snowychap Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 By the sound of things Bicks, the players registrations were sorted some time before the deal was complete ... Aren't transfers only complete when sanctioned/registered by the FA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 You can't have it both ways suggesting Randy is right not to get involved in buying players whilst saying oh but its OK he had no choice but to sell our best player 10 days after the manager left. Milner wanted to leave and there was a signed contract, signed before MON resigned, to say we'd sell him for £x in exchange for Stephen Ireland. In the absence of a clause allowing for nullifcation of that contract, there was no way of stopping the deal short of breaking Milner's leg. Sorry but even if such a contract existed it can't have been legally binding. For starters it would be easy to null and void it by offering Ireland peanuts by way of wages, if Ireland wouldn't play ball it effectively null and voided any deal that included Ireland in the price, unless of course Citeh were prepared to pay full cash (which they seemingly weren't) secondly, if such a contract existed, how come Citeh were only given permission to talk to Milner a couple of days before the transfer (i,e, way after MON left) All this talk of a binding contract makes no sense to me, no contract can be legally binding when it is essentially a purchase of a players registration document. If either player cannot agree terms in such a situation the deal is effectively off and there is no legal recourse as the individuals involved must have free will to agree to the transfer of their documents. You simply cannot legally trade registration documents without the agreement of the person whose registration documents they are. I also can't get my head round how there was a signed contract before Mon left yet Milner was still allowed to play against West Ham. I think this talk of a legally binding contract is total bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Good stuff Mr Rowe ;-) Unfortunately I don't think some of the muppets sending texts into Radio WM tonight are of our opinion. Stuff along the lines of "Bugger off Randy and the General" were read out. Pillocks. Still, it could be worse - we could be hailing Alexander Flob as the most exciting signing in our history :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 31, 2010 Moderator Share Posted August 31, 2010 Until the contracts with the players are signed, none of those other arguments hold water. Have you ever heard of a club being sued for changing their mind over selling a player to someone else? Why didn't we sue Newcastle when they pulled out of the original Milner deal? Sure we'd have ended up keeping a devaluing and pissed off Milner. I appreciate that and from that P.O.V. the deal was probably done but all this other guff about legally binding contracts is just that - it's guff For what its worth I think its a good deal viewed in isolation, its the guff that annoys me, not the actual deal. Just like the "if more people paid to come to VP, we could afford more players" guff. That annoyed me too, not because I don't want more people down VP but because it was guff, it insulted our intelligence because it was assumed that we'd buy the lie. And when people start trying to take you for a fool, it kinda rubs you up the wrong way Selling Milner and getting Ireland,plus however millions in cash is a good deal Getting more people to come down VP is a good thing Just don't take me for a buffoon by making shit up is I think the message I'm trying to send, I'll be less inclined to believe them next time they say anything. After a good deal of that I end up not believing a word and if I hear white I'll think black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYSTERYMAN Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 ONeil had identified Ireland in June don't know anything about pre agreements but 100 percent he wanted him . Good post Gazton btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 That's nice Bickster, thanks for that. Call me many things, but don't call me a liar. I expected better from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vreitti Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Great read Gazton. Regarding the Milner deal, I think it's quite clear that Randy thought it was good business to start with and that he had every intention to go through with it in the end, regardless of supposed pre-agreed 'contracts' that could or could not have been nullified and the fact that we no longer had a permanent manager in charge. I am probably in the severe minority here, but I still believe (and forever will) that it was a piss poor deal from our point of view, even though I rate Ireland and can see him being a major player for us in time. Having said that, I think it's probably the only real 'bad' decision he's done, since he bought the club. In hindsight, maybe he also could have better 'monitored' MONs spending, but then again that would have probably backfired big time, long ago and god knows where we would be today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beasley14 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Shame we couldn't have had Ireland and Milner in the same team, that would have made us pretty strong imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 31, 2010 Moderator Share Posted August 31, 2010 I wasn't calling you a liar. I wasn't talking about you at all mate. I'm talking about the board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harris21 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Great stuff mate... fully agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 Ok, sorry, it seemed pointed at me. I don't know the intricacies of the Memorandum of Understanding, but I know it existed and it was signed by Cook and Faulkner, not Mancini and O'Neill. It probably included terms along the lines of us offering Ireland terms identical to Milner's with City making up the shortfall. It sure as shit included a hefty penalty for backing out of it. And I mean millions, not thousands. We would also have had to pay all agents fees. Backing out of the deal would have effectively made Milner worthless to us given his contract situation. Remember this was a transaction valued at close to £30 million, almost half what our club was bought for. Man City wanted their man, and