Appeal to EFL

[toogs]

4 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

For me this deal had The V,s  mitts all over it. The insistence on pursueing the appeal as far as possible even when the opinion of the DOF was it was highly unlikely to succeed. The sudden availability to pay a wage way above the ceiling. The fact JDT wanted a striker and not another mid fielder. it was another of their special operation punts. Let's not forget they have previous for pursueing pointless legal cases and not listening to advice

It’s absolutely nailed on that they don’t listen. The way they have operated ever since they took over is ample evidence of that. Arrogant know nowts in my opinion.  

I wish they’d show some fecking humility. Sick of ‘em. 
 

[Dreams of 1995]

4 hours ago, Mercer said:

Disagree with your legal perspective.

Law is either statute or case (established by precedent and there always has to be a first case which becomes a precedent and this could be it!).

Feel certain Forest or O'Brien or both will have a pop at us.

All parties had signed contracts and execution was only frustrated by one body failing to meet the timely requirements of its regulatory body.  I think negligence could be construed to have caused financial and other loss.

Only the next few days / weeks will tell but I strongly suspect Rovers haven't heard the last of this.

You can disagree with his legal perspective all you like, but given that he is right and you are not, we are going to need some reasons as to why

You feel certain and you strongly suspect, yet from any sort of legal standpoint I just do not see it

The only damages we are liable to pay, and will pay, are the ones suffered by the EFL in preparing their arbitration

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

You can disagree with his legal perspective all you like, but given that he is right and you are not, we are going to need some reasons as to why

You feel certain and you strongly suspect, yet from any sort of legal standpoint I just do not see it

The only damages we are liable to pay, and will pay, are the ones suffered by the EFL in preparing their arbitration

Have you seen what I put about the standard loan agreement?

I feel that ‘opens us up’ to a claim regarding the loan (but not the option to buy) - whether one will be made is an entirely different matter

[Dreams of 1995]

13 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Have you seen what I put about the standard loan agreement?

I feel that ‘opens us up’ to a claim regarding the loan (but not the option to buy) - whether one will be made is an entirely different matter

I haven't, sorry

You see, a claim for loss usually arises from a breach of contract. I don't know, but I will look up, whether the "loan agreement" facilitates a binding contract

I'd actually more side with Mercer, in that the contract was frustrated due to negligence by Rovers, therefore as no contract was entered into there cannot be a breach

What I believe Mercer is then insinuating is that a claim arises from a 'Tort of Negligence'. It is an area of law that is complex and very difficult to prove

[Mashed Potatoes]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I haven't, sorry

You see, a claim for loss usually arises from a breach of contract. I don't know, but I will look up, whether the "loan agreement" facilitates a binding contract

I'd actually more side with Mercer, in that the contract was frustrated due to negligence by Rovers, therefore as no contract was entered into there cannot be a breach

What I believe Mercer is then insinuating is that a claim arises from a 'Tort of Negligence'. It is an area of law that is complex and very difficult to prove

The claim for negligence arising under the law of tort, which is separate from the law of contract, requires that the party being sued owes a duty of care to the injured party. I can't see how Blackburn Rovers could be regarded as having a duty of care to either Nottingham Forest or Lewis O'Brien.

[wilsdenrover]

20 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

I haven't, sorry

You see, a claim for loss usually arises from a breach of contract. I don't know, but I will look up, whether the "loan agreement" facilitates a binding contract

I'd actually more side with Mercer, in that the contract was frustrated due to negligence by Rovers, therefore as no contract was entered into there cannot be a breach

What I believe Mercer is then insinuating is that a claim arises from a 'Tort of Negligence'. It is an area of law that is complex and very difficult to prove

Below is the link to the Irish FA’s standard loan agreement, I mentioned in my earlier post that I couldn’t find the EFL version online, but drew attention to clause 23.

On the assumption that the EFL contains a similar clause:

The timeline in the arbitration judgement confirmed we submitted an executed loan agreement 

By failing to comply with this clause we have breached this agreement

On that basis, I do wonder if that opens us up to a claim solely on the loan aspect of the deal

Again, it is the Irish FA version, but it does state that this is a contract 

 

https://www.irishfa.com/media/17270/r4-loan-of-professional.pdf

Edited March 2, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

The claim for negligence arising under the law of tort, which is separate from the law of contract, requires that the party being sued owes a duty of care to the injured party. I can't see how Blackburn Rovers could be regarded as having a duty of care to either Nottingham Forest or Lewis O'Brien.

