Clearly a charming man. Considering legal action against Southampton and their player. I doubt there's much chance of it happening but at first could see it as a knee jerk reaction against the hurt Dyer must be feeling. However, having read what Johnathon Bartlett has to say......well I nearly choked on my cornflakes, the scumbag.

Seems loss of potential earnings is a big factor, due to possible sponsorship on the back of a good world cup combined the possiblility of a big bid from a European club are the motivators in this possible egal action.

Now I know that agents are there to get the best possible deal for their clients but this leaves a bad taste. I'm sure sponsorship is the last thing on LKD's mind. This issue about a bid from a Euro club is also interesting, bearing in mind the current contract deliberations.

Shoot all football agents I say!

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

Answers

" knee jerk reaction" -Awful Pun

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

Whoops!

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

Sorry - I agree 100% with sueing this b@st@rd out of the game altogether and by successfully sueing the club it would enforce managers to stamp such nonsense out of the game.

this leaves a bad taste

No the bad taste is surely that Khalej will get something ludicrous like a 3 game ban and this kind of thuggery remains virtually unpunished. Dyer misses an almost once in a lifetime career opportunity and the culprit misses three games? Remember this wasn't an accidental injury from a fair challenge - it was an illegal challenge for which Khalej was dismissed. Sue - and let this case be a landmark in football history - the game doesn't need cloggers.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

I`m not convinced the answer is in the court system - we run the risk of having a court case every week, a considerable number of which are likely to be frivolous. I`m all for the FA clamping down on violent conduct and increasing bans, fines etc though. Would be nice to see them focussing on things which actually matter instead of whether a player used the wrong toilet.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

To be fair, I think Lynda is criticising the agent's concentration on the financial downside of Dyer's injury, rather than his inability to play in the game's top competition that only comes round every 4 years (if you're lucky). I actually hope that any law suit is unsucessful. Not because I don't think the tackle was awful, but because if it suceeds, then top players on lucrative contracts (including merchandising etc) will be treated diferently on the pitch. The financial penalties of a bad tackle on such a player would mean other players might think twice about going for it. It would soon be a non-contact sport.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

You're right Pete - that's exactly what I was saying.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

I must say at first I thought it was a stupid idea, but from the agent's point of view, it is lost money for him. Dyer would have made a pretty penny from the World Cup from sponsorship and the like and now he misses out on it. The tackle was clearly a deliberate attempt to bring him down and he should be punished.

However, suing him isn't the answer. Although there might be some justice in seeking compensation, it would set a terrible precident if players started suing each other left right and centre. It might also bring up cases from the past - maybe Pistone could sue that Mackem who broke his leg?

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002