Back in England C team to play Czech Republic U21 on 19th November.

Well deserved. Player of the season so far in my opinion.

I agree that Fraser has probably been our most consistent performer but defenders don't often get the recognition they deserve. I thought Obo was outstanding over the best part of two seasons in the BSS yet he didn't win anything in terms of awards.

Jake was deserved player of the month for August, Faz as well (although I voted for Fraser that month!) and Clarkie has scored some vital goals in October so can't argue with his award either.

Fraser gives you a 7 or 8 out of 10 week in week out - hopefully we can keep hold of him but, if he goes on to bigger and better things, then good luck to the bloke.

In Day we trust.

 

I see that normal service was resumed and that Blaine was back in the Conference Prem team of the week in the Non-League paper at the weekend.

When you take the full contents of this thread into account, it's a huge tribute to the back line and the squad in general.

Well, if he goes anywhere it will be to a Football League club - and, hopefully, for a reasonable fee.  Stevenage and Colchester interested, according to a recent NLP.  If he keeps doing well for us - and I stress he must keep doing it - then who can deny him a good move for the right fee?  I think we should ignore any interest from Barnet, Luton or any team in our league.  Incidentally, does anybody know whether we have been awarded the Tribunal compensation for A.A?

Didn't go to a tribunal Kev, Barnet and Welling agreed a fee.

And if we took a few then why haven't we heard anything about it?

Polo wrote:

---

It was agreed and paid for at the Barnet game a few weeks ago. £7,500 was the fee.

---

Hang on. If we weren't waiting for a tribunal then why was the money not paid immediately when he signed?

Or did the club just get impatient and decide to take whatever was offered...?

Who knows?! But we may have agreed the fee as we were concerned about the money we would get at a tribunal. We agreed £10,000 for Loick and Parky with Woking a few years ago and although that seemed low, that makes the £7,500 look reasonable! The fee for AA was planned to go to a tribunal but obviously both clubs agreed the fee to prevent it.

We could have taken the fee instead of a tribunal for a number of reasons, a budget increase, Harry Beautyman's fee (whatever that was) or to remove the pigeons from the new stand!!

Anyway that is in the past, as good as AA is, we have shown that we have players equally as good if not better

Kevin wrote:

---

Ashford Wing wrote:

---

Polo wrote:

---

It was agreed and paid for at the Barnet game a few weeks ago. £7,500 was the fee.

---

Hang on. If we weren't waiting for a tribunal then why was the money not paid immediately when he signed?

Or did the club just get impatient and decide to take whatever was offered...?

---

As with Parky and Pires, I think the two clubs getting their heads together to save waiting forever for a tribunal is now the norm. Helps our cash-flow, Barnet get a little discount.

Well done FA. Because you are so **** you jeopardise the livelihood of the clubs you are there to serve. Give yourselves a nice big bonus why don't you. It's just not on. Imagine if we were to go to the wall in the meantime because they were dragging their feet. There must be an instance somewhere of a club going into admin whilst money was in theory owed to them?

Having said that, if we have got £7,500 for Ant we have done well given we got less for Parky in theory. £7,500 for a centre half is no mean feat.

However, why are these things never mentioned properly? Without being rude Polo, how comes you know yet others don't. That's where the club put their foot in it. It should be disclosed to all by the club, or no-one at all.

---

If all true, and I suspect it is...What I don't like is the fact this was settled at a time when Anthony was out of the team, and had played badly in his first few games. All of a sudden he goes from a player who was an integral part of a title winning team, to a clogger (according to their fans, and up until recently, Sir Davids). That gives Barnet the upper hand in the negotiating stakes, surely...?

I've never heard of two clubs intentionally waiting until they play each other before settling a fee. Makes me think it was a spur of the moment "take this or wait another six months to get a few grand more at tribunal" scenario...

Ashford Wing wrote:

---

 

I've never heard of two clubs intentionally waiting until they play each other before settling a fee. Makes me think it was a spur of the moment "take this or wait another six months to get a few grand more at tribunal" scenario...

---

 Who said that the fee was set at the Barnet game? It could have been set months ago. Fees are rarely paid on the day they are agreed, It can take months to get money owed at all levels. For all we know there could still be some money owed to Sutton.

And leave the pigeons alone