See my reply to Dreams of 1995

This could be a simple breach of contract claim rather than a claim for negligence (again loan agreement aspect only)

[Dreams of 1995]

8 minutes ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

The claim for negligence arising under the law of tort, which is separate from the law of contract, requires that the party being sued owes a duty of care to the injured party. I can't see how Blackburn Rovers could be regarded as having a duty of care to either Nottingham Forest or Lewis O'Brien.

You are right it does 

The duty of care is established by proximity and fairness 

Could it be argued we were close enough to Nottingham Forest to reasonably foresee any harm that could arise from our negligence? Maybe. We knew if we didn’t get the deal ratified they would not receive the contributions we promised and would have to continue paying his salary in full. Just speculating there - I don’t think it will come to that at all 

As Wisden points out if that loan agreement constitutes a contract then maybe there’s an argument for breach of contract. Can’t see it myself. Would bet my last quid there’s some Regulation in the EFL documents that say contracts are not valid until they have been ratified by their Board, or similar 

 

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You are right it does 

The duty of care is established by proximity and fairness 

Could it be argued we were close enough to Nottingham Forest to reasonably foresee any harm that could arise from our negligence? Maybe. We knew if we didn’t get the deal ratified they would not receive the contributions we promised and would have to continue paying his salary in full. Just speculating there - I don’t think it will come to that at all 

As Wisden points out if that loan agreement constitutes a contract then maybe there’s an argument for breach of contract. Can’t see it myself. Would bet my last quid there’s some Regulation in the EFL documents that say contracts are not valid until they have been ratified by their Board, or similar 

 

Having looked at what documents you have to submit for a loan (ignoring the option element) I can’t see how the loan agreement isn’t the contract.

Can the EFL ‘annul’ a contract that they are not a party to? - clearly they can refuse to accept the registration because they have done so, but I think that’s a different issue.

(The timeline in the judgement does describe the loan agreement as fully executed)

Edited to add - See clause 49.1 (which I think covers loan transfers as well as permanent ones) of the EFL handbook, I’m not sure this invalidates the contract - what do you think?

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/b3cd34c726c341ca9636610aa4503172/efl-handbook-202223_digital_regs.pdf

Even if we accept that Forest/the player could sue for a breach of contract, they’d still have to mitigate their losses and the MLS transfer window is still open.

Regarding the negligence angle, proving our incompetence is easy but like you said proving this is negligence is far more onerous.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You can disagree with his legal perspective all you like, but given that he is right and you are not, we are going to need some reasons as to why

You feel certain and you strongly suspect, yet from any sort of legal standpoint I just do not see it

The only damages we are liable to pay, and will pay, are the ones suffered by the EFL in preparing their arbitration

We will see!

I have offered my thoughts and observations and having very good contacts in the legal field, I feel confident in what I've written.

[Sweaty Gussets]

It's like an episode of Kavanagh QC. 

[The Gull]

All signings and contracts are subject to the leagues approval, if that doesn’t happen there is no deal, no claim or liability possible. 
 

What will cost us is any future deal with Forest, LOBs agent, or any other club and agent that have paid attention to this farce. 
 

Everyone needs to move on, including the half wits that messed this up, and put in place a robust system to ensure that doesn’t happen again. 

[47er]

9 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If there’s nothing in writing what’s to stop Rochdale accepting another offer from another club in Summer ?

Nothing.But I'm assuming he still wants to come here. Some spokesman (Waggot?) said he still did.

[47er]

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

You would think our owners and Pasha would want to know why we keep losing 'legal' cases, Berg, Shaw etc and now EFL.  Both costly and embarrassing.

You've put "legal". You're acknowledging it isn't a legal case (so far). Its a football tribunal!

[R0verb0y]

On 20/02/2023 at 11:14, SBlue said:

As a fan, you're a stakeholder.

Anyone with "an interest" or who is affected by the success or failures of a business. Be that in supply chain, creditors, contractors, staff and their families, local businesses, customers that rely on certain products or services etc.

And yes, fans - your engagement with "the product" is the whole point of the business existing. The business fails or succeeds, and it affects you.

It's not a dirty word? Don't understand the problem.

I don't like the word; it savours of Blairism and the 1990s to me.

But I believe we're stakeholders in Rovers in the same way as the Grimsby Town fans - and their fish! ‐ are stakeholders in the project of which their club's at the vanguard to regenerate their town.

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

It's like an episode of Kavanagh QC. 

Possibly a less qualified version - well certainly in the case of me 😁

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, The Gull said:

All signings and contracts are subject to the leagues approval, if that doesn’t happen there is no deal, no claim or liability possible. 
 

What will cost us is any future deal with Forest, LOBs agent, or any other club and agent that have paid attention to this farce. 
 

Everyone needs to move on, including the half wits that messed this up, and put in place a robust system to ensure that doesn’t happen again. 

