that we have to live with.

I agree with all that but we should've never let our best striker in 10 years go out on loan (whether with recall terms or not) to a promotion rival. The reason we're in this position is because of Pearson and now we just have to do all we can to get him back by any means necessary. I'm just glad he only managed to send him on loan (however crap the terms are for us to get him back) and not permanently.

[Day]

5 minutes ago, Colm said:

I agree with all that but we should've never let our best striker in 10 years go out on loan (whether with recall terms or not) to a promotion rival. The reason we're in this position is because of Pearson and now we just have to do all we can to get him back by any means necessary. I'm just glad he only managed to send him on loan (however crap the terms are for us to get him back) and not permanently.

Agreed, I mean footballers come and go, had we sold Martin outright for £9m it would have been easier to take, although I would have thought we could have held out for a little more considering the amount goals he's scored. Goals = ££££.

The loan deal from a fans view was ridiculous especially to a promotion rival like you say, although saying that it's now given us hope of seeing him return which probably wouldn't have happened had we sold him. 

There will be reasons as to why we loaned over selling in the board rooms, the way the deal was done, when you hear Martin talk after the move it didn't sound like he had any intention of coming back so I guess it didn't matter nor did a recall option.

As for Pearson, he was the manager but he can be overruled which he wasn't and this is the problem when you back your manager 100% regardless, sometimes you need to say no. This is one of them.

[Boycie]

It's gone very quiet from the club.

i expect his arrival back very soon.

Dont rush the Rush.

[DEL]

Just now, Boycie said:

It's gone very quiet from the club.

i expect his arrival back very soon.

Dont rush the Rush.

Maybe they prefer doing the business quietly. 

[archied]

19 minutes ago, Colm said:

I agree with all that but we should've never let our best striker in 10 years go out on loan (whether with recall terms or not) to a promotion rival. The reason we're in this position is because of Pearson and now we just have to do all we can to get him back by any means necessary. I'm just glad he only managed to send him on loan (however crap the terms are for us to get him back) and not permanently.

I Think lumping everything on Pearson in this situation is a bit of a cop out too ? Mel and Sam have to take the lions share ,, they employed Pearson ( I wanted them to) they trusted his judgement to buy and sell players ( again I wanted them too ,, no point employing him or any manager if you don't let them manage and build their team ) , they sacked him within absolutely no time into his building process ( we don't know the full details behind that decision ) and here's the rub , Pearson for whatever reason did nt want Martin ,he was surplus to his requirements for the type of team he wanted to build , he had no say in who or how(recall clause?) to sell/loan him to and for what price ,, so to over simplify the whole thing and say Pearson sent Martin on loan to a promotion rival is just a bit too easy and tidy ,,, 

[Spanish]

6 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

You can not seriously be suggesting that Bent, Vydra and Ince can't score because they've heard we want CM back?! FFS what sensitive little loves they are. Shall we ask them which new striker they'd like to work with? ROFL!

Ahem

[Steve How Hard?]

24 minutes ago, archied said:

I Think lumping everything on Pearson in this situation is a bit of a cop out too ? Mel and Sam have to take the lions share ,, they employed Pearson ( I wanted them to) they trusted his judgement to buy and sell players ( again I wanted them too ,, no point employing him or any manager if you don't let them manage and build their team ) , they sacked him within absolutely no time into his building process ( we don't know the full details behind that decision ) and here's the rub , Pearson for whatever reason did nt want Martin ,he was surplus to his requirements for the type of team he wanted to build , he had no say in who or how(recall clause?) to sell/loan him to and for what price ,, so to over simplify the whole thing and say Pearson sent Martin on loan to a promotion rival is just a bit too easy and tidy ,,, 

That is a very fair and well reasoned argument and I get where you are coming from but we are talking Nigel Pearson here. The man is far from stable. He instigated the sale/loan of a player who had been our top scorer for the last 3 seasons. A player that is not only a goalscorer but a clever and intelligent player too. However you're correct, he wouldn't have had full control of the situation but like I say he instigated it and that was complete and utter madness in itself.

[t'oldu]

He did give him chance to show he could adapt to a different system before a mutual decision was made about moving on.........

[RoyMac5]

55 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Ahem

Are you aheming my ROFL? I was taking what you said literally, I don't think I've ever said 'ROFL'  Lol.

[RoyMac5]

56 minutes ago, Steve How Hard!!! said:

That is a very fair and well reasoned argument and I get where you are coming from but we are talking Nigel Pearson here. The man is far from stable. He instigated the sale/loan of a player who had been our top scorer for the last 3 seasons. A player that is not only a goalscorer but a clever and intelligent player too. However you're correct, he wouldn't have had full control of the situation but like I say he instigated it and that was complete and utter madness in itself.

The worst thing was the hurry it was done in - it was like, when would be the worst time to do it?! Yep, no time left to sort out cover then...

Is he back yet?

[NorwichLad]

8 hours ago, archied said:

He may well be ( opinion only ) but there's no point flogging a dead horse and ending up with no one if it is messy non starter ? Also Martin being the only signing this window will not be a magic spark to ignite Derby as he was having a hard time being effective before he left in terms of deeper problems with the team and how we played

Your entire squad were having a 'hard time being effective' before he left, and his departure didn't bring about any sort of  uptick in form. Its funny how Darren Bent gets big love when the reality is that he has 5 goals in 41 games since joining you permanently, but Chris Martin is over the hill because he doesn't quite manage 15 league goals in a season.

Derby fans thought the grass was greener on the other side, now they look set to have to try and squeeze as much as possible out of a 33 year old (Bent's age next month) because their £8m replacement is having some sort of existential crisis which may not ever be cured in English football (see: Ricky Van Wolfswinkel). 

[Woodley Ram]

3 minutes ago, NorwichLad said:

Your entire squad were having a 'hard time being effective' before he left, and his departure didn't bring about any sort of  uptick in form. Its funny how Darren Bent gets big love when the reality is that he has 5 goals in 41 games since joining you permanently, but Chris Martin is over the hill because he doesn't quite manage 15 league goals in a season.

Derby fans thought the grass was greener on the other side, now they look set to have to try and squeeze as much as possible out of a 33 year old (Bent's age next month) because their £8m replacement is having some sort of existential crisis which may not ever be cured in English football (see: Ricky Van Wolfswinkel). 

Sorry have I been asleep yawn........and next comment please yawn 

[NorwichLad]

I think its obvious that Chris Martin is trying to force his long term financial security, by either coming out of this with a permanent Fulham deal (I suspect they were trying to stall in the summer, and he wasn't having any of it?) or a new deal at Derby.

Other than probably enjoying working with Steve McClaren, I doubt he is too bothered whether he is playing for Fulham or Derby in February as long as he's a permanent player with a new deal.