Micah - this week's raising of hopes

[singe]

Interesting read.

 

I highly doubt we had the foresight all those years ago to add the extra stipulation to cover a loan fee as well as a standard transfer fee.

 

I thought we'd be entitled to :censored: all, and after reading that Bradford article, i really do think we'll be getting :censored: all...

To be fair, reading that I think we are more entitled.

Having said that, I also think that we are more likely to have agreed something with City.

[singe]

There's no point speculating because none of us have the slightest clue what the wording of the contract is.

How boring is that!

To be fair, most people are speculating sensibly.

[opinions4u]

There's no point speculating because none of us have the slightest clue what the wording of the contract is.

In other words, speculating is most appropriate!

[BP1960]

EUFA FFP Regs;

Article 49 – No overdue payables towards football clubs

1 The licence applicant must prove that as at 31 March preceding the licence

season it has no overdue payables (as defined in Annex VIII) that refer to

transfer activities that occurred prior to the previous 31 December.

2 Payables are those amounts due to football clubs as a result of transfer

activities, including training compensation and solidarity contributions as defined

in the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, as well as any

amount due upon fulfilment of certain conditions.

3 The licence applicant must prepare and submit to the licensor a transfer

payables table, unless the information has already been disclosed to the licensor

under existing national transfer requirements (e.g. national clearing house

system). It must be prepared even if there have been no transfers/loans during

the relevant period.

4 The licence applicant must disclose all transfer activities (including loans)

undertaken up to 31 December, irrespective of whether there is an amount

outstanding to be paid at 31 December. In addition, the licence applicant must

disclose all transfers subject to a claim pending before the competent authority

under national law or proceedings pending before a national or international

football authority or relevant arbitration tribunal.

5 The transfer payables table must contain the following information as a minimum

(in respect of each player transfer, including loans):

a) Player (identification by name or number);

Date of the transfer/loan agreement; 27

c) The name of the football club that formerly held the registration;

d) Transfer (or loan) fee paid and/or payable (including training compensation

and solidarity contribution);

e) Other direct costs of acquiring the registration paid and/or payable;

f) Amount settled and payment date;

g) The balance payable at 31 December in respect of each player transfer

including the due date for each unpaid element;

h) Any payable as at 31 March (rolled forward from 31 December) including the

due date for each unpaid element, together with explanatory comment; and

i) Conditional amounts (contingent liabilities) not yet recognised in the balance

sheet as of 31 December.

6 The licence applicant must reconcile the total liability as per the transfer

payables table to the figure in the financial statements balance sheet for

‘Accounts payable relating to player transfers’ (if applicable) or to the underlying

accounting records. The licence applicant is required to report in this table all

payables even if payment has not been requested by the creditor.

7 The transfer payables table must be approved by management and this must be

evidenced by way of a brief statement and signature on behalf of the executive

body of the licence applicant.

Does 5d) mean Latics are due payment ?

Edited September 2, 2014 by BP1960

[Twisbrogan]

These regs will have been put into place after Richards moved so may well only have relevance to moves after they were ratified.

[opinions4u]

Does 5d) mean Latics are due payment ?

I'd say yes. But I read the later section explaining the amount due as being 0.75% (assuming we had Richards from age 12 - less if we didn't).

 

In the region of £30k in total.

 

I think the clarity over section 10.1, which I've not really understood, is where the significant money lies (or doesn't, as the case may be).

Edited September 2, 2014 by opinions4u

[jsslatic]

The FFP regulations have bugger all to do with anything.

 

They're just saying that they will fall foul if money owed to us is not paid by a certain date. Those amounts will include the stuff at 5d if it is due for whatever reason.

 

The only relevant document is the contract between us and City, the terms of which are not going to be disclosed to thee and me.

