deyres42 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I'm quite content to say City will know their obligations and will be happy to settle up without the requirement for legal action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Wouldn't the club take it to the FA first, rather than go to court? I wouldn't trust the FA to run a piss up in a Vodka factory, a High court judge on the other hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Our sell-on deal is from a 12 year old contract. Times change, financial mechanisms change and the loan fee is a relatively new introduction. Surely the current rules (which are there to protect the training club) would apply in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 You know I've never met the bloke but I am really not liking him at all. Bench warmed at city reasons unknown, has not signed for any other league club that seem to show interest-reason known, and seems content to let his England career go tits up too. All that talent.....aagghhh, this thread need to be put back in its pandora box and left for the rest of the Loan period or I'll go insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Get the major media on the case, they will love investigating if City are involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Get the major media on the case, they will love investigating if City are involved. Will Matt Chambers and Mike Keegan not suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 A legal challenge to the sell-on clause would probably result in City refusing to send us players from their development squad. Call the lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Will Matt Chambers and Mike Keegan not suffice? Its a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moldham Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Our sell-on deal is from a 12 year old contract. Times change, financial mechanisms change and the loan fee is a relatively new introduction. Surely the current rules (which are there to protect the training club) would apply in this case? Equals £1.3 m under EPP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 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... It's not about adding the extra stipulation, it's more about not being specific to transfers. "Oldham are due 20% of any fee that City receive for Micah Richards"= we get money "Oldham are due 20% of any transfer fee that City receive for Micah Richards" = less likely to receive money but not guaranteed that we won't. (See the link I posted earlier) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Oh dear god, the story still won't die? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 It's not about adding the extra stipulation, it's more about not being specific to transfers. "Oldham are due 20% of any fee that City receive for Micah Richards"= we get money "Oldham are due 20% of any transfer fee that City receive for Micah Richards" = less likely to receive money but not guaranteed that we won't. (See the link I posted earlier) Exactly , though we may still have a case even if the contract says transfer fee on the basis that paying a loan fee for a player wasn't a common occurrence at the time. We could potentially argue that transfer fee would mean any fee received and that by structuring a payment in the manner City have is merely a structure to avoid paying out. Out of interest, how does this actually differ to a transfer? My hope is that City won't want to piss off a local club as they put a lot of effort into the PR side to make them look good as per social responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) 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... Absolutely, but not because of lack of foresight. Because they did not exist Loan fees are a work round Prem money corruption, again. Edited September 2, 2014 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Exactly , though we may still have a case even if the contract says transfer fee on the basis that paying a loan fee for a player wasn't a common occurrence at the time. We could potentially argue that transfer fee would mean any fee received and that by structuring a payment in the manner City have is merely a structure to avoid paying out. Out of interest, how does this actually differ to a transfer? My hope is that City won't want to piss off a local club as they put a lot of effort into the PR side to make them look good as per social responsibility. This social resposnisility may be our only hope. The club could not afford to sanction anything, but how about we start putting the story of big money club shafts little skint club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 This social resposnisility may be our only hope. The club could not afford to sanction anything, but how about we start putting the story of big money club shafts little skint club? Cos there's no suggestion that they have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Cos there's no suggestion that they have? Is there not? A loan is a loan and nothing we can do about it. A fee is a fee, and City get an extra 20%, its just about the words sell on. Its dubious.its more about the moral issue. Of course, what we cannot know is what actually has happened, who knows we may even have got some money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShireBlue Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I think the fans should just forget about the whole episode and anything that does come from it is a bonus. Like we should have done 12 months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Is there not? A loan is a loan and nothing we can do about it. A fee is a fee, and City get an extra 20%, its just about the words sell on. Its dubious.its more about the moral issue. Of course, what we cannot know is what actually has happened, who knows we may even have got some money. Who knows, but Manchester City haven't set out to shaft Oldham Athletic, doubt we even came up in conversation and they probably spend more per year on quilted bog roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0ndl1ne Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Even if we were to receive something I can imagine they'd keep it quiet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 It does raise an interesting question though... if they sign him on loan for 12 months at £3.5m and then buy him after that for an additional £1.5m do we get 20% of the whole thing or the £1.5m only?! Corney needs to be (and quite possibly is) on the blower to the FA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeroyboy Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 This loan business is now becoming quite common, even amongst the giants. And I don't thing the big clubs are using it to shaft the little clubs. It is unlikely the conditions of Richard's move to City included a sentence stipulating simply ' 20% of any transfer fee'. there would have likely been a paragraph of conditions attached to it. In my view it would have been a legal document professionally prepared (maybe standard for the industry) and not written up by Corney, although both parties would be able to add or delete conditions by agreement before signing under legal advice. It is simply a case of 'wait and see' for us but I do feel there will be 'something' in it for the club, eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Corney needs to be (and quite possibly is) on the blower to the FA! I would be pretty certain he's already asked City for details of the deal and what their intentions are for sell-on clause. He's probably got the club solicitor reading through rudemedic's link to try and reach the same conclusion that the esteemed poster has. Once he's got those two positions ironed out he will doubtless take undisclosed action to achieve an undisclosed resolution that is appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 There's no point speculating because none of us have the slightest clue what the wording of the contract is. 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.