Corey Blackett-Taylor - (p34 - signed for Derby on loan til the end of the season)

Kips said:

As I recall something similar happened before with Luke Varney. By coincidence the club involved was also Derby county.Varney came back to The Valley, playing against us whilst on loan in a deal that would become permanent in the January.  I think he may have assisted a goal. Derby won of course.

We were in a real mess at the time on and off the field and I remember feeling it was a real kick in the bollocks for the fans for the sake of a few extra quid. We got relegated later that season....

Varney was never coming back, the money from the deal went to pay off Pardew. We were lucky as Derby sacked their manager shortly afterwards and his replacement, Nigel Clough wasn’t keen on him and if he could he would have cancelled the deal.

Off_it said:

Hartleypete said:

Hope we kick him off the park, what he did was as bad as Taylor., Parker etc.

Honestly. Some of our fans are such wet-your-pants cry babies.

Well you should know.

Honestly I would have kept him

He would be good insurance against getting relegated

He is a tried and tested player , who can score goals and can turn games to our advantage

As opposed to recently purchased new untried and untested players ( who usually become injured within weeks of joining us)

I want to watch winning games  

Soccer is supposed to be entertainment

fenaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

MarcusH26 said:

From what I understand from the Derby end essentially they have an approved budget from the EFL regarding how much they can spend on transfer fees and a separate budget for loans. They couldn't sign CBT on a permanent without selling either Eiran Cashin or Max Bird so they've signed CBT on loan with a large fee and then that just gets made permanent in the summer. 

Thanks , that makes things pretty clear. His status on Saturday is that he will be currently our player, on loan. 

Its too late now, but we as fans should have put ourselves in the rather bizarre situation of complaining to the EFL about our own club breaking the regulations and demonstrably harming our on- field prospects as a result.

The more I think about it, the more crass it looks because it would have been eminently avoidable. 

Sorry but it isn’t breaking regulations at all. You are allowed to add clauses to loan deals meaning that player can play against you. It’s not standard practice but it isn’t against regulations 

 Nothing like making it even more difficult for your own team though ?  

BigRedEvil said:

Can't wait till he scores on Saturday, it's inevitable 

In the 98th Minute

Bostonaddick said:

I am not sure why anyone would boo CBT.  He gave his all for the club the last two years - one of the few bright spots.  The whole rumor of him asking to sit the one match before the transfer came from a poster on here who likes to throw out fake insider information to boost his ego. I think the more likely scenario is that in negotiations with Derby that it was unofficially agreed to sit him to avoid risk of injury when the deal was in the advanced stages.

Agree..and also, if we boo him, it will give him an incentive to do us some damage!

I am wondering if someone at Derby got cold feet about the slightly dodgy deal we did and decided to play it safe, as very suspicious. 

Not that it mattered in the end. 

Think there was a gentlemen agreement of the record that he did not play today .. one you can’t announce , we helped Derby out massively remember 

Feels strange considering CBT himself said he was looking forward to the game and it being accepted that Derby paid us more to allow him to play against us. 

I still think someone higher up at Derby decided just to avoid any extra scrutiny of that deal to withdraw him from the squad. 

Will be interesting to see if he is injured for the match at their ground in a month too. 

Not completely sure how this deal is structured but if he is supposedly on loan there and the rumored £300k they paid us was a loan fee rather than a transfer fee then what's to stop them not making it permanent at the end of the season meaning he could actually be available on a free transfer?

Probably not the case but it did make me laugh thinking that if it was the case then he could end up re-signing for us and we made a few quid in the process, wishful thinking I know.

We might be on a promotion bonus for him , plus I’d rather Derby went up than Bolton but would like both of them up with Pompey , I’d see any of them as more likely to be a threat to promotion next season than the rest of the guff up there 

FishCostaFortune said:

buckshee said:

Not completely sure how this deal is structured but if he is supposedly on loan there and the rumored £300k they paid us was a loan fee rather than a transfer fee then what's to stop them not making it permanent at the end of the season meaning he could actually be available on a free transfer?

Probably not the case but it did make me laugh thinking that if it was the case then he could end up re-signing for us and we made a few quid in the process, wishful thinking I know.

Using my knowledge from Football Manager, you can include a ‘mandatory’ fee in a loan agreement.

I imagine the deal we had with derby was structured something like:

Derby pay 100% wages
Pay a loan fee (50,000 a month, or 300,000 up front as an example)
Mandatory Fee at the end of the loan of £1 because in essence they gave us the transfer fee via the loan fee.

Pretty much correct from what I've heard. I understand Derby have already exercised any option so he's definitely a Derby player from 1st July. Although their fans are social media don't seem happy with him!