TeessideQuaker Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Apparently we've been taken over, and the transfer of Jason Kennedy has been cancelled (At least for now) as the new owner/s don't want any contracted players leaving the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I guess Abbott won't be signing then. Not to worry. Plenty more fish in the sea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeessideQuaker Posted May 16, 2009 Author Share Posted May 16, 2009 I guess Abbott won't be signing then. Not to worry. Plenty more fish in the sea. Abbott is out of contract, so he can sign for whoever he likes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) Abbott is out of contract, so he can sign for whoever he likes. another revised bid from singh? or someone else? Edited May 16, 2009 by Lookers_Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Abbott is out of contract, so he can sign for whoever he likes. I thought the players contracts were void at Darlington due to admin? I thought they are all free agents and can move wherever they like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I thought the players contracts were void at Darlington due to admin? I thought they are all free agents and can move wherever they like? Thats what I thought Incidentally teesidequaker, which players are out of contract alongside abbott? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creepy Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Thats what I thought Incidentally teesidequaker, which players are out of contract alongside abbott? But if they get took over the contracts become active again maybe? God knows!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 But if they get took over the contracts become active again maybe? God knows!! Well you cant release a player, then unrelease them. Id have thought if any of their current squad stay it would effectively be a new contract? I hope the news is true at the end of the day, if they have been taken over good luck to em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) I thought the players contracts were void at Darlington due to admin? I thought they are all free agents and can move wherever they like? If players haven't been paid for a 14 day period, then they can leave on a free transfer. If the club makes good the money owed prior to that player signing for a club elsewhere, that right to move on is withdrawn. Sesnible policy in these circumstances would be to pay the decent players who are under contract and could attract a fee (e.g. if it was Latics, you'd pay the likes of Taylor first) and not pay the less valuable players (e.g. the likes of Gregan and Maher who are earning a wedge, contracted to the end of June, no games to play). You would then sell the first player you can get a realistic fee for (like Stockport did with Tommy Rowe) and make good the wages of the next players down the pecking order who you could also attract a fee for (e.g. if Latics sold Taylor while in administration they would probably make sure Eardley was the next one paid in full, with a view to getting a transfer fee for him). Edited May 16, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) If players haven't been paid for a 14 day period, then they can leave on a free transfer. If the club makes good the money owed prior to that player signing for a club elsewhere, that right to move on is withdrawn. Sesnible policy in these circumstances would be to pay the decent players who are under contract and could attract a fee (e.g. if it was Latics, you'd pay the likes of Taylor first) and not pay the less valuable players (e.g. the likes of Gregan and Maher who are earning a wedge, contracted to the end of June, no games to play). You would then sell the first player you can get a realistic fee for (like Stockport did with Tommy Rowe) and make good the wages of the next players down the pecking order who you could also attract a fee for (e.g. if Latics sold Taylor while in administration they would probably make sure Eardley was the next one paid in full, with a view to getting a transfer fee for him). Its on their official site too though , that the majority of the first team players bar 2 have been allowed to leave the club with immediate effect? Edited May 16, 2009 by Lookers_Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec1954 Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I can't get too excited about not acquiring players from a 2nd Division club. Now if a Championship club were to fold..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Apparently we've been taken over Hope this turns out to be good news for Darlo. It seemed bleak earlier in the week with no assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) Its on their official site too though , that the majority of the first team players bar 2 have been allowed to leave the club with immediate effect? I think that fits perfectly with the point I made. But if a takeover is genuinely on the cards, it would be in the interests of the club (administrator) to find the money to pay the players who you would want to keep, before they sign for another club. What they cannot do is stop somebody leaving who hasn't been paid for 14 days. If, for example, Kennedy hasn't been paid for 14 days and has signed paperwork elsewhere they can't stop him leaving. If he hasn't signed paperwork elsewhere and they don't want him to go, the only thing they can do to stop him is to pay all money due to him. Edited May 16, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyl@tic Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I think that fits perfectly with the point I made. Good news Darlo all the best glad you have a buyer.. Were Latics after Kennedy thought it was Hudds, Tranmere and Hartlepool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Were Latics after Kennedy thought it was Hudds, Tranmere and HartlepoolNo idea. A lot of people on this board thought we should sign him because he looked good on the telly at Spotland a few weeks back. Is he any good? I haven't got a clue to be honest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) I think that fits perfectly with the point I made. Yes it does, but what i was getting at was If they have been 'released' as in look, we cant give you your money, go find another club, then yes if a new buyer comes in and pays certain players in full who are still under contract, then that player is obliged to stay like any normal contracted