Robinson to miss play-offs
10:40am Thursday 8th May 2008
Aidy Boothroyd will not be able to call upon the services of Theo Robinson against Hull City on Sunday.
Robinson returned from his season-long loan spell at Hereford last week and attended the club's Awards Evening on Monday.
With Darius Henderson suspended, fans were hoping Boothroyd would be able to include the homegrown striker, who has scored 14 goals for Hereford this season, in his squad for Sunday's play-off first leg encounter, but his loan agreement means he is unavailable.
"Theo can't play because of the nature of the loan agreement," said Boothroyd. "When you sign a player on loan it is until the end of May, so he is not eligible.
"I would love to have had him available. It would have been good to have him in and around the squad and add to the experience he's had at at Hereford, where he has done great."
With Steve Kabba struggling to recover from a dead leg, Tamas Priskin is expected to partner Nathan Ellington in attack.
Your Say YourWatford
Kurse, Chorleywood says...
1:25pm Thu 8 May 08
SIMMO wrote:Shut up mate. Like anyone thought at the beginning of the season that we would need Theo robinson to play in th play off, we had marlon, darius, tamas, Ellington, Kabba and Hoskins (6 strikers) and where destined for automatic remember!!! I'm almost embaressed to be a watford fan because of some of the unbelievably ignorant people on this website who don't know what they make comments about!!
Just about caps the lot BOOTHROYD how incompetent to allow this situation it beggars belief OUR own player cannot play in the most important fixtures yet for our club . the total arrogance that we would get automatic promotion saw the demise of Mahon as he would not be good enough in premiership and now an inform STRIKER on our books cannot play JUST SCANDALOUS !!!!
James, Watford says...
1:29pm Thu 8 May 08
JohnBoy, Watford says...
1:35pm Thu 8 May 08
James, Watford says...
2:12pm Thu 8 May 08
Professor Plum, The Billiard Room says...
2:20pm Thu 8 May 08
Mark, Watford says...
2:37pm Thu 8 May 08
James wrote:Some people just like to blame him for anything..
How the hell can you blame Boothroyd for this??? It clearly states the agreement is until the end of May, which is therefore down to the Football League!!
Should we not be pleased Aidy was considering him!?
VoR, watford says...
2:39pm Thu 8 May 08
Hull had 3 strikers on the pitch against Ipswich and didn't score the other day.
I really don't care... I think they'll under estimate us, my only concern is Wayne Brown getting 1 over on us, like most ex players do.
So pleased we're at home 1st leg, we'll then know what to do for the second.
Against Palace Last time, we knew what to do at home and that was less than convincing, infact jolly boring!!
After Sunday we'll be on our way!!!
JohnBoy, Watford says...
2:41pm Thu 8 May 08
It appears that we should have been in control of the term of the loan. How can people say it wasn't our fault that he is not available to us. We could have written into this contract that we have to right to recall him if we need him.
Mark, Watford says...
2:45pm Thu 8 May 08
Just shows what lack of options we have up front...
Mark, Watford says...
2:49pm Thu 8 May 08
JohnBoy wrote:Well do you think when the season started we thou8ght that we would have 3 strikers (including King being sold) out of a play-off and being only left with 2..both of whom are out of form?
According to the FA The conditions governing the loan of a non-amateur player (duration of the loan, obligations to which the loan is subject) shall be regulated by concluding a separate written contract between the two clubs and the player concerned It appears that we should have been in control of the term of the loan. How can people say it wasn't our fault that he is not available to us. We could have written into this contract that we have to right to recall him if we need him.
Scotshorn, Aberdeen says...
2:50pm Thu 8 May 08
In spite of what is implied here, I doubt very much that AB would have considered playing Theo anyway - and quite right too. 14 goals in League 2 doesn't necessarily equate to being able to produce the goods in a Championship play-off, effectively only a week after 'joining' the club. Like it or not, I think we have more chance with the TP/NE combination.
Martin, Glos says...
3:43pm Thu 8 May 08
I am astonished that people are moaning on about this, it was all made clear at the time of the deal for signing LA.
Yes, Aidy has made mistakes this season but this is certainly not one of them - get over it.
Vicar Rage, says...
3:56pm Thu 8 May 08
Good God - you are among those who attack other posters for taking every opportunity to criticise the club/manager, and yet you employ the self-same tactics to have a dig at the WO and its staff.
Secondly, the manager is quoted directly as saying "I would love to have had him available."
Exactly how is that an implication of anything? It's a flipping statement.
I'm not advocating having him in the team at all myself. But if I were a Hull defender I wouldn't be having too many sleepless nights at the prospect of facing up to 'Goal Machine' Ellington and 'Net Buster' Priskin.
