|
Post by westsussexisred on Mar 5, 2020 11:27:09 GMT
Jack Fagan it is then. Well done BHA, another nail in the coffin of the sporting spirit of football. It’s a COMPETITION RULE not an Albion decision. We knew this when we loaned two BHA keepers. And you can’t arbitrarily ban two clubs from a county competition because they are too good! Hello Ian I looked through the Sussex Senior cup rules and I could not find anything about it being a competition rule. Could you please send a link through showing this to be a competition rule. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by ian on Mar 5, 2020 19:31:02 GMT
It’s a COMPETITION RULE not an Albion decision. We knew this when we loaned two BHA keepers. And you can’t arbitrarily ban two clubs from a county competition because they are too good! Hello Ian I looked through the Sussex Senior cup rules and I could not find anything about it being a competition rule. Could you please send a link through showing this to be a competition rule. Cheers Hang on a second, I’ve obviously got personal access to all of the Brighton & Hove Albion football administrative staff who I’m sure will be able to release definitive proof to three strangers on the internet. Because they’ve got nothing better to do... 🤐 As you clearly have more time than I, perhaps you can find a instance in recent times where a parent club has allowed one of their players to play against them in the Sussex Senior Cup? Because that wouldn’t open up a can of worms if said player was to ‘throw a few in’ for his employers...
|
|
|
Post by goldboru on Mar 5, 2020 19:33:12 GMT
For those of us who were at Culver Road what do yo think was the real attendance.
I thought Jack Pearce must have been there with his pocket calculator.
|
|
|
Post by Keithsson on Mar 5, 2020 21:04:24 GMT
What a disappointing though nonetheless fascinating response Ian. There's really nothing you can provide to underpin your upgrading of a "belief" into a fact? ( that he was ineligible under competition rules). Not giving an answer to WSIR is one thing but turning the question back onto the questioner is classic deflection. WSIR actually took the time to a look at the very competition rules you've presented as fact, and found the cupboardbare. Be careful what you wish for asking him to go looking again therefore because having called your bluff once already, he may very well do it again In any event it doesn't matter a single jot if there aren't any examples to be found anyway. If it can't be found in the competition rules that just means that on each prior occasion a loan player could've faced their parent club, the parent club could've just done the very same thing we're calling BHA out for... they pulled the player out just because they could. It is just on this occasion given the now huge disparity of wealth and resources between us and them, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I still call that petty and their consequent victory hollow. Time does seems to be a very precious thing for you Ian. May I venture to suggest you lift off your blue and white tinted glasses for just a few short seconds and look at it from a Rebels point of view. You'll then see how it looks to us and how BHA was cheapened by such an unnecessary act. Having invested those few short seconds to embrace objectivity maybe you could go further and just answer the request that was put to you. If you have evidence to confirm Carl Rushworth was ineligible under competition rules (maybe WSIR just didn't spot it?) then do please, pretty please share it...and anyone else for that matter. That way BHA's reputation can be restored and we can all spend our precious time doing other things.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Mar 5, 2020 21:45:54 GMT
What a disappointing though nonetheless fascinating response Ian. There's really nothing you can provide to underpin your upgrading of a "belief" into a fact? ( that he was ineligible under competition rules). Not giving an answer to WSIR is one thing but turning the question back onto the questioner is classic deflection. WSIR actually took the time to a look at the very competition rules you've presented as fact, and found the cupboardbare. Be careful what you wish for asking him to go looking again therefore because having called your bluff once already, he may very well do it again In any event it doesn't matter a single jot if there aren't any examples to be found anyway. If it can't be found in the competition rules that just means that on each prior occasion a loan player could've faced their parent club, the parent club could've just done the very same thing we're calling BHA out for... they pulled the player out just because they could. It is just on this occasion given the now huge disparity of wealth and resources between us and them, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I still call that petty and their consequent victory hollow. Time does seems to be a very precious thing for you Ian. May I venture to suggest you lift off your blue and white tinted glasses for just a few short seconds and look at it from a Rebels point of view. You'll then see how it looks to us and how BHA was cheapened by such an unnecessary act. Having invested those few short seconds to embrace objectivity maybe you could go further and just answer the request that was put to you. If you have evidence to confirm Carl Rushworth was ineligible under competition rules (maybe WSIR just didn't spot it?) then do please, pretty please share it...and anyone else for that matter. That way BHA's reputation can be restored and we can all spend our precious time doing other things. Wow. Thanks Perry Mason. I think I’ll leave it to the other three people that post here to determine who comes out looking the worst over this - the person that is grateful that Brighton have loaned us the best keeper we’ve ever had (and another one when he got injured) or the person that thinks they are the devils incarnate (and worthy of the Nescafé gesture to boot) because they followed fairly normal protocol on a loan deal. 💋