player If they have been 'released' as in 'your contract has been terminated with the club' then thats surely a different matter?? If a players contract has been terminated he that would not make him a free agent, hence if their new owners wanted to keep any of the players it would be subject to them offering a new contract? Edited May 16, 2009 by Lookers_Carl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) If they have been 'released' as in 'your contract has been terminated with the club' then thats surely a different matter?? If a players contract has been terminated he that would not make him a free agent, hence if their new owners wanted to keep any of the players it would be subject to them offering a new contract? Gotcha. Yes, it would make them a free agent. But it would be unlikely that the administrator would terminate the contracts this way, as they would have to be paid up in full *. Far better simply not to pay players, leave them as creditors of the business and let them go (with the option of making the contracts good again if the goose lays a golden egg). When I say 'far better', that isn't a moral view on the subject! (* the exception to this appears to be Jim Gannon's 'redundancy' at Stockport. My understanding of employment law is that you can't make a position redundant if that position will exist again in the not so distant future. So you can't make a squad of footballers redundant in May (paying them statutory redundany pittance) and then recruit a new set at the back end of July - on a lower wage - to do precisely the same job). Edited May 16, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Gotcha. Yes, it would make them a free agent. But it would be unlikely that the administrator would terminate the contracts this way, as they would have to be paid up in full *. Far better simply not to pay players, leave them as creditors of the business and let them go (with the option of making the contracts good again if the goose lays a golden egg). When I say 'far better', that isn't a moral view on the subject! (* the exception to this appears to be Jim Gannon's 'redundancy' at Stockport. My understanding of employment law is that you can't make a position redundant if that position will exist again in the not so distant future. So you can't make a squad of footballers redundant in May (paying them statutory redundany pittance) and then recruit a new set at the back end of July - on a lower wage - to do precisely the same job). Gannon was under contract at Stockport and he was 'made redundant', hence doubt they will have paid him much, if anything? Ive been on their rivals board, not sure how quick news spreads on there but all i could find was singh (potential buyer) and hougtton had another meeting and it was 'constructive', hence this may just mean penney may now have to move a bit quicker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz_Oafc Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Ive been on their rivals board, not sure how quick news spreads on there but all i could find was singh (potential buyer) and hougtton had another meeting and it was 'constructive', hence this may just mean penney may now have to move a bit quicker? Me 2.... ''The Evening Gazette today has stated that if George Houghton retains control of the club he is looking at bringing Todd into the club with his assistant being Dean Windass. '' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Me 2.... ''The Evening Gazette today has stated that if George Houghton retains control of the club he is looking at bringing Todd into the club with his assistant being Dean Windass. ' Windass in, that's it, they're doomed. Mind you him being involved it would make it difficult to sign anyone from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) Gannon was under contract at Stockport and he was 'made redundant', hence doubt they will have paid him much, if anything? Statutory redundancy would be 3 weeks pay capped at £350ish a week! But if they start the new season with a new manager then Gannon could clearly argue in court that his position has not been made redundant and therefore claim for unfair dismissal. I reckon there's more to that one than meets the eye - if a bookie ran a market on 'next Stockport manager' I'd put my money on whoever their buyers are appointing Jim Gannon. Edited May 16, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Good luck to Darlo. Hell, we know all too well what they're going through. However, the sad reality for them is that the club is in breach of the players' contracts. That breach doesn't relieve them of their responsibility to pay the players though and, even if they manage to do so, it won't change the fact that the breach of contract occurred. Therefore, any new owners will be in for a surprise if they believe they can come in and tell those players that they're staying at Darlington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smartzatart Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Statutory redundancy would be 3 weeks pay capped at £350ish a week! But if they start the new season with a new manager then Gannon could clearly argue in court that his position has not been made redundant and therefore claim for unfair dismissal. I reckon there's more to that one than meets the eye - if a bookie ran a market on 'next Stockport manager' I'd put my money on whoever their buyers are appointing Jim Gannon. The club will be renamed Stockport County 2009 or something, they can then appoint whoever they want in whatever position they want! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 The club will be renamed Stockport County 2009 or something, they can then appoint whoever they want in whatever position they want! While possible, it's not quite as easy as when Latics did this. The Football League are not quite as accommodating of a club liquidating itself and then starting from scratch as they used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky_Latic Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Apparently we've been taken over, and the transfer of Jason Kennedy has been cancelled (At least for now) as the new owner/s don't want any contracted players leaving the club. Key word. "apparantly." - There's nothing confirmed as of yet, so the potential new owners would have no say so in players talking to other clubs. Until you have new owners confirmed in place - your players can do as they wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.