Appeal to EFL

[DaveyB]

9 minutes ago, 47er said:

Its an utter embarrassment. No other team did it but we did it twice.

You just can't get around that.

Lots of other teams have done it, we just don’t normally hear about them. But just this year, there was one involving a Chelsea player going out, plus another involving a Forest defender going to Belgium

There are other examples on arbitration decisions on the EFL site - including one involving Forest being late with paperwork when they tried to sign Kamil Grosicki from WBA

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, Mellor Rover said:

The 'contract' is a piece of paper with a name on it until it becomes legally binding. Means absolutely nothing.

It doesn’t mean nothing but it doesn’t mean everything either.

[Penwortham Blue]

40 minutes ago, Mercer said:

I posted the same on here at the time but one or two posters thought it was ludicrous.  Well I think the chickens are about to come home to well and truly roost.

I think the report is damning and the Rovers haven't a leg to stand on.  Very much doubt this will end up in court but I would think there will be very, very substantial compensatory settlements.

I don’t see any grounds for a claim from O’Brien as there is no financial loss, he is employed by Nottingham Forest and getting paid handsomely. In addition, Rovers made Forest aware of the issue in order that he might be included in their squad and they elected not to do so. An absolute first class show of incompetence at our end and we might pick up EFL legal costs but it ends there.

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think you’d have to prove negligence for costs to be playable.

At what point incompetence becomes negligence, I don’t know…

Negligence is a concept governed by the law of tort where simply put a case can only be made where one party owes a duty of care to another. That isn't going to be applicable in this case.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Penwortham Blue said:

I don’t see any grounds for a claim from O’Brien as there is no financial loss, he is employed by Nottingham Forest and getting paid handsomely. In addition, Rovers made Forest aware of the issue in order that he might be included in their squad and they elected not to do so. An absolute first class show of incompetence at our end and we might pick up EFL legal costs but it ends there.

Could they have included him in their squad whilst an appeal was pending? I genuinely don’t know

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

It doesn’t mean nothing but it doesn’t mean everything either.

It does mean nothing in this case. 

[Mercer]

4 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

The 'contract' is a piece of paper with a name on it until it becomes legally binding. Means absolutely nothing.

The contract could not be fulfilled owing to Rovers' established mismanagement of the process.

I don't think we have a leg to stand on.

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

It does mean nothing in this case. 

I wonder if it hinges on if the contract includes something along the lines of ‘subject to the successful registration of the player’?

[RoverDom]

Ludicrous to think LOB will be due compensation from us. We fucked up yes and that may damage our reputation when dealing with future transfers but I can't see how we owe him or forest compensation. The way I see it there are three parties at fault for LOB not playing and having his career on hold

1. Rovers for not completing paperwork on time and to a good standard

2. Forest for buying 1000 players and not having room in the squad for him

3. LOB for waiting until 11 hours before the deadline to decide that he actually would entertain the idea of coming here. 

Transfers breakdown all the time, he's still being paid and has the option of going to the MLS. From a legal point of view I can't see any reason why either the player or the club could claim compensation from us. The contracts couldn't be completed 

He's missing out on appearance and goal bonuses (first world problems right?) But he's probably got more of a case against forest for those as they've made him ineligible to play. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by RoverDom

[wilsdenrover]

20:47 refers to a draft contract that would be entered into if the option was exercised.

So the contract hasn’t  been entered into and therefore no losses can be linked to it.

That’s my interpretation anyway.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by wilsdenrover
Changed tense

[jim mk2]

26 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

I think to suffer financially we would have to have been in breach of contract and the other party would have to prove loss. That's not trolling - that's the law. It's obviously down to O'Brien that he hasn't made the grade at Forest. There was no guarantee that he would get appearance money with us.

The other parties can easily prove loss. That much is obvious. Not sure where you’re going with this but if you’re trying to portray Rovers as the innocent party that isn’t at fault or won’t be taking a financial hit I think you’re deluded 

[Jakey]

Steve Waggot is the CEO of the business - to head off to watch the match when the business is trying to complete one of the most significant transactions in its recent history is a complete neglect of his responsibilities and a serious error of judgement for which he should ultimately resign. Whether transfers is his area or not he should have stayed and helped ensure the transaction was completed - get agreements signed, deal with the EFL on their relegation question, whatever. There can be no excuses for him.

In summary after reading the judgement in detail our appeal really had no merit. We messed up ourselves as a result of a series of mistakes and we only have ourselves to blame. Whilst the appeal was a fruitless exercise I am in some way glad it happened as we got full disclosure of the timeline and events via this decision that clearly shows the Club at fault. Up to now I had assumed we had been dealt with unreasonably in some way (for example the way the relegation question was being portrayed suggested that the EFL asked the question right before the 11pm deadline which caused a delay in submitting the paperwork whilst the club dealt with that) which clearly wasn’t the case. 

The Club needs to front up here and show accountability to the fans

[RoverDom]

2 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

The other parties can easily prove loss. That much is obvious. Not sure where you’re going with this but if you’re trying to portray Rovers as the innocent party that isn’t at fault or won’t be taking a financial hit I think you’re deluded 

Morally and legally are two different concepts though. We fucked up and morally we're probably mostly at fault for the whole situation. Legally I can't see how we owe them anything. 