Simon, London says...
4:40pm Thu 8 May 08
The shorter loans you hear about are the emergency loans. These have a minimum period of 28 days and a maximum period of 93 days (ie not long enough to keep Robinson at hereford all season without missing a chunk).
I understand the football league requires season long and half season long loans to last until the end of May with no right of recall.
That's why Robinson's unavailable.
In any event, much as he'd be quite useful on the bench for the play-offs, what would your reaction be if we'd signed Ben Wright of Lincoln on loan on deadline day in March?
For the record, Wright's managed one more goal than Robinson in a significantly worse team.
James, Kings Langley says...
4:46pm Thu 8 May 08
Vicar Rage, says...
4:49pm Thu 8 May 08
The manager says himself he'd have liked to have the player unavailable.
Surely a non-story would be if Boothroyd had said 'I can't pick him but it's not a problem as there is no way he would have featured in my plans'.
The manager has seen fit to make a series of comments about the player.
Are you suggesting the WO should ignore that fact?
I don't see any suggestion in anything the WO has added that raises the situation to a "disaster".
James, Kings Langley says...
4:58pm Thu 8 May 08
Its a real shame as Id been banging the goals in for my five-a-side team.
Vicar Rage, says...
5:04pm Thu 8 May 08
And AB must have forgotten to use part of his press conference to comment on the fact as well. Very remiss, he is normally very attentive to detail.
I apologise for my flippance, but when someone describes the manager directly saying he "would love to have him available" about a professional signed to his club as an "irrelevance", I just can't take it seriously.
Simon, London says...
5:28pm Thu 8 May 08
As for Boothroyd's quote, having been asked if he'd like another forward avaiable when we've got one suspended, one potentially injured and none of them scoring then I'm sure he would love the extra option to be available.
The reporting seems fair enough to me. It's some of the reaction (ie Boothroyd's been negligent etc... etc...) seems rather over the top but, then, some of the reaction has been over the top all season.
Scotshorn, Aberdeen says...
5:30pm Thu 8 May 08
Vicar Rage wrote:Vicar Rage - have another look and another read. You have left half of AB's statement out in your retort - the rest of it certainly only says that he would have been in and around the squad. There is only an implication that he could been in the team.
Scotshorn - so the whole story is poorly worded because KA didn't use the word 'some'. Good God - you are among those who attack other posters for taking every opportunity to criticise the club/manager, and yet you employ the self-same tactics to have a dig at the WO and its staff. Secondly, the manager is quoted directly as saying "I would love to have had him available." Exactly how is that an implication of anything? It's a flipping statement. I'm not advocating having him in the team at all myself. But if I were a Hull defender I wouldn't be having too many sleepless nights at the prospect of facing up to 'Goal Machine' Ellington and 'Net Buster' Priskin.
You're probably right about the Hull defenders, but we can only hope that they think we will be retaining the Saracens approach - up and under. I like to think that, if NE & TP do play, we will forced to change and play to their strengths.
oxheypaul, watford says...
5:31pm Thu 8 May 08
4-3-3 Sunday...with McAnuff, Smith and Ellington to run Hull's lumbering dinosaurs ragged. You know it makes sense.
VoR, watford says...
5:36pm Thu 8 May 08
So, say he was available and played....scored the goals to win the tie then went on to be the hero of the play off final.....would he then be thrown in ahead of everyone else in the premiership? No, he's not ready, realistically if we remain in this division for next year I think he'll do a job, a great talent but that's all that he is, one for the future, now is the time for the million dollar man to finally step up to the plate...Although I somehow doubt it!!!
jonty, Watford says...
5:37pm Thu 8 May 08
Mark, Watford says...
8:56pm Thu 8 May 08
Actually scored some very good goals from outside the area in recent Youth/Reserve matches so got an eye for goal.
Vicar Rage, says...
10:58pm Thu 8 May 08
Why did you want to know that?
Oh . . . wait. I get it.
You think because I happen to agree with the Watford Observer I must work for them.
Crikey, with such clear paranoia, I'd be tempted to suggest your desk would be close enough to Boothroyd or Simpson for you to have become almost as obsessed with any hint of criticism as they are.
JohnBoy, Watford says...
7:46am Fri 9 May 08
Please don't be a sheep and use your own opinion.
Metal Mickey, Iver Bucks says...
