Appeal to EFL

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

Yes it is up to me, and I ain't a stakeholder

Blackpool supporters in the "modern world" may think otherwise and that's up to them.

I look forward to them singing

"Shit ground, no stakeholders"

What have Blackpool supporters got to do with anything?

[AllRoverAsia]

3 hours ago, Ossydave said:

Depends where you live, some are, some aren't

I meant on here where I'm just a stakeholder

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

It’s getting bloody stupid now. It’s March next week! There will only be 2 months of the season left. 

I do agree the long delay is getting silly but O'Brien is such a good player at Championship level he could make a difference in just 2 or 3 games and get us in the playoffs.

He would vastly improve our midfield.

However I also believe the arbitration strategy will fail, the EFL will just quote their rule book and I don't see how arbitrators can rule against that, unless there really is a smoking gun in Rovers arsenal.

We'll just have to wait a while longer.

[jim mk2]

1 hour ago, SBlue said:

I don't understand why you are so against this.

It's a word. A word that is useful and has been used for decades.

If the club is badly managed and ticket prices have to go up - this affects you financially too.

I was trying to be nice, but the other person had it right with luddite I suppose. You don't like it because you don't understand it.

 

Can you be nice too and use the reply button?

I understand it thanks. But it doesn't apply to me and I suspect many other fans. 

[jim mk2]

25 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Fans are stakeholders, but not all stakeholders are fans.

We're both. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. The word exists, has a definition, and a fan of a football club falls under it. No matter how much it 'wasn't like that in your day' or whatever.

A fan does not automatically mean you are a "stakeholder". Some fans might see themselves as "stakeholders" for their own reasons but many do not for legitimate reasons too.

I have no "stakeholder interest" in BRFC whatsoever

[Dreams of 1995]

Ok Jim you are not a stakeholder 😁

Problem solved

 

 

[bluebruce]

5 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

A fan does not automatically mean you are a "stakeholder". Some fans might see themselves as "stakeholders" for their own reasons but many do not for legitimate reasons too.

I have no "stakeholder interest" in BRFC whatsoever

You're talking with authority there, but you have none and you're simply wrong. Being a fan does automatically make you a stakeholder. Nobody will force you to use the word in reference to yourself, but it's true. I don't refer to myself as a stakeholder (though I might in the appropriate context) but I'm aware the definition applies.

It's a bit like insisting you're 'a man' and not 'a male homo sapiens'. Nobody is expecting you to refer to yourself as a male homo sapiens, but you still fit the definition anyway. I don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill, other than sheer obstinacy.

[wilsdenrover]

[bluebruce]

14 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Can you be nice too and use the reply button?

I understand it thanks. But it doesn't apply to me and I suspect many other fans. 

The more I read your comments actually, the more I'm starting to see you view it as a case of 'identity' and a word to replace 'fan' in that context. That's not what anybody is driving at. Our identity as it relates to Rovers is of course as fans. Stakeholder is something else altogether, that fans are one chunk of, and whilst you're claiming to understand it, you very clearly aren't. So far at least. I don't think anybody can explain it to you any clearer than we all have though, so I'll leave it there as I'm sure it's gotten tiresome for some.

[RoverDom]

Next week - how to tie your shoelaces

[Mike E]

39 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Can you be nice too and use the reply button?

I understand it thanks. But it doesn't apply to me and I suspect many other fans. 

So you have no interest in Blackburn Rovers? Bit odd of you to be on here then.

[Leonard Venkhater]

7 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Next week - how to tie your shoelaces

No....after following this thread...how to hang yourself with your own shoelaces..

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Can you be nice too and use the reply button?

I understand it thanks. But it doesn't apply to me and I suspect many other fans. 

I see myself as more of a supporter than a fan. It's cooler.

[wilsdenrover]

10 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

I see myself as more of a supporter than a fan. It's cooler.

That can’t be right - the whole purpose of a fan is to be cooler 🤔

[AllRoverAsia]

I appreciate it must have been covered on here before but just read an article stating "all terms and a medical had been completed, but the EFL wanted to know what would happen in terms of a potential O’Brien permanent move to Rovers in the event they were relegated to League One".

Surely the answer to that was already covered by it being a loan with a buy clause in the event of promotion and quite obviously anything else resulting in the player returning to Forest.

Any other interpretation would be, what's the word, oh yes, fucking stupid.

If this strange query at a late hour caused the final submission to be a little late and If they really are independent arbitrators and not EFL pals there must be a chance of success.

Edited February 20, 2023 by AllRoverAsia

[ben_the_beast]

2 hours ago, islander200 said:

Nixon saying the hearing is scheduled for the 28th.Also saying Forest are waiting to see what happens with it before considering offers from the MLS for him 

28th is ridiculous. But at least we have a date and an end in sight. 

[ben_the_beast]

52 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Usually I get frustrated at threads drifting a million miles off topic. This has got to be the worst case of it ever happening on this board, but its actually really made me laugh. Only on brfc. 

Are we going to have super stakeholders now? And happy clapper or doom merchant stakeholders?

Edited February 20, 2023 by ben_the_beast

[bluebruce]

11 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

I appreciate it must have been covered on here before but just read an article stating "all terms and a medical had been completed, but the EFL wanted to know what would happen in terms of a potential O’Brien permanent move to Rovers in the event they were relegated to League One".

Surely the answer to that was already covered by it being a loan with a buy clause in the event of promotion and quite obviously anything else resulting in the player returning to Forest.

Any other interpretation would be, what's the word, oh yes, fucking stupid.

If they really are independent arbitrators and not EFL pals there must be a chance of success.

Yeh it's been discussed - in the absence of actual information it's been a difficult one to understand. Nixon's original article where the claim came out was (typically) unclear, as he's not a very good writer. He basically said something like they want to know what happened in the event of relegation.

This has led to speculation in subsequent articles and in discussions on what that actually means. I summed it up somewhere else in the thread but basically it could mean:

1) Would we still sign him for 10 million if we got relegated to League One this season?

2) If we got promoted and bought him, would his contract include a wage drop in the event of relegation back to the Championship?

I think there was a third possible interpretation that I mentioned in my other post but I can't remember it. Both are, as you say, fucking stupid. Obviously relegation isn't promotion and from legal or common sense perspectives I can't think of any way to justify asking that question. We also aren't obliged to include relegation wage drop clauses in our contracts, so whilst there's a thin argument for asking that to help safeguard the club, since it isn't compulsory it shouldn't be used to hold up the deal. Especially since holding up the deal damages the club, and also because if we won the £170 million jackpot of the Prem we would have more than enough money to cater for LOB's high wage in a subsequent relegation, as long as we didn't blow it all in other, unrelated deals.

In either of these instances I should think the EFL would be on very thin ice in any courtroom or arbitration that doesn't have EFL officials presiding over it. But it could be the 'leaked' information is incomplete, completely wrong, or means something else, or there could be another factor with more weight behind it that kills our case, so there's no point us getting too irate or self righteous until we have official information.

Edited February 20, 2023 by bluebruce

[Bohinen1983]

Yo, Stakeholders, what's happening?!

[SBlue]

Maybe Jim’s a vampire?

[bluebruce]

20 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

That can’t be right - the whole purpose of a fan is to be cooler 🤔

I find it hard to believe you read the forum for years without posting. You definitely have the posting bug now! Good to see your contributions.

[Exiled_Rover]

13 minutes ago, ben_the_beast said:

28th is ridiculous. But at least we have a date and an end in sight. 

We'll get him for the last game of the season at this rate, but be asked by Forest to pay his salary for every week he was meant to be here.

[AllRoverAsia]

4 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Yeh it's been discussed - in the absence of actual information it's been a difficult one to understand. Nixon's original article where the claim came out was (typically) unclear, as he's not a very good writer. He basically said something like they want to know what happened in the event of relegation.

This has led to speculation in subsequent articles and in discussions on what that actually means. I summed it up somewhere else in the thread but basically it could mean:

1) Would we still sign him for 10 million if we got relegated to League One this season?

2) If we got promoted and bought him, would his contract include a wage drop in the event of relegation back to the Championship?

I think there was a third possible interpretation that I mentioned in my other post but I can't remember it. Both are, as you say, fucking stupid. Obviously relegation isn't promotion and from legal or common sense perspectives I can't think of any way to justify asking that question. We also aren't obliged to include relegation wage drop clauses in our contracts, so whilst there's a thin argument for asking that to help safeguard the club, since it isn't compulsory it shouldn't be used to hold up the deal. Especially since holding up the deal damages the club, and also because if we won the £170 million jackpot of the Prem we would have more than enough money to cater for LOB's high wage in a subsequent relegation, as long as we didn't blow it all in other, unrelated deals.

In either of these instances I should think the EFL would be on very thin ice in any courtroom or arbitration that doesn't have EFL officials presiding over it. But it could be the 'leaked' information is incomplete, completely wrong, or means something else, so there's no point us getting too irate or self righteous until we have official information.

I had got a bit confused previously but the article I just read, not from the most reputable of sources, was quoting Nixon and specifically relegation to League 1, which makes it more confusing.

Yes, wait for the detail is the way to go.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, ben_the_beast said:

28th is ridiculous. But at least we have a date and an end in sight. 

Can we stick to the topic please

[RoverDom]

7 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

I had got a bit confused previously but the article I just read, not from the most reputable of sources, was quoting Nixon and specifically relegation to League 1, which makes it more confusing.

Yes, wait for the detail is the way to go.

The only way I can make it work is if the buy option  was so vaguely worded like "in the event rovers exit the division" but that's just so unfeasible even for us