[Albion] New signing Vegard Forren. I wrote a THING.

[Exile]

In which case he'll be playing alongside former Albion U-21 'keeper Harry Doherty. .

Back home then for Doherty - not just to Ireland, but to Donegal, where he (along with every other emerging keeper) was hailed as the 'new Shay Given'.

Oh, and Jonah Ayunga got himself sent-off last Saturday for two bookable offences playing for Sligo Rovers.

Yes, had heard that. Both bookings were for 'really stupid fouls' according to my SOURCE*




*my son, who happened to see the LOI highlights

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Uwe has the shirt, and we'll all be absolutely delighted if Forren never needs to play a game. Everyone loves Uwe, right? He seems a great bloke.

But he's not stupid. We had TWO senior centre-backs to see us through 11 games - one of them on a disciplinary tight-rope, and the other injury-prone. There's not a chance that he'll see this signing as a personal slight.

He (Uwe) has made 17 league appearances for us and in that time has lost the grand total of one game. (v Boro, 0-3)

 

[Gwylan]

Nice piece ... but bear in mind that repeating a libel is still a libel, so it doesn't matter whether the description of Forren is yours or not. FWIW, I think you're pretty safe as the original tweet seemed to have not attracted any legal action, but using someone's else's words is not always advisable.

(it's advice for a few people on NSC, BTW)

 

[Exile]

He (Uwe) has made 17 league appearances for us and in that time has lost the grand total of one game. (v Boro, 0-3)

Absolutely. Nobody is arguing - Uwe seems a top bloke and has proved himself a capable Championship defender. But there's no denying he has played very little football in 18 months, and you really can't assume his form now will seamlessly follow on from that of the first part of last season. That one defeat you refer to would have become two, but for Stockdale's heroics, after Uwe gave away a poor penalty at Brentford. He looked rusty at best in that game and the Lincoln one, and has suffered more than his share of injury troubles.

As reassuring solid as he looked at Rotherham, we'd have been mental not to take the opportunity to get in some back up.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Nice piece ... but bear in mind that repeating a libel is still a libel, so it doesn't matter whether the description of Forren is yours or not. FWIW, I think you're pretty safe as the original tweet seemed to have not attracted any legal action, but using someone's else's words is not always advisable.

(it's advice for a few people on NSC, BTW)

It does sound like it is just the opinion of one person, as no other evidence has come to light. I know of a 'Brighton fan' who persistently accuses most of our team of being drunks, and does so on the Argus forums and on Facebook. It doesn't make it true.

 

[Exile]

Nice piece ... but bear in mind that repeating a libel is still a libel, so it doesn't matter whether the description of Forren is yours or not. FWIW, I think you're pretty safe as the original tweet seemed to have not attracted any legal action, but using someone's else's words is not always advisable.

(it's advice for a few people on NSC, BTW)

It does sound like it is just the opinion of one person, as no other evidence has come to light.

I'd imagine, given the overall tone of the piece, rather than just the quoted hearsay, that the player (and his lawyers) would be highly unlikely to take offence. That accusation was already 'out there' in the NSC thread. My piece specifically addresses it and declares that the very fact Hughton has made the signing, suggests there is little truth in it. I'm on his side...

One NSC poster has apparently asked a Norwegian acquaintance about Forren, and been told that we have signed “an unfit, whining alcoholic, with a gambling problem”! Well, now. That could certainly be classed as a catch, if there’s much in it…

The description above (its not mine btw, if Vegard’s lawyers are reading this) describes a character, though, that Chris Hughton would not touch with a barge-pole, regardless of circumstance, whatever the scarcity of available options. However desperate the need, you just can’t imagine Hughton welcoming a defensive Paddy McCourt into an ultra-professional dressing room.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

If I were Uwe, I would not go anywhere near Vegard during training.

 

[Whoislloydy]

He's got a contract till the end of the season with the potential to be a part of a prem squad? think he will work his nuts off

 

[Exile]

He's got a contract till the end of the season with the potential to be a part of a prem squad? think he will work his nuts off

That's my expectation too. It's the only plausible scenario, if its true that he turned down the security of a two year deal at Rosenborg.

 

[whitelion]

If I were Uwe, I would not go anywhere near Vegard during training.

Why?

 

[Exile]

Why?

Dodgy tache?

 

[Goldstone1976]

Excellent piece, as ever. Thank you.

As you say, it's hard to see how we could have got any better cover than him, given the circumstances.

 

[Bigtomfu]

Ice-cool Nordic saviour of our promotion hopes, or defensive Paddy McCourt? I wrote a short piece about our newly arrived reinforcement. Read it here, if you wish...

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/conte...defensive-Paddy-McCourt-Welcome-Vegard-Forren

Excellent word smithery Sir.

 

[BNthree]

Nice piece ... but bear in mind that repeating a libel is still a libel, so it doesn't matter whether the description of Forren is yours or not. FWIW, I think you're pretty safe as the original tweet seemed to have not attracted any legal action, but using someone's else's words is not always advisable.

(it's advice for a few people on NSC, BTW)

Someone I knew was sued for libel in exactly these circumstances: they quoted a (libellous) article and was sued by the person that had been libelled. However that person NEVER sued the author of the original article as they had a grudge against the person I knew so decided to cause them grief. Which goes to show just because the original author didn't get into trouble it doesn't mean you won't.


Back on track: really enjoyed this write up, thanks.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

Why?

Because Vegard is desperate to play tomorrow night, and the only way he will is if something happens to Uwe...

It was not one of my better jokes, I admit.

 

[whitelion]

Because Vegard is desperate to play tomorrow night, and the only way he will is if something happens to Uwe...

It was not one of my better jokes, I admit.

Glad that he has a desire to play...I'm sure all footballers (indeed al sportsmen/women) have this character.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

If I were Uwe, I would not go anywhere near Vegard during training.

Similarly, if I were Vegard, I'd keep clear of Uwe.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Forren is gambling prem football next season,and a prem wage !Can he make the cut ? Who knows....and if we don't make it to the prem well who knows what defenders we might sell/lose.We have the cover now that we need,and can get rid in the summer,if the player is not up to standard . IMHO what a perfect arrangement !

He's ONLY on LOAN til the end of the season.
If he wasn't good enough for Southampton, there is a possibility he's not going to be good enough for us ....
Do we know if there is an option to buy at the end of the season if he turns out to be a good 'un and maybe Goldson is forced to retire?

 

[Fignon's Ponytail]

He's ONLY on LOAN til the end of the season.
If he wasn't good enough for Southampton, there is a possibility he's not going to be good enough for us ....
Do we know if there is an option to buy at the end of the season if he turns out to be a good 'un and maybe Goldson is forced to retire?

Have I missed something? How is he ONLY on LOAN til the end of the season when he was a free agent & not signed to another club??

 

[Springal]

Do we know if there is an option to buy at the end of the season if he turns out to be a good 'un and maybe Goldson is forced to retire?

Why would we need to buy him? Who from?