8:50am Fri 9 May 08
Steady Eddy wrote:Well said steady eddy, all GS did was put his hard earned wealth into the club he loved saving it for those of us that would probably do the same but couldnt. He deserves a pat on the back not a knife in it. I for one say thnks mate for saving my club...and those that disagree, i say to you ..Rotherham, Bourenmouth, Leeds, Luton and many more to follow
JohnBoy wrote: Frankly I am amazed at the blind loyalty shown for Simpson & Co. The WO suffer some unwarranted criticism because they do their job and present a view on the club that sometimes the executive don't like. Please don't be a sheep and use your own opinion.Well if you risked most of your hard earned to bail the club out and then clearly presided over progress both on and off the field ,would you not expect appreciation? I see no "blind loyalty" but indeed fairly savage criticism. who are the sheep is a moot point surely? I do not feel that the WO is reasonable or balanced at all. That is my opinion. I find you patronising.
JohnBoy, Watford says...
10:44am Fri 9 May 08
They have to report on what they believe to be true, it is up to the reader top decide if they believe it is fair. To deny them that decision is even more patronising.
Vicar Rage, says...
11:08am Fri 9 May 08
What I can't discount so readily is your assertion that we have made progress on and off the field.
If we go up this season, I'll agree with you.
If we don't, then we will be a club that is playing mid-table Championship football, with very few saleable assets, the likelihood of having to reduce the squad, and apparently not a huge amount of money in the bank.
Despite all the highs we experienced earlier in the GS/AB reign, I think we have almost come full circle.
And, in there is a takeover, the chairman will (at the reported offer price) end the whole experience very much in the black.
He may have put his money in at the start, but very few people in football get to withdraw it with interest a few years later.
I don't particularly feel that deserves my appreciation.
James, Kings Langley says...
12:06pm Fri 9 May 08
Vicar Rage, says...
12:42pm Fri 9 May 08
It's quite clear I am saying the best anyone usually hopes for when they invest in football is not to lose.
He may not have expected a profit. He quite possibly didn't. But we keep hearing this line about how he threw all his money into the club to save it.
Well, now he tells us it is safe - what he doesn't tell us is what percentage he's had back: 50%, 100%, 125%??
Who knows - we probably never will, and you could say he has a right to that privacy. But if we're going to be continually told he put all his money in, then it's not quite the whole story if we can't qualify that by adding 'and he got some back/all back/more than all back'.
Fair play to anyone who takes that risk, and we owe him for being bold enough to do so.
But as I said in my previous post, my appreciation for that diminishes as it appears that he's actually going to make a return on it.
Jack Petchey was roundly despised for the way he ran the club, but what you can't level at him was that he wasn't upfront about looking to get more out than he put in.
Vicar Rage, says...
2:42pm Fri 9 May 08
If you're going to correct me, do get it right: I wrote we would be playing mid-table football. And that is exactly what we have been playing for the last five months. Our results in that period would have had us in mid-table, and the style is probably less than mid-table, but that is obviously open to debate.
You quite rightly say we have very different tastes when it comes to what the WO write. There is no right or wrong - it's like people who prefer red to white, or lager to bitter.
And contrary to your statement, I am happy to concede that the chairman has done good things for the club. As has the manager.
But I believe much of that good is in the past - certainly long enough ago that you can't use it to continually defend what is going on now.
I acknowledged the risk he took in a previous post, and I will continue to do so. It was a brave step, and one that surely only a fan could take.
But I stress again, we cannot keep looking back to the past to defend the current or the future.
Would you wager your house on us being financially secure? Really? If we don't go up, I think then we will see the financial position exposed.
Of course we may go up, we may be taken over - or both might happen.
And if they do, my point is that the chairman will have recouped his expenditure and quite possibly bettered it; if he continues to remain in the position, I feel people who defend his decisions going forward because of the risk he took in the past cannot justifiably do so.
James, Kings Langley says...
3:08pm Fri 9 May 08
So, long story short, would I be correct in believing that your concern with Simpson is that he is taking too much money out of the club?
Vicar Rage, says...
3:38pm Fri 9 May 08
I have not said I have a problem with the current chairman making money either. He put his money, he gets his money out.
Good luck to the man - as many have said, it was his risk.
What I can't accept is people using the fact he put his money in to defend things he says and does years later.
We constantly get the line 'he put all his money into the club'. What I am saying is there is a second half to that which is 'and he took it all back out again'. He might even be in profit.
But he's certainly quits. So let's start judging what he is doing right now, rather than harking back years.
It's no different to those fans who defend AB now because he won the Play-Off Final.
The past, however glorious, is the past.
And no, I didn't go the pub at lunchtime. And thanks for the other semi-insults about caveats etc.
It's such a shame we can't have contrary opinions without someone feeling the need to chuck a few cheap jibes around.
