Grant next ?

[Bohinen]

Define having it in writing.
AH- Dear Forest, will you be recalling Yates and Grant?
Forest- Dear AH, we don’t see any reason why we would.

Two bids and a sacked manager later they have their reasons.

It’s a LOAN system. They have the right to recall them and they’ve exercised that right, end of story. They have massively helped us to achieve what no fan thought we would at this stage in the season, now we have to go and play the markets again!

Ask Alan Hardy what having it in writing means. It seemed to count for something in his mind. I said they had a right to do it under EFL rules in my post. That doesn't make it right as in honourable. Why do we have so many Forest apologists on this board?

[Old_pie]

Ask Alan Hardy what having it in writing means. It seemed to count for something in his mind. I said they had a right to do it under EFL rules in my post. That doesn't make it right as in honourable. Why do we have so many Forest apologists on this board?

I've never taken it as an integral part of the loan contract, merely a confirmation of intention between groups of people who wanted to get on with each other. Clearly this no longer applies to the new regime who don't care whose toes they step on and hence are clearly dishonourable.

[BigFatPie]

Ask Alan Hardy what having it in writing means. It seemed to count for something in his mind. I said they had a right to do it under EFL rules in my post. That doesn't make it right as in honourable. Why do we have so many Forest apologists on this board?

100% correct.

To be fair if Grant goes to Bradford or anywhere else for 500 grand, that, as they say, is business.

What they’ve done with Yates, even if it’s legally above board, makes them and any fans who back it, pricks.

[magpie_mania]

100% correct.

To be fair if Grant goes to Bradford or anywhere else for 500 grand, that, as they say, is business.

What they’ve done with Yates, even if it’s legally above board, makes them and any fans who back it, pricks.

Any chance you might answer the question in post 31?

Or did you just make it up?

[DelroyFacey22]

It's not dishonourable to recall someone from a loan, there's a reason clubs CHOOSE to put in recall clauses, it seems stupid to uproot them with how they've been playing obviously but if the clause is there and we agreed to it being part of the deal then that's the gamble we took, admittedly we probably never had the choice to get either without the recall clause in the deal but thems is the breaks

[Old_pie]

It's not dishonourable to recall someone from a loan, there's a reason clubs CHOOSE to put in recall clauses, it seems stupid to uproot them with how they've been playing obviously but if the clause is there and we agreed to it being part of the deal then that's the gamble we took, admittedly we probably never had the choice to get either without the recall clause in the deal but thems is the breaks

Recalls are honourably activated because the club has a need due to injuries, fixture backlog, suspensions, not to renege on a deal and send the player out on loan elsewhere, that is dishonourable.

[JoePass]

Recalls are honourably activated because the club has a need due to injuries, fixture backlog, suspensions, not to renege on a deal and send the player out on loan elsewhere, that is dishonourable.

It just goes to prove, you can never trust a red.

[BanjoPie]

Recalls are honourably activated because the club has a need due to injuries, fixture backlog, suspensions, not to renege on a deal and send the player out on loan elsewhere, that is dishonourable.

Here here

[DelroyFacey22]

So lets say Arsenal sent Bola back out on loan to us this season and he was tearing the division apart until now, you don't think they would be well within their rights to recall him and send him to a team in a higher division so he could actually be challenged? If the standard of football is too below a player's ability it's not going to help the player that much.

(not saying that's the case with Grant or Yates, just loans in general)

[BigFatPie]

Any chance you might answer the question in post 31?

Or did you just make it up?

Don’t wet your knickers, I didn’t see your post.

It seems to be commonly accepted by Forest fans and others that if Warburton was still their manager, Yates wouid have remained at Notts for the rest of the season, and if the agreement was with anyone, it was with him. No idea whether that’s true or not, but it is the common justification for welching on the deal.

If that’s “making it up” guilty as charged m’lud.