|
|
|
Post by saintsfan2009 on Mar 5, 2020 22:34:55 GMT
Been itching to put my two penneth in. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, it may be worth remenbering that Worthing are not just a one man team. We will never know what the difference to the scoreline would have been if Carl was playing? But Keithsson, don't worry about a thing. Come May and Brighton will be in the Championship. A league that once you are there, it is very hard to get out of. Many Premiership teams have dropped down to the Championship and then find themselves in League 1. Just to show how Brighton are run. Brighton will have Graham Potter, who was unproven and put on a longer contract mid-season. And then announce next seasons, season ticket prices not knowing what league they will be in. Championship football at Premiership prices!!!!!! If Worthing continue on there current upward spiral, many Brighton fans priced out of following Brighton may come to support Worthing. Forget Brighton. They are just a small team on the south coast. As a Palace fan once told me, they are such a boring team and have a railway station at Falmer which is bearly large enough to house 3 goats!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Keithsson on Mar 6, 2020 6:33:25 GMT
What a disappointing though nonetheless fascinating response Ian. There's really nothing you can provide to underpin your upgrading of a "belief" into a fact? ( that he was ineligible under competition rules). Not giving an answer to WSIR is one thing but turning the question back onto the questioner is classic deflection. WSIR actually took the time to a look at the very competition rules you've presented as fact, and found the cupboardbare. Be careful what you wish for asking him to go looking again therefore because having called your bluff once already, he may very well do it again In any event it doesn't matter a single jot if there aren't any examples to be found anyway. If it can't be found in the competition rules that just means that on each prior occasion a loan player could've faced their parent club, the parent club could've just done the very same thing we're calling BHA out for... they pulled the player out just because they could. It is just on this occasion given the now huge disparity of wealth and resources between us and them, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I still call that petty and their consequent victory hollow. Time does seems to be a very precious thing for you Ian. May I venture to suggest you lift off your blue and white tinted glasses for just a few short seconds and look at it from a Rebels point of view. You'll then see how it looks to us and how BHA was cheapened by such an unnecessary act. Having invested those few short seconds to embrace objectivity maybe you could go further and just answer the request that was put to you. If you have evidence to confirm Carl Rushworth was ineligible under competition rules (maybe WSIR just didn't spot it?) then do please, pretty please share it...and anyone else for that matter. That way BHA's reputation can be restored and we can all spend our precious time doing other things. Wow. Thanks Perry Mason. I think I’ll leave it to the other three people that post here to determine who comes out looking the worst over this - the person that is grateful that Brighton have loaned us the best keeper we’ve ever had (and another one when he got injured) or the person that thinks they are the devils incarnate (and worthy of the Nescafé gesture to boot) because they followed fairly normal protocol on a loan deal. 💋 More Hetty Wainthrop actually. Riiight, so you've now gone from a "belief" that it was due to competition rules, to a SHOUTED fact that it was due to competition rules.... to 'it wasn't due to competition rules at all'. Thank you for being consistent Not only that but as the administrator of this site you then see fit to belittle the users of the site with some sort of patronising willy waggling about site user numbers here (presumably in comparison to North Stand Chat). A classless response very much in keeping with your club's behaviour in all this. I think the very many more than three users of this site will have by now made up their minds on the matter. I don't need to interrogate any further, you are damned by your responses. X
|
|
|
Post by ian on Mar 6, 2020 8:34:25 GMT
As we are both individuals who like to have the last word on things, I think you'd be disappointed if I didn't respond. Equally, the post script to a fantastic team performance should not be us two having a spat over something that ultimately made no difference at all.