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

The other parties can easily prove loss. That much is obvious. Not sure where you’re going with this but if you’re trying to portray Rovers as the innocent party that isn’t at fault or won’t be taking a financial hit I think you’re deluded 

I imagine we will have to pay the EFL costs

i can see an argument for having to pay O’Briens appearance bonuses and having to compensate Forest for his basic salary.

I’m not seeing any other provable costs.

I absolutely think we’re at fault - you can’t not do so having read the judgment.

 

[RoverCanada]

Hell, I may still be drinking GB's kool-aid, but, whatever you may think of him, at the very least it would be very worrying if GB (and JDT...) leave in the offseason, while the likes of Waggot and Sylvester are still in place.

[47er]

31 minutes ago, DaveyB said:

Lots of other teams have done it, we just don’t normally hear about them. But just this year, there was one involving a Chelsea player going out, plus another involving a Forest defender going to Belgium

There are other examples on arbitration decisions on the EFL site - including one involving Forest being late with paperwork when they tried to sign Kamil Grosicki from WBA

I said "No other team did it" which is true. I'm referring specifically to the Jan Transfer Window.

You've said "Lots of other teams have done it." which is different.

[RoverDom]

7 minutes ago, RoverCanada said:

Hell, I may still be drinking GB's kool-aid, but, whatever you may think of him, at the very least it would be very worrying if GB (and JDT...) leave in the offseason, while the likes of Waggot and Sylvester are still in place.

Agreed. The club is riddled with cancer, but it's not GB or JDT

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

On another point - Brierley is back playing for Rochdale. Do we still sign him if he gets a serious injury between now and the end of the season ?

[Wheelton Blue]

33 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

He's due nothing. Be like going for a job interview, not getting it and then trying to sue on grounds of loss of earning. 

Exactly.

I also very much doubt that we'd be directly paying his wages and NI; he'd still have been an employee of Forest, as such they would still have remained responsible for paying his wages and NI to HMRC, and to whom we'd have simply been paying a loan fee.

[47er]

1 minute ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

On another point - Brierley is back playing for Rochdale. Do we still sign him if he gets a serious injury between now and the end of the season ?

That would be up to us.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

The other parties can easily prove loss. That much is obvious. Not sure where you’re going with this but if you’re trying to portray Rovers as the innocent party that isn’t at fault or won’t be taking a financial hit I think you’re deluded 

Prove loss of earnings on what legal ground? 

[Atko's Engine]

1 hour ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Don’t drink the tea 

I'll take a flask!

[Ghost7]

I think we were all a bit uncomfortable about Waggott keeping his job last season when Mowbray left... and here we are. Cronyism and incompetence still behind the scenes.

There are a few pieces to the puzzle that need replacing before this club can truly go somewhere. We did half the job last year and it has cost us. Thankfully the team is doing well on the field and the manager is now working wonders.

A new CEO and a new pitch at Ewood, and I'll start to believe the owners are interested.

[J*B]

33 minutes ago, Mellor Rover said:

Prove loss of earnings on what legal ground? 

I agree with every single thing you’ve posted here in the last 24 hours - there is absolutely no way LOB or Forest have a leg to stand on RE any form of compensation. Essentially we proposed a deal and - through our own negligence - didn’t get it approved by the EFL. The contract is worthless until it’s signed by all parties AND approved by the league. Forest could have told him to come back to Nottingham at any point on Deadline Day and there was nothing we could do. 

Reading through the order of events it just makes me even more infuriating that Waggott was at Birmingham that evening. There isn’t a single explanation which I’ll accept about what on earth he was doing there - and I certainly won’t accept “there’s an unwritten rule that the CEO attends every game” which was the explanation at the time. 

To be absolutely clear we had our CEO and Owners Representative in Birmingham, our Secretary at Ewood and our DOF in Manchester (then Brockhall) with the player. Absolutely astounding. They should have all been at wherever is best placed to deliver a transfer, whether that is Ewood or Brockhall. We put LOB through club media in the key hour period between 9:45pm and 10:45pm where the EFL where waiting for details of the transfer - INCREDIBLE!!! Do the fecking media the following day!

[wilsdenrover]

23:28 of the timeline confirms the loan agreement had been fully executed - this is a standard form of which I can only find the Irish FA’s version but this states…

‘Upon execution of this standard professional contract the club shall submit the registration of the player to the IFA in accordance with the relevant regulations’

Assuming the EFL version has the same clause, then we’ve breached it and could be subject to provable losses related to the loan only

20:47 mentions a contract that would be entered into if the option (to buy) was exercised.

Given this means this contract (following a permanent transfer) hadn’t yet been entered into we can’t be subject to losses in relation to this.

Edited to add:

We also entered into an option deed - to breach this we would have to have been promoted and then refused to sign the player.

I still can’t see the claimable loss from this as if we go up we could still offer to buy him at the same fee and on the same terms to the player.

Clearly either could reject this, but what they couldn’t do is reject this and also sue for losses.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by wilsdenrover
Added bit about option deed