Paul Hayes has returned to the club

RE: Who's they? Not Huddersfield that's for sure. Are you saying

As far as I can see he didn't even imply it, let alone say it. He said that our site reported that Hayes was going on a month's loan to gain match sharpness.</p>

As for allegations of our management misleading anyone...I hate it when folk just make stuff up.
</p>

 

It said it was reported on the Huddersfield site.

At least try to follow the thread if you're going to comment.

 

RE: It said it was reported on the Huddersfield site.

And from the fact that the two sites gave differing information, you made some entirely fanciful inference of dishonesty on the part of BFC.

 

If you were going off somewhere just to get fit would you immediately

slag off your employers by saying they were wrong in sacking someone? ffs.

 

RE: Why did Huddersfield report it was with a view to a permanent move

Maybe someone at the club should be a better communicator to their employees then!

 

Exactly. So the likelihood of a permanent move

goes down. We'll be trying to farm him out somewhere else very soon.

 

RE: If you were going off somewhere just to get fit would you immediately

He probably doesn't give two hoots about his current employers. He'll be off come the end of the season.</p>

I still don't see why that means anyone lied to anyone.</p>

 

This is hard work!

Barnsley site says Hayes off on loan for a month to get fit.</p>

Huddersfield site says Hayes on a months loan with a view to a permanent move.</p>

These say different things, hence one is an untruth.</p>

 

RE: This is hard work!

Nope. I get that bit.</p>

It's the quantum leap from &quot;one website must be wrong&quot; to &quot;are you saying GS and SD misled Huddersfield about Hayes being available&quot; that I don't get.
</p>

 

It's hardly a quantum leap.

I was merely asking how Huddersfield came to be under the impression that they was a possibility of signing Hayes permanently. I did make an assumption that the 2 clubs would have actually discussed the terms of the deal, maybe that's too big an assumption to make!

 

Maybe Huddersfield were just trying to offer something to their fans by suggesting he may be a permanent signing. SD has always said he is only going out to get fit and play some football. But there is also some differing opinions between the clubs on why he has returned early. Huddersfield statement says that SD has recalled him due to a spate of injuries (which we know to be untrue) and BFC say he has been recalled because he is injured and cant play in what would have been his last game for HTFC anyway, so he is just returning early. Seems the untruths are defo not coming out of Barnsley.

 

So

&quot;Are you saying that GS and SD have misled Hudderfield into thinking Hayes was available for them to sign? Tut, tut, that's a bit dishonest isn't it?&quot;</p>

Becomes</p>

&quot;I was merely asking how Huddersfield came to be under the impression that they was a possibility of signing Hayes permanently&quot;</p>

I have to say I think the first version has a slight element of spin in the direction of your staunch position of antipathy towards the current regime at Oakwell.</p>

</p>

 

Ok, we'll go with the first version then as it was a question.

How did Huddersfield come to be under the misapprehension that Hayes was not going with a view to a permanent move? Who else could have given them that impression? Would not GS and SD be involved in the discussions?I don't see a lot of alternatives to those two.</p>

 

2 points as to why Hayes might have thought it was going to be permanent

1) Saying Ritchie shouldn't have been sacked in his first interview</p>

2) Kissing the badge after scoring for Huddersfield</p>

Maybe Hayes just doesn't have much tact eh?</p>

 

Hayes was recalled by Barnsley, can assure you of that (came from Assistant Managers mouth at Hudds yesterday). They are abit annoyed but it was lined up that he would stay, and released a player on loan.

 

No, he only went for a month to get fit

Tykeman and Revvie P say so!

 

RE: No, he only went for a month to get fit

So did our website or do you just ignore that FACT!

Like I said most of what you say is your understanding / spin / conspiracy which is different from reality.

 

RE: No, he only went for a month to get fit

Oh right, sorry.... Was just taking the word of the guy who was involved with the talks when the player signed, and who spoke toBarnsley earlier in the week about the extension to the loan deal.

 

RE: No, he only went for a month to get fit

I was only responding to Slapbladder.

 

and in doing so choosing to ignore what Boltonred says.

Do you have your hands over your ears and are you going 'la, la, la, la, I'm not listening' too?</p>

Spin? ffs. Pot, kettle.</p>