BBC Home

Explore the BBC

New visitors: Create your membership
Returning members: Sign in

88 comments

user rating: 4 star

Defoe ruled out of Spurs match

Portsmouth
comment on the article

Portsmouth boss Harry Redknapp must do without Jermain Defoe at Tottenham on Saturday after the Premier League ruled the striker was ineligible to play.

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foo...

The 25-year-old moved from Spurs in the transfer window but the deal was rushed through as a loan before he signed on a permanent transfer early in January.


And a Premier League spokesman said: "The rules are clear.

"A player taken on loan, even if that deal is made permanent, may not play against the team that loaned him."

Let us know your thoughts.

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted Mar 22, 2008

the arguement is he is a pompey player and thats the reason why harry is fuming and have i stopped whinging it called lose gracefully. i'm sure that you would be if the tables were turned well done good win. nothing to play for except pride of being down in the bottom half all season. winkeye

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Nooky47 (U8523297)

posted Mar 22, 2008

but he WASN'T when he made his loan move....the fact his move then became permanent is irrelevant. the FACT is that he was a loan player come the end of the transfer period!

i'm sure there will be further changes made at a later date but for now, dont bleat on about the FA, this woul've been know by PFC all along!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 22, 2008

There is something not quite right about this deal.

The Jermaine Defoe deal was one of the last deals of the transfer market period. Would there have been adequate time to do a loan deal and permanent deal on the last day? What's the point of a loan deal which could only have been for few hours anyway? I can only guess that this has something to do with the Benjani deal to Man. City which was done so late that the stop watch had to be double-checked to decide whether it was done in time.

For me, same division loan deals should not be allowed. Same division loan deals allow the rich teams to gain an unfair advantage over their competition. Rich teams are able that buy good players that are surplus to their needs and then loan then out to their fellow competitors, actually gain by weakening their opposition because of the player ban against the lending team.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 22, 2008

well obviously not because he had been training all week and only got the call about it thursday night. So to to your comment about not going on about the fa why not if any one needs looking at is them and the whole of the sky pundits said who would i rather listen to them or you errrm! but good win today though.ok another easy 3 points winkeye

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Nooky47 (U8523297)

posted Mar 22, 2008

you would have thought so wouldn't you groovy....i think your sentiments are echoed throughout the league and i'd dare say even from most fans of the 'big 4'. i dont think any fan wants to see their club buy a player then farm them out no matter how good or bad they are. i think same league loans are a good idea but there are loopholes which can and are currently being exploited. maybe there should be a scrapping of same league loans and see where all the fringe players disappear to lol.

for today, i really dont think defoe would have made much difference, spurs were pretty awesome and wasted a hatful of chances, 2-0 on reflection, flattered pompey. that said you've had a great season and showed your staying power unlike last season where you lot gave up half way through.

good luck PFC and good luck Defoe....miss ya!

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Nooky47 (U8523297)

posted Mar 22, 2008

my point is tho daz, that the rules were already in place.....the fact that PFC....as you put it....didn't know the situation is your problem, PFC and co had a hand in making this rule at the end of last season. i totally agree it is a daft rule daz, but the fact remains it's there in black and white and it's PFC's fault for 1 not knowing the rules and 2 signing him on loan (regardless of the benjani deal) and not permanent.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 22, 2008

So if it happens to you are you going to give the same answer the fact is it was made up beacause a manager of the top 4 had an influence over the rule mentioning no names SAF
has once again had a say and there has been one out come and that is he gets his own way. and going away from that one he feels referee's aren't respected enough. WHAT! my point is he and other influences are putting rules in there for the sake of filling a blank page. and athey are ruining the game we have lost 2 players through yellow cards given through negligence of ref's yes we hae rode our luck in games but what team hasn't this year. it's a strange season but a good one.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Nooky47 (U8523297)

posted Mar 22, 2008

daz you have a real bee in your bonnet about the top 4 ?!?!?!

SAF exploited a hole but there were no rules so they cant take action against him for that daz, come on!

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Nooky47 (U8523297)

posted Mar 22, 2008

and daz, if we're gonna talk about dodgy managers getting away with things then HR sits right up there at the top of dodgyness!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 22, 2008

i know rules are rules but why mess with the rules its hard enough with the offside rule let alone the transfer rules. i just have beef with united and fergie. but we'll see what the season brings at the end for us.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 66.67%
    2 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 33.33%
    1 votes

average rating:
3.67 from 3 votes