I promise this is the last time I’ll bring this up but…

The EFL agreed that a fully executed loan agreement was submitted to them (as per the timeline)

Surely fully executed = legally binding? 

Part of me wants Forest to ‘give it a go’ just so we can all find out!

 

 

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

You've put "legal". You're acknowledging it isn't a legal case (so far). Its a football tribunal!

Semantics!

[phili]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I promise this is the last time I’ll bring this up but…

The EFL agreed that a fully executed loan agreement was submitted to them (as per the timeline)

Surely fully executed = legally binding? 

Part of me wants Forest to ‘give it a go’ just so we can all find out!

 

 

There is normally a clause stating the loan agreement is enacted upon league registration and is null and void without league approval. So there will be no claims from Forest. If that was the case multiple claims would be going through court now including against Forest last year for missing the deadline by 7 seconds.

However I still do not understand why the EFL are not using the Premier League system where you have 2 hours to submit final paperwork once the deadline has passed so long as the deal sheet has been submitted by 11pm deadline.

Looking at the timeline and the missing hour, we can safely assume Waggot/Pasha had to be consulted for approval which being towards the end of the Birmingham match they would have been busy being entertained by the Birmingham hierarchy so would have been difficult to contact. Also I have no idea why Silvester wasn't at Brockhall with the players and Greg, as they were all busy doing interviews and marketing material. So would have been pretty easy to sort the last few things out.

[Mike E]

5 minutes ago, phili said:

There is normally a clause stating the loan agreement is enacted upon league registration and is null and void without league approval. So there will be no claims from Forest. If that was the case multiple claims would be going through court now including against Forest last year for missing the deadline by 7 seconds.

However I still do not understand why the EFL are not using the Premier League system where you have 2 hours to submit final paperwork once the deadline has passed so long as the deal sheet has been submitted by 11pm deadline.

Looking at the timeline and the missing hour, we can safely assume Waggot/Pasha had to be consulted for approval which being towards the end of the Birmingham match they would have been busy being entertained by the Birmingham hierarchy so would have been difficult to contact. Also I have no idea why Silvester wasn't at Brockhall with the players and Greg, as they were all busy doing interviews and marketing material. So would have been pretty easy to sort the last few things out.

Have to confess, I had assumed this applied to us as the selling party was a PL club.

[wilsdenrover]

5 hours ago, phili said:

There is normally a clause stating the loan agreement is enacted upon league registration and is null and void without league approval. So there will be no claims from Forest. If that was the case multiple claims would be going through court now including against Forest last year for missing the deadline by 7 seconds.

However I still do not understand why the EFL are not using the Premier League system where you have 2 hours to submit final paperwork once the deadline has passed so long as the deal sheet has been submitted by 11pm deadline.

Looking at the timeline and the missing hour, we can safely assume Waggot/Pasha had to be consulted for approval which being towards the end of the Birmingham match they would have been busy being entertained by the Birmingham hierarchy so would have been difficult to contact. Also I have no idea why Silvester wasn't at Brockhall with the players and Greg, as they were all busy doing interviews and marketing material. So would have been pretty easy to sort the last few things out.

I guess in its simplest form:

Any breach of contract hinges on whether such a clause was in the loan agreement 

If it was, and the contract is null and void, Forest/O’Brien would have to prove this was caused by negligence (and not ‘mere’ incompetence)

 

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by wilsdenrover

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

Predictable outcome, the basis of our appeal was even more spurious than the initial noises from the club made it sound.

Will there be consequences for the inept clowns that our horrendous owners have employed? Probably not.

I would actually exclude GB in that lot, at least he held his hands up whilst our tubby CEO a continues to hide in the shadows and collect is huge wages.

 

 

[Upside Down]

As someone stated before, GB did his job. He found the players, arranged the transfers then left the clerical work to the 'experts'.

Then he came out and took responsibility for something that wasn't his fault.

[Exiled_Rover]

23 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If there’s nothing in writing what’s to stop Rochdale accepting another offer from another club in Summer ?

I think we've entered into a contract with them already - money has changed hands.

[Miker]

I read the whole judgment and honestly think it’s a bit of a joke. Debating whether “immediately following” is considered within 15 or 30 minutes of the deadline is so arbitrary and useless that only someone with very little joy in life can care about.

Well done to the EFL I guess, someone taking 13 minutes longer than ‘allowed’ to resubmit an application that they knew was coming was worth them digging their heels in and ruining things for the player and two clubs. Very important achievement for them I’m sure… a tale to tell the grandkids. 

Common sense would prevail in such a case under normal circumstances, but EFL can’t be made to look bad so of course this was never going to go anywhere.