[al_bro]

Someone mentioned Cleverley earlier.Bradford got money each time he was loaned out apparently-http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbcfc/9378381.Bradford_City_joint_chairman_Rhodes_finds_it_pays_to_be_on_the_ball/

I bet Bradford fans are a bit miffed that Cleverley didn't sign for Vila yesterday for £8m. The fee was agreed but his greedy agent apparently demanded Cleverley was paid £85000pw. Villa refused. No wonder he's not worth 85p.

[Twisbrogan]

In today's Chron, Corney says that he's "gutted" that we're not getting anything (unless the unlikely scenario occurs of Richards signing for Fiorentina beyond this season, when we pick up in the region of £200k) so I expect that is that.

[al_bro]

I don't think Florentina have paid a loan fee for Richards. He's on around £65000pw apparently and that comes out around £3.5m. Why pay that amount for a loan when it's about what he's worth. If they decide not to keep him next summer we get nowt.

[Dave_Og]

 

In my view it would have been a legal document professionally prepared (maybe standard for the industry) and not written up by Corney,

 

Highly unlikely to have been written by Corney given that Chris Moore was chairman at the time.

 

I think we should give any funds received to him to help him with his legal bills.

[BP1960]

I don't think Florentina have paid a loan fee for Richards. He's on around £65000pw apparently and that comes out around £3.5m. Why pay that amount for a loan when it's about what he's worth. If they decide not to keep him next summer we get nowt.

The fact is City are £3.5m better off..IMO Latics are initially due 20% of that.

[HarryBosch]

I don't think Florentina have paid a loan fee for Richards. He's on around £65000pw apparently and that comes out around £3.5m. Why pay that amount for a loan when it's about what he's worth. If they decide not to keep him next summer we get nowt.

 

they have

[jsslatic]

The fact is City are £3.5m better off..IMO Latics are initially due 20% of that.

 

How can you have an opinion on the effect of a clause in a contract you haven't seen?

[Dave_Og]

 

How can you have an opinion on the effect of a clause in a contract you haven't seen?

 

Anyone can have an opinion on anything. Whether it is a valid one is an entirely different question.

[AndyGortonsMatches]

If City let him go on a standard loan and either City or Fiorentina picked up his monthly wages then its a fair cop.

 

But City have taken a large one off payment for a loan fee, this cant just be ignored.

 

Some are suggesting the fee is for wages, well if thats the case who is paying Falcaos new extortianate wages in addition to his loan fee.

[deyres42]

"We shall fight on the beaches"

 

"See you in Strasbourg"

 

#justiceformicah

[Dave_Og]

"We shall fight on the beaches"

 

"See you in Strasbourg"

 

#justiceformicah

 

Formica? Is that Mauro Formica that used to play for Blackburn? Now playing in Mexico and nickbnamed "the cat". Which is a rubbish nickname for a striker.

[Zorrro]

My opinion is that City aren't purposefully trying to diddle little Oldham out of a few hundred grand.

[slystallone]

My opinion is that City aren't purposefully trying to diddle little Oldham out of a few hundred grand.

 

But......but......the conspiracy theories........

 

[L1onheartNew]

 

Formica? Is that Mauro Formica that used to play for Blackburn? Now playing in Mexico and nickbnamed "the cat". Which is a rubbish nickname for a striker.

No, it just means that he has signed for a table topper

[bigfatjoe1]

I really hate City. Bastards.

 

 

Even if they hadn't cheated us out of what could be £800,000, I'd still hate them. That giant chip they carried around for years, that irritating :censored: about them being the only club in Manchester (that's all they could talk about), that stupid nasal accent, those massive subsidies from Arab oil....bastards.

[al_bro]

It wouldn't hurt City to hand over £700,000 and say we know it's not much, and we don't really owe you, but it's a gesture of goodwill.

[youngen]

It wouldn't hurt City to hand over £700,000 and say we know it's not much, and we don't really owe you, but it's a gesture of goodwill.

Are you kidding? And shave 3 weeks wages for one of their players off the FFP budget? No chance

[deyres42]

Worthy of a Perrier award this board, some corkers knocking about.