they made sure they were going to get him or hurt us if they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Why the **** would the club sign a memorandum of understanding that if they backed out of would cost them millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fran_villa Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Ok, sorry, it seemed pointed at me. I don't know the intricacies of the Memorandum of Understanding, but I know it existed and it was signed by Cook and Faulkner, not Mancini and O'Neill. It probably included terms along the lines of us offering Ireland terms identical to Milner's with City making up the shortfall. It sure as shit included a hefty penalty for backing out of it. And I mean millions, not thousands. We would also have had to pay all agents fees. Backing out of the deal would have effectively made Milner worthless to us given his contract situation. Remember this was a transaction valued at close to £30 million, almost half what our club was bought for. Man City wanted their man, and they made sure they were going to get him or hurt us if they didn't. why the hell would we put our selfs in that position??.seems like Randy and the gang got bummed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMcKenna Posted August 31, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted August 31, 2010 It's a pity the board can't communicate more frequently and officially with the fans instead of our having to get stuff 2nd hand from people who would appear to be ITK From my perspective the club is becoming increasingly elitist with those in the Chairmans executive area having access to an inside track and the rest being the fodder who are fed titbits to keep them happy by the General who is also not adverse to having the occasionally self righteous pop when ticket sales are poor. Whilst i am sure the process described by GaztonVilla is accurate it's a pity that is only imparted on the QT to the favoured few. I suppose it cheaper than employing communications professionals Rant over! But I am yet to be convinced that the powers that be know how to run a football club and keep the fans onside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion-heart Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 RL has a very difficult decision to make. The speed of the decision is secondary, the quality of the decision is primary. If the right calibre is not available now, we must wait and trust KM to hold the reins steady. If things go pear shaped and the right candidate either is, or can be made available then I'm certain he will be allowed to step back into his Second Team role. This season is not going to be very pretty. On the "guff" that Bickster refers, I'm sorry the point about more bums on seats will result in better players is true, in my opinion. Man City or Chelsea we aint I'm afraid. A crowd of less than 30k for Rapid was not very encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Why the **** would the club sign a memorandum of understanding that if they backed out of would cost them millions. Speculating: Because the player wanted out, the manager and the chairman thought it was a good deal and Citeh wanted something on paper to guarantee we wouldn't pull a fast one. MOU's as a pre-cursor to a full contract agreement are pretty normal in business in my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 Ok, sorry, it seemed pointed at me. I don't know the intricacies of the Memorandum of Understanding, but I know it existed and it was signed by Cook and Faulkner, not Mancini and O'Neill. It probably included terms along the lines of us offering Ireland terms identical to Milner's with City making up the shortfall. It sure as shit included a hefty penalty for backing out of it. And I mean millions, not thousands. We would also have had to pay all agents fees. Backing out of the deal would have effectively made Milner worthless to us given his contract situation. Remember this was a transaction valued at close to £30 million, almost half what our club was bought for. Man City wanted their man, and they made sure they were going to get him or hurt us if they didn't. why the hell would we put our selfs in that position??.seems like Randy and the gang got bummed. Because it was a condition attached to a deal which vastly overvalued Milner? We're offtopic again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion-heart Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Rant over! But I am yet to be convinced that the powers that be know how to run a football club and keep the fans onside. Come on MM, what club communicates more direct to the fans than ours. We may wish to know the ins and outs of every decision, but that aint going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Rant over! But I am yet to be convinced that the powers that be know how to run a football club and keep the fans onside. Come on MM, what club communicates more direct to the fans than ours. We may wish to know the ins and outs of every decision, but that aint going to happen. Tut tut. There can be only one, MM! EDIT: Very good post Gazton, clearly I'm head hunting the wrong kind of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 31, 2010 Moderator Share Posted August 31, 2010 On the "guff" that Bickster refers, I'm sorry the point about more bums on seats will result in better players is true, in my opinion. Man City or Chelsea we aint I'm afraid. A crowd of less than 30k for Rapid was not very encouraging. Clearly you need to do the maths about how much people attending a football match actually put towards the purse, you'd be surprised at how little it is. Just think of this... a shortfall of about 5k in attendance (which is usually all we're ever off capacity, and that usually when the likes of Fulham are at VP) with an average spend of £40 equates to £200k, now as that happens on average about (without doing the research) say 12 times a season thats a whole £2.4mil (£2mil net) over a season we're falling short through "poor attendance". Who you going to buy and pay wages for because that £2.4 mil is missing? is poor attendance really preventing us moving forward as suggested? I think not, its guff. It may be well intentioned but its not really the truth of the situation. The attendance shortfall is worth about half a Marlon Harewood financially.....(wages not included) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts