Shakes Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Newport today of apparently filed a formal complaint about Latics approach for Sheridan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 We know mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsgrandad Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Hard to defend it seeing as the evidence was plastered all over this forum ... and subsequently picked up by the Chron. At least the Tarky sell-on money will help pay off the inevitable fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Slap on the wrist probably Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Slap on the wrist probablyGiven the length of his contract, I'd be surprised if it got this far. Bosman is longer than that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeykieran Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Why bother? They're not going to get anything out of it and it just makes the club look desperate when they dont need to be (theyve done alright since) Silly decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 RELEASE THE BAZZA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Newport today of apparently filed a formal complaint about Latics approach for Sheridan It's not the approach for Sheridan that's the basis of their complaint. It's that we didn't take Warren Feeney too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagger Lee Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 It's not the approach for Sheridan that's the basis of their complaint. It's that we didn't take Warren Feeney too. Ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarddog73 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Is it just coincidence they file a complaint the day we are reported to receive a transfer windfall or is that me just being cynical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsgrandad Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 It's more likely the fact that Latics have been perhaps dismissive in attempting to negotiate a settlement with Newport. (I'm assuming JS was under contract with Newport). It's probably the usual story with any dispute. One party accuses the other of owing them money (a settlement in lieu of contract termination) and threatens to sue if they don't pay up. The other party ignores the threat and ... lo and behold ... the solicitor's letter drops through the letter box. Yet again, unwelcome publicity that they have brought on themselves through poor judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegtt Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Didnt Newport employ Sheridan on a Month by Month basis? I'm sure I read that when it was all being discussed. If so it kind of restricts what Newport think they can get out of it. Especially when it was also reported they gave us permission to speak to him. Can't see this getting far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 It's more likely the fact that Latics have been perhaps dismissive in attempting to negotiate a settlement with Newport. (I'm assuming JS was under contract with Newport). It's probably the usual story with any dispute. One party accuses the other of owing them money (a settlement in lieu of contract termination) and threatens to sue if they don't pay up. The other party ignores the threat and ... lo and behold ... the solicitor's letter drops through the letter box. Yet again, unwelcome publicity that they have brought on themselves through poor judgement. Get them on Judge Rinder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Isn't this covered by a gentleman's agreement rather than football league rules? Edited February 2, 2016 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Didnt Newport employ Sheridan on a Month by Month basis? I'm sure I read that when it was all being discussed. If so it kind of restricts what Newport think they can get out of it. Especially when it was also reported they gave us permission to speak to him. Can't see this getting far. The point was that the permission to speak was agreed, but it then transpired the photo had been just taken before that. Not that it is a huge deal, it happens all the time, but we got caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshawlatic Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The point was that the permission to speak was agreed, but it then transpired the photo had been just taken before that. Not that it is a huge deal, it happens all the time, but we got caught. To be fair it was pretty thick to do the meeting in a public place in this day in age of camera phones and social media.... Especially when we have 6 million pound structure perfectly suitable for the purpose. (Oh I forgot, the coffee shop there isn't open yet) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The point was that the permission to speak was agreed, but it then transpired the photo had been just taken before that. Not that it is a huge deal, it happens all the time, but we got caught. The photo wont be evidence, it could have been taken before JS got the Newport job, there's no date on the picture is there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The photo wont be evidence, it could have been taken before JS got the Newport job, there's no date on the picture is there ? On the balance of probabilities ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Tell them to :censored: off, we've got bigger problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The photo wont be evidence, it could have been taken before JS got the Newport job, there's no date on the picture is there ? There was text by the poster before it was taken down, and then it was retreated by the MEN. I daresay that would be part of the evidence. There may be more we don't know about I guess. I think there is a new Trust of board too, so they may be just trying it on or been seen to be doing something. 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.