Administrator, Watford says...
3:43pm Fri 9 May 08
James, Kings Langley says...
4:13pm Fri 9 May 08
The post that was convoluted and caveat-laden was your 2:42 one. And that last paragraph... wish I'd had a pint myself at lunchtime - it would have helped me pick my way through it.
I'm still not clear what your problem with Simpson is. Im a simple soul, can you spell it out for me?
Thanks in anticipation.
Vicar Rage, says...
4:25pm Fri 9 May 08
Sensitive? No? Sad that we can't have a debate without some silly name-calling and sarcasm? Yes.
Anyway, here goes:
Much of the decision making at the club right now should be open to criticism/question.
However, far too often anyone who does is accused of betrayal because 'the chairman put his money in to save the club'.
My point is this, he's had his money back and the past has to be the past.
Can we start judging the club (chairman and manager) on what they are doing now, rather than continually using events in the past to counter any argument?
There you go - all on nothing stronger than a cuppa.
James, Kings Langley says...
5:30pm Fri 9 May 08
And sarcasm? You lost me there.
Anyway, glad we've clarified your position on the chairman. Basically, ignore the past and judge him on the present? Good. Now lets move on.
Vicar Rage, says...
5:54pm Fri 9 May 08
I can only aspire to reach the heights of your ivory tower.
And what a memory you have too! It must be crammed full of all those instances where you were able to correct humble plebs like me, putting our worlds to right with your esteemed knowledge, then marching on to your next conquest with a marvellous sense of self-satisfaction.
I'm humbled, nay honoured, you have the time to bother with me really - but I will treasure your most recent dressing down, which was a bit like a written version of having your headmaster straighten your tie.
However, despite the fact I shall forever be in the shadow of your obvious greatness, just one itty bitty thing:
I'll talk about what I want to, when I want to, at as much length as I want to, and I'll move on when I'm flipping well ready.
That okay with you, oh wise one?
James, Kings Langley says...
10:38am Wed 14 May 08
Your sayYourWatford
Add your comment
Register for a FREE Watford Observer account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
Theo Robinson
In this section
Essential Links
Sponsored Links
Around the site
Baron Brian Rix takes a bow at The Radlett Centre
Actor Baron Rix will be talking about his career at the Radlett Centre this Saturday. Equally well known for his charity work, the chairman of MENCAP talks to Melanie Dakin about his role in the House of Lords
They need more than magic knickers
IT seems that you can’t switch on the telly these days without tuning into a programme featuring a woman resembling a slack-jawed haddock having her life transformed by a posse of equally gruesome fashionistas.
Chorleywood's Aslan the lion bags a place at The National Theatre
Jonathan Godbold, assistant director of the Carol Kristian Theatre School, has been accepted as a member of the National Youth Theatre. Catch him in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe while you can
Community backs air appeal
Residents in South Oxhey have boosted Hertfordshire's Air Ambulance appeal by raising £400 at a Fun Day.
Aidy waiting for cash from Shittu sale
Aidy Boothroyd's plans to bring in at least three new faces have been thrown up in the air after Dan Shittu’s move to Glasgow Rangers fell through this week.
Citizenship class for young Muslims
Young Muslims will be taught citizenship in mosque schools as part of a bid to prevent them being turned into extremists, the Government said.
MP slams 'tax grab'
South West Herts MP David Gauke has slammed a government “tax grab” that could leave thousands of pensioners out-of-pocket next year.
What's On Live Travel YourWatford
- 09:00 Watford Area Arts Forum 2008 Summer ... »
- 10:00 Zoom and Ground Level by Cally Trench »
- 10:00 A View of Wycombe »
- 11:00 Our Environment, Our Future, Our Rivers »
| July 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 29 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 1 | 2 |
Hot Jobs
- Sales Account Manager Watford
- Exp./ Qualified Dental Nurse Watford
- BARISTA/RETAIL ASSISTANT Rickmansworth
- BAKER Rickmansworth
- Electrical Supervisor Watford
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Homes
- 3 bedroom House - terraced, Kings Langley, £335,000, Pendley Estates - Kings Langley
- 4 bedroom House - semi-detached, Kings Langley, £469,950, Pendley Estates - Kings Langley
- 4 bedroom , Watford, £369,950, Apple Property
- 5 bedroom House - detached, Watford, £650,000, Rennie & Co
- 2 bedroom , Croxley Green, £295,000, Trend & Thomas
- 5 bedroom House - terraced, Chorleywood, £1,000,000, Parkheath Estates
SIMMO, BUCKS says...
1:03pm Thu 8 May 08