Some players get good reception when returning to their former club and some don't.</p> It happens to managers too. Allardyce got a very mixed reception at Bolton on Saturday.</p> How will Aussie and Tommy be greeted tomorrow?</p>
Hopefully well Auzzie always did all he could for us so should be a very good reception. Wright tried his best but just wasnt good enough. No reason at all for any bad receptions I reckon
Always liked Austin, always gave 100% ........ ..... especially against the fowls so hope he gets a good reception! Was talking to a Darlo fan yesterday, said Austin had a dream debut Saturday, his words were ... "he looked a different class to owt else on the pitch, the fans love him already" I know it's League 2 but I think we may have been hasty letting him go. Tommy Wright, bag of *****, enough said
Read this, I didn't think it was allowed though? http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0200sport/0100football/tm_headline=darlington-2-wreham-0%26method=full%26objectid=19617161%26siteid=50081-name_page.html
How strange? I've never seen such a clause before for a player that has moved permanently, nor can I think of any way, shape or form in which it can be legal. If that's allowed. how come clubs don't demand when selling a player that they can never play against their side again? Wouldn't that solve the Heinze argument too? Additionally, since he's gone on a Bosman he's exercising a European court ruling for freedom to move from one job to another by letting his contract run out. So effectively, it's like leaving your job and being told that you can never work in the same industry again.
its not legal (well certainly in the premiership) there were a lot of issues when Tim Howard left Man utd for Everton last season and allegedly had the same term in the deal
Very puzzled Didnt think we had any power to make that sort of agreement - As far as I understand we didnt offer him a new contract so I don't see how we can put any clause in for a new club that does. Not sure whether the same rule about influence on players selection applies outside the prem though
Entirely different... The clubs made the agreement there as part of the transfer deal whereas we released Ozzie and so I can't see any reason why Darlo would agree not to play him.
I think... It's simply a gentleman's agreement but it cannot be enforced. Watford may have said 'We'll only sell him to you if you don't play him against us' and Sheff Utd may have said 'Okay then' to make sure the deal went through... All you lose then is trust between the clubs which could cause friction between them in the future. In our case with Darlo, there was no transfer so don't see why there'd even be a gentleman's agreement.
RE: Maybe Austin does not want to play?? Possibly though if it was me I'd want to prove my former employer wrong.
