Fenn Announces his Retirement

dont think rovers or dundalk did anything wrong ,fenn is a b*****k, dundalk will not shout to loud as they will be happy to get him of the payroll

Fenn signing for another team is despicable given the fact that he was retiring.

Rovers involvement may be questioned too as that is the team he signed for.

My rationale is that there is no way he would have made a mistake about his tax refund. Any player would know their position prior to retiring - its a big sell when signing a player to a contract in the league and you would at least do a little bit of homework. So Fenn wants to retire for personal reasons, claim a lump sum and play a little bit of junior footie. His personal reasons have disappeared, he wont be getting his lump sum and he is playing professional football for Rovers. Now, if i follow that line of thinking to its conclusion it leads me to believe that Fenn was looking for a way to join Rovers (this was the team he signed for afterall). He may or may not have been coached by Rovers on how to do that. But Rovers have plenty of previous on this sort of stuff. Ergo Rovers are bad, Fenn is scum, Bohs are good, Hunt is God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Sligo were the ones who reneged on the contract offer, and Rovers capitalised on that.

---

Where did you pull that out of? Absolutely no truth whatsoever in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philly

It's easy to jump to conclusions here. However, if Fenn ddid intend to retire and then changed his mind after Rovers made him an offer he could not refuse, then who is to argue with that? I mean, if it can be shown that Rovers were tapping him up before he retired and it was all some plan, then they should be punished. However, I doubt that was the case. They could have just signed him a few months ago if that was the case.

---

If fenn did as you suggest then he is 100% at fault and should not have shafted Dundalk after they allowed him "retire" (at least give Dundalk first option on his now revitalised services). if he was tapped up by shams then they are at fault (although dont hold your breath waiting on FAI to take action).

Bearing in mind the recent shenanagins (to be diplomatic) about Chris Turner it is at least disappointing to see the same club involved again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red4Eva

Where did you pull that out of? Absolutely no truth whatsoever in that.

---

...................never let the truth get in the way of justifying the shams :rolleyes:

Again, we see you automatically latching on to anything which proves what you want to be proven though and calling it "the truth".

I would like to see wha you have to say about Red4eva's question Stu?
Struck me as a bit odd as well when you said it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Again, we see you automatically latching on to anything which proves what you want to be proven though and calling it "the truth".

---

Dodged my question nicely there and turned it into a criticism of someone else. Think I might report your post for wumming :)

The general consensus on the thread on here at the time was that Turner had been offered a contract - and been paid a E5k signing on fee, as per here - but then offered a lower one, which he turned down. It's not hard proof, I'll admit, but it was by far the most rational argument I've heard. (And that thread ended in hyperbole against Rovers too, ignoring all the facts. It's hard not to get irritated by that all the time, and to judge the posters accordingly.)

Sligo and Turner were the ones reported after an investigation, whereas Rovers were cleared, again as per the article above. So to say that this is a black mark against Rovers is a bit much. Again, quite possible that Rovers weren't squeaky clean, but when their case was held up on the basis that Sligo made an admin error, it's stretching it to ignore all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Sligo and Turner were the ones reported after an investigation, whereas Rovers were cleared, again as per the article above. So to say that this is a black mark against Rovers is a bit much. Again, quite possible that Rovers weren't squeaky clean, but when their case was held up on the basis that Sligo made an admin error, it's stretching it to ignore all that.

---

How were we and Turner punished? We weren't. Just because there was an investigation doesn't mean all parties involved are guilty.

Where did I say ye were punished? My point was that the FAI didn't see anything at all wrong in what Rovers had done, but found enough to investigate Rovers and Turner. No results were ever published that I saw, so yep, your point that Sligo were never punished is perfectly valid and should be stressed more than I did (assuming the investigation's finished), but it doesn't change my point.

I wasn't debating anything regarding Shams. I was disputing the fabrication of us reneging on the initial contract offer to Turner.

Well, I still think that's the most plausible story for what happened. I don't think it's what the investigating committee was set up for (if you had an investigation for every time a club said "Sorry, the offer's no longer on the table", you'd never have get anything done), so the fact that the investigating committee didn't publicly confirm or deny it means nothing in that regard, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Well, I still think that's the most plausible story for what happened.

---

So its not ok for people to speculate about shams involvement in the Fenn issue but it is ok for you to defend them using your own theories about other clubs and presenting them as fact.

Stu, you went from knowing the 'truth' about the Turner saga, and claiming that Sligo were in the wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

But others are saying Rovers must be to blame here because they got Turner to renege on his contract with Sligo, when it was clearly found that Sligo had reneged on Turner.

---

While at the same claiming that people were just looking to slate Shamrock without knowing the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Again, we see you automatically latching on to anything which proves what you want to be proven though and calling it "the truth".

---

To it turns out not actually knowing the truth about the Turner saga.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Well, I still think that's the most plausible story for what happened. I don't think it's what the investigating committee was set up for (if you had an investigation for every time a club said "Sorry, the offer's no longer on the table", you'd never have get anything done), so the fact that the investigating committee didn't publicly confirm or deny it means nothing in that regard, in my opinion.

---

You always seem eager to leap to the defence of the model club Stu when you feel anyone might be saying a bad word about them.

Figures somebody called "Strawberry" would like a post criticising a Pineapple.

Meanwhile Dundalk have signed two new players from across the water.

http://menmedia.co.uk/macclesfieldex...dun_a_new_deal


http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.u...l_for_Bennett/

M O'N is probably on his way up there now to buy them some drinks!!!!!!!!!

What Fenn has done is a disgrace end of. His statements on here are just stomach turning. http://www.dundalkfc.com/news/100729_Fenn.asp

I dont have a huge gripe with Rovers, although suggestions were made the MON did make advances, this will never be proved.

Fenn is the guilty party, no question about it, what we done to faciliate him was very naive, but done in good faith for his superb season to that point with us. We should have inserted a clause that he cannot play for any other Irish side, but there you go.

Sept 13 should be fun in Oriel, not to mention the Lge Cup Final a week or so later if both clubs make it and Fenn is involved in any way.

Dundalk keeping their powder dry it seems:
http://www.dundalkfc.com/news/100804_Statement.asp