Ben Wright signs for Hayes...now he's gone.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frank
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 8
  • Views Views 686

Frank

Hobbs
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
5,808
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I know it's Hayes so most of you don't care, but there has been a very weird situation crop up, and I would like to get a few thoughts on it.

United recently signed the lad from Peterborough on a three month loan. 4 games into the loan spell, he is off to Crawley Town (the new man city of the BSP).

He impressed at Church Road, and is one of the best players to pull on the new club's kit (behind Mulley and Josh Scott :wub:), so us losing him is a big loss, as we only now have 2 recognised strikers, one of whom is 18, the other has come up 2 divisions.

Now, Wright had a 3 month loan contract at Church Road, so surely we can't just lose him like that? Using FM as an example, you can't sign loan players until the deal is finished, so i'm flabbergasted as to how the deal has gone through.

Crawley town, have a huge financial backing now, having made a 250k offer for a player in the summer, so of course, Wright has taken the chance we gave him, and gone for the money in a remarkable deal.
 
Can you summarise this?


We signed a player on loan, 3 month contract, after 4 games he's gone to moneybags crawley, surely its a breach of something?


**** happenz in bsp.

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

Peterborough probably had a recall clause.


Yeah they probably did, but then why did they loan him to us, knowing they were in the market to sell him?
 
Oh right. I imagine your club must have received some kind of compensation.

What happened when Sol Campbell left Notts. County after a single game?
 
Oh right. I imagine your club must have received some kind of compensation.

What happened when Sol Campbell left Notts. County after a single game?


Don't know what happened with Sol, but it will be overlooked because its Hayes & Yeading no doubt.

The cheek of Crawley to offer us a player on loan, *****.

To add to the situation, we have Crawley at home tomorrow, ironic much?
 
Yeah they probably did, but then why did they loan him to us, knowing they were in the market to sell him?

Maybe they didn't expect any transfer bids before the window shut and decided a loan would be better for both -- put the player on show too. Not nice on the team left in the lurch though.
 
Maybe there was a recall clause in the loan contract and once they had decided to sell him to Crawley they recalled him so he could leave. Isnt there a rule though that a player can only play for two teams a season?
 
Back
Top