Accrington break gentlemans agreement

[shoddycollins]

I just think there is no place in football for gentlemens' agreements, Portsmouth and Accrington are in direct competition with each other, there is a lot at stake, this is neither the time nor the place for gentlemanly conduct.

Had it been us who had released a player to Accrington with a similar agreement only to see them break it, I would have concluded that John Coleman is a twat, but everybody knows that anyway, I'm slightly surprised anyone at Portsmouth even expected him to uphold a gentleman's agreement. Love him or hate him though he has brought Accrington close to a historic promotion and him and his ways deserve their place in football.

Had it been us I would have been more embarrased for us that we'd even entertained such a meaningless notion... and we're exactly the kind of club that pulls off shit like that. I remember that the reason we gave Greg Abbott a two-year contract extension when everyone at the club could see he hadn't earned one, was because of a gentleman's agreement the previous year.

 

[LadyWomble]

Oxymoron though the concept may seem, we're talking about professional clubs here, not Corinthians v another fine, upstanding equal in the integrity stakes in the 19th century. There's no such thing as a 'gentlemans agreement' in contract law and nor should there be. Both clubs were looking for an advantage for themselves and, regardless of opinions of the respective managers, they don't draw up or sign the loan/sale agreements so I'd blame the Chief Execs/Chairmen of both clubs for their naivety or duplicity - take your pick.

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

This thread properly heralds the arrival of Pompey at the big tinpot bash though; welcome aboard the tinpot express, chaps!

 

[WAP]

How does one merge this thread into the tinpot thread?

 

[E10rifle]

Pretty sure that the most important issue this thread highlights is just how many working class peasants we have on this forum. A gentleman's word is his bond, not that most of you oiks (or that mendicant, Coleman) would understand that sentiment.

 

[BelizeHatter]

^ Ditto. If it happened as posted. I don't understand why it wasn't contractual if that important, but your word is your bond. Without it you are not worthy - no excuses, ever.

 

[BelizeHatter]

lol. Sound like my Dad sounded when I was 15 no doubt

 

[northstandexile]

The question is 'who do you believe?'

Cook or Coleman, as one is saying an agreement was in place and the other is saying it wasn't.

As one is a ex spireite and the other an objection person (don't like swearing on a message board) I am inclined not to trust either.

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

Pretty sure that the most important issue this thread highlights is just how many working class peasants we have on this forum. A gentleman's word is his bond, not that most of you oiks (or that mendicant, Coleman) would understand that sentiment.

I actually find your inherent distrust of the written word and the British legal system far more plebeian. I realise this might not be a popular point of view, but what do I care for such matters.

 

[AboveWater]

Quite upsetting that cook refused to shake either the manager or assistants hand before or after the game, and refused to have a drink after the game as is their custom. That would have been the place to air the dirty laundry and sort it out like "gentlemen". Bit shameful by cook, but he is a "heart on his sleeve" type

 

[antn1.b]

Quite upsetting that cook refused to shake either the manager or assistants hand before or after the game, and refused to have a drink after the game as is their custom. That would have been the place to air the dirty laundry and sort it out like "gentlemen". Bit shameful by cook, but he is a "heart on his sleeve" type

Surely That in itself would imply that there was an agreement.
Like I said before we just shouldnt deal with that club or manager again problem solved

 

[That Fat Centre Half]

^ Ditto. If it happened as posted. I don't understand why it wasn't contractual if that important, but your word is your bond. Without it you are not worthy - no excuses, ever.

It wasn't contractual because it's against the rules on 3rd party ownership.

 

[iWomble]

It wasn't contractual because it's against the rules on 3rd party ownership.

In which case, such an 'agreement' was Pompey's deliberate attempt to sidestep those rules which are there for very good reasons. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to do that in the first place rather than crying about Accrington not sticking to their part of a very dodgy arrangement.

 

[BRFC_Gas]

FA Cup winners Portsmouth having a gentleman's agreement with Accrington Stanley. How the mighty have fallen.....

 

[Don Tonberry]

Those of you who think that this is dodgy by Pompey's standards clearly don't know what we were like when Milan Mandaric, Harry Redknapp and Peter Storrie were in charge!

 

[antn1.b]

I wonder if the deal involved an offshore payment to cooks dogs bank account

 

[WAP]

And paying Spurs another £1m.

 

[Womble98]

This is classic Pompey fans moaning.