You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Birmingham...Revenge is a dish best served cold !
- Thread starter salfordtrueblue
- Start date
I can't help but think that we were very naive in the initial contract of the loan. Surely we should have had a clause stating any injury to Given would mean we could get Joe back, we were well within our rights to put any clause into the agreement - slapped wrists for someone methinks!!!
Farerets
Well-Known Member
So get that guy Hart back and let Gunnar go to Birmingham instead ;-)
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
I think some of you are well wide of the mark here.
On Monday City were given the "all clear" by The FA to discuss the early cancellation of Joes loan deal with Birmingham.
Negotiations between both Clubs was satisfactory and a settlement agreed.
However,The FA then got wind of City paying Birmingham an amount of money that they could have lost,based on League Placings.
Spuds and Villa then made noises to the FA compaining about Citys payments.
The FA then decided that City could NOT have Hart back and THIS HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH EITHER BIRMINGHAM NOR THEIR MANAGER !!
On Monday City were given the "all clear" by The FA to discuss the early cancellation of Joes loan deal with Birmingham.
Negotiations between both Clubs was satisfactory and a settlement agreed.
However,The FA then got wind of City paying Birmingham an amount of money that they could have lost,based on League Placings.
Spuds and Villa then made noises to the FA compaining about Citys payments.
The FA then decided that City could NOT have Hart back and THIS HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH EITHER BIRMINGHAM NOR THEIR MANAGER !!
dw7
Well-Known Member
i thought the fa blocked hart's move and birmingham offerded him back
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
dw7 said:i thought the fa blocked hart's move and birmingham offerded him back
That was my understanding too ..... that it was the FA who did a U-Turn on the matter
i can't really see why Birmingham would have kicked up such a fuss over three remaining games , when they were after asking City could they have him for another season , why would they have risked antagonising us?
Surely they could have put their reserve keeper in until the season expires anyway?
CarolinaBlue
Well-Known Member
Challenger1978 said:salfordtrueblue said:Originally City wanted to bring Hart back from his loan spell, but were already struggling to conclude a deal with Birmingham because, after offering to waive a loan fee of £460,000, pick up Hart's £30,000-a-week wages and settle outstanding agents' fees, they were shocked to hear how much Birmingham wanted in return for the player.
Well thats Everton and Birmingham that don't get to loan players anymore then the twats.
AMEN!
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
dw7 said:i thought the fa blocked hart's move and birmingham offerded him back
Not initially !!
Spuds and Villa complained to the FA on Tuesday and with a financial package agreed between City and Birmingham,the FA then had to renege on their original plan,that Hart could go back to City.
NOT BRUMS nor their Managers fault.
It was Spuds and Villa whinging.
HONESTLY thats the full SP on it !!