Like yourself, I have no idea as to the ins and outs of Carl's loan deal, whether it's in the competition rules (stated or unstated in a catch-all "integrity of the competition must be upheld at all times" or similar) or as part of our formal loan agreement with BHA. In view that Adam had the foresight to sign such a talented player who clearly Brighton never expected to attract the attention of Barcelona, it was probably felt best not to rock the boat if this was the one caveat they attached to the arrangement which is Premier League protocol on a same league basis.
I do not know any of the above to be fact, but it is at least a plausible scenario.
What I object to, is the accusation that BHA are the bad guys in this. I just don't see it and I don't see any point in these assertions. Our relationship with them is outstanding and I hope it continues to be for many years to come with them as a Premier League side. Because I'm a Brighton fan? No, actually I'm not. I'm a Worthing fan and have been for 30 years. If I'm pressed about which pro team I follow, then sure it's Brighton. I've been to the Amex, been to the Development Centre and my son was in their youth set up for a year. That development centre is churning out talent on an unheard of level for Sussex (Gareth's Barry and Southgate aside, can you name a single top level player from the county in the 90s or 00s?). Most will be deemed not good enough, some will end up in non league and if they do (and if they are good enough) I want that to be with us. In fact many of our side, followed that pathway so it's really something to foster rather than potentially jeopardise with unfair accusations surely?
I didn't return from the game raging about the "injustice" of Carl not playing, I took home the following
1. The side we put out was (and no, I haven't had sight of all their birth certificates before you ask!) also an U23 side bar Fagan and Racine, and we matched some of the best talent at that age (some of which cost millions of pounds to procure) man for man. That's testament to Adam and our players. These truly are the best of times. 2. Jack Fagan played out of his skin for someone that hasn't played at this level for years 3. Our support was absolutely outstanding 4. On that display, any neutral watching the game will be encouraged to come and give Worthing FC a go. Any of those Brighton U23 players that end up released, will consider us very seriously as a next step. 5. What an overwhelmingly positive experience we just witnessed.
I am looking forward to tomorrow immensely and hope that the 120mins on Tuesday hasn't taken too much out of our players for what will be a very difficult encounter.
|
|
|
Post by Keithsson on Mar 6, 2020 9:41:50 GMT
That's more like it Ian, that's all it needed first time round rather than SHOUTING what turned out to be a false version of events.
I'm a generally easy going guy but when poked with a stick will defend myself... and on this occasion bizarrely this site.
I'd still like to know why we were deprived of our best performer and the integral component of our system, even if it wasn't 'just because we can'. But I accept the conspiracy of silence on the issue leaves all options open, yours and mine. You have your viewpoint, I have mine.
That would seem to be a decent place to draw the line especially as on the wider points regarding our club we are in full agreement.
|
|
|
Post by virgs1 on Mar 6, 2020 10:58:35 GMT
Interesting point that no one has thought of. What if Carl himself didn't want to be 'caught in the middle' and decided himself not to play?
His parents did say on the Rebel Yell Radio chat it was part of the loan agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Keithsson on Mar 6, 2020 11:14:12 GMT
Hurrah, finally an answer, thanks Sam. All allegations of skullduggery and Billy Big Bollox pettiness duly withdrawn as promised all along if the truth came out and it wasn't how it appeared. That said, a loan agreement is just an agreement between two clubs, there'll be nothing in there that couldn't be waived Carl being worried about being piggy in the middle? Nah, i'm not buying that possibility I'm afraid. He does not come across as the bedwetting snowflake type one little bit, he's as confident and upright a young man as you could possibly think of.
|
|
|
Post by leatherboots on Mar 6, 2020 20:30:26 GMT
Come on kids, let's rise above this petty argument about the rights and wrongs of Bha's decision or the Sussex FA rule regarding Rushworth's non appearance on Tuesday. From where I stood the outcome would have been exactly the same, in fact Fagan's distribiution was on a par if not better than Rushworths. If Carl is ever injured, as he could possibly be, then Worthing should have a suitable reserve on the books to step in, not rely on an ex keeper to step in. The Albion fans on their NSC forum had nothing but praise for Worthing and their fans, unlike us. Let's get behind the team this Saturday, and hope we can continue as we finished Tues evening.
|
|